Announcements

Please do not use Photobucket to host your images on this site. They will not appear for other users but instead will give an error image and a directive to go to:
http://photobucket.com/p500/
For these images to show up it would require us to pay a premium account fee of $399.00 USD/year or our users to set up paid accounts of $99/year for this service to view these images.
We will be removing all linked images to that site and we suggest you use https://imgur.com/ or other similar site instead.

Watch this space for important information on planned twitch streams, updates and more

As a former COH player, my big fear for a Mission Creator:

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 56 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

The thing with the "public transport" thing is that it is a "faster" method of travelling between area's than doing it yourself manually. Now in World of Warcraft, you had the griffon flight points, but you also had insta warps to certain points. Those cost money (although if there was only "one way" to get somewhere, that generally had a zero cost to it).

You're right that there's usually a free but "slow/manual" alternative to travel around a game like this. Regardless I still contend that imposing money sinks on fundamental things like travel is probably not the best idea all things considered.

The main goal of the kinds of money sinks we're talking about here is to remove excess money from the game that would only serve to encourage inflation in the markets. They should never get in the way or impede a player's basic ability to simply -play- the game the way they want to.

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

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
As far as currency sinks, I

As far as currency sinks, I am of the opinion that if it's a direct game progression element then it should not cost IGC. IMO the best way to employ sinks is to provide a free and paid option.

You can travel anywhere for free but the quick travel costs a bit. You can forego 'gear' but paid gear makes you better. You can have a free hovel but to make it a cool hideout you gotta pay.
The trick is to not make the free option seem like a punishment to players. We shouldn't have to spend 30 minutes traveling to a quest because of multiple load screens if we decide not to pay the $10 IGC to take a cab. I want to feel like I am in control of how I spend my IGC and not be constantly nickle and dimed for every little thing. That's how I always feel about things like 'gear maintenance', nickle and dimed.
Most IGC sinks should come from optional aspects of the game like Lothic says. Alternate costumes, base decorations, quick travel and so forth. Stuff I choose to spend my wealth on because I want to, not because I feel like I have to.

This may seem like it's in opposition of that opinion but for certain things I think a more intrusive IGC sink is required. Things like training, base rent and defeat penalties. For those I would use a percentage of the characters total IGC. I never understood why getting defeated in CoH meant you leaned slower (xp debt) unless it was supposed to be some short term brain damage thing. I also hated the idea that I lost access to my base if I spent too much cash on enhancements.
These two things would be avoided if the costs were a percentage of total IGC instead of set rates or xp debts. A character only levels up so many times so a cost per level isn't a huge problem and with it being a percentage of IGC you can never not have enough to afford it.

This percentage system is very easy to avoid but thats the beauty of it. Most ways to avoid it still act as sinks. If you buy 'gear' before leveling up you have still bought gear. If you decorate your base before paying rent you have still spent the currency. If you keep your IGC low in case of debt chances are you spent it elsewhere. It's a system that encourages spending over hoarding, will never lock the poor out and provides a much needed sink to characters who won't suffer from things like xp debt. It also has the added benefit of lending more weight to defeats and making the somewhat exploit behavior of willing defeat to use a Vengence like power less desirable.
The biggest problem with this is 'mule' characters, but that can be mitigated by 'transfer to self' fees.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 14 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

It also has the added benefit of lending more weight to defeats and making the somewhat exploit behavior of willing defeat to use a Vengence like power less desirable.

Unless rezz done through powers or reserves also cost money then it most likely won't have any noticeable effect on "vengeance fodder".

Cinnder
Cinnder's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 24 min ago
Gunterkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/26/2013 - 16:24
There's no consensus amongst

There's no consensus amongst even just the players on this forum that defeat is something to be penalised or avoided. In fact, MWM has pretty consistently leaned towards the no-penalty side of the spectrum on that debate.

Spurn all ye kindle.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 16 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Gangrel wrote:
The thing with the "public transport" thing is that it is a "faster" method of travelling between area's than doing it yourself manually. Now in World of Warcraft, you had the griffon flight points, but you also had insta warps to certain points. Those cost money (although if there was only "one way" to get somewhere, that generally had a zero cost to it).
You're right that there's usually a free but "slow/manual" alternative to travel around a game like this. Regardless I still contend that imposing money sinks on fundamental things like travel is probably not the best idea all things considered.
The main goal of the kinds of money sinks we're talking about here is to remove excess money from the game that would only serve to encourage inflation in the markets. They should never get in the way or impede a player's basic ability to simply -play- the game the way they want to.

I think if CoT has a public transit system as an IGC sink, it should work something like the Waypoint system in GW2. The IGC required to use the Waypoints in GW2 is so cheap as to be pretty much ignored by everyone. People have to pay like ~3silver, at most, to use a waypoint, and that's a cost that even the noobiest of noobs will have to spare, pretty much at all times, unless you foolishly choose to spend literally ALL of your cash on other stuff, and that's on the player to manage. Even if you DO waste all of your cash, you can still generate enough gold to use a waypoint by defeating like ONE monster, and those are everywhere. In that game, the availability of the rapid transit system is the issue, not the cost. Some waypoints can get so overrun by local monsters that they go from "free" to "contested" and then they can't be used until someone beats back the monsters and frees them up again, which is annoying.

If you want to drain IGC out of the economy in ways that feel fair and not overpriced, then you should charge a small fee to use a thing that people want to use repeatedly like all the time. You make some of the public convenience systems, like public rapid transit, the auction house, etc cost a small fee to use every time you use them, but you keep the costs per transaction fairly low. Then, people will pull the trigger on those transactions all the time without bothering to figure out the "sales tax", because it's always small compared to the money they have.

When costs go a lot higher and you have to save up to use the service in question, then you're limiting player options.

There's a difference between a small sales tax (the purpose of which is to make money for the government in a way that doesn't discourage the transaction being taxed) and a tariff (which is designed to tax people SO much for the transaction that they actively look for another option, which is the ultimate reason for the tariff, to prevent the transaction in as many cases as possible).

Now SOME people are basically penny-pinching cheapskates who view ANY type of taxation as a total mugging and will rage against all such taxes, regardless. There's no pleasing those people. Obviously, in a video game, there's no government to fund with these taxes, but the need is still there to keep inflation in check, so the fees still serve a purpose. The fact that the taxes don't actually pay for anything may seem like the tax is therefore not necessary, but you have to remember that this is happening in a world where the IGC being taxed is getting generated ex-nihilo by players defeating monsters in the first place, and there is thus no upper limit on anyone's earning potential either. Literally everyone has what amounts to a license to create IGC out of nothing at all. If you live in that world and it bothers you that some of that IGC (which you can regenerate whenever you want) is getting taxed here and there in order to keep the IGC itself from losing value over time, cry me a river, you big baby. It's only IGC, and we both know you didn't really "earn" it in the real-world sense anyway, so just grow up. On the other hand, there's also no stopping some people from doing the thing that the tariff is supposed to prevent (taxes on cigarettes, liquor, etc) either.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

Brainbot wrote:
It also has the added benefit of lending more weight to defeats and making the somewhat exploit behavior of willing defeat to use a Vengence like power less desirable.
Unless rezz done through powers or reserves also cost money then it most likely won't have any noticeable effect on "vengeance fodder".

You are missing something crucial, I said defeat penalty, not rez cost. How you rez shouldn't have a bearing on the defeat penalty.

Cinnder wrote:

There's no consensus amongst even just the players on this forum that defeat is something to be penalised or avoided. In fact, MWM has pretty consistently leaned towards the no-penalty side of the spectrum on that debate..

Without arguments to back up the opinions of others, my position remains the same regardless of consensus or not. I have not seen the devs lean towards a 'no-penalty defeat' policy. Maybe you could provide evidence?

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 8 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

blacke4dawn wrote:
Brainbot wrote:
It also has the added benefit of lending more weight to defeats and making the somewhat exploit behavior of willing defeat to use a Vengence like power less desirable.
Unless rezz done through powers or reserves also cost money then it most likely won't have any noticeable effect on "vengeance fodder".
You are missing something crucial, I said defeat penalty, not rez cost. How you rez shouldn't have a bearing on the defeat penalty.
Cinnder wrote:
There's no consensus amongst even just the players on this forum that defeat is something to be penalised or avoided. In fact, MWM has pretty consistently leaned towards the no-penalty side of the spectrum on that debate..
Without arguments to back up the opinions of others, my position remains the same regardless of consensus or not. I have not seen the devs lean towards a 'no-penalty defeat' policy. Maybe you could provide evidence?

Right now, we don't have a defeat penalty. Time lost from combat is viewed as the main form of a penalty. One of the considerations is resetting certain challenge ratings in our Achievements and Challenges system. Part of that is being defeated results in lost bonuses for completing content.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 56 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

Now SOME people are basically penny-pinching cheapskates who view ANY type of taxation as a total mugging and will rage against all such taxes, regardless. There's no pleasing those people. Obviously, in a video game, there's no government to fund with these taxes, but the need is still there to keep inflation in check, so the fees still serve a purpose. The fact that the taxes don't actually pay for anything may seem like the tax is therefore not necessary, but you have to remember that this is happening in a world where the IGC being taxed is getting generated ex-nihilo by players defeating monsters in the first place, and there is thus no upper limit on anyone's earning potential either. Literally everyone has what amounts to a license to create IGC out of nothing at all. If you live in that world and it bothers you that some of that IGC (which you can regenerate whenever you want) is getting taxed here and there in order to keep the IGC itself from losing value over time, cry me a river, you big baby. It's only IGC, and we both know you didn't really "earn" it in the real-world sense anyway, so just grow up. On the other hand, there's also no stopping some people from doing the thing that the tariff is supposed to prevent (taxes on cigarettes, liquor, etc) either.

As my posts here have implied I have nothing against money sinks that help reduce inflation in the markets. But "taxing" a new level one player a few INF to ride the train does not prevent top end players from charging billions of INF for purple enhancements. Money sinks should exist where they would do the most good - trivial fees on players to utilize the game's "infrastructure" is likely the least useful way to tackle the problem you're actually trying to solve with having sinks in the first place.

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

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Right now, we don't have a defeat penalty. Time lost from combat is viewed as the main form of a penalty. One of the considerations is resetting certain challenge ratings in our Achievements and Challenges system. Part of that is being defeated results in lost bonuses for completing content.

Thanks, I hadn't seen this type of statement from you guys before. Last I saw was that you were not going to include any kind of item destruction/repair as a result of defeats.

Without knowing more about the 'Achievements and Challenges system' (or the rewards system in general) it's impossible to know if that will be a 'good' IGC sink or not.
I still think that max level characters need a proportional sink on their income to effectively fight the inevitable inflation in the game. I am not sure that simply reseting achievements or challenges is going to be enough.
I suppose it's possible that these defeat 'penalties' are not intended to act as sinks but to me that would be a mistake. Max level characters basically have no significant drain on their wealth (AFAIK). Defeat, as long as it's a less common occurrence, shouldn't be considered an unfair penalty by the majority of players. Most games impose some form of defeat penalty and I can name a few that use a percentage of character's IGC as that penalty.

If you are worried about repeated defeats in short order resulting in a higher than acceptable penalty then have a lower penalty for subsequent defeats in a short period of time.

I know what it is like to deal with inflation from both sides. I have joined games with friends only to find everything is out of reach until I spend months catching up and inviting those friends only to see them upset they can't afford anything they want. It's no fun and it's pretty much a result of unchecked max level characters.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 8 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
I was simply clearing up the

I was simply clearing up the information regarding the penalty for defeat. As you said, being defeated shouldn't be common, our expectancy is that players will succeed more than suffer defeat (in pve). It is the wrong place to implement a currency sink. We have other mechanisms for that.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
MeSoSollyWan
MeSoSollyWan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 15 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/18/2014 - 00:54
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

I was simply clearing up the information regarding the penalty for defeat. As you said, being defeated shouldn't be common, our expectancy is that players will succeed more than suffer defeat (in pve). It is the wrong place to implement a currency sink. We have other mechanisms for that.

Travel Power tolls between zones X)

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 14 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
What do you all say about

What do you all say about this for a currency sink, instead of having gear degradation how about a system for being able to supercharge the enhancements? The supercharge would last a limited "time", I'd say a number of activation for direct usage type powers and in-combat time for indirect usage types (summons, toggles, passives). If the current max level-tier for gear would be epic then this system would bring them up on legendary or even higher level if they have several powerlevels. These would be costly, so much so that it would be impossible to run with them full-time.

The main advantage I see to this would be that no one is bereft of their normal enhancements, and thus don't need to "downgrade" to be able to make the payments or "loose" them because they didn't have enough IGC.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 16 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Radiac wrote:
Now SOME people are basically penny-pinching cheapskates who view ANY type of taxation as a total mugging and will rage against all such taxes, regardless. There's no pleasing those people. Obviously, in a video game, there's no government to fund with these taxes, but the need is still there to keep inflation in check, so the fees still serve a purpose. The fact that the taxes don't actually pay for anything may seem like the tax is therefore not necessary, but you have to remember that this is happening in a world where the IGC being taxed is getting generated ex-nihilo by players defeating monsters in the first place, and there is thus no upper limit on anyone's earning potential either. Literally everyone has what amounts to a license to create IGC out of nothing at all. If you live in that world and it bothers you that some of that IGC (which you can regenerate whenever you want) is getting taxed here and there in order to keep the IGC itself from losing value over time, cry me a river, you big baby. It's only IGC, and we both know you didn't really "earn" it in the real-world sense anyway, so just grow up. On the other hand, there's also no stopping some people from doing the thing that the tariff is supposed to prevent (taxes on cigarettes, liquor, etc) either.
As my posts here have implied I have nothing against money sinks that help reduce inflation in the markets. But "taxing" a new level one player a few INF to ride the train does not prevent top end players from charging billions of INF for purple enhancements. Money sinks should exist where they would do the most good - trivial fees on players to utilize the game's "infrastructure" is likely the least useful way to tackle the problem you're actually trying to solve with having sinks in the first place.

Oh sure, I agree that the level-capped "fat cats" are where the money is, and thus where the IGC sinks need to go. The Waypoint system in GW2 may not be sinking as much IGC as the Trading Post and the crafting do, those would be the main IGC sinks in that game which actually affect the "rich fat cats". Regardless, GW2 seems to think the Waypoint use fee is a good idea. They probably know the underlying numbers better than I do.

The thing about CoX was, when leveling up a toon, I used to just use (mostly) the cheapo single and double origin enhancers in my powers until I got to level 50, then I'd think about trying to get better stuff. I'd usually have a sugar daddy toon that could pay for the other toons (Mastermind for the win!). But I never bothered to really worry about IOs for toons until they had all of their powers in the final spec first. As such, the game could have dropped DOs and SOs on me like a pro athlete making it rain at a strip club and I would still have just sold all of it en masse and then bought what I needed as I hit a new level threshold and had to refresh slots. I guess what I'm saying is, if low level players are going to be relegated to using low level stuff in their powers, and that stuff is generally going to be really cheap and plentiful anyway, why not make the game drop so much of it that the player can just live off of found items until they hit the cap?

I think there ought to be a way to keep one's power slots filled with cheap Augments etc without having to go broke every three levels while leveling. If there were a type of loot items that could slot into powers which was basically free, drops a lot and can't really be converted to IGC, I think that would be what I would use while I was leveling up and still figuring out my build. That or just forget the random drops and let people buy the low end gear from vendors, but DO NOT have it drop such that you only ever sink IGC when buying the cheapo gear, but you never get any to sell and can't unslot it. Then you just drop IGC on player as they defeat mobs and they use that to buy cheap disposable Augments and Refinements with that as they go. As long as the player can run their toon in a way that still turns a profit in IGC while leveling, I think that would be fine. Obviously, you probably want to start using GOOD gear at some point, and that's where crafting and commerce come in.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 16 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Here's another idea: barter

Here's another idea: barter NPCs. You get a bunch of SO and DO type stuff (and by that I mean low level Augments and Refinements that are mostly valueless) and you can go to a vendor NPC and instead getting ex-nihilo IGC for the tradebait you have, they agree to give you one cheapo item that you want from their menu for any two (or three) that you give them which you've found. You could even make the trade rates change based on NPC attitude, e.g. the first time you meet the NPC they won't trade at all, then you do enough missions to unlock their trade function, so you can trade them 3 unwanted items for any 1 item they have. Then later on after doing their last mission or something they'll trade you the item you want for any two (same or different) items you for the rest of time, or maybe 1 for 1, whatever. And then at some point in there they'd be willing ot sell you junk for IGC if you want, because that sinks IGC anyway.

So instead of cashing in your tradebait junk for IGC, and thus flooding the game with more ex-nihilo IGC, you can only get different, equally valueless (meaning not exchangeable for IGC) junk with it.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 16 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

What do you all say about this for a currency sink, instead of having gear degradation how about a system for being able to supercharge the enhancements? The supercharge would last a limited "time", I'd say a number of activation for direct usage type powers and in-combat time for indirect usage types (summons, toggles, passives). If the current max level-tier for gear would be epic then this system would bring them up on legendary or even higher level if they have several powerlevels. These would be costly, so much so that it would be impossible to run with them full-time.
The main advantage I see to this would be that no one is bereft of their normal enhancements, and thus don't need to "downgrade" to be able to make the payments or "loose" them because they didn't have enough IGC.

I like the idea of giving players the ability to spend excess IGC like rich whales in a casino for a temporary thrill/buff, but I think the "temporary power-up" implementation tends to make the game feel like it's all about the power pills instead of being all about the character. I would prefer just having different levels of gear, some cheap and basically free to maintain, some mid-range with a small overhead cost, and some really good but expensive to maintain which would, if fully slotted up will make you the most effective that your toon will ever be able to get, but which will make you lose IGC over time while playing with it fully slotted. That way people could try to strike a "zero sum" balance on one toon, go for "full power, at all costs" on another, and maybe have one or two more that are "cash cows" that maximize IGC generation at the cost of powerfulness. You'd likely play the "uber" guy less frequently to save IGC and then play the others more often to generate IGC, I would assume.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 8 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

blacke4dawn wrote:
What do you all say about this for a currency sink, instead of having gear degradation how about a system for being able to supercharge the enhancements? The supercharge would last a limited "time", I'd say a number of activation for direct usage type powers and in-combat time for indirect usage types (summons, toggles, passives). If the current max level-tier for gear would be epic then this system would bring them up on legendary or even higher level if they have several powerlevels. These would be costly, so much so that it would be impossible to run with them full-time.
The main advantage I see to this would be that no one is bereft of their normal enhancements, and thus don't need to "downgrade" to be able to make the payments or "loose" them because they didn't have enough IGC.
I like the idea of giving players the ability to spend excess IGC like rich whales in a casino for a temporary thrill/buff, but I think the "temporary power-up" implementation tends to make the game feel like it's all about the power pills instead of being all about the character. I would prefer just having different levels of gear, some cheap and basically free to maintain, some mid-range with a small overhead cost, and some really good but expensive to maintain which would, if fully slotted up will make you the most effective that your toon will ever be able to get, but which will make you lose IGC over time while playing with it fully slotted. That way people could try to strike a "zero sum" balance on one toon, go for "full power, at all costs" on another, and maybe have one or two more that are "cash cows" that maximize IGC generation at the cost of powerfulness. You'd likely play the "uber" guy less frequently to save IGC and then play the others more often to generate IGC, I would assume.

This is what we have temp powers and special Reaerves for, buying and crafting to improve what your character is normally capable of. We are not going to make your main augments and refinements with maintence costs.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 hours 16 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
I am still of the opinion

I am still of the opinion that nearly all costume items should be available at character creation. But with the payment model in mind and with MWM already stating that a significant number of costumes will be behind pay barriers and achievement barriers, I would like the character creator to give a cost summary of the currently displayed costume. This way, I can create the character I want at the very beginning and make a conscious decision to either pay for it now or game for it later.

Doing so would also spur players' creative energies after seeing a costume item to build another character around that, and so on, and so on. And I think that could actually result in more income.


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.
Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 12 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Perhaps a toggle to exclude

Perhaps a toggle to exclude costume items the character doesn't have access to, so that once you've saved the version you want to work toward, you can make a version you can use immediately. Also, people can leave it off and not feel taunted all the time.

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!

Cinnder
Cinnder's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 24 min ago
Gunterkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/26/2013 - 16:24
+1 to both requests: cost

+1 to both requests: cost display and toggle between potential and current costume parts.

Spurn all ye kindle.

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 14 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Foradain wrote:
Foradain wrote:

Perhaps a toggle to exclude costume items the character doesn't have access to, so that once you've saved the version you want to work toward, you can make a version you can use immediately. Also, people can leave it off and not feel taunted all the time.

I saw this as given. By default I would set it so that it only shows the ones you have access to so that you'll have to explicitly choose to see other pieces, though I would keep the setting "account wide".

Huckleberry wrote:

I am still of the opinion that nearly all costume items should be available at character creation. But with the payment model in mind and with MWM already stating that a significant number of costumes will be behind pay barriers and achievement barriers, I would like the character creator to give a cost summary of the currently displayed costume. This way, I can create the character I want at the very beginning and make a conscious decision to either pay for it now or game for it later.
Doing so would also spur players' creative energies after seeing a costume item to build another character around that, and so on, and so on. And I think that could actually result in more income.

Sounds good. I would like to add one thing though and that would be an indicator if one or more pieces are part of a bundle and which one(s). I have a habit of going for bundles over single pieces since I see it as higher value even if I end up only ever using one single piece per bundle.

MeSoSollyWan
MeSoSollyWan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 15 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/18/2014 - 00:54
From the devs, posted in the

From the devs, posted in the compilation thread:

Respawning is expected to follow a model similar to City of Heroes, akin to resurrection inspirations and hosping. “Right now, we don’t have a defeat penalty. Time lost from combat is viewed as the main form of a penalty. One of the considerations is resetting certain challenge ratings in our Achievements and Challenges system. Part of that is being defeated results in lost bonuses for completing content.”

Anyone can do a very very slow resurrection.

Thread here:

https://cityoftitans.com/forum/compilation-information-city-titans

It's in the Combat and Other Gameplay Elements section.

Pages