Teaming Together

44 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mind-Freeze
Mind-Freeze's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 2 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 04:28
Teaming Together

just a question on teaming up. say we were in a group and the leader started running missions from his contact and I level up a few times will I still be able to go back to my contact and solo my missions or will I out level them for the zone ? I remember in COH with sewer runs and the team leader missions it was always fun teaming up but when I didn't feel like teaming and wanted to solo my own it was lower level and I had to move on to another zone

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 6 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I think the mission should be

I think the mission should be able to scale you down on the fly, like Oroboros did, that way you never out level any mission from any contact, you can always go back and do all of them yourself later, which is just better.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

I think the mission should be able to scale you down on the fly, like Oroboros did, that way you never out level any mission from any contact, you can always go back and do all of them yourself later, which is just better.

I might be wrong but I thought the CoT Devs were already going to try to handle missions like that so that it would be hard (if not impossible) to outlevel anything like that anymore.

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

Cinnder
Cinnder's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 36 min ago
Gunterkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/26/2013 - 16:24
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

I think the mission should be able to scale you down on the fly, like Oroboros did, that way you never out level any mission from any contact, you can always go back and do all of them yourself later, which is just better.

As long as 'on the fly' means 'if the player so chooses' and not 'regardless of whether the player wishes.' I wouldn't want to take a step backwards from the old game by removing the option to take another shot at a particularly difficult mission after levelling up to make it a bit easier.

Spurn all ye kindle.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 6 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
To be clear, the old game did

To be clear, the old game did NOT originally allow you to go back and do content that you had out leveled, at all. If you missed the "Rescue the Fortune Teller" mission on your way up, you had to go back and team up with someone else to get that badge (Statesman's Pal, which was required for an accolade, and which some lowbies used to advertise to people for INF to get on the team. Ok I did that.). Then they rolled out the Ouroboros "time travel" thing which allowed you to go back and do missions you had missed, but it auto-exemped you to a level appropriate for that mission. CoX never, at any time that I can remember, let you go back, as a level 50, and do level 12 missions by yourself. You could, at best, keep a mission in your mission log, not complete it, and go do it multiple times long after you had out leveled it.

If you're asking for "I want to be able to do any mission at any level" I think that might be doable, technically, but I personally don't have a problem with the devs making some stuff level-gated if they prefer to do it that way. Whether that means "you must be at least level X to do this" or "you will be exemped to level X whenever you do this, like it or not" or both is fine with me.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
The most "user friendly" way

The most "user friendly" way this could be done is to allow a player to specifically pick the level they want to be whenever the game would otherwise auto-exemplar you down to some random level.

For example let's say you have a level 50 character and want to go back to a mission that was meant to be done by a character of level ranges 8-12. The game ought to let you specifically pick any level from 8 through 12 to do the mission at. That way you could choose to make the mission relatively difficult (by picking level 8) or relatively easy (by picking level 12) or anything in-between. Obviously if your character is already in the proper range for a mission the system should -not- allow you to pick a lower level (for example if your character is only level 10 that same mission will -not- let you go down to 9 or 8 just because you want to).

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

Beeker
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/06/2015 - 17:30
Loot might need to be

Loot might need to be restricted to the 8-12 level range for that example. Otherwise any potentially problematic instance/mission could be "farmed" at max level. If it's farmable but restricted in level that would make prioritizing a fix easier and allow devs more time for other important things. Minor detail, precautionary I suppose.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Beeker wrote:
Beeker wrote:

Loot might need to be restricted to the 8-12 level range for that example. Otherwise any potentially problematic instance/mission could be "farmed" at max level. If it's farmable but restricted in level that would make prioritizing a fix easier and allow devs more time for other important things. Minor detail, precautionary I suppose.

My almost obvious assumption with this was that you would be limited to getting loot that was "pegged" at whatever level you choose for yourself. Frankly the idea that any system like this would let you "farm" (for example) level 50 loot from a level 10 mission would basically be ludicrous. ;)

Bottomline while in such a mission you would be treated in all ways as if you were only the level you chose for yourself.

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

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 6 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Let's not forget, in some

Let's not forget, in some games, sometimes lower level loot is more valuable than level-cap loot. I stopped playing GW2 recently, but when I did play, I had a level 51 mule character whose main job was opening loot bags so that I would get level 51-ish stuff out of them. I did that because Iron was worth more on the market than Mithril.

There's also the idea that the loot might be non-level-dependant in the first place. In a world like that, I would make a mission drop zero loot if you're doing it with everything grey to you.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

Let's not forget, in some games, sometimes lower level loot is more valuable than level-cap loot. I stopped playing GW2 recently, but when I did play, I had a level 51 mule character whose main job was opening loot bags so that I would get level 51-ish stuff out of them. I did that because Iron was worth more on the market than Mithril.

Let's assume for a moment that my recent idea to be able select specific levels for exemplaring yourself down for out-leveled missions does NOT exist. If CoT ends up being a game where, let's say, level 16 loot is somehow the most rare/valuable in the game then people will -still- be able to farm it using characters that they keep level locked at level 16 to be able to get that valuable loot regardless.

Basically my idea to be able to select specific levels does not "enable" that kind of farming. In fact I would actually argue that my idea would eliminate the need to ever keep characters "level locked" in the first place so people might be less inclined to be hyper-focused on level-locked farming at all. Said another way: If I'm a farmer and I don't need to worry about keeping my farming characters level locked to any one specific level then I might be less inclined to always farm only at that one level to begin with.

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

Super M.
Super M.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 11/19/2017 - 08:16
Since I'm new to the party, I

Since I'm new to the party, I keep finding older topics that I didn't get a chance to take part of, so expect to see a few necromanced threads.

In a similar topic to above, I really do want to be able to do down to play wth lower level heroes and still earn "SOMETHING" for my current character.

Even if I'm lowered in power (let's say level set maximums for stats) I want to earn at least a visible percentage of what I could be making, so that i can have fun with friends without just spinning my wheels character wise.

I don't know enough of the numbers but let's say I could earn 200 xp for a 30 min mission at level 30 at MINIMUM. Dropped down to "grey" level to mission with a mate, I'd like to get 75 for a half hours worth of play. Super slow, but still something.

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Super M. wrote:
Super M. wrote:

Since I'm new to the party, I keep finding older topics that I didn't get a chance to take part of, so expect to see a few necromanced threads.
In a similar topic to above, I really do want to be able to do down to play wth lower level heroes and still earn "SOMETHING" for my current character.
Even if I'm lowered in power (let's say level set maximums for stats) I want to earn at least a visible percentage of what I could be making, so that i can have fun with friends without just spinning my wheels character wise.
I don't know enough of the numbers but let's say I could earn 200 xp for a 30 min mission at level 30 at MINIMUM. Dropped down to "grey" level to mission with a mate, I'd like to get 75 for a half hours worth of play. Super slow, but still something.

I'm going to assume that exemplaring down will still give you proper XP for your actual level so that you can still level at a decent rate.

Myri
Myri's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 12 hours ago
Joined: 04/10/2014 - 01:18
I had thought I read

I had thought I read somewhere they were leaning toward setting player level to the mission. I may not be remembering right though.

If small things were meant to live, they'd have bigger teeth or faster feet.

Protect the pack kid, no matter how much it hurts. If everyone else in the pack is safe, you can carry on or die knowing you've done your duty. - Fanfiction

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
There is a high chance that

There is a high chance that they go with an automatic sidekick/exemplar system similar to how it was later in CoH, that is towards the mission holder's level rather than the mission's level. Though wouldn't say no if we get the option to set according to mission.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 6 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
GW2 auto-scales your

GW2 auto-scales your character to the different parts of the outside world that you can access. To be clear, they don;t turn off different attacks, you get all of your powers, but they nerf you to the point where that level 5 Moa is still a minor threat. That's something CoX never did, as far as I know. Would we want that in CoT?

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 54 min 29 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

GW2 auto-scales your character to the different parts of the outside world that you can access. To be clear, they don;t turn off different attacks, you get all of your powers, but they nerf you to the point where that level 5 Moa is still a minor threat. That's something CoX never did, as far as I know. Would we want that in CoT?

We are not auto-scaling level to the zone. We plan on emulating the upgraded side-kick system to scale everyone to the team leader’s level.

We are considering several options for revisiting older content.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Hero_Zero
Hero_Zero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 42 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/20/2015 - 11:54
I hope you plan on not aging

I hope you plan on not aging it out like CoX did. It was a bit annoying to be half way through an arc and all of the sudden, "I have someone you need to meet". OK, how about we finish the last mission to save the whatever? "I have someone you need to meet".

" THE TITANS ARE COMING! THE TITANS ARE COMING!"

Cinnder
Cinnder's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 36 min ago
Gunterkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/26/2013 - 16:24
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

We are not auto-scaling level to the zone. We plan on emulating the upgraded side-kick system to scale everyone to the team leader’s level.
We are considering several options for revisiting older content.

I'm pleased to hear all this.

I wouldn't mind an option to scale to older content as long as it's not mandatory.

Spurn all ye kindle.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 38 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Radiac wrote:
GW2 auto-scales your character to the different parts of the outside world that you can access. To be clear, they don;t turn off different attacks, you get all of your powers, but they nerf you to the point where that level 5 Moa is still a minor threat. That's something CoX never did, as far as I know. Would we want that in CoT?
We are not auto-scaling level to the zone. We plan on emulating the upgraded side-kick system to scale everyone to the team leader’s level.
We are considering several options for revisiting older content.

I enjoyed Ouroborus as a function to re-visit older content. It also helped to set the stage for later content that involved time-travel, such as the Midnighters.

Super M.
Super M.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 11/19/2017 - 08:16
I just always out level

I just always out level various groups, and would love to be able to drop down and still level up with them, even if my rewards are smaller and slower.

To me, mmos will always be about community and anything that helps that is a bonus.

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Super M. wrote:
Super M. wrote:

I just always out level various groups, and would love to be able to drop down and still level up with them, even if my rewards are smaller and slower.
To me, mmos will always be about community and anything that helps that is a bonus.

As said above, auto-scaling (level-wise, both up and down) to team leader. Rewards will be adjusted so that, say, a level 48 helping a level 5 (5 being team lead) will still get a decent amount of XP IGC and other rewards.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 56 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
This is one of those things

This is one of those things where you need to decide what you're going to do about Wibbley Wobbly Timey Wimey ... Stuff ... that is computer gameplay.

There is a temptation to think that whatever "order" of progression a PLAYER experiences a game's content is the One True Path™ which that particular Player's character goes through the game. For "continuity" purposes, the Player Experience is the linear time of what the character is doing/has done.

But that (Player) subjective view of "which came first" isn't the only possible option. There's also the precedent of the "controlled rewind" option that was made available through the Flashback system in City of Heroes. What the Flashback system made possible was for characters to Quantum Leap into their own history/time stream so as to "replay" past content (including content they never got to play through in the first place). It was a way to Go Back, as opposed to being a way to Jump Forward ... but the key thing is that the Flashback system "broke" the strictly linear progression of time within the context of the game. While Players continued to experience the game in a linear fashion their characters were not necessarily also limited the same way since you could always "Flashback" to do something over/different/new from a previous "era" of gameplay.

Take that idea and apply it more broadly and you get the notion that whenever a character is within a particular zone/district of the game, that character's PRESENCE in that particular location corresponds to a specific "era" of that character's career. The basic expression of this mode of gameplay would be that your character gets Auto Exemplared to "match" the Level Limit for any zone that your character goes to in a way that involves a Max Level ceiling, but no Minimum Level floor. So if your character is Level 21+ but goes to a 15-20 zone, upon entering the area your character gets automatically Auto Exemplared to Level 20. That way, all of that zone's content is "live" as well as being relevant to your character ... forever ... rather than it being something you "outgrow" or otherwise have to jump through hoops (Flashback system) in order to go back to.

And I get that not everyone is going to want to play the game this way ... but if implemented right it could be an OPTION for how to play the game. Basically it would function as a sort of "challenge mode" for playing the game, in which the way you play the game involves NEVER outleveling any of the game's public zones. Functionally the way you would implement this would be kinda sort of the same way you'd want to set the Difficulty Level of the game. Go talk to (specific) NPC(s) who will tweak game paramters for how "hard" the game is supposed to be for your character to play. So not only would you have everyone's favorite +4x8 challenge settings, but also a checkbox for Always Exemplar To Zone option as well ... possibly even with an additional "difficulty" parameter that can assign ADDITIONAL Level reductions beyond the standard. So to take the above example of being Level 21+ going to a 15-20 zone, by default you'd be Auto Exemplared to Level 20 upon entering the zone, but would have the option to "move" that zone cap for Levels LOWER ... so as to Auto Exemplar down to Level 19 ... or 18 ... or 17 ... or 16 ... upon entering a max Level 20 zone. Basically it would be a +0/-1/-2/-3/-4 range option for automatically adjusting what Level you Auto Exemplar to when entering "earlier" zones of the game.

Set this all up to work as a Challenge Mode (with commensurate Risk vs Reward payoffs) that essentially involve needing to take a trip to City Hall in order to change your registration/reputation to adjust and you're most of the way there. That way, the whole thing is an Opt In rather than an Opt Out default which would allow Players to customize the game's difficulty to meet their personal preferences.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Ahh you used the magic word

Ahh you used the magic word here, option.

I have nothing directly against it and would most likely try it out.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

There is a temptation to think that whatever "order" of progression a PLAYER experiences a game's content is the One True Path™ which that particular Player's character goes through the game. For "continuity" purposes, the Player Experience is the linear time of what the character is doing/has done.

But that (Player) subjective view of "which came first" isn't the only possible option. There's also the precedent of the "controlled rewind" option that was made available through the Flashback system in City of Heroes. What the Flashback system made possible was for characters to Quantum Leap into their own history/time stream so as to "replay" past content (including content they never got to play through in the first place). It was a way to Go Back, as opposed to being a way to Jump Forward ... but the key thing is that the Flashback system "broke" the strictly linear progression of time within the context of the game. While Players continued to experience the game in a linear fashion their characters were not necessarily also limited the same way since you could always "Flashback" to do something over/different/new from a previous "era" of gameplay.

There's an interesting side-effect to the premise you've established here:

There used to be people back in CoH who would apply the notion of the One True Path™ as a reason for why people should/could not be a completionist as far as collecting as many badges as possible on a single character. According to them it should have been literally impossible for any one character to have all the badges due to the way the original game was designed such that it was very easy to miss and/or outlevel various opportunities to get them all.

Now while I never saw the inclusion of the Flashback system as providing overt "permission" to be a badge completionist (because I had the notion of being such a completionist long before Flashback ever existed) it is interesting that your theory here does provide an actual word-for-word rationale for why a badge completionist could in fact legitimately engage in that activity due to the "breaking of the strictly linear progression of time within the context of the game".

In effect (whether it was intended or not) Flashback justified/legitimized badge completionism in CoH.

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

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
We have heard that alting

We have heard that alting will be an option for endgame. I think there needs to be a significant amount of thought behind any decision for a character to re-play old content or even to go back and play content they have outlevelled. "Just because we can" is not always a good reason to do something.

Being able to accomplish all the content on any single character will significantly diminish the enjoyment gained from creating alts. Sure, I admit there might be some interest and curiosity to seeing what the same content would be like with a different archetype and specialization. But the key words there are "some" and "same". After three alts, that "some" interest becomes less and less and that "same" content becomes samer and samer. I think if MWM is going to want to encourage us to keep making alts, then I think it is in their best interests and ours to keep re-playing outlevelled content to a minimum.

I think a valid reason to be able to play outlevelled content would be to play with lower level friends. I also think that this reason trumps any reason not to play lower level content.

On the other hand, I have often played games where I said "let me switch over to my other character, he's about your level and we can run that together." In a game like CoT where alts are the rule rather than the exception, I think this is a perfectly viable alternative to enabling a character to replay outlevelled content. So this acts as a good counterargument.

I think the reason people want to be able to play outlevelled content is 99.9% because of achievements and rewards granted by the content we skipped while levelling.

Therefore, if no one is able to re-play outlevelled content the design of the achievements will have to be either:

  1. every character can get all the achievements without having to replay outlevelled content,
  2. achievements are account bound and are granted to all characters on the account, requireing alts to complete the achievements, or
  3. achievements will be dependent upon the path chosen and no single character will be able to get them all.

Even though I have just set forth some arguments against re-playing outlevelled content does not mean that I have made my mind up on the issue. I just want to make sure that these arguments enter the discussion.


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.
Super M.
Super M.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 11/19/2017 - 08:16
I cant disagree with you more

I cant disagree with you more Huck.

While I MAY choose to level up this direction or that direction, (Or just street sweep) it is not even remotely the content but the PLAYSTYLE of the new character inside said content, that would intrigue me.

Being able to go back, lower my level, and do out leveled content and different choices will absolutely not hamper by wanting or willingness to alt.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Being able to accomplish all the content on any single character will significantly diminish the enjoyment gained from creating alts. Sure, I admit there might be some interest and curiosity to seeing what the same content would be like with a different archetype and specialization. But the key words there are "some" and "same". After three alts, that "some" interest becomes less and less and that "same" content becomes samer and samer. I think if MWM is going to want to encourage us to keep making alts, then I think it is in their best interests and ours to keep re-playing outlevelled content to a minimum.

If I play the game for a 1,000 hours does it really matter to the Devs of this game (or anyone else for that matter) whether I played those 1,000 hours on one character or ten? The goal of the Devs of this game is to provide us reasons to want to play for those 1,000 hours. The ability to create alts is just ONE way to do that, not the ONLY way. If I'd prefer to waste my 1,000 hours collecting badges on just one character I'm still playing the game for a 1,000 hours. As far as the Devs ought to be concerned they would have accomplished their goal with that.

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

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

If I play the game for a 1,000 hours does it really matter to the Devs of this game (or anyone else for that matter) whether I played those 1,000 hours on one character or ten? The goal of the Devs of this game is to provide us reasons to want to play for those 1,000 hours. The ability to create alts is just ONE way to do that, not the ONLY way. If I'd prefer to waste my 1,000 hours collecting badges on just one character I'm still playing the game for a 1,000 hours. As far as the Devs ought to be concerned they would have accomplished their goal with that.

After you've played 1000 hours? No it doesn't matter at all to the producers of the game. But in order to get you to play 1000 hours is what we're discussing here. Yes, there may be other ways to consume 1000 hours of play time. No one is denying that.

But you can not deny that playing content you did not play before is more attractive than playing content you've played before several times already. Try to see the truth of this rather than digging into an argument that precludes you from seeing this truth.


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.
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Super M. wrote:
Super M. wrote:

I cant disagree with you more Huck.
While I MAY choose to level up this direction or that direction, (Or just street sweep) it is not even remotely the content but the PLAYSTYLE of the new character inside said content, that would intrigue me.
Being able to go back, lower my level, and do out leveled content and different choices will absolutely not hamper by wanting or willingness to alt.

You did read what I wrote, right? You realize I did acknowledge that different playstyles are an attraction.

Therefore, assuming you did read what I wrote, you are actually not disagreeing with me but you are instead establishing that the "same and some" curves on your personal graph don't actually exist. To which I say B.S. I don't care how many different playstyles you can try, the same content WILL start to get stale. Don't be in denial about it just to make a point. That isn't what this is about.

This is about acknowledging the truth and saying that you are either willing to live with it or do something about it. Neither is right and neither is wrong. It is just a judgment call on the part of the producers of an MMO. And I think we owe it to ourselves to discuss it openly.


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.
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Lothic wrote:
If I play the game for a 1,000 hours does it really matter to the Devs of this game (or anyone else for that matter) whether I played those 1,000 hours on one character or ten? The goal of the Devs of this game is to provide us reasons to want to play for those 1,000 hours. The ability to create alts is just ONE way to do that, not the ONLY way. If I'd prefer to waste my 1,000 hours collecting badges on just one character I'm still playing the game for a 1,000 hours. As far as the Devs ought to be concerned they would have accomplished their goal with that.
After you've played 1000 hours? No it doesn't matter at all to the producers of the game. But in order to get you to play 1000 hours is what we're discussing here. Yes, there may be other ways to consume 1000 hours of play time. No one is denying that.
But you can not deny that playing content you did not play before is more attractive than playing content you've played before several times already. Try to see the truth of this rather than digging into an argument that precludes you from seeing this truth.

No I meant exactly what I said... not what you "wanted" me to agree with. Perhaps in order to get me to play the first 1,000 hours the game needs to allow me to play as much as I want on a single character. Alts are AN answer for how do you get people to keep playing the game, not the ONLY answer.

Obviously this game is going to be "alt oriented" and I have no problem with that. That doesn't mean it needs to completely preclude the option for me to enjoy the game for thousands of hours on a single character. I had around 20 alts in CoH, many of them I spent hundreds of hours on. But I probably spent 10,000+ hours on my both of my original "main alts" REGARDLESS of the "content" because my primary drive was earning as many badges as possible on those mains.

If you give players multiple "goals" to accomplish (i.e. badge collecting) then you don't necessarily have to worry about how much content the game provides or whether a given player has repeated the content or not.

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

Super M.
Super M.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 11/19/2017 - 08:16
Im not trying to just make a

Im not trying to just make a point, I'm not in denial, and I still disagree with you. You have a different opinion than I do and while I don't think you're -wrong-, I think we differ in how we game.

If the game play is fun, then the content can be replayed. I played over 1k Hours on Dead by Daylight, League of Legends, Vermintide, and a few other games. I played over 22 heroes on Marvel Heroes to max - WHICH IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT REPETITIVE GAMEPLAY EEK GADS. While some of those games are different genres, the fact remains is the same gameplay over and over again, but the game play itself makes it fun. If the game play is fun, then content can be replayed.

Im arguing with your statement that:
"Being able to accomplish all the content on any single character will significantly diminish the enjoyment gained from creating alts."

1) Thats not all players. I respect thats how you feel, but thats not a universal statement.
2) Each player can make his own choice to play that content with your same toon. If you dont want to (and considering its older and probably not worth the reward, you wont need to) then dont and save that for your other toon.

I personally don't care which option they go with - Im going to find the area that I enjoy the most (always Boomtown street sweep...always) and play that, but YES, the choice in playstyle and the people im playing with will absolutely make the game just as interesting for me on the 20th character.

Again, Im not arguing with you just to be contrarian. We have different opinions.

EDIT: I think the developers need to make game choices with both of our playstyles in mind, however, as we're giving them this feedback lets please be respectful of each other.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Look guys, I don't disagree

Look guys, I don't disagree with you. And I never said what my playstyle is, Super M., so don't assume.

I also believe that if you make gameplay fun people will want to play it. I also had oodles of alts. But at least I'm not in denial that repeating content gets to be repetitive after a while, no matter how many playstyles I go at it with.

Super M., you recognize that and even said it yourself with the "EEK GADS" comment. I'm not denying that some people, no most people, actually establish goals for themselves and all but force themselves to accomplish these goals. You see it in power levellers, you see it in badge hunters, you see it in altoholics like us. The point being that these people oftentimes sacrifice fun in the name of accomplishing their goals. But they get their personal reward from the goals not the gameplay. I get that. How many times have I run seasonal content with my alts long after I wanted to? many, many times; to the point of becoming numb. But I do it anyway.

Another example: I'll never be a power leveler myself, because I just see no satisfaction from sacrificing fun just to level. In my mind, character levels are my reward for having fun playing the game.

But the most important point is a point you mentioned: there are all sorts of players.
Completionist players are one type. And if the producers make the game such that the only way to get all the achievements is to play several alts, then the completionists will play several alts. Lothic's argument is based upon the assumption that one player can get all the achievements. If that assumption is correct, then it's a valid argument. But I say if we change that assumption then we change the argument. And instead of there being a reason to grind on one character we grind on several. As far as the player is concerned, as long as all achievement hunters have exactly the same opportunities, then there should be nothing to complain about. But who wins? The game wins because players play longer because it takes longer with more characters and the players win because they WANT to play longer because the content changes up more regularly with different characters. Win for the game and win for the player; all by changing one simple assumption.

There is one counterargument neither of you mentioned for why characters should be able to replay outlevelled content: The mission architect and user-generated content(UGC).
I think that there will be some great UGC, and I'm sure some of it will span all the levels. I wouldn't even be surprised if some people make epic spanning tales across several different missions. I think it would be a shame if players were unable to take their favorite characters through some user-generated content just because they outlevel it.

So what is my opinion on all of this?

I think it depends on how our decisions and alignment affect us in game. If our decisions in a mission have ramifications on alignment and on subsequent missions, then I want those decisions to matter. That's what gets me invested in my character. So my opinion is that once we make a decision, we can re-run that mission until we get the results we want, but once we accept the results of the mission, the ability to re-run it should be eliminated and that decision sticks with our character forever. I don't know what the gameplay mechanic would be to accept a mission results, but it should be obvious to the player. (this is actually a concession. I really want decisions to stick no matter what, but I've seen enough instances where the authors are thinking one thing and the players are thinking something else and then get surprised at the end, not agreeing it should have gone that way; so giving players the opportunity to replay it until they get the results they want is kind of like reverting to a saved game and prevents rage)

I am also of the opinion that players should be able to play lower level content, but only by teaming with someone who is a lower level. I like that MWM has stated that players will get to be the same level as the teamleader, or words to that effect. That's a good way of doing it, I think.

Finally, I think that players should be able to play User Generated Content at the level the content was designed for, regardless of whether they are in a team or not.

There. Those are my opinions on this.


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.
Super M.
Super M.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 11/19/2017 - 08:16
If they do happen to give old

If they do happen to give old content via a "time travel" arc....people who -dont- want to do that because they want to level up differently then they can do so.
I still dont see any actual downside to giving it as an option, nor have any of your arguments actually made the -option- a bad idea.

Im not even one of the players that will benefit -- I wont be playing that older content, as theres no point to me. I might as -well- do it with another character, but I currently dont see a strong argument against it for those that want it.

I do agree that I want any of my alignment choices to remain unchanged. I liked your comment about wanting choices to matter.

Edit: If content (x) has 3 pathways, a player will still take the same amount of time if they play Xa + Xb + Xc on one toon or on 3 different toons. Letting the player decide when to play that content - giving them the OPTION isn't harming the game, as players that want to reroll to experience the new content will, and those that prefer to play it all on one will still play the same amount of time.

The option will not harm the players that want variety.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Super M. wrote:
Super M. wrote:

If content (x) has 3 pathways, a player will still take the same amount of time if they play Xa + Xb + Xc on one toon or on 3 different toons. Letting the player decide when to play that content - giving them the OPTION isn't harming the game, as players that want to reroll to experience the new content will, and those that prefer to play it all on one will still play the same amount of time.
The option will not harm the players that want variety.

I don't think anyone made a statement that the option would harm players, or even be detrimental to players in any way at all. However, what I DID say is that removing the option creates a need (in the way that of marketing and business development creates need) to run the content again with alternate characters. And THAT is the point I was emphasizing.

Because, to come full circle to the train of logic I was riding originally: Since creating alts is the primary vision of end-game content, anything the producers can do to encourage creating alts will keep people in the game longer, keep the community and the game more lively and generate more revenue.


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.
KnightMask
KnightMask's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 min 40 sec ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 22:38
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Because, to come full circle to the train of logic I was riding originally: Since creating alts is the primary vision of end-game content, anything the producers can do to encourage creating alts will keep people in the game longer, keep the community and the game more lively and generate more revenue.

Sometimes Huck I think you and others are "putting the cart before the horse" as it were. We ALL obviously want the game to prosper, make money and have longevity. And there are many ways to hopefully achieve that goal. The number one goal to make that happen IMO is to make a thoroughly fun, immersive and captivating game full of cool and cutting edge ideas and gameplay. If MWM can achieve this then all the other things we want WILL follow. So lets not think too much about the monetary aspects of the game and concentrate on what will make the game the MOST amazing game it can be and I gurantee we will find many things to discuss and debate on these forums for many many years to come!

Super M.
Super M.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 11/19/2017 - 08:16
KnightMask wrote:
KnightMask wrote:

Huckleberry wrote:
Because, to come full circle to the train of logic I was riding originally: Since creating alts is the primary vision of end-game content, anything the producers can do to encourage creating alts will keep people in the game longer, keep the community and the game more lively and generate more revenue.
Sometimes Huck I think you and others are "putting the cart before the horse" as it were. We ALL obviously want the game to prosper, make money and have longevity. And there are many ways to hopefully achieve that goal. The number one goal to make that happen IMO is to make a thoroughly fun, immersive and captivating game full of cool and cutting edge ideas and gameplay. If MWM can achieve this then all the other things we want WILL follow. So lets not think too much about the monetary aspects of the game and concentrate on what will make the game the MOST amazing game it can be and I gurantee we will find many things to discuss and debate on these forums for many many years to come!

While some forward planning is important, I totally agree with this statement.

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 33 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
KnightMask wrote:
KnightMask wrote:

Sometimes Huck I think you and others are "putting the cart before the horse" as it were. We ALL obviously want the game to prosper, make money and have longevity. And there are many ways to hopefully achieve that goal. The number one goal to make that happen IMO is to make a thoroughly fun, immersive and captivating game full of cool and cutting-edge ideas and gameplay. If MWM can achieve this then all the other things we want WILL follow. So let's not think too much about the monetary aspects of the game and concentrate on what will make the game the MOST amazing game it can be and I guarantee we will find many things to discuss and debate on these forums for many many years to come!

Agreed, monetization is irrelevant without a good game.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
KnightMask wrote:
KnightMask wrote:

The number one goal to make that happen IMO is to make a thoroughly fun, immersive and captivating game full of cool and cutting edge ideas and gameplay. If MWM can achieve this then all the other things we want WILL follow. So lets not think too much about the monetary aspects of the game and concentrate on what will make the game the MOST amazing game it can be and I gurantee we will find many things to discuss and debate on these forums for many many years to come!

Truer words were never spoken.


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.
blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Because, to come full circle to the train of logic I was riding originally: Since creating alts is the primary vision of end-game content, anything the producers can do to encourage creating alts will keep people in the game longer, keep the community and the game more lively and generate more revenue.

As long as they don't go overboard and start creating the feeling that You are forced to create alts to experience the whole game then we are good.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

As long as they don't go overboard and start creating the feeling that You are forced to create alts to experience the whole game then we are good.

hmmm....

I don't know how I feel about this statement. MWM can try to mold people's perception of things, but they really can't control it. To one person, it is an expansive world in which no single character can do everything. To another, its a mechanic to force players to create multiple characters. It's the same with one-time badges. To some people it is a reward for doing something unique, and to others it is gimmick meant to drive business from people with obsessive behavior disorders.

So, no matter the real purpose behind what the producers do, there will always be some portion of the player base who perceives it poorly.

But to your point, I think if MWM is true to their intentions and honest about their motives it will be okay. Like you said, going overboard is kind of saying the same thing about making their motives clearly one-way.


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.
Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 56 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
KnightMask wrote:
KnightMask wrote:

The number one goal to make that happen IMO is to make a thoroughly fun, immersive and captivating game full of cool and cutting edge ideas and gameplay.

I'm still of the opinion that a key element to this in a superheroic context is to make (or at least fool) the Player feel like their PC is the "underdog" in every fight, regardless of whether that is true or not (spoiler alert, most of the time it won't be). City of Heroes managed to stage this illusion reasonably well by keeping the PCs, in effect, permanently outnumbered by design via the "3 Minions equals 1 Hero" baseline assumption. This meant that the only times when you were fighting "even" battles was when your PC was outnumbered. It meant that in almost every 1v1 fight OF COURSE your PC was expected to prevail! So naturally you almost never got into 1v1 battles (and if you did, it was only so as to "play it safe"). The natural consequence of this design decision was that as your PC advanced in Levels the number of Foes that you could take on simultaneously expanded, until once we reached the endgame it was essentially par for the course to be outnumbered (often by 8:1 or better), which then produced the illusion that our PCs were the underdog in every single battle ... even when we weren't.

Basically ... this ...

Who is the underdog in that image?
Despite that ... who are you "rooting for" in that image?
Who are you expecting to WIN that battle?

Yes, it's the Conservation of Ninjitsu trope, but it exists for a REASON ... and since we want our PCs to the "one in white" fighting against the odds in order to have a sense of accomplishment when we win against the "hordes" of crunchies thrown at as (even if they weren't an actual threat to us), we can only get that sense of Scrapperlock by being the "underdog" fighting a desperate battle against incredible odds ...


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 38 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

KnightMask wrote:
The number one goal to make that happen IMO is to make a thoroughly fun, immersive and captivating game full of cool and cutting edge ideas and gameplay.
I'm still of the opinion that a key element to this in a superheroic context is to make (or at least fool) the Player feel like their PC is the "underdog" in every fight, regardless of whether that is true or not (spoiler alert, most of the time it won't be). City of Heroes managed to stage this illusion reasonably well by keeping the PCs, in effect, permanently outnumbered by design via the "3 Minions equals 1 Hero" baseline assumption. This meant that the only times when you were fighting "even" battles was when your PC was outnumbered. It meant that in almost every 1v1 fight OF COURSE your PC was expected to prevail! So naturally you almost never got into 1v1 battles (and if you did, it was only so as to "play it safe"). The natural consequence of this design decision was that as your PC advanced in Levels the number of Foes that you could take on simultaneously expanded, until once we reached the endgame it was essentially par for the course to be outnumbered (often by 8:1 or better), which then produced the illusion that our PCs were the underdog in every single battle ... even when we weren't.

I agree with this... mostly. Don't get me wrong, I love a good underdog fight, I truly do. I just don't love it all the time. As with anything that is repetitive, it gets old after a while. Sometimes I just want to crush the hordes en masse without fear of true defeat, like that Vincent Ross mission in CoV that you get empowered by the Blood Coral. Not only was that mission line chock full of lore and good story stuff but you also get to mow down an entire Legacy Chain army in the finale.
Basically ... this ...

Who is the underdog in that image?
Despite that ... who are you "rooting for" in that image?
Who are you expecting to WIN that battle?
Yes, it's the Conservation of Ninjitsu trope, but it exists for a REASON ... and since we want our PCs to the "one in white" fighting against the odds in order to have a sense of accomplishment when we win against the "hordes" of crunchies thrown at as (even if they weren't an actual threat to us), we can only get that sense of Scrapperlock by being the "underdog" fighting a desperate battle against incredible odds ...

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 38 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

KnightMask wrote:
The number one goal to make that happen IMO is to make a thoroughly fun, immersive and captivating game full of cool and cutting edge ideas and gameplay.
I'm still of the opinion that a key element to this in a superheroic context is to make (or at least fool) the Player feel like their PC is the "underdog" in every fight, regardless of whether that is true or not (spoiler alert, most of the time it won't be). City of Heroes managed to stage this illusion reasonably well by keeping the PCs, in effect, permanently outnumbered by design via the "3 Minions equals 1 Hero" baseline assumption. This meant that the only times when you were fighting "even" battles was when your PC was outnumbered. It meant that in almost every 1v1 fight OF COURSE your PC was expected to prevail! So naturally you almost never got into 1v1 battles (and if you did, it was only so as to "play it safe"). The natural consequence of this design decision was that as your PC advanced in Levels the number of Foes that you could take on simultaneously expanded, until once we reached the endgame it was essentially par for the course to be outnumbered (often by 8:1 or better), which then produced the illusion that our PCs were the underdog in every single battle ... even when we weren't.

I agree with this... mostly. Don't get me wrong, I love a good underdog fight, I truly do. I just don't love it all the time. As with anything that is repetitive, it gets old after a while. Sometimes I just want to crush the hordes en masse without fear of true defeat, like that Vincent Ross mission in CoV that you get empowered by the Blood Coral. Not only was that mission line chock full of lore and good story stuff but you also get to mow down an entire Legacy Chain army in the finale.
Basically ... this ...

Who is the underdog in that image?
Despite that ... who are you "rooting for" in that image?
Who are you expecting to WIN that battle?
Yes, it's the Conservation of Ninjitsu trope, but it exists for a REASON ... and since we want our PCs to the "one in white" fighting against the odds in order to have a sense of accomplishment when we win against the "hordes" of crunchies thrown at as (even if they weren't an actual threat to us), we can only get that sense of Scrapperlock by being the "underdog" fighting a desperate battle against incredible odds ...

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 38 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

KnightMask wrote:
The number one goal to make that happen IMO is to make a thoroughly fun, immersive and captivating game full of cool and cutting edge ideas and gameplay.
I'm still of the opinion that a key element to this in a superheroic context is to make (or at least fool) the Player feel like their PC is the "underdog" in every fight, regardless of whether that is true or not (spoiler alert, most of the time it won't be). City of Heroes managed to stage this illusion reasonably well by keeping the PCs, in effect, permanently outnumbered by design via the "3 Minions equals 1 Hero" baseline assumption. This meant that the only times when you were fighting "even" battles was when your PC was outnumbered. It meant that in almost every 1v1 fight OF COURSE your PC was expected to prevail! So naturally you almost never got into 1v1 battles (and if you did, it was only so as to "play it safe"). The natural consequence of this design decision was that as your PC advanced in Levels the number of Foes that you could take on simultaneously expanded, until once we reached the endgame it was essentially par for the course to be outnumbered (often by 8:1 or better), which then produced the illusion that our PCs were the underdog in every single battle ... even when we weren't.
Basically ... this ...

Who is the underdog in that image?
Despite that ... who are you "rooting for" in that image?
Who are you expecting to WIN that battle?
Yes, it's the Conservation of Ninjitsu trope, but it exists for a REASON ... and since we want our PCs to the "one in white" fighting against the odds in order to have a sense of accomplishment when we win against the "hordes" of crunchies thrown at as (even if they weren't an actual threat to us), we can only get that sense of Scrapperlock by being the "underdog" fighting a desperate battle against incredible odds ...

I agree with this... mostly. Don't get me wrong, I love a good underdog fight, I truly do. I just don't love it all the time. As with anything that is repetitive, it gets old after a while. Sometimes I just want to crush the hordes en masse without fear of true defeat, like that Vincent Ross mission in CoV where you get empowered by the Blood Coral. Not only was that mission line chock full of lore and good story stuff but you also get to mow down an entire Legacy Chain army in the finale.