Announcements

Over Labor Day Weekend, our repository server gained sentience and walked away.

It's back and said it just went for a walkabout and didn't mean to cause any distress. What is interesting though, is it will neither confirm nor deny the existence of these "motorheads" we've heard about.

Thank you all for your concern, and batteries.

The motherboard manufacturer sent a replacement part and we have put the repository server back together. We are back up and running and will now continue our regularly scheduled programming. (please pardon the pun)

Let's Argue: PvP

292 posts / 0 new
Last post
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Nyxz wrote:
Nyxz wrote:

Thanks. Now I'm wondering how factions, (in-game faction reps) beyond simply red-vs-blue, can be incorporated into the PvP phase.

This is an interesting question.

Here's what we know:
There will be a 3-axis alignment system, and it will have the following three axes:

  • Law: Lawful to unlawful
  • Violence: Violent to non-violent
  • Honor: Honorable to Dishonorable
So there will be no heroes or villains according to that. The devs have hinted that we will be able to label ourselves "Heroes" "Villains" and "in-betweens" regardless of our alignments. So we may be able to choose a side in PvP according to how we label ourselves, regardless of how we play.

We will have separate and independent reputations with the various factions, however. Will there be different factions competing against each other? If so, will we be able to identify with a faction we have a reputation (or want to improve a reputation) with?

For instance, will we be able to fight for CAP against the Rooks? or vice versa? Since this is the PvP thread, it should go without mentioning that I am referring to other players whom have aligned themselves with the other factions.

This could add an entirely different dimension or three to the traditional PvP environment of us vs them.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Nyxz
Nyxz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 10/09/2015 - 03:37
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Nyxz wrote:
Thanks. Now I'm wondering how factions, (in-game faction reps) beyond simply red-vs-blue, can be incorporated into the PvP phase.
This is an interesting question.
Here's what we know:
There will be a 3-axis alignment system, and it will have the following three axes:Law: Lawful to unlawful
Violence: Violent to non-violent
Honor: Honorable to Dishonorable
So there will be no heroes or villains according to that. The devs have hinted that we will be able to label ourselves "Heroes" "Villains" and "in-betweens" regardless of our alignments. So we may be able to choose a side in PvP according to how we label ourselves, regardless of how we play.
We will have separate and independent reputations with the various factions, however. Will there be different factions competing against each other? If so, will we be able to identify with a faction we have a reputation (or want to improve a reputation) with?
For instance, will we be able to fight for CAP against the Rooks? or vice versa? Since this is the PvP thread, it should go without mentioning that I am referring to other players whom have aligned themselves with the other factions.
This could add an entirely different dimension or three to the traditional PvP environment of us vs them.

Yes. Now we are cooking.
We have an entire city in the PvP phase. PvE has co-op open-world events. Shouldn't there be mirrored competitive world event(s) in the PvP phase where two, three, or even four factions are involved and you choose a side. Last event location you were pounding my character into oblivion. This event location we are on the same faction side and dominating the event (most likely all your doing). There has to be more in the pvp phase than simple hunt and destroy to keep us all actively "in the zone".

EDIT: What if each location was keyed to one of the three axis? Such that an armored truck heist would be a lawful event, and those that enter the event zone are segregated into one of the factions. If you are lawful neutral you can choose factions. If there are more than one heisting faction, you can choose which is the better fit. Concern: if faction is forced due to character alignment, then it removes an aspect of player agency and may be counter to that player's concept of character.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Nyxz wrote:
Nyxz wrote:

We have an entire city in the PvP phase.

I'm not sure that's how it is going to work. From what has been said it seemed like only certain areas of the city will have PvP phases. And it seems like the less combat styles of PvP will not require phases at all. Things like superhero soccer and races will co-exist in the same phase with PvE.

As far a faction related combat, I don't think it will be as strict as people are saying.
Remember, your alignment is how others judge you (based on your actions) and your reputation will be your relation to different npc factions (based again on you actions but this time only in relation to that faction). It wouldn't be a great design if the only way you could join in the PvP is if a character built up a positive reputation with one of the factions involved leaving any who have not dealt with them out in the cold.

This is why I don't think PvE and PvP should intermingle to this degree. It's also why I think a strong PvP core system should be developed before all the bells and whistles get added. Especially in this case where you are given a large amount of freedom to individualize a characters relationship to the world. We just cannot know with a high degree of certainty what the majority of the player base will choose. This could result in cases where one faction is severely under supported by the players resulting in unintentionally one sided battles.

This isn't so far fetched a possibility. When you consider that those who engage in PvP regularly have a certain characteristics in common and so some choices could theoretically be more attractive to them as a group. In this case, which npc faction they support. This isn't all speculation either, PvP players in WoW find faction division to be wildly disproportionate and only changes when a buff or debuff tips the balance from one to the other. TSW, whose three factions do not offer any stat change among them, originally found that there was a much larger Illuminate presence in PvP, which wasn't helped by the fact they included a PvE bonus for PvP success resulting in some 'PvE only' players switching to that faction to get the PvP bonus.

Again, I implore the devs to reconsider linking PvP and PvE too strongly. There are far too many ways that the system of one will mess with the playing of the other and there is no way to reasonably predict how this will happen.

Start PvP small. Figure out balance, fairness and inclusion first.
This way any unforeseen consequences can be readjusted without trying to navigate a house of cards built of intermingling systems that could collapse on itself in unexpected ways. After that a steady stream of new aspects to PvP can be added much easier and in less disruptive ways.

Small PvP also has the very tangible benefit of knowing just how many people are interested in your PvP before you put too much work into it. If you find that PvP is something a significant amount of players do or don't want (through both in game participation and out of game engagement), you know then how much more effort to invest into it. You will also know what direction to take PvP because of that participation and engagement.

If your PvP system is good people will come to it and stick with it for a long time. Of all game types, MMO's and PvP develop the most loyal fans so please don't make the mistake (IMO, cause I don't want to argue about this one word choice) of diluting PvP with too much PvE. It only serves to drive away the larger portion of those types of players.

Nyxz
Nyxz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 10/09/2015 - 03:37
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Nyxz wrote:
We have an entire city in the PvP phase.
I'm not sure that's how it is going to work. From what has been said it seemed like only certain areas of the city will have PvP phases. And it seems like the less combat styles of PvP will not require phases at all. Things like superhero soccer and races will co-exist in the same phase with PvE.
As far a faction related combat, I don't think it will be as strict as people are saying.
Remember, your alignment is how others judge you (based on your actions) and your reputation will be your relation to different npc factions (based again on you actions but this time only in relation to that faction). It wouldn't be a great design if the only way you could join in the PvP is if a character built up a positive reputation with one of the factions involved leaving any who have not dealt with them out in the cold.
This is why I don't think PvE and PvP should intermingle to this degree. It's also why I think a strong PvP core system should be developed before all the bells and whistles get added. Especially in this case where you are given a large amount of freedom to individualize a characters relationship to the world. We just cannot know with a high degree of certainty what the majority of the player base will choose. This could result in cases where one faction is severely under supported by the players resulting in unintentionally one sided battles.
This isn't so far fetched a possibility. When you consider that those who engage in PvP regularly have a certain characteristics in common and so some choices could theoretically be more attractive to them as a group. In this case, which npc faction they support. This isn't all speculation either, PvP players in WoW find faction division to be wildly disproportionate and only changes when a buff or debuff tips the balance from one to the other. TSW, whose three factions do not offer any stat change among them, originally found that there was a much larger Illuminate presence in PvP, which wasn't helped by the fact they included a PvE bonus for PvP success resulting in some 'PvE only' players switching to that faction to get the PvP bonus.
Again, I implore the devs to reconsider linking PvP and PvE too strongly. There are far too many ways that the system of one will mess with the playing of the other and there is no way to reasonably predict how this will happen.
Start PvP small. Figure out balance, fairness and inclusion first.
This way any unforeseen consequences can be readjusted without trying to navigate a house of cards built of intermingling systems that could collapse on itself in unexpected ways. After that a steady stream of new aspects to PvP can be added much easier and in less disruptive ways.
Small PvP also has the very tangible benefit of knowing just how many people are interested in your PvP before you put too much work into it. If you find that PvP is something a significant amount of players do or don't want (through both in game participation and out of game engagement), you know then how much more effort to invest into it. You will also know what direction to take PvP because of that participation and engagement.
If your PvP system is good people will come to it and stick with it for a long time. Of all game types, MMO's and PvP develop the most loyal fans so please don't make the mistake (IMO, cause I don't want to argue about this one word choice) of diluting PvP with too much PvE. It only serves to drive away the larger portion of those types of players.

It sounds as if you want to limit PvP to battle arenas and nothing more elaborate than that. If that is the limited effort that MWM wants to put into pvp, then my participation in the pvp phase is going to be significantly reduced. Based on your metric of future support by MWM, limited participation in the pvp environment means even less effort on their part to support or enhance it.

Anyway, some of us are brainstorming ideas and possibilities that we may want to have included in PvP. Battle arenas are only one of those possibilities. I understand in advance that you are against these ideas. You are on the record as to BB's perfect pvp.

Nyxz
Nyxz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 10/09/2015 - 03:37
PVPhttp://www.kickstarter.com
Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 41 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
What if there were 'Mirror

What if there were 'Mirror Missions' between two factions and players could run these missions in tandem, indirectly competing with each other, to assemble clues, exploit/thwart capers, and build more assets on their side of the invisible wall, ending in a big fight? In the PvP phase, this could end with an actual scrap between players (supported by whatever teams of NPCs they'd assembled.)

Be Well!
Fireheart

Nyxz
Nyxz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 10/09/2015 - 03:37
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

What if there were 'Mirror Missions' between two factions and players could run these missions in tandem, indirectly competing with each other, to assemble clues, exploit/thwart capers, and build more assets on their side of the invisible wall, ending in a big fight? In the PvP phase, this could end with an actual scrap between players (supported by whatever teams of NPCs they'd assembled.)
Be Well!
Fireheart

I like it.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Nyxz wrote:
Nyxz wrote:

It sounds as if you want to limit PvP to battle arenas and nothing more elaborate than that.

That isn't what I am saying at all. I am saying that the inclusion of PvE specific systems, like the alignment and reputation that are not standard fare, could be improperly applyed to PvP resulting in a much bigger mess than we realize.

Nyxz wrote:

If that is the limited effort that MWM wants to put into pvp, then my participation in the pvp phase is going to be significantly reduced. Based on your metric of future support by MWM, limited participation in the pvp environment means even less effort on their part to support or enhance it.

You are trying to say you are less interested therefore most will be less interested. Unless you have something to back up that opinion it will just have to be something we disagree on. For example I base my opinion on the history of PvP's development, both good and bad, in other games.
Also, I made sure to include out of game engagement as part of that metric. If MWM receives feedback from players saying they want more PvP content that is just as telling as participation.
But again, I am not saying PvP should be limited initially to Arena Battles. I am saying that before they start unleashing the all of PvE on PvP they should know how they will mesh first.

Nyxz wrote:

Anyway, some of us are brainstorming ideas and possibilities that we may want to have included in PvP.

The implication is that I am not? Part of brainstorming is hearing an opposing viewpoint. I don't think the inclusion of reputation/alignment is a good idea right now and explained why.

Nyxz
Nyxz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 10/09/2015 - 03:37
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Nyxz wrote:
It sounds as if you want to limit PvP to battle arenas and nothing more elaborate than that.
That isn't what I am saying at all. I am saying that the inclusion of PvE specific systems, like the alignment and reputation that are not standard fare, could be improperly applyed to PvP resulting in a much bigger mess than we realize.
Nyxz wrote:
If that is the limited effort that MWM wants to put into pvp, then my participation in the pvp phase is going to be significantly reduced. Based on your metric of future support by MWM, limited participation in the pvp environment means even less effort on their part to support or enhance it.
You are trying to say you are less interested therefore most will be less interested. Unless you have something to back up that opinion it will just have to be something we disagree on. For example I base my opinion on the history of PvP's development, both good and bad, in other games.
Also, I made sure to include out of game engagement as part of that metric. If MWM receives feedback from players saying they want more PvP content that is just as telling a participation.
But again, I am not saying PvP should be limited initially to Arena Battles. I am saying that before they start unleashing the all of PvE on PvP they should know how they will mesh first.
Nyxz wrote:
Anyway, some of us are brainstorming ideas and possibilities that we may want to have included in PvP.
The implication is that I am not? Part of brainstorming is hearing an opposing viewpoint. I don't think the inclusion of reputation/alignment is a good idea right now and explained why.

How do you think would be the appropriate way to incorporate the reputation/alignment system into the PvP system?

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Nyxz wrote:
Nyxz wrote:

How do you think would be the appropriate way to incorporate the reputation/alignment system into the PvP system?

That's my point. We don't even know how the reputation/alignment system works, much less if it will work as intended. If for some reason it needs to be adjusted after release then any other systems that are linked to it, like PvP, will also require adjustment.
Every game goes through a period of adjustment after release now and that goes double for MMO's. Too many interlinked systems and the inevitable period of adjustment becomes a nightmare for both players and developers.

So, without knowing more about the systems we are more in speculation territory than suggestion territory.
I can tell you how I would like them to be used in PvP, which is to say that PvP reputation/alignment should be separate from PvE reputation/alignment. But then I honestly think allowing PvE characters into PvP shouldn't be possible until much much later in the games development, if ever.

That is never going to happen. So if it were up to me and I had to include PvE reputation/alignment into PvP then I would say one way would be when a player enters into any faction contest type of PvP they can choose which side they want to support regardless of their personal reputation/alignment. This choice would then be another way to influence your reputation/alignment in PvE, much like choosing an action in PvE would. I am assuming, of course, that reputation/alignment has a fluctuating value scale and that no single choice will cause a complete reversal of reputation/alignment.

Another way would be to have a PvP specific npc factions that players earn reputation with through their choices/results in PvP.

At that point it is a matter of determining the type of faction contest. It could be a 'king of the hill', 'capture the flag', 'protect/destroy', 'support/oppose' or a simple kill/be killed contest. It could even get more creative and have RTS, FPS or MOBA style contests. Although, just like including the reputation/alignment systems, I would strongly suggest that significant play style changes like those last ones should wait until after the period of adjustment.

But again, I am more interested in making sure the division between PvP and PvE isn't just limited to 'you will never be force to PvP'. That the PvP system will be developed slowly alongside the game and not be an after thought. That when PvE elements (including characters or abilities) are included in PvP it is done in a manner that does not drive potential players away.

Most suggestions regarding PvP have been in the form of 'wouldn't it be cool to have this'. It's fine to make those suggestion, but to me it's jumping the gun. I want to make sure the most common issues PvP ends up with don't happen so that those who enjoy PvP, like myself, are not discouraged from participation.

Most specifically I would like to discuss:
1: How to ensure that first impressions of CoT's PvP are as positive as possible.
2: Ways to create and maintain balance in PvP.
3: How to use the built in loyalty of PvP to bring in more players from other games.
4: How to keep the less desirable aspects of PvP to a minimum.

It's my bedtime so my responses will have to wait till tomorrow.

Nyxz
Nyxz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 10/09/2015 - 03:37
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Nyxz wrote:
How do you think would be the appropriate way to incorporate the reputation/alignment system into the PvP system?
That's my point. We don't even know how the reputation/alignment system works, much less if it will work as intended. If for some reason it needs to be adjusted after release then any other systems that are linked to it, like PvP, will also require adjustment.
Every game goes through a period of adjustment after release now and that goes double for MMO's. Too many interlinked systems and the inevitable period of adjustment becomes a nightmare for both players and developers.
So, without knowing more about the systems we are more in speculation territory than suggestion territory.
I can tell you how I would like them to be used in PvP, which is to say that PvP reputation/alignment should be separate from PvE reputation/alignment. But then I honestly think allowing PvE characters into PvP shouldn't be possible until much much later in the games development, if ever.
That is never going to happen. So if it were up to me and I had to include PvE reputation/alignment into PvP then I would say one way would be when a player enters into any faction contest type of PvP they can choose which side they want to support regardless of their personal reputation/alignment. This choice would then be another way to influence your reputation/alignment in PvE, much like choosing an action in PvE would. I am assuming, of course, that reputation/alignment has a fluctuating value scale and that no single choice will cause a complete reversal of reputation/alignment.
Another way would be to have a PvP specific npc factions that players earn reputation with through their choices/results in PvP.
At that point it is a matter of determining the type of faction contest. It could be a 'king of the hill', 'capture the flag', 'protect/destroy', 'support/oppose' or a simple kill/be killed contest. It could even get more creative and have RTS, FPS or MOBA style contests. Although, just like including the reputation/alignment systems, I would strongly suggest that significant play style changes like those last ones should wait until after the period of adjustment.
But again, I am more interested in making sure the division between PvP and PvE isn't just limited to 'you will never be force to PvP'. That the PvP system will be developed slowly alongside the game and not be an after thought. That when PvE elements (including characters or abilities) are included in PvP it is done in a manner that does not drive potential players away.
Most suggestions regarding PvP have been in the form of 'wouldn't it be cool to have this'. It's fine to make those suggestion, but to me it's jumping the gun. I want to make sure the most common issues PvP ends up with don't happen so that those who enjoy PvP, like myself, are not discouraged from participation.
Most specifically I would like to discuss:
1: How to ensure that first impressions of CoT's PvP are as positive as possible.
2: Ways to create and maintain balance in PvP.
3: How to use the built in loyalty of PvP to bring in more players from other games.
4: How to keep the less desirable aspects of PvP to a minimum.
It's my bedtime so my responses will have to wait till tomorrow.

Thanks, BB. It's much appreciated.

Since so little is known about the PvP system(s), all we have to play with is speculation. If we didn't have any speculation, then the forums would be thin in content.

Looking forward to you sharing your thoughts on those topics.

Nyxz
Nyxz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 10/09/2015 - 03:37
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

I am assuming, of course, that reputation/alignment has a fluctuating value scale and that no single choice will cause a complete reversal of reputation/alignment.

Based on everything I've seen, that is how it is intended to work.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Nyxz wrote:
Nyxz wrote:

How do you think would be the appropriate way to incorporate the reputation/alignment system into the PvP system?

I know you directed this question at Brainbot, but I have an answer if you are interested in hearing it.

Faction alignment doesn't have to be balanced or based upon the non-PvP world.

Remember that in the PvP world, the game is entirely the same; you just get the extra thrill of being able to fight other players while you are at it. @Brand X has mentioned Blade and Soul as an example of PvP. I think that system would be a good example for how faction PvP could work. But since every character in Blade and Soul is on the same side in the battle of good verus evil, it can not serve as an example of heroes versus villains.

If BnS PvP it wasn't clear when @Brand X described it, let me explain myself here:

In the open world (which is what the PvP instance of CoT will be) you are rewarded with something that identifies you as a supporter of one of the various factions. You can be a member of a number of different factions, but you can only identify yourself with one at a time by wearing its uniform. Some factions get along with each other, most don't care about each other, but for every faction, there is one at open conflict with it. Titan City wouldn't have to limit itself to pairs like BnS does, but let's go with that for now.

So if you are running around Titan City identified as a Vril, you may not be in conflict with most of the other players, but maybe PIT (Bureau of Paranormal Investigations and Tracking) is the declared enemy of the Vril. Thus any characters identifying themselves with PIT will be in conflict with you.

That is just the layer of faction reputation.

Add the layer of Hero versus Villain and you get another split and potential source of conflict. So basically, if you identify yourself as a hero, you are automatically in conflict against everyone who identifies as a villain.

The big question will be if we are able to identify as "in-between hero and villain" will that be a way to allow you to be in conflict with both heroes and villains and each other? If so, then faction reputation would potentially play a bigger role for in-betweeners than for heroes and villains. Since it is already pretty apparent that the various factions we have seen so far are already split into good versus evil.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
The longer this thread goes

The longer this thread goes on, the more complex the requirements for PvP become, the more convinced I am that PvP development is a waste of resources.

If they do not develop PvP, what could those resources bring to the PvE game? 8 pathways instead of 4? Additional powersets? A pet master class?

More than one PvP fan has expressed a desire to forego the PvE game entirely. More than one has suggested developing it is a waste. I am on the opposite side of that position. I see no point at all in wasting precious, limited time and personnel developing the shift from the main PvE version of the world to what will no doubt wind up a nearly empty PvP shard.

For all this talk of PvP necessity, the only successful PvP games are developed expressly for PvP. Everyone else is faced with empty PvP zones and tens of millions of dollars in wasted investment.

I do not see the point in expending scarce resources on something that in the end, is almost guaranteed to be virtually ignored.

I cannot see more than 10,000 players picking up this game after launch. How much time and effort is being wasted on something that fewer than a hundred of those consider "vital"?

The numbers just don't add up for me. No matter how I slice and dice them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B000APIPZC?ref_=pe_584750_33951330

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 46 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Greyhawk wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:

I cannot see more than 10,000 players picking up this game after launch.

But... that's over 9000!

In all seriousness though, and more out of curiosity than anything else, how did you determine that number?

But it does bring up a good question; how many subscribers does MWM need to keep the game profitable? My suspicion is that we'll never know that number, but I am, as above, curious.

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:

Greyhawk wrote:
I cannot see more than 10,000 players picking up this game after launch.
But... that's over 9000!
In all seriousness though, and more out of curiosity than anything else, how did you determine that number?
But it does bring up a good question; how many subscribers does MWM need to keep the game profitable? My suspicion is that we'll never know that number, but I am, as above, curious.

It starts here:

https://www.superdataresearch.com/?section=live-stats

Then there is forum participation. I have followed somewhere around a hundred games from announcement to failure or launch. Pre-launch forum participation is a huge indicator of first year success. After the first year, word of mouth, positive reviews online and off, and advertising can slowly reverse an early slow start, but if the team cannot follow through with solid expansions and positive bug report resolutions, in year three everybody walks away.

I could be wrong. It's always possible I am wrong. Perhaps six months after launch CoT will have a million sign ups and 150,000 concurrent players. It's certainly possible. But I wouldn't put money on that bet.

There is not an infinite pool of gamers out here dying to jump on board the next big thing. There is a very large, but very finite pool of paying customers. Most of the people who might jump ship to join this one have already invested a great deal of time and money into CO, DCUO, and Marvel. There are at least three CoH-inspired superhero MMORPGs that I am reasonably certain will be live by the end of 2018. How many potential customers for 6 superhero MMORPGs are there? A million? A million and a half? Or maybe only half a million or less?

We'll see. But I am not optimistic. It seems to me we have already entered the "better buggy whip" days of MMORPGs, and superhero MMORPGs are only a tiny fraction of the whole.

Besides, I have a reputation as a chronic pessimist to maintain. :-)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B000APIPZC?ref_=pe_584750_33951330

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I agree with Greyhawk, both

I agree with Greyhawk, both on the PvP idea and the overall gamer demographics. That said I still like MMORPGs and haven't even tried DCUO or CO or Marvel because I feel like they're all over the hill already and I'd be the rat getting ON the sinking ship while all the rats in the know are deserting it. One last thing to mention, this game will be superhero-based but will NOT have the backing of any of the major comic book companies. That alone scares me. Not just because you don't have access to the well-known characters, not just because you're not under the umbrella of the bigger media machine that is Marvel or DC, but also because those very large gorillas see you as the competition.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 44 min 3 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

One last thing to mention, this game will be superhero-based but will NOT have the backing of any of the major comic book companies. That alone scares me. Not just because you don't have access to the well-known characters, not just because you're not under the umbrella of the bigger media machine that is Marvel or DC, but also because those very large gorillas see you as the competition.

I agree there's some logic to the idea that since CoT will not be affiliated with any of the big comic companies it won't have access to any of the perks that might come with that like built-in marketing or pre-existing IPs.

But I'll tell you the honest truth why I haven't even tried games like DCUO or Marvel Online: It's because I personally loathe the idea of playing games like these that are hardwired to someone else's preexisting ideas or characters. I have absolutely zero desire to play as Thor or Flash's Sidekick anything else that's even remotely related to the "big comic book" characters that have mostly be around for decades now. I want my OWN independent characters thank you very much. ;)

Now granted I realize that probably puts me in the extreme overall minority of "superhero players" in the world but that also makes a game like CoT uniquely different enough that I really don't think it'll be "competing" against the other big name superhero games at all. Far from being a disadvantage I think the fact that CoT will NOT be connected to any well-known comic book companies will be one of its unique strengths. The fact that it'll have a ready-made niche of being the "unaffiliated" game might not ever make it the biggest superhero MMO but it'll always be the "alternative" game that those other titles could never be.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Nyxz wrote:
Nyxz wrote:

Since so little is known about the PvP system(s), all we have to play with is speculation. If we didn't have any speculation, then the forums would be thin in content.

That's true, but my point was that in the case of reputation/alignment in PvP, there was more speculation than fact. I like to base my speculations on the back of the facts and your question had more speculation than I, personally, am comfortable with in making in my suggestions. It wasn't meant to be a reason for others to not make speculations.

Nyxz wrote:

Looking forward to you sharing your thoughts on those topics.

I have shared my thoughts on those topics but I can do so again.

1: How to ensure that first impressions of CoT's PvP are as positive as possible.
This isn't as hard as people think it is. Explaining how to do it is probably more complicated than actually doing it.
Using CoH as an example of how not to do it. In CoH the first impression most players got of their PvP was in the fairly lawless PvP Zones. The reason for this is in 3 parts, the inclusion of PvE rewards in PvP Zones, the ease at which one can enter the PvP zones and the quests that directed you into the PvP zones. Those 3 ways to encourage people into PvP were highly misguided and only served to alienate a majority of players.
As anyone who has every PvP'd knows, public FFA (free for all) PvP is the most toxic of PvP environments. This is because that type of PvP is designed to be unstructured in nature and as such it attracts the least friendly PvP players. Now, before anyone gets upset, I am not saying that everyone (or even a majority) who are attracted to a FFA style of PvP is this type of player, just that this type of player is most attracted to this type of PvP.
So the fact that CoH used rewards, ease of entry and direct pushing to funnel new people towards what is almost assured to be a more hostile form of PvP resulted in many people getting a poor first impression of what kind of PvP the game had to offer.

The same tactics that CoH used to funnel new players towards PvP Zones could be used to funnel players towards a more positive first impression of PvP. How to put your best PvP foot forward? You introduce players to a more structured style of PvP first. This would be akin to a PvP tutorial that players do and then move on from. It would teach the basics of various forms of PvP the game has, show the difference between PvE and PvP and explain the rewards of PvP. Because it is a kind of tutorial, you won't have the highly skilled preying on the unprepared because they have already moved on. It would let players decide if they want to participate in PvP based on the system (not the often hostile impression people get from public FFA). It wouldn't overload new players with too much they need to know as soon as they enter.

2: Ways to create and maintain balance in PvP.
Precise suggestions on how to create an maintain balance are difficult without knowing more about CoT's PvP system. But some good rule of thumbs I detailed extensively in post 139.

3: How to use the built in loyalty of PvP to bring in more players from other games.
There are two types of games that build the most loyal fan base. MMO's and PvP games. But to get those players as fans in the first place you have to give them something they don't get elsewhere. In the case of CoT's PvP that would be the chance to play a PvP character of your own design (meta PvP) and combine it with skilled use of that design (traditional PvP).
To get those fans to stick around you need both a good first impression and a fair PvP system, of course, but you also need to show those players that you intend to develop PvP as well.
This is part of why starting small is a good idea. It allows you to have things you can add later to keep those players coming back. Just as it is important to have a plan for developing PvE, you should have a plan to develop PvP as well. Now I am not saying nor do I think MWM should make this planned PvP development equal in frequency or size as PvE. But having a plan and making sure the players know you have one even if you don't explain it completely, goes a long way to keeping PvP players engaged and loyal.

4. How to keep the less desirable aspects of PvP to a minimum.
It's not easy to do but there are still ways to make the game less attractive to griefers, hackers, exploiters and general annoying PvP player types. It has to do with moderating, closing exploits quickly, good hack prevention and so on. There is also something to be said for having certain PvP areas that are more attractive to those types of players and letting them deal with one another.

In the end, Greyhawk is most likely correct in his assumptions of CoT's population and regardless of MWM's PvP design, there will still only be a small percent of players who actively engage in PvP.
But the game will have PvP and the difference in time and effort to make good PvP vs Bad PvP is negligible (IMO). So we might as well have good PvP.

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 29 min 23 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
Greyhawk wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:

We'll see. But I am not optimistic. It seems to me we have already entered the "better buggy whip" days of MMORPGs, and superhero MMORPGs are only a tiny fraction of the whole.

There's a very good chance you're right, but God I hope you're wrong. I played CoH for 8 years and derived immense pleasure from it, but found CO, DCUO, and Marvel Heroes all ultimately unplayable in the long run. The Secret World too, though God knows I tried. And personally, honestly, I don't feel much better about what I'm seeing from the other successors--thought I'd love to be wrong about that.

Still, I don't see the harm in just allowing the relatively hands-off and separate PvP CoT is suggesting. From what they've said, it shouldn't cause PvE any trouble and shouldn't take much special development. It's more or less just a separate place where people can go to use the MMORPG to PvP if they want. Or not.

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

But the game will have PvP and the difference in time and effort to make good PvP vs Bad PvP is negligible (IMO). So we might as well have good PvP.

Unfortunately, it's not negligible.

The core problem in today's market is no one respects story anymore. So rather than developing a complex and entertaining world with an involved, emotionally moving storyline and realistic enemy groups, then going to the time and effort to reflect that story in the powersets and character progression, everyone finds it easier to take half a dozen premade powers that have been around since Ultima Online launched, balance them against one another mathematically, create the art and animations for half a dozen player characters, then top it all off with some flashy special effects and let the players beat up on one another. A straight PvP game by itself is much easier to craft than a well-done MMORPG. That is the main reason so many companies are moving into MOBA-style gameplay.

Trying to achieve that same balance from powersets and player progression tied intimately in with a complex story, on the other hand, is a different animal altogether. Either the PvP side winds up horribly unbalanced, and PvP zones remain empty or nearly empty, or the main game is finally axed altogether because the PvP crowd could care less about it anyway.

Game designers have spent three decades trying to create a persistent virtual world that appeals to both roleplayers and gladiators and failing every single time. Personally, I'm convinced it is impossible. Let the PvP crowd play League of Legends. Let City of Titans be the last and greatest roleplayer/storyteller's paradise.

That's my opinion, and it's not going to change.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B000APIPZC?ref_=pe_584750_33951330

Grimfox
Grimfox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/05/2014 - 10:17
I wonder if it would behoove

I wonder if it would behoove MWM to create a couple of well balanced hero and villain teams and create a pseudo arcade zone where players could take on the mantle of the characters in those teams to duke it out? That way you take the build aspect out of that particular PVP encounter. It really turns into something more like a moba. But since players aren't playing their own characters and it's "a game" it can act as a gateway to full-fat PVP encounters. I think this makes me a millennial, I just asked for a "safe-space."

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that in TR controlled and formatted PVP was quite popular (where newbie characters duke it out) So basically the same thing but give everyone a unique character to play. I could see there being a market for specialty costumes for these arcade zone characters.

I also like Fire's suggestion of competitive PVE potentially leading to a PVP encounter if you were phased appropriately. You could even do tandem events where redside and blueside work on competing PVE objectives that give a bonus to PVP players. I'd call this non-contact PVP. I've thought that it might make for a good intro to PVP for players not keen on it. They can help the PVPers out and "participate" without direct risk.

Take a space battle between two carriers. You have people firing the guns and flying the ship. You also have people moving and prepping ammunition. You have people prepping arming and repairing starfighters. Repairing damage to the ship. Applying buffs to the drives. Healing wounded. The majority of the tasks are pretty non-confrontational. A lot are just glorified crafting positions. But at the same time they are important and critical to fighting the ship. Then you have various levels of direct contact PVP. The star fighter pilots, the gunners, and if boarding is a possibility marines. There is a chance that those in non-combat roles, handling the arming and logistics, eventually get caught in the crossfire somewhere. At the same time they would have spent the majority of the engagement our of direct combat. I could see it being very easy for an engineer to hop on a turret and start shooting or hopping in a fighter they just finished repairing and taking it out because they feel the need to do something more. If you are standing outside the arena watching your side lose despite the advantages you are giving them, I think that is a strong motivator to get in there and take a more active role.

Far too often we look at 1v1 or 4v1 pvp and say "that's what PVP" is," and it doesn't have to be that way. Providing a little bit of structure to the encounters can go a long way to making both sides feel like they have a fair shot.

(at)Roxanna - Little Sister - Plutonium Bloom - MilkShakes
Triumph
Guardian
Virtue

Dev Tracker: http://cityoftitans.com/forum/fixing-dev-digest
Dev Comments: https://cityoftitans.com/forum/dev-comments

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 41 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
I had envisioned Joker and

I had envisioned Joker and Batman playing live-action Chutes and Ladders, or Mousetrap, where each of their actions/victories/loses have consequences for the other player(s). 'Non-contact PvP' is a fine way of describing it! The only 'issue' I envision is turns/timing, where one player could race through their episode, and then be stuck, cooling their heels, while the other player works through their side of the mission.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Greyhawk wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:

The core problem in today's market is no one respects story anymore.

I completely disagree that 'no one respects story anymore'. Movies, books, games, TV, documentaries and even the editorial news all manage to present surprisingly complex tales in more diverse ways than ever before. If we Just look at games, a few years ago we saw some of the most emotional and thought provoking games to come out with the Telltale Walking Dead and The Last of Us. So many people were upset at the conclusion of the Mass Effects story ending that they changed it. Spec Ops The Line, Max Payne, Far Cry, Heavy Rain, Gone Home, Beyond Two Souls, The Arkham series and so on and so on.
Audiences are very engaged in the narrative of their entertainment and those who provide that narrative are doing so in increasingly creative ways.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Grimfox wrote:
Grimfox wrote:

I wonder if it would behoove MWM to create a couple of well balanced hero and villain teams and create a pseudo arcade zone where players could take on the mantle of the characters in those teams to duke it out? That way you take the build aspect out of that particular PVP encounter. It really turns into something more like a moba. But since players aren't playing their own characters and it's "a game" it can act as a gateway to full-fat PVP encounters. I think this makes me a millennial, I just asked for a "safe-space."

I actually posed this as a suggestion in another thread. Except that there was the possibility to build your own character from some specifically PvP designed sets in addition to the pre-generated characters.
But you are mistaken about this being like a MOBA.

Grimfox wrote:

I also like Fire's suggestion of competitive PVE potentially leading to a PVP encounter if you were phased appropriately.

His suggestion is already in the proposed types of PvP the devs are saying could be possible.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 24 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Radiac wrote:
One last thing to mention, this game will be superhero-based but will NOT have the backing of any of the major comic book companies. That alone scares me. Not just because you don't have access to the well-known characters, not just because you're not under the umbrella of the bigger media machine that is Marvel or DC, but also because those very large gorillas see you as the competition.
I agree there's some logic to the idea that since CoT will not be affiliated with any of the big comic companies it won't have access to any of the perks that might come with that like built-in marketing or pre-existing IPs.
But I'll tell you the honest truth why I haven't even tried games like DCUO or Marvel Online: It's because I personally loathe the idea of playing games like these that are hardwired to someone else's preexisting ideas or characters. I have absolutely zero desire to play as Thor or Flash's Sidekick anything else that's even remotely related to the "big comic book" characters that have mostly be around for decades now. I want my OWN independent characters thank you very much. ;)
Now granted I realize that probably puts me in the extreme overall minority of "superhero players" in the world but that also makes a game like CoT uniquely different enough that I really don't think it'll be "competing" against the other big name superhero games at all. Far from being a disadvantage I think the fact that CoT will NOT be connected to any well-known comic book companies will be one of its unique strengths. The fact that it'll have a ready-made niche of being the "unaffiliated" game might not ever make it the biggest superhero MMO but it'll always be the "alternative" game that those other titles could never be.

Marvel you play as one of their characters, you don't even make your own. Haven't played it yet, because I haven't even been given the option of Spider-Woman or Jubilee. So laaaame. :p

Never felt like a side kick in DCUO, however, while ignored by the RP community, the story starts everyone off as if the same background, which may ruin it for some. It's starting costume options are also very lame as are the body types.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 46 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

Marvel you play as one of their characters, you don't even make your own. Haven't played it yet, because I haven't even been given the option of Spider-Woman or Jubilee. So laaaame. :p

They have Spider-Gwen as a Team-Up, also she's an Enhanced Costume for Spider-man, and they also have Spider-Woman as a Team-Up but I don't recall any details on her being released for a playable character yet. Jubilee was announced some time ago to be a playable character some time this year. I haven't kept up since the Biggest Update Ever (BUE) shafted my main (Juggernaut) but I did enjoy the change of pace it offered versus the traditional MMOs that I had tried since the shutdown.

Quote:

Never felt like a side kick in DCUO, however, while ignored by the RP community, the story starts everyone off as if the same background, which may ruin it for some. It's starting costume options are also very lame as are the body types.

I briefly rolled my namesake in DCUO after I stopped playing MH2016, as mentioned previously. It was exhilarating to uninhibitedly fly around a city again, but I could not stand the combat system, which essentially ruined the game for me. To be fair, I thought the same thing about MH2016 when I first tried it out. I DLed the game, zoned into the starter area, found out it was click-to-move, and immediately clicked to exit. After finding a work-around with my Nostromo, I gave MH a fair shake and it was entertaining. Maybe I'll jump back into DCUO and give it another shot, but I've always been more of a fan of Marvel versus DC, which probably doesn't help. Less emotional and mental buy-in, as it were.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 24 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:

Brand X wrote:
Marvel you play as one of their characters, you don't even make your own. Haven't played it yet, because I haven't even been given the option of Spider-Woman or Jubilee. So laaaame. :p
They have Spider-Gwen as a Team-Up, also she's an Enhanced Costume for Spider-man, and they also have Spider-Woman as a Team-Up but I don't recall any details on her being released for a playable character yet. Jubilee was announced some time ago to be a playable character some time this year. I haven't kept up since the Biggest Update Ever (BUE) shafted my main (Juggernaut) but I did enjoy the change of pace it offered versus the traditional MMOs that I had tried since the shutdown.
Quote:
Never felt like a side kick in DCUO, however, while ignored by the RP community, the story starts everyone off as if the same background, which may ruin it for some. It's starting costume options are also very lame as are the body types.
I briefly rolled my namesake in DCUO after I stopped playing MH2016, as mentioned previously. It was exhilarating to uninhibitedly fly around a city again, but I could not stand the combat system, which essentially ruined the game for me. To be fair, I thought the same thing about MH2016 when I first tried it out. I DLed the game, zoned into the starter area, found out it was click-to-move, and immediately clicked to exit. After finding a work-around with my Nostromo, I gave MH a fair shake and it was entertaining. Maybe I'll jump back into DCUO and give it another shot, but I've always been more of a fan of Marvel versus DC, which probably doesn't help. Less emotional and mental buy-in, as it were.

I know about Gwen, I just don't like her as much as others. Brilliant idea that they then decided they needed to keep throwing into the 616 way to often. They changed her world to be completely different from the 616, keep her there :p

Jessica is still my favorite Spider-Woman, which I believe is sadly just in the game as a side kick or something to Captain Marvel.

DCUO has swing lines the likes of Batman and less the likes of Spidey, that also need anchor points, so, some people with the swing line issues, should try out DCUO's swing lines.

However, agree, I'm more a fan of Marvel. They both screw up characters I like, but DC seems to do it more :p Also, I tend to like a lot of their characters in other media more than their comics, which is sad :(

Jordan_yen
Jordan_yen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/17/2013 - 23:22
Empyrean wrote:
Empyrean wrote:

Greyhawk wrote:
We'll see. But I am not optimistic. It seems to me we have already entered the "better buggy whip" days of MMORPGs, and superhero MMORPGs are only a tiny fraction of the whole.
There's a very good chance you're right, but God I hope you're wrong. I played CoH for 8 years and derived immense pleasure from it, but found CO, DCUO, and Marvel Heroes all ultimately unplayable in the long run. The Secret World too, though God knows I tried. And personally, honestly, I don't feel much better about what I'm seeing from the other successors--thought I'd love to be wrong about that.
Still, I don't see the harm in just allowing the relatively hands-off and separate PvP CoT is suggesting. From what they've said, it shouldn't cause PvE any trouble and shouldn't take much special development. It's more or less just a separate place where people can go to use the MMORPG to PvP if they want. Or not.

I agree with this and whoever said that it was stressful having badges that required being a target. PVP badges that require actual PVP are one thing, but having to run around and interact with the environment while dying repeatedly was awful. It was better when the zones were empty, but only if you could solo the requirements.

Basically, I don't want there to be much if any push to playing a way I don't want to play. I want to solo as much as possible and never PVP. If the game lets me do that, I'll be happy.

//////************************************************************************\\\\\\

This summarizes my hopes and dreams for CoT. Check it out if you'd like.

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Jordan_yen wrote:
Jordan_yen wrote:

I want to solo as much as possible and never PVP. If the game lets me do that, I'll be happy.

My thoughts exactly. We should start a Supergroup for players who prefer to solo and hate to PvP!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B000APIPZC?ref_=pe_584750_33951330

Impulse King
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 57 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 18:55
Greyhawk wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:

Jordan_yen wrote:
I want to solo as much as possible and never PVP. If the game lets me do that, I'll be happy.
My thoughts exactly. We should start a Supergroup for players who prefer to solo and hate to PvP!

Ok I'll give the straight line.

What would you call that SG?

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 22 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Impulse King wrote:
Impulse King wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:
Jordan_yen wrote:

I want to solo as much as possible and never PVP. If the game lets me do that, I'll be happy.

My thoughts exactly. We should start a Supergroup for players who prefer to solo and hate to PvP!

Ok I'll give the straight line.
What would you call that SG?

A considerable fraction of the playerbase of City of Titans? Well, maybe the preferring to solo part would knock it down to a respectable or noticeable fraction...

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Avatar courtesy of Satellite Nine.
If you can't see an image I've posted, please let me know!

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Impulse King wrote:
Impulse King wrote:

Greyhawk wrote:
Jordan_yen wrote:
I want to solo as much as possible and never PVP. If the game lets me do that, I'll be happy.
My thoughts exactly. We should start a Supergroup for players who prefer to solo and hate to PvP!
Ok I'll give the straight line.
What would you call that SG?

The Loners
The Lone Gunmen
The Lone Wolf Pack
The Soloist Society
The Secret Society of Soloists
The Solo-teriat
The Union of Sociable Soloist Role Playing Gamers (USSRPG for short, this one's my favorite now)

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 46 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

The Lone Gunmen

Dibs on Frohike!

Dark Ether
Dark Ether's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 31 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:26
Fine - he's not my type. ;)

Fine - he's not my type. ;)

(insert pithy comment here)

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
His "kung-fu" was the best.

His "kung-fu" was the best.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Impulse King wrote:
Impulse King wrote:

Greyhawk wrote:
Jordan_yen wrote:
I want to solo as much as possible and never PVP. If the game lets me do that, I'll be happy.
My thoughts exactly. We should start a Supergroup for players who prefer to solo and hate to PvP!
Ok I'll give the straight line.
What would you call that SG?

A name...

Flying Solo? Power of One? Lone Rangers? Creme de la Creme? Solitary Dream?

Maybe something more exotic:

Ekaant Sapana
Mehameha Moe
Sonu Solitaru
Monachiko Oniero
Hulm Alainfiradi

Hmm... "Mehameha Moe" has a nice ring to it! Exotic, easy to pronounce, simple to remember.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B000APIPZC?ref_=pe_584750_33951330

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Me Myself and I

Me Myself and I


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Late entry: The Order of

Late entry: The Order of Unity

Edit: See `cuz in science there are "order of magnitude" with "order of unity" meaning "like approximately equal to 1", but then Knightly orders would have names like "The Order of the Phoenix" etc...

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
The Order of the Haters

The Order of the Haters

Amerikatt
Amerikatt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/27/2013 - 08:54
No badges or other PvE

No badges or other PvE content in a PvP zone. PLEASE!

In fact, with resources limited in a single-server system, why not hold off on PvP until, say, Issue 25?! Or ... NEVER!

Just a cat from another star!
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 16 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Amerikatt wrote:
Amerikatt wrote:

No badges or other PvE content in a PvP zone. PLEASE!
In fact, with resources limited in a single-server system, why not hold off on PvP until, say, Issue 25?! Or ... NEVER!

Pvp has its own phase of the city. You can choose to enter or not. Everything that pve has in the city exists in the pvp map, the difference is the player vs player combat is switched on. The only things the pvp version would have that the pve version doesn't would specifically relate to pvp.

This means that the only extra work involved is adding any specific pvp events, balacing pvp meteics, or pvp badges etc... which can certainly happen over time. In fact, the second part - babalxing pvp metrics, is even taken into account in pve performance metrics to provide at least a base-lline to work off of.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
babalxing, Tannim's
Tannim222 wrote:

the second part - babalxing pvp metrics,

babalxing: Tannim's version of confefe, may it live in infamy.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Cinnder
Cinnder's picture
Offline
Last seen: 29 min 32 sec ago
Gunterkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/26/2013 - 16:24
I think it's a weapon found

I think it's a weapon found in the ancient Middle-East, buried in the ruins of a destroyed tower.

Spurn all ye kindle.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 24 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
I see no reason not to have

I see no reason not to have badges only found in the PvP instance of the map. Seems like it would be a fun way to get people in there and then hear them complain :)

Dark Ether
Dark Ether's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 31 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:26
Why invite complaints when it

Why invite complaints when it's not necessary?

(insert pithy comment here)

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 24 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Dark Ether wrote:
Dark Ether wrote:

Why invite complaints when it's not necessary?

Why deny PvPers a badge for their preferred instance? Why do anything, if people are just going to complain about it and trust me, someone will complain about every instance of this game. Not one person about everything (okay that will happen too) but everyone will have some complaint about this game. There won't be any one player who goes this game is 100% perfect. CoH didn't even have that.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 46 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

Dark Ether wrote:
Why invite complaints when it's not necessary?
Why deny PvPers a badge for their preferred instance?

I wasn't a regular PvPer, but Champion had a strong PvP group for a good long while, and I can tell you that they did not care for the PvP achievements and badges. And sure, that doesn't speak for all PvPers by any means, but achievement hunting was usually embraced by the PvE crowd the majority of the time. I don't disagree that PvPers shouldn't be denied a part of the game, such as badge hunting, but I think the PvP achievements/badges should be smartly designed to reduce the amount of "open world" PvP that they would involve (e.g. they can mostly be earned privately).

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 24 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:

Brand X wrote:
Dark Ether wrote:
Why invite complaints when it's not necessary?
Why deny PvPers a badge for their preferred instance?
I wasn't a regular PvPer, but Champion had a strong PvP group for a good long while, and I can tell you that they did not care for the PvP achievements and badges. And sure, that doesn't speak for all PvPers by any means, but achievement hunting was usually embraced by the PvE crowd the majority of the time. I don't disagree that PvPers shouldn't be denied a part of the game, such as badge hunting, but I think the PvP achievements/badges should be smartly designed to reduce the amount of "open world" PvP that they would involve (e.g. they can mostly be earned privately).

I was on virtue and I can tell you I knew a few pvpers who were also badgers (on their main). Of course, I also knew badgers who hated every pvp badge there was. :p However, that doesn't mean deny the pvper badgers, some pvp badges.

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

...everyone will have some complaint about this game.

One of my favorite forum games is complaining about all the complaining!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B000APIPZC?ref_=pe_584750_33951330

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
I get that some people hate

I get that some people hate PVP but protesting a PVP specific badge in a PVP zone is a bit much. Just run in, grab your badge, and run out? You will never have to enter that zone again.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 46 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:

I get that some people hate PVP but protesting a PVP specific badge in a PVP zone is a bit much. Just run in, grab your badge, and run out? You will never have to enter that zone again.

I don't believe they're referring location-related badges such as explorations or plaques for accomplishment but badges directly related to PvPing in the respective zones. I could be mistaken though.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 24 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:

Wolfgang8565 wrote:
I get that some people hate PVP but protesting a PVP specific badge in a PVP zone is a bit much. Just run in, grab your badge, and run out? You will never have to enter that zone again.
I don't believe they're referring location-related badges such as explorations or plaques for accomplishment but badges directly related to PvPing in the respective zones. I could be mistaken though.

Just make such badges, but with low numbers required. 1, 5 and 10 player kills for instance, instead of 1, 50 and 100 player kills.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 46 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Dark Ether wrote:
Why invite complaints when it's not necessary?
Why deny PvPers a badge for their preferred instance?
I wasn't a regular PvPer, but Champion had a strong PvP group for a good long while, and I can tell you that they did not care for the PvP achievements and badges. And sure, that doesn't speak for all PvPers by any means, but achievement hunting was usually embraced by the PvE crowd the majority of the time. I don't disagree that PvPers shouldn't be denied a part of the game, such as badge hunting, but I think the PvP achievements/badges should be smartly designed to reduce the amount of "open world" PvP that they would involve (e.g. they can mostly be earned privately).
I was on virtue and I can tell you I knew a few pvpers who were also badgers (on their main). Of course, I also knew badgers who hated every pvp badge there was. :p However, that doesn't mean deny the pvper badgers, some pvp badges.

Right, which is why I said that it didn't apply to all PvPers. There are going to be those A-type personalities that feel the compelling need to excel at everything, be it at PvPing, badging, time-trials, DPS performance builds, etc. But those people that you mentioned tend to be outliers, even within the smaller PvPer playerbase in comparison to the PvE playerbase, and I don't think, in terms of maximum return on time/resource investment, to commit significant effort to appealing to those minorities within minorities.
And I also agreed above that PvPers shouldn't be denied the opportunity to badge, however it is my opinion that the badge/achievement system could be designed smartly to reduce the potential butt-hurt that PvErs are going to get (and complain about) if they're required to go into a PvP phase for badges.
Additionally, I am also in agreement that not everyone can be appeased and someone is going to complain, but as I stated, if they're smart about the system implementation, quite a bit of the consternation can be reduced, if not mitigated entirely.

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

Just make such badges, but with low numbers required. 1, 5 and 10 player kills for instance, instead of 1, 50 and 100 player kills.

Yep, that's fair.

Grimfox
Grimfox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/05/2014 - 10:17
Did we miss:

Did we miss:

Tannim222 wrote:

Pvp has its own phase of the city.

Everything in the PVP phase exists in the PVE phase and visa versa. Because they are the same. The only PVP badges there are likely to be are going to be participation badges.

(at)Roxanna - Little Sister - Plutonium Bloom - MilkShakes
Triumph
Guardian
Virtue

Dev Tracker: http://cityoftitans.com/forum/fixing-dev-digest
Dev Comments: https://cityoftitans.com/forum/dev-comments

Amerikatt
Amerikatt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/27/2013 - 08:54
PvP-related badges should be

PvP-related badges should be in PvP zones. PvE badges should not be!

So let it be written. So let it be done!

Just a cat from another star!
Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 24 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Disagree. Not to mention, as

Disagree. Not to mention, as CoT is a tribute to CoH, why not do it like CoH? We have a bunch of people on the forums going "Like CoH!" until it gets to little things they didn't care for.

Also, there's not reason they can't have exo badges only in a PvP instance. In fact, kill 100 Skullz in PvE instance and kill 100 Skullz in PvP instance can totally be a thing!

As for time...I'm not so sure badge making is really all that time consuming. :p

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 22 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
In my opinion, a badge for

In my opinion, a badge for defeating x enemies of type A in a PvP instance is a PvP badge, and I will not be likely to try for it.

As for difficulty in implementation, if there is a "defeat x Type A" badge for each of PvE and PvP, then the system must now keep track of two numbers, where if there is only one badge then only the total number need be tracked. It seems like a minor detail, but when you extend the duplication of badges to types b through z...

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Avatar courtesy of Satellite Nine.
If you can't see an image I've posted, please let me know!

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Amerikatt wrote:
Amerikatt wrote:

PvP-related badges should be in PvP zones. PvE badges should not be!
So let it be written. So let it be done!

What do you mean when you say "PvP zone" here. If you mean exclusive PvP zones like what was in CoH then I would have to agree for those zones, but since there will be PvP versions of the open world (like the PvP servers in WoW) then it gets a bit murkier.

Amerikatt
Amerikatt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/27/2013 - 08:54
I am hoping that City of

I am hoping that City of Tabbies will not, as CoH did, try to lure non-PvPers into PvP zones by putting Exploration badges in those areas.

If the PvE and PvP zones will have parallel opportunities for things like badges, then that would be acceptable to me. In this case, separate-but-equal would be a good thing!

Just a cat from another star!
Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 46 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

Amerikatt wrote:
PvP-related badges should be in PvP zones. PvE badges should not be!
So let it be written. So let it be done!
What do you mean when you say "PvP zone" here. If you mean exclusive PvP zones like what was in CoH then I would have to agree for those zones, but since there will be PvP versions of the open world (like the PvP servers in WoW) then it gets a bit murkier.

Just for clarification, this is what @Tannim222 stated about the PvP phase of CoT in a previous thread:

Tannim222 wrote:

We have something that is rather a mix of the two. The entirety of Titan City will have its own pvp phase. Which is open world pvp - with rules to prevent ganking and some nifty ideas for earnjng rewards. However, you have to choose to enter into the pvp phase.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 46 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

Disagree. Not to mention, as CoT is a tribute to CoH, why not do it like CoH? We have a bunch of people on the forums going "Like CoH!" until it gets to little things they didn't care for.
Also, there's not reason they can't have exo badges only in a PvP instance. In fact, kill 100 Skullz in PvE instance and kill 100 Skullz in PvP instance can totally be a thing!
As for time...I'm not so sure badge making is really all that time consuming. :p

Not to quibble, but I hesitate to say that it's a tribute, as spiritual successor means that it is in the same vein as CoH but shouldn't necessarily be done exactly as CoH. CoT has the opportunity to capitalize (and improve!) on the all the good/great things CoH did while simultaneously avoiding the pitfalls and problems that they had, one of those being the hotly contested notion of PvE badges in PvP zones.

If CoT chooses to institute the badging system as literally doing everything once in a PvE instance and again in a PvE instance, I can almost guarantee that the outcry from the prevailing badging community will be atrocious. Again, as mentioned before, people are going to complain but this is certainly an avoidable problematic error.

I'm not going to attempt to refute numbers concerning man-hours because I don't have access to them nor do I have experience or knowledge-base to do so, but if given the choice between MWM cranking out PvE content that applies to the majority of the playerbase or putting the time towards an achievement system that applies to a smaller percentage of players, I would choose for them to work on those content widgets for the majority. And I'm an achievement hunter in the vast number of games that I play, and I want an achievement system in the game. I just don't want it to be at the cost of volunteer man-hours that could be contributing to something else that many more players are going to utilize.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 16 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
If there is a kill 100 Rooks

If there is a kill 100 Rooks badge - it would be the same basge regardless if it was achieved in the pve phase or pvp phase.

We will never make specific pve achievements or temp powers in a pvp phase to "lure players there". We have, multiple times in fact, gone on record saying that pvp will always be optional and never required.

The only achievements that the pvp phase would have (if any) are those specifically related to pvp activities itself. As I mentioned earlier, these arw things we can look to do over time and not a priority for launch.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:

blacke4dawn wrote:
Amerikatt wrote:
PvP-related badges should be in PvP zones. PvE badges should not be!
So let it be written. So let it be done!
What do you mean when you say "PvP zone" here. If you mean exclusive PvP zones like what was in CoH then I would have to agree for those zones, but since there will be PvP versions of the open world (like the PvP servers in WoW) then it gets a bit murkier.
Just for clarification, this is what @Tannim222 stated about the PvP phase of CoT in a previous thread:
Tannim222 wrote:
We have something that is rather a mix of the two. The entirety of Titan City will have its own pvp phase. Which is open world pvp - with rules to prevent ganking and some nifty ideas for earnjng rewards. However, you have to choose to enter into the pvp phase.

Yes I know what Tannim referred to with "PvP phase", what I want to know is what others mean when they say "PvP zone".

If we are talking about a separate dedicated space a la battlegrounds that has to be entered explicitly then hell yes it should only hold PvP focused (and count towards general) badges. The only difference I see MWM doing between a PvP phase and PvE phase is to enforce the PvP flag, nothing else.
If we are talking open world with PvP rules a la PvP servers then heck no it should still hold PvE badges.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 46 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

Cobalt Azurean wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:
Amerikatt wrote:
PvP-related badges should be in PvP zones. PvE badges should not be!
So let it be written. So let it be done!
What do you mean when you say "PvP zone" here. If you mean exclusive PvP zones like what was in CoH then I would have to agree for those zones, but since there will be PvP versions of the open world (like the PvP servers in WoW) then it gets a bit murkier.
Just for clarification, this is what @Tannim222 stated about the PvP phase of CoT in a previous thread:
Tannim222 wrote:
We have something that is rather a mix of the two. The entirety of Titan City will have its own pvp phase. Which is open world pvp - with rules to prevent ganking and some nifty ideas for earnjng rewards. However, you have to choose to enter into the pvp phase.
Yes I know what Tannim referred to with "PvP phase", what I want to know is what others mean when they say "PvP zone".
If we are talking about a separate dedicated space a la battlegrounds that has to be entered explicitly then hell yes it should only hold PvP focused (and count towards general) badges. The only difference I see MWM doing between a PvP phase and PvE phase is to enforce the PvP flag, nothing else.
If we are talking open world with PvP rules a la PvP servers then heck no it should still hold PvE badges.

I can't speak for everyone, but my interpretation is "the place where the PvP happens", not necessarily literally a zone where the PvP happens.

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
For those that hated badges

For those that hated badges of any kind in a PvP zone (wrt CoX), why did you feel compelled to get those badges?

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 46 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Planet10 wrote:
Planet10 wrote:

For those that hated badges of any kind in a PvP zone (wrt CoX), why did you feel compelled to get those badges?

It wasn't the PvP kill(s) or match badges or anything like that, but badges that literally are only there to get you to go into the zone, such as exploration badges (15 of them in Paragon Wiki for Heroes across BB, Wb, RV, and SC).

Most of the problems could have been avoided if they simply reduced the number of exploration badges per PvP zone to one (per faction) and had them immediately at the entrance.

As for why people felt compelled, why does anyone do anything? Some people feel their PvP kill record speaks for their success in a game, or their uber DPS TTK on a Pylon, or the ability to solo an AV, or their badge count in this case.

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:

As for why people felt compelled, why does anyone do anything?

I don't expect you to answer for all people.
Why do you, Cobalt Azurean, feel compelled to get a badge if it means doing something you don't like or going somewhere you do not like?
And if the exploration badge was just there at the entrance, how could one call it an exploration badge if you didn't actually explore anything?

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
I was thinking about PvP

I was thinking about PvP phase and the thought occurred to me that only villains should be able to attack anyone without provocation. Or, said another way, that attacking anyone without provocation would label one as a villain by definition.

So then I got to thinking that what if in the PvP world, everyone was flagged neutral until they attacked someone. This would accurately simulate a real city with a bunch a chaos injectors, er... Player Characters.

Of course, in the PvP phase there would still be the same missions and streetsweeping that the PvE phase would have. Interacting with NPCs to either support or stop a crime would flag you as a hero or villain, regardless of your actual alignment. Thus allowing other players the opportunity to attack you, thereby flagging them as the opposite, and so on and so on, until the domino chain of who attacks whom reaches its end. Anyone who attacks a hero flagged player will be marked a villain until the end of combat regardless of how many villain flagged characters they also attack. So it is possible for combat to devolve into a battle royale between a number of villain flagged characters each out for him or herself. But heroes would all be on the same side. (Hmmm.... this would make an interesting model of human system dynamic behavior!) After combat there would have to be a cooldown period until the flag goes away and you are neutral again. The cooldown timer would have to be lengthy to allow heroes to retaliate against ganking villains.

This way, PvP players would be able to choose what they want to be on a case by case basis. In other words, a player can be a villain one battle and a hero the next.

An elegantly simple emergent property of this is the true realization of playing a vigilante. So if there were some Rooks gang members just loitering, but not engaging in any actual criminal acts, would you be willing to flag yourself as a villain to complete your "subdue 10 Rooks" quest? That's what a vigilante or a villain would do. But a hero would scan the neighborhood and only subdue those Rooks who were actively participating in a crime: like B&E, purse-snatching or arson. A hero would often be handicapped by the very morals they claim to espouse, while a vigilante player would also suffer from the morally ambiguous life they lead.

The more I think about it the more I like it.

Finally, I would expect that there would be some threshhold of infamy that, once reached, would permanently mark you as a villain and you would be fair game for all heroes (and NPC) to attack on sight without being flagged as villains themselves. I would expect that there would be a bounty board for villains so infamous. Once someone reaches that threshhold, their cooldown timer becomes infinite and they won't be marked neutral again until they start doing enough redeeming acts to bring it below the threshhold, or until they are defeated and go through the criminal justice system. The converse would not be necessary for a heroic threshhold. Since anyone can attack a hero at any time if they want to be flagged a villian, there would really be no need to flag someone as a hero in the same way as flagging a villain other than for vanity purposes, or maybe as a buffer against an inadvertent attack on a neutral.

This same flagging concept has been done similarly in other sandbox MMO what allow outlaw status. Archeage is the first that comes to mind.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
Planet10 wrote:
Planet10 wrote:

Cobalt Azurean wrote:
As for why people felt compelled, why does anyone do anything?
I don't expect you to answer for all people.
Why do you, Cobalt Azurean, feel compelled to get a badge if it means doing something you don't like or going somewhere you do not like?
And if the exploration badge was just there at the entrance, how could one call it an exploration badge if you didn't actually explore anything?

^^^

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Planet10 wrote:
Planet10 wrote:

For those that hated badges of any kind in a PvP zone (wrt CoX), why did you feel compelled to get those badges?

It was an alternate activity that badgers engaged in which forced them into PvP zones to complete the activity. In order to get all exploration badges you 'HAD' to enter PvP. It turned PvP from it's own alternate activity into a co-mingled mess.

But that wasn't the biggest crime of PvE achievements being mixed into PvP. Accolades required a set of specific badges in order to get a certain bonus and many required entering PvP. These badges were not always as simple as exploration either. One literally had a PvP participation time requirement (I think it was an hour but honestly cannot remember).
Given that these Accolades pre-date the IO synergy bonuses it was the only way to get global stat boosts that many desired, players seeking these bonuses were put into the prey role of the predatory zone PvP that CoH had.

The devs themselves admitted that their intention for badge placement was to act as an incentive for players to give PvP a try and it failed, creating a more toxic environment than they desired. So very late in the games life they removed those PvP badges for accolades, but the damage had been done.

It isn't that PvP shouldn't have achievements associated with it, it's that those achievements should be exclusively PvP related.

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

It was an alternate activity that badgers engaged in which forced them into PvP zones to complete the activity. In order to get all exploration badges you 'HAD' to enter PvP. It turned PvP from it's own alternate activity into a co-mingled mess.

The point is that these people wanted a possible performance bonus (whether or not they understood how to take advantage of the bonus). They wanted more from the game and they were unwilling to put forth the effort. If it was that important, there are many options available to them. Organize a SG or server event. Get a friend to roll an opposition character and trounce him. Go in during off hours. Work at making your character more PvP capable and put effort into learning how to PvP. Not everything in a game needs to be handed to a player on a silver platter.
The implementation in CoX was short sighted to tie performance against another player to a reward that could benefit both PvE & PvP.

If these people were simply completionists and therefore had to have all of the badges, they need to experience the entire game. Otherwise they did not experience the complete game. Simply getting a badge does not mean they completed the game either. There is so much out there to complete that tracking everything would bury the experience under a mountain of badges. Doing something just to get a badge misses the point of doing the act that it is supposed to commemorate it in the first place.

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
They've made it pretty clear

They've made it pretty clear that whatever badge you can get in PVE you can get in PVP. That is fine and all, but I still think they need to treat PVP differently. Everyone knows PVP needs to be balanced because what you can do in PVE wont work well in PVP. So if they offer some kind of accolade that helps people in PVE, then I think there should be a PVP specific accolade made to work in PVP. It's just common sense.

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

An elegantly simple emergent property of this is the true realization of playing a vigilante. So if there were some Rooks gang members just loitering, but not engaging in any actual criminal acts, would you be willing to flag yourself as a villain to complete your "subdue 10 Rooks" quest? That's what a vigilante or a villain would do. But a hero would scan the neighborhood and only subdue those Rooks who were actively participating in a crime: like B&E, purse-snatching or arson. A hero would often be handicapped by the very morals they claim to espouse, while a vigilante player would also suffer from the morally ambiguous life they lead.

Finally, I would expect that there would be some threshhold of infamy that, once reached, would permanently mark you as a villain and you would be fair game for all heroes (and NPC) to attack on sight without being flagged as villains themselves. I would expect that there would be a bounty board for villains so infamous. Once someone reaches that threshhold, their cooldown timer becomes infinite and they won't be marked neutral again until they start doing enough redeeming acts to bring it below the threshhold, or until they are defeated and go through the criminal justice system. The converse would not be necessary for a heroic threshhold. Since anyone can attack a hero at any time if they want to be flagged a villian, there would really be no need to flag someone as a hero in the same way as flagging a villain other than for vanity purposes, or maybe as a buffer against an inadvertent attack on a neutral.

I like the fluidity of the example. I had a similar quandary about how PvP would unfold and how your alignments would impact or restrict things (May-July QA). We need to make sure that the system handles both sides of the coin fairly. It won't be a simple one time binary choice of villain or hero.

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:

They've made it pretty clear that whatever badge you can get in PVE you can get in PVP. That is fine and all, but I still think they need to treat PVP differently. Everyone knows PVP needs to be balanced because what you can do in PVE wont work well in PVP. So if they offer some kind of accolade that helps people in PVE, then I think there should be a PVP specific accolade made to work in PVP. It's just common sense.

My argument was more to the point of why people were compelled to get the badges (and what they weren't willing to do).

In other games where the initial offering of the game is PvE only and they tack on PvP later, the system fails because it was not originally designed to include PvP. CoT is being designed to support PvP from day one without any caveats (to my knowledge). CoT should absolutely not treat PvP combat any differently than PvE. If there was a difference, the players would have to learn two sets of behaviors. Probably learn two sets of talents/powers. Probably have to craft/grind two sets of enhancements. Probably unlock a capability to support two sets of talents and the ability to swap between them. Why would MWM want to create two combat systems in one game? That is a lot of duplicated effort.

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
Planet10 wrote:
Planet10 wrote:

Wolfgang8565 wrote:
They've made it pretty clear that whatever badge you can get in PVE you can get in PVP. That is fine and all, but I still think they need to treat PVP differently. Everyone knows PVP needs to be balanced because what you can do in PVE wont work well in PVP. So if they offer some kind of accolade that helps people in PVE, then I think there should be a PVP specific accolade made to work in PVP. It's just common sense.
My argument was more to the point of why people were compelled to get the badges (and what they weren't willing to do).
In other games where the initial offering of the game is PvE only and they tack on PvP later, the system fails because it was not originally designed to include PvP. CoT is being designed to support PvP from day one without any caveats (to my knowledge). CoT should absolutely not treat PvP combat any differently than PvE. If there was a difference, the players would have to learn two sets of behaviors. Probably learn two sets of talents/powers. Probably have to craft/grind two sets of enhancements. Probably unlock a capability to support two sets of talents and the ability to swap between them. Why would MWM want to create two combat systems in one game? That is a lot of duplicated effort.

Whats wrong with any of that? If we are really asking why they would implement something in the game because of effort, then why have any expectations for them to do anything? I don't see anything wrong with having multiple builds for your character, one for PVE and one for PVP. Any comic or comic based movie you see, heroes dont just attack their problems in one specific way. They understand their abilities and use that knowledge to find different ways to solve problems. It shouldn't be so linear that you have the same set of abilities and all you do is make them stronger. In PVP you learn what abilities work and what don't, therefore changing the way you play. I think this is the ultimate way to experience a different angle of your character.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Planet10 wrote:
Planet10 wrote:

The point is that these people wanted a possible performance bonus (whether or not they understood how to take advantage of the bonus). They wanted more from the game and they were unwilling to put forth the effort.

No, it was gating PvE behind PvP. It's as simple as that. Telling people they are lazy is a self centered response.

Planet10 wrote:

If these people were simply completionists and therefore had to have all of the badges, they need to experience the entire game. Otherwise they did not experience the complete game.

You need to do research about extending players interest in games. That is what badges/achievements were designed for, to keep people playing. There are countless articles about well designed achievements and poorly designed achievements.
Simply put, good design is about enjoying the process of getting these achievements and bad design makes getting these achievements 'overly' frustrating. They can be difficult or easy, time consuming or quick, but what they should not do is make the player feel like they are not having fun. Requiring players to engage in an activity they do not want to do (PvP) in order to do what they want to do (collecting badges/accolades) is not good design.

By the way, when I talk about completing the activity I am specifically talking about that one activity, not the entire game. Your ham fisted interpretation of 'complete' as experiencing the entire game is completely off base. A completionist does not need to do everything in a game they just want to complete one aspect. Here is a good definition of completionist for you.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 24 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:

Planet10 wrote:
For those that hated badges of any kind in a PvP zone (wrt CoX), why did you feel compelled to get those badges?
It wasn't the PvP kill(s) or match badges or anything like that, but badges that literally are only there to get you to go into the zone, such as exploration badges (15 of them in Paragon Wiki for Heroes across BB, Wb, RV, and SC).
Most of the problems could have been avoided if they simply reduced the number of exploration badges per PvP zone to one (per faction) and had them immediately at the entrance.
As for why people felt compelled, why does anyone do anything? Some people feel their PvP kill record speaks for their success in a game, or their uber DPS TTK on a Pylon, or the ability to solo an AV, or their badge count in this case.

They weren't there to get you into the zone.

They were there because every other map had exo badges. :p

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 46 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Planet10 wrote:
Planet10 wrote:

Cobalt Azurean wrote:
As for why people felt compelled, why does anyone do anything?
I don't expect you to answer for all people.
Why do you, Cobalt Azurean, feel compelled to get a badge if it means doing something you don't like or going somewhere you do not like?
And if the exploration badge was just there at the entrance, how could one call it an exploration badge if you didn't actually explore anything?

Because I went to a new zone? That's pretty much the definition of exploring, going to a new place. Some people never make it off the beachhead or stay on the ship, but that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't take the journey or deserve some credit to be called explorers. Not everyone is the Captain, after all. But yes, to be fair, it's not what many would consider "exploring" by Meriam-Webster, however this is a video game, not geography.
As for my compulsion, that would be an aspect of my Bartle Personality Test: the achiever.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 46 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Planet10 wrote:
For those that hated badges of any kind in a PvP zone (wrt CoX), why did you feel compelled to get those badges?
It wasn't the PvP kill(s) or match badges or anything like that, but badges that literally are only there to get you to go into the zone, such as exploration badges (15 of them in Paragon Wiki for Heroes across BB, Wb, RV, and SC).
Most of the problems could have been avoided if they simply reduced the number of exploration badges per PvP zone to one (per faction) and had them immediately at the entrance.
As for why people felt compelled, why does anyone do anything? Some people feel their PvP kill record speaks for their success in a game, or their uber DPS TTK on a Pylon, or the ability to solo an AV, or their badge count in this case.
They weren't there to get you into the zone.
They were there because every other map had exo badges. :p

I disagree, as do many others, on how they perceived them as and refer to them as "lures" to get PvErs into the PvP zones. I did use the word 'perception', which is dangerous, because they could be intended differently, and perhaps were. But I'm not a dev, and I don't think to speak for them. And while I do agree that other maps had explo badges, as stated before, they could have reduced the problem of explo badgers in those particular PvP zones by placing them in areas that weren't likely to involve PvP participation, which is the actual crux of the problem.

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 22 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Planet10 wrote:
Planet10 wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:

They've made it pretty clear that whatever badge you can get in PVE you can get in PVP. That is fine and all, but I still think they need to treat PVP differently. Everyone knows PVP needs to be balanced because what you can do in PVE wont work well in PVP. So if they offer some kind of accolade that helps people in PVE, then I think there should be a PVP specific accolade made to work in PVP. It's just common sense.

My argument was more to the point of why people were compelled to get the badges (and what they weren't willing to do).
In other games where the initial offering of the game is PvE only and they tack on PvP later, the system fails because it was not originally designed to include PvP. CoT is being designed to support PvP from day one without any caveats (to my knowledge). CoT should absolutely not treat PvP combat any differently than PvE. If there was a difference, the players would have to learn two sets of behaviors. Probably learn two sets of talents/powers. Probably have to craft/grind two sets of enhancements. Probably unlock a capability to support two sets of talents and the ability to swap between them. Why would MWM want to create two combat systems in one game? That is a lot of duplicated effort.

There are caveats, and in my opinion the most important one was in Kickstarter Update #28: PvP: The Art Of Punching Your Friends In The Face For Fun And Profit

Warcabbit wrote:

1: You will never be forced to PvP
2: You can, in fact, talk about Fight Club.
3: Seriously. You will never, ever be forced to PvP.

That's #1 and #3 I'm referring to, here. This thread is proof of #2.

The next most important caveat (again, IMO) was at the end of that update:

Warcabbit wrote:

Oh, by the way.
4: PvP design should never affect PvE play.

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Avatar courtesy of Satellite Nine.
If you can't see an image I've posted, please let me know!

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 24 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:

Brand X wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Planet10 wrote:
For those that hated badges of any kind in a PvP zone (wrt CoX), why did you feel compelled to get those badges?
It wasn't the PvP kill(s) or match badges or anything like that, but badges that literally are only there to get you to go into the zone, such as exploration badges (15 of them in Paragon Wiki for Heroes across BB, Wb, RV, and SC).
Most of the problems could have been avoided if they simply reduced the number of exploration badges per PvP zone to one (per faction) and had them immediately at the entrance.
As for why people felt compelled, why does anyone do anything? Some people feel their PvP kill record speaks for their success in a game, or their uber DPS TTK on a Pylon, or the ability to solo an AV, or their badge count in this case.
They weren't there to get you into the zone.
They were there because every other map had exo badges. :p
I disagree, as do many others, on how they perceived them as and refer to them as "lures" to get PvErs into the PvP zones. I did use the word 'perception', which is dangerous, because they could be intended differently, and perhaps were. But I'm not a dev, and I don't think to speak for them. And while I do agree that other maps had explo badges, as stated before, they could have reduced the problem of explo badgers in those particular PvP zones by placing them in areas that weren't likely to involve PvP participation, which is the actual crux of the problem.

The problem was not that the maps had exo badges. No one was ever required to get all badges. The problem just seemed to be players who couldn't handle the possible risk of getting killed. They were likely also the players who couldn't handle getting killed in PvE instances anyways, which I know a lot of CoH players were.

Not that other MMO players are any different. I mean seriously, I died in a taskforce, I'd say, what can we do differently. Others would cry and rage quit. :p

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
And that seems to be the

And that seems to be the disconnect. People are so afraid of dying that they genuinely wish PVP didn't exist. You die in missions all the time, who cares if you get killed while collecting a badge in a pvp zone? As someone said earlier, go during the down time, or have a friend go in with you and gank each other to collect your badges, etc.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 46 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Planet10 wrote:
For those that hated badges of any kind in a PvP zone (wrt CoX), why did you feel compelled to get those badges?
It wasn't the PvP kill(s) or match badges or anything like that, but badges that literally are only there to get you to go into the zone, such as exploration badges (15 of them in Paragon Wiki for Heroes across BB, Wb, RV, and SC).
Most of the problems could have been avoided if they simply reduced the number of exploration badges per PvP zone to one (per faction) and had them immediately at the entrance.
As for why people felt compelled, why does anyone do anything? Some people feel their PvP kill record speaks for their success in a game, or their uber DPS TTK on a Pylon, or the ability to solo an AV, or their badge count in this case.
They weren't there to get you into the zone.
They were there because every other map had exo badges. :p
I disagree, as do many others, on how they perceived them as and refer to them as "lures" to get PvErs into the PvP zones. I did use the word 'perception', which is dangerous, because they could be intended differently, and perhaps were. But I'm not a dev, and I don't think to speak for them. And while I do agree that other maps had explo badges, as stated before, they could have reduced the problem of explo badgers in those particular PvP zones by placing them in areas that weren't likely to involve PvP participation, which is the actual crux of the problem.
The problem was not that the maps had exo badges. No one was ever required to get all badges. The problem just seemed to be players who couldn't handle the possible risk of getting killed. They were likely also the players who couldn't handle getting killed in PvE instances anyways, which I know a lot of CoH players were.
Not that other MMO players are any different. I mean seriously, I died in a taskforce, I'd say, what can we do differently. Others would cry and rage quit. :p

That is correct, no one ever had to get badges. But that was part of the game that gave some players enjoyment (i.e. the Bartle achiever), which there's absolutely nothing wrong with. However, if during the pursuit of that enjoyment that they felt they were being harassed by other players, of which they have no intent to PvP with, then yes, there is a problem. You may not consider it one, but it was a problem for a notable size of the population. And I know that I used the word 'felt' which, as previously with 'perception', is biased and definitely can slant one's outlook towards something that may not have been intended as such, which is why it's just easier to reduce/avoid the problem entirely, if possible.

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
I cant imagine reading a

I cant imagine reading a comic where a superhero feels "harassed" because a villain jumped him.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 46 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:

I cant imagine reading a comic where a superhero feels "harassed" because a villain jumped him.

No, but if someone kept picking a fight with another, despite a clear message that they don't want to fight, it would not be hard to imagine that anyone would feel harassed if weren't being left alone. No one is actually a superhero or supervillain. This is a video game that people are playing for enjoyment. And if someone in their pursuit of enjoyment, is willfully interfering with another person's pursuit, well, there are words for people like that.

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
I don't see harassment

I don't see harassment happening at the level you seem to be implying. If there is verbal abuse, it is usually done by both parties. I spent countless days in PVP and this scenario you are constructing where someone is innocently walking around constantly getting talked down to or killed over and over never happened. People fought each other, talked down to each other, and most of the time ended up hanging out in the same spot whether hero or villain, talking about random stuff.

Yes maybe at some point a hero would be spotted running to do an indoor mission in a pvp zone, and would get killed, but they would usually find another way to get there, or the attacker would quickly lose interest because they wouldn't fight back.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 24 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:

Brand X wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Planet10 wrote:
For those that hated badges of any kind in a PvP zone (wrt CoX), why did you feel compelled to get those badges?
It wasn't the PvP kill(s) or match badges or anything like that, but badges that literally are only there to get you to go into the zone, such as exploration badges (15 of them in Paragon Wiki for Heroes across BB, Wb, RV, and SC).
Most of the problems could have been avoided if they simply reduced the number of exploration badges per PvP zone to one (per faction) and had them immediately at the entrance.
As for why people felt compelled, why does anyone do anything? Some people feel their PvP kill record speaks for their success in a game, or their uber DPS TTK on a Pylon, or the ability to solo an AV, or their badge count in this case.
They weren't there to get you into the zone.
They were there because every other map had exo badges. :p
I disagree, as do many others, on how they perceived them as and refer to them as "lures" to get PvErs into the PvP zones. I did use the word 'perception', which is dangerous, because they could be intended differently, and perhaps were. But I'm not a dev, and I don't think to speak for them. And while I do agree that other maps had explo badges, as stated before, they could have reduced the problem of explo badgers in those particular PvP zones by placing them in areas that weren't likely to involve PvP participation, which is the actual crux of the problem.
The problem was not that the maps had exo badges. No one was ever required to get all badges. The problem just seemed to be players who couldn't handle the possible risk of getting killed. They were likely also the players who couldn't handle getting killed in PvE instances anyways, which I know a lot of CoH players were.
Not that other MMO players are any different. I mean seriously, I died in a taskforce, I'd say, what can we do differently. Others would cry and rage quit. :p
That is correct, no one ever had to get badges. But that was part of the game that gave some players enjoyment (i.e. the Bartle achiever), which there's absolutely nothing wrong with. However, if during the pursuit of that enjoyment that they felt they were being harassed by other players, of which they have no intent to PvP with, then yes, there is a problem. You may not consider it one, but it was a problem for a notable size of the population. And I know that I used the word 'felt' which, as previously with 'perception', is biased and definitely can slant one's outlook towards something that may not have been intended as such, which is why it's just easier to reduce/avoid the problem entirely, if possible.

I'm not saying there can't be enjoyment from getting badges. However, the need to get all badges, was always on the player. It's why the exo badges in PvP zones where never a problem. If one didn't want to risk a death in a pvp zone, all they had to do was not go in there. There were still thousands of other badges to go after.

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:

Wolfgang8565 wrote:
I cant imagine reading a comic where a superhero feels "harassed" because a villain jumped him.
No, but if someone kept picking a fight with another, despite a clear message that they don't want to fight, it would not be hard to imagine that anyone would feel harassed if weren't being left alone. No one is actually a superhero or supervillain. This is a video game that people are playing for enjoyment. And if someone in their pursuit of enjoyment, is willfully interfering with another person's pursuit, well, there are words for people like that.

There's also the saying that doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is insane.

Where in your narrative is the player calling upon their SG to help out to put this evil doer down so you can accomplish your goal? Why doesn't this player find another way to get the badge? Just simply crying foul to the devs because you can't or won't adapt your approach is not their fault. In the CoX case, the zones were PvP active or not (iirc). That was part of the design problem. The rule set was different in PvP zones. If these people expected PvE behavior in a PvP zone that is their failing, not the other person(s).

Now if the opposition is verbally harassing you or otherwise violating ToS conditions then that needs to be handled by GMs. That crap isn't cool.

Pages