So, while playing Destiny 2, the thought occurred to me.
On the "Director" screen they give you is basically a map of all the planets, then for each planet, you can look at the map of the planet by clicking on it. The game has these 3-player co-op missions called "Strikes" which are a lot like Trials from CoX. You spawn on an instance, run through it with the team, beat the end boss, get loot at the end.
From the Director screen, you can jump in a queue and get placed into the next Strike that's looking for one more. There are about a dozen different Strikes, and which one you get plopped into is basically either random, or not controlled by you in any case. I THINK they try to match you with others that are near your level, not sure about that. BUT, and this is the part I want to talk about (finally), you can also start any one SPECIFIC Strike if you want to do that particular one by going to the planet map in your Director screen and clicking on the button for that strike. Each strike is set on a map that is supposedly part of one of the planets in the game, so they have map markers noting their location on that planet. In some cases, they take place in parts of the planet that are otherwise inaccessible to the players. In other cases, the Strike runs you through public areas while you do your Strike. Anyway, each Strike has a map marker on a map and you can click on it's marker to start that particular strike, if you want to. If you do that, the game finds 2 more people (presumably from the queue) and once it finds them, you all start the Strike together.
I would like something like this in CoT. Give us some way to start each specific TF or whatever, maybe by having to go talk to an NPC in the outdoor maps, then also have a queue for people who just want to do a TF and don't care which one it is. This could be a thing that differentiates VIP subscribers from non-subbers. Like the sub get's you the ability to do the TF you want, set parameters, tell the NPC how many healers/tankers/blaster you want, while the non-sub can only get in the queue and get placed on a team from there, or can only start their own specific TF once a week, or something, etc.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Having played games that do it the Form Your Own Group and also the Let The Game Form The Group For You ways of kicking off content like that ... even though it's less "convenient" to not have a queue for stuff, it honestly makes the game more sociable in the long run. I've seen what happens to games where the "job" of assembling PuGs is pawned off onto the game itself, and the hit to socialization in the community is rarely worth the cost. In that respect, I've always preferred to use the Form Your Group THEN Kickoff method, where Players tend to gravitate towards the respective NPCs so as to hang out and socialize more. The alternative winds up being too much like AE ... where you can just queue up from the map and never have to go anywhere or do anything (else) to participate in the game. The "draw" for the activity stops being about forming a GROUP and more about simply farming the "rewards" of the content.
So for PvE content, I'm thinking that having Too Much Convenience™ winds up being detrimental to the overall health of the game.
Kind of like how being able to instantly teleport anywhere on the map can make what would otherwise be an expansive world ridiculously small. We you (can) skip over everything ... the WORLD doesn't matter anymore ... but when you have to GO places and TALK to people to get things done, it improves the overall health and longevity of the game world.
After all, if everyone is just standing around in AE because there's no NEED to go anywhere else in the game ... {insert profound realization here}
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Please no. If MWM implements auto-queues then I don't think this should be in, if you really "need" to be that picky then form it manually. Considering the variability between build in a single AT it would probably not give that good results, and given my experience in the beginning of CoH I fear that the mentality of "support == healer" might get too rooted considering that there will only be a single upfront "investment" for playing the game. Also, limiting the ability to only queue for a specific one to subbers will most likely become a major "segregation point".
I also have to echo Redlynne's experience that the more automation/convenience in this segment of a game reduces actual interaction between people in the game.
Agreed with Redlynne & blacke4dawn
"Just, well, update your kickstarter email addresses, okay? Make sure they're current?" - warcabbit
Well said.
I also would prefer to not have some form of trinity requirement baked into the game, even in a vague sense. SWL's dungeon queue system (it dumps the group into a [i]random[/i] dungeon, which I also disagree with. Let me pick the content I want to play through.) has role selection in the queue window. It literally can NOT start the dungeon unless three DPS, one healer, and one tank pick the requisite roles, and I use those terms loosely. I say that because tanks in the game have developed to where they don't even need healers anymore, so a fourth DPS just picks the healer role and it queues anyways. It's not even a smart queue system that checks your heal or defense rating for those particular roles, which makes it especially useless except in reinforcing the concept that a team needs three DPS, a healer, and a tank. I get that TSW, and subsequently SWL, was designed around the trinity concept for roles, but again I would prefer to leave it up to the players to decide how they want to succeed through content. Or fail for that matter.
As an aside, I'm not suggesting the content itself should be laughably easy to where five DPS (or whatever the max team size will be) can burn through it all either. If CoT implements anything like CoH/V had where you can change your difficulty settings, then that could and should help the players decide their comfort zone.
Edit: I would also like to know if there are any sub versus non-sub limitations on content (or content selection). I think their business model has come up before, but I wouldn't mind a refresher from a dev.
I do agree that socialization always suffers when the game forms groups for us.
That said, I like the idea of having an easy way to get everyone to the required location after the group is formed or while the group is forming.
[color=red]PR Team, Forum Moderator, Live Response Team[/color]
I get that having a "queue to join the next available Strike team" might be a worthwhile feature for some games, especially if the "Strikes" in question are so extremely generic that it truly doesn't matter which one you do at any given time.
But frankly I can say without a doubt that I'd NEVER use such a feature in a game like CoT. I believe/hope that CoT's TFs will be very unique in the challenges they offer and their potential rewards. I simply cannot ever foresee a time when I'd just want to "randomly" do any of them.
Bottomline I think the underlying premise that CoT's TFs are going to be anything like Destiny 2 Strikes is likely a flawed one. Strikes sound like they're completely plug-n-play interchangeable - I highly doubt CoT's TFs will be the same.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
So having queues for PvE content is "bad" ... but if there's going to be a PvP arena-type or even battleground-type content in place, it makes sense (sometimes) to have queues for that. The reason for "needing" to use queues for PvP content is relatively simple/obvious ... in most games you're Not Allowed to communicate with the opposing faction(s) for {insert excuses here}. Often times, especially in fantasy settings, the reason is because the opposing factions speak different languages, and this can even be enforced by the game engine. World of Warcraft is a prime example of this, where the "languages" of the different factions are mutually unintelligible in local chat (or zone wide yelling).
But if everyone in every faction can communicate with each other (intelligibly) then the "need" for a PvP queue system drops. That's because you can simply have a Neutral Ground location where members of opposing factions can (safely) go to sign up for matches, and they can discuss their "pre-made" PvP groupings before entering the arena/battleground. With larger battleground numbers in play, it makes sense to use a queue system (which would automatically drop you from the PvP queue if you join a Task Force or Strike Force or other "chained" PvE content) that allows continued PvE play while awaiting a critical mass of PvP players to sign up for a battleground event. But that's really about as far as I would want to go with importing such a system into City of Titans.
For PvE, I am totally in favor of making/forcing Players to TALK TO EACH OTHER in order to form groups for multi-player content, and have the "entrance" (or starting point) to that multi-player content be location specific (the NPC) much like with what we saw in Paragon City and the Rogue Isles. Among other things, it gives players a reason/rationale/purpose to "circulate" around the game world, rather than staying parked in one place forever, in addition to promoting social activities, such as actually talking to other players (from time to time).
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
To be clear I'm not saying all queues in games are automatically bad. The idea for queues for PvP/Arena content would likely make sense in many games. I'm just saying that having "random queues" to wait for "any TF/Trial" is not likely going to be something that would be specifically useful in CoT. I don't recall anyone back in CoH suggesting that as a feature for that game.
Again that kind of feature might be perfectly fine for -some- games in -some- situations. I just don't think that's the right solution for ALL situations.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Removing a common feature to actively make life more difficult for players (and this is exactly how it will be perceived by most players) is not going to win a lot of popularity. If socialization suffers when you give people an easier way to do something, that means most people were always focused on the end goal, not the method of getting there. In this case that means being less interested in socializing to begin with compared to playing the game itself.
A tool that lets people form groups easier does not forbid people from forming groups themselves, or being social.
The reason nearly all games have some kind of matchmaking or queue built into the game these days is because they want players to enjoy the game itself. Players got the game to play it.
Also, let's face it, roleplayers and in general people seeking social connections in online games are a tiny, tiny, tiny minority. To be fair, people capable of coherent and interesting communication at all are a tiny minority online.
As long as there are ways for the more chatty and friendly crowd to find each other as well, adding matchmaking assistance only improves everyone's experience by removing the exciting gameplay of "spam broadcast channels to try to attract group members". Streamlined solutions also doesn't stop people that use matchmaking from BEING chatty and friendly, having all the supposed advantages that would come from sitting around doing nothing and screaming into the aether for hours instead of playing the game.
The issues that seem to be getting scapegoated onto matchmaking systems are not the fault of matchmakers at all. They are facets of common human behavior.
I played everquest for years back in the day. I can say without a doubt in my mind that any game launching in this age that forces players to sit on their thumbs and spam chat instead of playing the game is going to have people leaving the game when they hit that wall. They simply don't have to put up with that. Other games have moved on from that for good reason. Even people that don't have jobs and kids and other demands on their time value their gaming time enough to simply play another game.
Think of it another way: do you really want to look for groups manually among a sea of illiterate people named after sex acts and racial slurs?
I know there are a lot of memories held dear of friends and good experiences of the past but I feel it necessary to point out that those experiences stood out precisely because they were not the norm. Plenty of people talk about how great the CoH community was, but find it easy to forget that wasn't 100% of the players. While the game did encourage better behavior it also stood out compared to communities of other games. Human beings are not naturally very nice.
Also, if a game wants to make money, they can't limit their playerbase to saints only. Assholes and morons have money too.
TLDR; Matchmaking tools make the game better for everyone and have no real negative impact.
Again I think as with everything you have to consider the context. No game feature like this works perfectly in all scenarios.
I am not "anti-matchmaking tools" here. I just know there are some games and some scenarios in those games where certain kinds of "matchmaking tools" would be practically pointless even in 2019.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
/facepalm
You're really determined to minimize and discount ALL of the evidence to the contrary aren't you?
Yes ... they are.
Path Of Least Resistance ... ever heard of it?
So ... you're an "expert" then?
[img]https://media.tenor.com/images/b646131406ad2fdbae75e07d81368032/tenor.gif[/img]
[img]http://littlefun.org/uploads/52334047e691b24acb7d6b79_736.jpg[/img]
[img]https://anotherschwab.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/miss-the-point.png[/img]
[img]https://media.giphy.com/media/l2YWoFU3Bmum4yyLC/giphy.gif[/img]
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
On a somewhat related note that seems to be more in line with what people posting in this thread are actually concerned about (encouraging good behavior and social connections) having features built into the game to make that easier would be great as well.
There are plenty of games that have addressed this in a variety of ways.
Easy to use emotes and callouts that facilitate teamwork and allow for easy complimenting of others. Even the most toxic of communities (such as moba games) can be made more palatable this way (SMITE does this well).
In game rewards and achievements for costume contests and and bio writing contests would give a real incentive to players that might never have otherwise considered putting effort into that aspect of play.
A built in opportunity to thank players you played with recently at no cost to the player with no option for negative feedback other than declining to leave a compliment. (SMITE also does this)
Rewards and achievements for good behavior related to the above.
Rewards and achievements for mentoring lower level players or those doing a particular mission/dungeon for the first time.
A section in the friends list for people you recently played with so they can be easily added, and the ability to add anyone that you give a compliment to after grouping.
The main idea behind all these is generally to foster a friendly atmosphere and encourage players to befriend and keep in touch with those that helped make their experience more enjoyable.
The real trick comes in encouraging vs limiting players from being able to freely communicate. In general, given an MMO style setting, you want to encourage players speaking for themselves. Giving them a thumbs up button doesn't prevent this, so that is fine. Many games that use systems like the ones mentioned above do limit player freedom in communication specifically because, given the chance, they would use a congratulate feature to spew hate. This should be much less of a problem in a cooperative focused game but there are always those looking to cause chaos.
One of the major crazy things to happen in MMO history came from griefers exploiting a tipping system in star wars galaxy to cause the draconian gaze of sony online to bring ruin to their playerbase. A feature meant to be 100% friendly had no security or limitations built into it. Who doesn't want a congratulation and free money right?
[img]https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3038/2711806220_1cc3883c01_z.jpg?zz=1[/img]
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
Hey!!?!?! I thought I was the only one special enough to get the WHARRGARBL! Don't make me get jealous... ;)
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
What no. I never target that at anyone, it's just a 2 cents to add, totally neutral :p
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
Rigggghhttttttt. At least I'm the founding member of the club, not just the -only- member... ;)
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Queues, yes. Member requirements, NO
CoX was never a Holy Trinity type game and so far neither is CoT (from all that I've read).
The only thing I would like to see in the queue system is where the player can choose what TYPE of TF/Raid/etc. that heshe wants.
Queues, yes. Member requirements, NO
CoX was never a Holy Trinity type game and so far neither is CoT (from all that I've read).
The only thing I would like to see in the queue system is where the player can choose what TYPE of TF/Raid/etc. that heshe wants.
I'm in the camp of assisted party finder yes, automatic matchmaker no.
A party finder is great, where you don't need to check chat in 1 zone but can see what everyone wants members for. If someone wants to powerlevel rofflestomp, they can, if someone wants to do an all Tanker Tuesday run, they can.
If I remember right, the devs are looking at similar difficulty options to CoH. In CoH there were 192 (-1 to +4 level, x 1 to 8 mob spawn, bosses solo or no, AV or no) total different difficulty options. Ignoring the solo boss option, that's 96 group difficulty options and not all archetypes handled all equally or the same. Some could handle less enemies that were stronger, some could handle huge armies of weaker ones. Not every group comp could handle +4/x8, even though some archetypes could SOLO it! *cough WARSHADES cough*
To lock any to a 'standard' means not even all archetypes, but all primary/secondary combinations in the game must be able to reasonably beat it.
People don't sign up to an auto matchmaker to wipe a few times, they sign up for rewards, whether it's from the boss or some sort of 'daily bonus'. Auto match making also drives some players away from PVE, such as myself when WoW added theirs because every group became a non-social speed run to grind currency. In WoW today, people get mad as you as a tank if you don't know which trash packs you can skip, because it's all about efficiency. New players who want to read the story or talk to NPCs are left behind by those speedrunning, as happened in Swtor.
If the default match making difficulty is set to high for 'any' group to beat, then the following two things happen. 1) The match maker needs to start adjusting powers or archetypes which is against the spirit of the game. 2)There's an official game mechanic saying some comps are not vaild, which is against the spirit of the game.
You can't have the motto of the game being 'Make anyone' for the match maker to go 'but not really'.
Party Finders on the other hand, allow you say outright 'Doing the Nessie's Revenge Taskforce, Speedclear'. You know outright no one is going to wait in story. 'Doing Revenge of the Revenger, first time!' You know the guy wants to get the story and may even need boss tips. 'Doing Lost Dog in the Park (+5/+8, Prepare to die!)' you know the guy is looking to beat the hardest settings.
It's also important to remember that CoT, like CoH, is not a loot based game. People aren't going to farm 'Dungeon of the Temple of Endless Dusk (Hard Mode)' because it drops the best in slot healer kneepads. I didn't do the Imperious Task Force because it dropped the same enhancements as all the other content, I ran it because it was really fun to go back to Roman times to punch Nazis, Energy Aliens and Robots.
Even Janitor admitted a lot of the negative behavior is not due to matchmaking, but due to general human nature. I think that's another point AGAINST matchmaking, there are many systems in games meant to curb negative human behavior. It's not the fault of the chat and whisper system that people swear and insult others, but we still put in profanity filters. We still limit trial accounts from whispering to cut back on gold buying spam.
In terms of 'finding enough people for the content', the game isn't dividing the player base into servers, there will be the full online population able to see what content you want to do.
My final point, accountability. Auto Matching runs the risk of the guy who's just there to grief and waste your time. Party Finder runs that risk too.... the first time. With Party Finder you can remember and choose not to group with the jerks, while matchmaking provides no such protection, you can run into that player again the very next time. With systems that prevent you from leaving or kicking immediately, you're just stuck with him, again, and he knows it.
I think Party Finder serves well enough for what people need, while match making brings with it too many negatives.
I played city of heroes, eq2, wow swtor....matchmaking is not a necessity. Bigger questions would be the ability to replace players that have to leave, things like that.
Guild Wars 2 has a menu option that allows you to look at all of the current teams forming (usually to do outdoor events) in the zone you're in (across all active copies of that zone, not just the one you're actually in) and jump into the team if you want to. There's no set start or end to the content itself, as it is outdoor event based, not instanced, so you can come and go as you please. I like the idea of being able to look at teams that are currently forming and trying to join one that looks like fun. I dislike the idea of having to stand around in what will be one out of the 10 currently running copies of Indy Port spamming "Looking for Statesman TF" on broadcast or LFTF chat channels for 15 minutes before getting any takers. I also dislike having to separately send and receive private texts to the people who do respond one by one. That was a pain in the ax.
Obviously, I think we should be able to form teams by joining up with people we know or who are standing right near us in game. That's always "better" when it's possible. But when I'm logged on, nobody I know is on, and I want to do some TF or Trial for some reason (e.g. I want to respec my guy, or there's a weekly strike target reward, etc) then I like the ability to jump in a queue. Such queues, if completely unfiltered and run first come first served, end up getting you a team of 4 blasters and 4 scrappers more often that I'd like. So then we have to somehow deal with that. I think it would be better if the person starting the TF group had the ability to reserve available slots to different ATs or classes or whatever they, the leader of the TF, are personally looking for, so that the matchmaking queue algorithm can do the work of weeding out the extra blasters before they even get invited, not making me, the leader, have to choose which one to keep and which to arbitrarily kick off the team. Making me have to do that is rude and causes me to make perfectly nice people sad or mad at me for doing that to them.
I like being ale to advertize to prospective teammates what the purpose of the TF run is. Speed vs master badge vs first time, etc.
Destiny 2 has a different type of TF type deal called "Nightfall Raids" which DO NOT have a queue system to join, you MUST form your own fireteam outside of that in order to start one, as far as I know. People I know who have played both D2 and Overwatch have told me in Overwatch voice chat "You do NOT want to do a Nightfall raid with a PUG, you'll get destroyed, they take a lot more teamwork and organization to do successfully than raids." I'd look up the YouTube vids and study the Nightfall raids I want to do if I felt like I could actually form or get on a team, but I don't want to have to go through some 3rd party app to social media myself onto a team. As such, I have not done a single Nightfall raid in the whole time I've been playing D2, which is like 6 months now, and I was a hardcore TFer on CoH in my day.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Auto-queues are not a recipe for guaranteeing success.
Any content which requires coordination and communication between players cannot be resolved by the game developers outside of dumbing down the content.
There is no way to ensure or enforce that people know what they are doing behind the keyboard and will work reformer as a cohesive unit.
That is what forming on-line relationships is all about.
As you make friends and play with people regularly, you form your own social group which allows you to learn about each other as players, how to communicate with each other, and generally lends itself to higher success rates.
Match-making systems do not work well in an MMO environment. They were primarily meant for games which account for some form of skill ranking system - which helps inform the elo system. One which is highly flawed.
I believe a robust group finder system is the best way to go for people looking to form or join content. Along with options such as auto-join, and auto-accept toggles assists players into how they wish to be informed or not about being brought into a forming group.
The same group finder can be automated as a toggle for players looking to join content. Selecting types of content under a “looking for” option with auto-join toggled on can assist with getting placed with a groupnfor the content you are looking for.
I’m not ok with any system which automatically teleports people to locations for the content they are joining. Nor am I ok with a group finder that automates people being pulled out of an existing group of a player went into a group finder and then joined another group to be pulled out of it by the group finder.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
Let's keep it real for a minute. Whatever you did when you played CoX, you had your own reasons for doing it, but don't act like everyone that did multiple run throughs of the Katie Hannon TF did them just because they liked the story. I personally frowned on the "Quickie KaAtie" TF runs at that time, but I wasn't in the majority, as far as I know, and I still DID that TF a few times anyway. I also did many STF runs motivated by the desire to try to get Synthetic HamiOs. I liked playing the game in and of itself and liked having a team (Radiation Defender) to play with, but I also liked getting the rewards that content promised at the end of a successful run. For like a year, I used to log in to solo tip missions by day (summer off, teacher) and then log back in after dinner to do Incarnate Trials by night. If the Hero Merits weren't a thing, I would have done something else, or not logged in by day at all. If the Incarnate System weren't driven by random rewards and popular with other people, I would have done something else or not logged in at all at night. I don't think I'm all that unique in this.
I'm not trying to call for a return to the heyday of the 12-hour long, SO at the end Dr. Quartermain TF, but where there's content to do, I will be motivated to do that content, at least partially, by the loot it promises. I WANT to do Nightfall raids in D2. Their team-building system is a roadblock in that process, not a help. You have to log into Bungie.net (which is not and in-game app) or the cell phone app, or go on a 3rd party website, or join/form a clan to do this.
I think my ideal thing for CoT would be to have a small waiting room/group forming area for each TF or whatever, where you go if you want to start a group for that TF, probably near the NPC that gives out the TF. Then also have a way for people who are looking to do something but aren't necessarily locked into any one thing, or might be interested in more than one thing, to go to find something that suits them at the moment. Some visual way to see what all is currently forming and what their parameters are. Maybe a console in your personal lair or SG base could do this. You'd get to see a big list of all the TF groups forming, how ful they are, whether or not the leader has any message for the people looking, etc. You could know what language they speak, if that's a thing, whether or not they're using Discord, when they want to start, what their goals are, what type of toon they're looking for, etc. Then you could press a button to join, or if the leader set it up as such, you could press a button to send them a join request, that the leader would then have to vet. The join request itself could tell the TF leader, without anyone having to type it out, what your class, powersets, etc are.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
So, this thread reminds me of a relevant point: do we have any idea how large the maximum team size is likely to be? My SG was a fan of CoH's 8-man teams, and periodically wished for a 10-man limit. A lot of games cap team size at six these days, sometimes five or four (bleah), which is a royal pain. What's the point of getting a group together to play a game if they have to break up into multiple unrelated sessions?
Native of Triumph - Victory - Protector - Gladden - Dwarrowdelf - Tribble
Broad spectrum geek and Shadowy Advisor
Yes, my [u][url=https://www.deviantart.com/revanantmorituri]art gallery[/url][/u] is almost entirely screen captures. Tough.
Group size is 8 characters.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
"Group size" is 10 characters :P
"Just, well, update your kickstarter email addresses, okay? Make sure they're current?" - warcabbit
Thanks, Tannim.
Just an anecdote related to the topic of dungeon matchmaking and socialization...
I've been playing WoW again recently, and I'm basically always queued for a random while I run quests Solo. I make it a point to say hello to every group I get placed in, because I find that if I don't then we generally go the entire dungeon with absolutely no one saying anything. Yesterday my queue popped, loaded into dungeon, said "Allo" and everyone else said hello as well.
"And that's already more talking than happened in my entire last group."
I will actually grant you that,I let my bias out on that point.
WoW is a great "study" of a queue system being so effective and so terrible at the same time. There can be no doubt that getting dungeons and raids completed became much easier with the queue system, especially cross server. When so much of the game is hinged on raids, that's very important.
But player behavior became absolutely terrible, and all sense of community was lost. There's a reason the Classic game gets so much hype.
[color=red]PR Team, Forum Moderator, Live Response Team[/color]
swtor has a raid queing system. That no one uses as such. People form teams using chat, then que fully formed teams to get the queing bonus. The only thing it does is give additional rewards and auto transport people to the raid so they have no idea where the raid door is. Not exactly a necessary function for a game.
I think creating queues for content is a necessary evil. I agree with others that queuing up for an instance, running it and then leaving when it is done without ever needing to communicate with your teammates is a severe handicap to creating an active social game environment.
But doing away with queues is not the solution to that, for a couple of reasons. First, having to sit idly by an NPC is a deterrent for a lot of people, especially in games where there is a lot to do and especially for people who only have a couple of hours to play at a time. Second, spamming chat for party members is no guarantee that the party members you get are any more talented or any more social than the party members you would get with a queue system. The only difference is how much effort it takes to make it happen.
So, as Tannim222 mentioned, what we ACTUALLY need is a way to provide the convenience of a team matching service with some sort of social booster. I can think of several ways to do this. One way is for the game to keep track of how many times your characters have teamed with each other together. Also allow a player the ability to jot down notes about other players in their contacts list and you start to foster better communities where players will be able to recognize each other better and find each other, even if they are on different characters. (the ability to play incognito and even to block other players should be available to counter stalkers as well, of course). A mere friends list like other games have is not good enough. A third way is to set up a lobby for each instance the way Blade & Soul does it. We discussed that feature a couple years ago here: https://cityoftitans.com/forum/group-finding-suggestions
[hr]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.
I know I've mentioned this before, but as a moderator on a very active channel on Champion, global notes were invaluable and I wish to see it replicated exactly in CoT if possible.
Counter-proposal.
In City of Heroes, it was possible to change your status while online, such that you could specify if you were in Do Not Disturb (DND) mode or if you were available for Missions, Task Forces, Trials, Events and so on. After that, it was substantially a matter of waiting for an invite to a PuG for group content.
So let's turn this upside down and inside out.
Rather than going to a menu and selecting an option from a pulldown on your personal UI ... instead, each Contact keeps a list of PCs that have "hit up" that Content and [i]signed up with that Contact[/i] as being willing to join a group to do that Contact's content with a PuG. This then introduces a SELF-SELECTION factor while at the same time encouraging CIRCULATION throughout the game, because you can only "sign up" with each Contact by GOING TO THEM rather than just parking in a corner and playing with menus.
Want to run an Lady Grey Task Force? Go talk to Lady Grey.
Want to run a Dr. Q Task Force? Go talk to Dr. Q.
Need to find the Wheel of Destruction that Azuria lost (again!)? Go [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWCq9KiY9Yo]beat on Azuria[/url] until she hands it over (again!).
The point here is to create a re-usable piece of coding in which it is possible to "sign up for group content" with each Contact who offers non-solo mission content ... whether it be a Task Force or a Newspaper. What this then does is create a "listing" of PCs who have indicated their willingness to join PuGs for that specific piece of PvE content.
Now the key here is that your listing for content like this would only last until you entered a Mission Instance with a group. By entering a Mission Instance with a group, that is "you telling the game" that you are no longer available for PuG invites from other Contacts.
Alternatively, you could set up the rule about this such that rather than "dropping" your PC from the Contact's list (so you have to re-add to get back on it), instead you'd still be listed on the readout for that Contact's list, but would be shown as "Unavailable" due to being otherwise engaged (because you're inside a Mission Instance). Again, the point here is a matter of Self-Selection.
The purpose of creating this roster of PCs signed up for SPECIFIC content with Contacts is to create a roster of Who Wants To Play This Now™ such that any Player who wants to run that contact has a listing of PCs who would (presumably) be open to receiving invites to do that group content. It isn't a "matching system" per se, so much as a rolling advertising update of availability for that content without needing to resort to spamming channels. It's a way to list Who Is Interested™ so as to make tells for invites easier. Add right click to /tell and /invite from the listing, so as to satisfy the "social" side of PuG assembly for content, while leaving it up to the Players to build their own PuGs (some assembly required...) and you'll have an AID that isn't a CRUTCH (or worse, one that does the job for you!). The basic idea here is to give Players a quick rundown of how many people online are willing/eager to play a specific piece of PvE content, and whether they're "available" (or "up for") that piece of content right that instant, along with an easy way to negotiate the team up.
And all you have to do is GO to the Contact and "sign up" for the bits of group content you want to do, and then wait for the invite to join a group to roll in while you do other things.
THAT is a system that I wouldn't have a problem being set up as a "group finder" AID ... rather than being a system that "does it all for you" (no thinking or communication required).
Extra bonus points if such a system included a mouse hover pop-up of Notes associated with PC and/or Account names, so as to provide easy "reminders" about PCs (and Players) you've played with before. Whether that be some kind of Star System or an actual (short!) text entry could be decided later in the process of building the feature, but that's a UI Element/Presentation question rather than a basic Purpose and Functionality question for how the system is supposed to "work" under the hood.
And note that if you can build such a reusable code bit for PvE content, you're most of the way towards building a queue system for PvP content that would have slightly more invasive availability parameters for the PC ... things like "must be outside of a Mission Instance and not engaged in a Task Force chain of Missions to be 'yoinked' into PvP arenas, battlefields, etc." so that you don't get pulled from what you're doing without being asked. Add [b]Accept/Deny[/b] button functionality for the PvP content queues and you're nearly done.
However, the REALLY big point for this would be to create a software module that rather than being "copied" to each Contact for each piece of content they offer, to instead run everything through a "master module" of programming using variables assigned by each NPC. To use the vernacular of the antiquated [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC]BASIC[/url] programming language, you want a GOSUB for this functionality ... that way, if you ever need to update/tweak/refactor the programming for it in the future, you only need to modify the [b]ONE[/b] piece of coding that controls this for the entire game (well, two pieces, when including the PvP version) rather than needing update each and every single copy of this programming on every single Mission or Queue that the game has to offer, which could easily run to the tens if not hundreds of thousands(!) of code copies if you were to make a copy of this coding and attach it to each piece of content that a Contact has. So yeah ... use a FUNCTION CALL for this pulling variables from the database to modify for each specific bit of content ... not a copy/paste of coding that is hard coded thousands of times that would make any future programmer [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1SluSC5JtE]hate you for ever[/url] for building something that is so [b]Difficult To Modify [-5 Flaw][/b].
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
I still think it would be good to have a way for the casual TFer to look at the current lay of the land, so to speak, and see a list of current teams forming for everything, so as to be able to pick one to join. Ideally, if I were that TFer, I would want to see the names and classes of the people already on the teams. It seems to me that a traditional "blind" queue does the same thing faster, assuming you don't care who you get teamed with or what the actual content is. And there are those of us who don't really care about that stuff. Sometimes I just want to do a team content thingy (TF, Trial, raid, etc) and I'm not picky about what it is.
On the other hand, sometimes you try to form a team for a thing right when some other team is forming for something else, and you end up stalling two teams instead of forming one. It would be nice to have a current teams forming screen to see if you're timing your TF badly given the number of other teams forming for other stuff.
Edit: And in all of this discussion somewhere, I would again posit the idea that the paid subber might be able to get more or higher quality access to this info than the non-sub, just as a thought to consider. For example, maybe you have to have your sub paid in order to be able to access your personal lair, and maybe your lair has a crime computer or something that allows you to look at current teams forming for stuff and join right from there. Maybe you can take your current team with you and join your 3-person team to the TF group that's currently looking for at least 3 people. Maybe the non-sub can ONLY join from the blind queue, whereas the sub can start specific TFs by talking to the NPC. I don't know, stuff like that.
Whatever it ends up being, I would like to avoid the Bungie Nightfall raid idea of making people go to Bungie.net and use an out-of-game website to form teams for stuff. Even if the ultimate solution os to have something like that, I want to be able to start or join a TF from within the game itself, not have to open some other window and log into a separate program.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
I agree that that little bit of effort to go travel to and speak with the mission-giver is a nice touch and does expose you to others who may be doing the same thing. This would be especially useful if there are conversation choices with the NPC that can change some options, goals or side missions during the run.
Totally onboard with that. It also still allows the party to go onto global chat and say they only "need 1 more" to run it, which we all know will generate interest from players in the world who want to run it but haven't registered into the queue.
[hr]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.
Please forgive the double post.
I understand you entered brainstorming mode there, so I'm not going to take the idea apart with all the possible flaws or counterpoints that some are won't to do. But giving a paid subscriber a convenience item can be considered pay-to-win if said convenience item can be construed to allow the subscriber an advantage to playing certain content. In know, I know, nitpick slippery slope type of stuff.
I like your idea of a base item that provides additional convenience like you stated. Especially if it is a base item for a guild that would require an entire guild's effort to achieve. Because that then validates the item is an award for social players. And since we are trying to brainstorm social boosters, it fits the bill nicely. So even if a player is playing solo today but is a member of that guild, he or she can still use it to be as social or as anti-social as they want to be at the moment, because he or she has already established social credentials.
[hr]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.
So would you have to travel all over the city just to 'sign up' for all the different instances/missions/tasks? If there are going to be hundreds of them...what are the chances that the few you 'sign up' for no one else wants to do in a group? Or the amount of time it takes you to go talk to potentially dozens of contacts just to get signed up? Then, once you queue, do you have to go back to all of them again?
Compulsively clicking the refresh button until the next update.
Well, you could always talk in chat (local, superteam, league, whatever social circle) and ask if people want to do stuff. Signing up for something sounds like it would just be an automated facilitation for the group formation process. Everyone should have a travel power, so travelling to your destination shouldn't be that much of a chore. If it is that cumbersome, maybe those characters shouldn't go all over the place signing up for everything all at once.
"Just, well, update your kickstarter email addresses, okay? Make sure they're current?" - warcabbit
Using the MMO's I've played as examples, I doubt we'd use this type of queuing stuff for every event. The Task Forces, Trials, Raids, etc that we're talking about, content that often requires a team of more than 2 people to even get started, were available in much smaller numbers in most games I've played. CoX had maybe a dozen different TFs, three or four raids, and maybe 8 incarnate trials. So we're not talking about a hundred different events.
That said, it would be nice to have a tool for forming non-content-specific PUG teams. Like I would enjoy having a team finder tool that allows me to list "street sweeping in Boomtown, looking for more" or "doing mission story arc, will get badge, join if you like". etc. Maybe there could be the assumption that all supers have a cell phone and there's an app for that. So when you bring up the "team finder tool" it manifests in game as if it were a cell phone app, and your toon emotes like they're looking at their cell phone and swiping left and right, etc.
It occurs to me that there could be events that spawn if and when the players activate them which are not private instanced, but public. For example, you have a team of like 4 people, you have your difficulty set to a given level, you go to a kiosk in a zone and enter a code. This starts an event where waves of baddies spawn all around that area and you have to fight them. Like putting a coin in a jukebox or nickelodeon.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Our versions of task forces will be allowed to start solo but will explicitly state they are a higher difficulty and to seek help.
A robust group finding tool is something I envision us implementing.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
But you can add players mid-task force?
Still, good stuff that you can at least TRY it solo :)
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
To be honest, I think it would be a mistake to allow recruiting of new PCs mid-Task Force ... for a variety of reasons that I won't belabor right now, so as to spare everyone the TL;DR of it.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Okay, compromise: adding only up to the same number you started with.
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
This reminds me of yet another boring Destiny 2 story.
The Strikes they have in that game are like short, 3-person Trials or TFs. You spawn on a map, fight your way through it to the end boss, beat down the end boss, get the loot, the end. It uses a blind queue, for those who just want to get fighting as fast as possible, but you can also go and start a specific Strike if you want to, then wait for 2 more to join in from the queue. It also replaces people who drop out during the Strike with new people from the queue.
I jumped in the queue one time last week and spawned on the Strike with like 30 sec left. By the time I got to the end boss room, they had just defeated him and all there was left for me to do was collect loot. Personally, this doesn't bother me, because it doesn't happen all that often. But your mileage may vary.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Hm, the ability to set yourself as willing to be a substitute member for a TF in progress for either reduced or different rewards could be interesting to look into. I'm not sure how it would affect things overall, though.
If TFs and other multiple-instanced content are able to keep track of the steps accomplished, then I see no reason why one can't invite another player character mid-TF so long as the new member has completed the same steps as the rest of the force.
There might be issues regarding the decisions made during the TF and whether the decisions made by the new member during his or her run conflict with the decisions that were made by the current TF. But I would recommend that they handle this the same way they handle party invites in the rest of the game: The decisions made by the party leader govern the experience of the party.[sup][color=red]*[/color][/sup] So if you come into a TF mid-run, then you are playing the TF's plotlines and decision trees, regardless of what decisions were made in your earlier stages when you were in a different group.
[color=red]*Note: This is an assumption. I'm not sure MWM has stated conclusively how they are going to handle decision-making in parties.[/color]
[hr]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.
I keep mentioning TFs and Trials in my posts, but I don;t know if we'll actaully have any of the old CoH style, 4-hour long, multiple-door-missions-chained-together type of TFs ever again in a game. I think devs everywhere learned from that experiment, and the take-away message was that they were not a good design for gamers and that 20-90 minute long, single map stuff (like the Incarnate Trials which came later) trials were better.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Speak for yourself here. I might agree that MANY people probably like having shorter trial options available but that's not the same thing as saying NO ONE liked the longer CoH styled TFs.
As a spiritual successor to CoH I would be semi-amazed if CoT didn't have at least a few "4-hour long, multiple-door-missions-chained-together type of TFs" mixed in with plenty of other shorter options. Frankly if CoT supposedly "learns your lesson" and provides NO long TF/Trials type content I will consider that a relative failure on MWM's part.
If you can't be bothered doing long duration MMO content then either don't do it or play other games more suited the "zero-patience" millennial mindset. *shrugs*
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
To be fair, virtually all the current MMOs have gone that path. Group content doesn't take hours anymore because developers realized their players didn't have that kind of free time as they got older.
Ideally we'll see some of both though, and not make WoW's mistakes in the process.
[color=red]PR Team, Forum Moderator, Live Response Team[/color]
I never said I ONLY wanted super long content and I DID say we should have plenty of shorter options. I'm simply pointing out that if CoT doesn't have ANY long trials then it's not really going to be that much of a "spiritual successor" to CoH, at least in that regard. *shrugs*
Remember if CoT decides to follow all of the other "current MMOs" as far as offering no long trials then what's the point in playing CoT if I could just play any of the other "current MMOs" for that?
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
If they do make a long, old-school CoH style TF, I, for one, would expect it to have loot rewards commensurate with the amount of time invested. I don't think most gamers are going to want to do that long TF more than once (or even, at all) if they're just doing it to get the badge.
Edit: The argument against developing longer 4-hour content, if one were to try to make it, is that being a spiritual successor to CoX doesn't mean we have to repeat all of the mistakes the CoX development team made. I mean, nobody's arguing that we should try to fix the enhancements in a big "Enhancement Diversification" purge less than a year after launch and alienate half of the players, or that we should start with no auction house then add one later when some people have had time to save up 2 billion in unspent currency they had no use for.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
I simply find your "conclusion" here to be nonsensical considering how many times MANY, MANY people repeated that long trial content in CoH regardless of badges or "super huge" loot rewards.
Look, I get that times change and you may even be right that many people would now ([b][i]NOW[/i][/b] being the operative word here) prefer "micro-scaled" trials. But your repeated implication that "the way CoH did things" in regard to trials was some kind of laughable old school failure/mistake is simply false and inaccurate.
Explain to us how CoH survived for 8.5 years having really only those "bad" long trials to rely on for most of that time? You mentioned how CoH started making shorter Incarnate trials but those only started to appear in the last couple of years of the game. How did CoH survive for YEARS without those short trials?
I was running those "bad" long trials in CoH up to the very last days of the game before it was shut down along with dozens of others along with me. Please drop this stupid notion that NO ONE would ever want to play that kind of content in CoT.
I categorically refute your hyperbolic revisionism that long trials/TFs in CoH were "mistakes" on the order of Enhancement Diversification or the failure of not having adequate auction house features. Sorry... *shrugs*
Again I'm willing to accept that instead of ONLY LONG trials that CoT probably ought to have at least a 50/50 mix of long and short trials. But again your misguided notion that CoT should absolutely not have ANY LONG trials is frankly at the very least narrow-minded.
People wonder why games these days lack any sense of "community" or "general good sportsmanship" among the playerbase. I'll tell you why that is - everybody apparently wants instant gratification and can't be bothered to do anything in a game that takes longer than 15 or 20 minutes. If that's the kind of "goldfish attention span" type of game you want CoT to be then I would consider that to be the "failure path" in this situation. Go play your other "who gives a shit who you're playing with" games and leave CoT to the people who are going to care about it.
P.S. We all know you love D2 and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But trying to make CoT a "D2 clone" is simply not going to fly with people here who we can mostly assume want CoT to be closer to a "CoH clone" than anything else. I'm not "anti-innovation" here but if you want to play a game that's "just like D2" so badly why don't you stop trying to make CoT another version of D2 and just spend your time [i]playing[/i] D2...
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I don't mind longer trials, but I am supportive of MWM learning from the design progression that TFs and Trials had over the course of CoX. Simply stated they learned how to do it better pretty much each time. I was mostly a redside player and those TFs were all pretty decent out of the box. But what made me really appreciate that was after alignment switching came around and my badger wanted Numina.... (This was one of the earliest TFs made.) Oh my goodness those hunt missions! For those not aware, your team was sent to a WIDE variety of zones that were NOT close to each other to kill x number of y enemies. It seemed like there were 20 of them in a row and you could only get kill credit for the mission you were "on" at the time. We had an experienced leader who separated us into the upcoming zones in advance but even then it was still tedious.
Also an honorable mention for the Hollows TF which tried to coordinate 8 folks into clicking a glowie within a very limited time frame.
There's a huge difference between "good vs. bad" trial design that has nothing to do with how long it takes to run any given trial. My key point is that unlike what Radiac would have us believe a LONG trial does not automatically equate to being a BAD trial.
I certainly want ANY trial/TF that exists in CoT to be good and entertaining. I simply refuse to assume that when it comes to MMO content that "short is [i]always[/i] good" and "long is [i]always[/i] bad".
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
MWM has at times said they want to make content more or less equal in terms of effort vs. reward.
Of course not, and it doesn't matter if they are a spiritual successor or an official one. Any successor or follow-up should learn from the mistakes of the previous one(s). What I take issue with here is labeling multi-hour long TFs as a mistake, even more so as a mistake on the same level as ED and launching with effectively no player economy.
What is so wrong with having BOTH of them (multi-hour and 20-30min ones) so that people can choose which one they want to do? Personally I think you can do it "better", primarily in telling the story, with multi-hour ones over short ones (think tv-show (even if just one season) vs. movie in ability to tell story).
This was the statement from Radiac that completely floored me. The notion that "long TFs" could be considered as "monumentally horrible" in CoH as the fallout over ED or the lack of a workable economy at launch was frankly laughable.
Like you I certainly want MWM to learn from CoH's mistakes. Long trials/TFs were NOT a mistake in and of themselves.
I've always supported a mix of long and short running content and would never automatically assume that "length of content" equates to "quality of content".
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
The issue or what many found to be “wrong” about longer task forces in the old game were the following:
Some had poor flow design which resulted in either tediusness or monotony.
As time when on, the pace of the game in general was faster than originally intended and rewards didn’t scale with time of play. That is, longer task forces rarely provided rewards that were not achievable with less time investment elsewhere.
And if the old task forces were required for something unique, having faster ones made it feel like the longer ones were that much worse.
Finally, it was the fact that you were locked in to a particular game mode.
The devs of the old game once stated that they dint think players would sit through the longer task forces in one session, that they would play through parts and coordinate when to log back on and play through another part.
But the reality was that this was the exception. Many task forces where pick-up style and players weren’t guaranteed to always be on at the same time for multiple play sessions.
Which either meant you were stuck finishing the long task force, you were stuck not playing that particular character until everyone managed to be on at the same time, or you dropped out of the mode and lost progress.
To minimize the above we could strive to do the following - and one of this is a promise at this time -
We can make sure our comp team wires up this type of content minimizing anything that is repeatable and found to be monotonous.
We can ensure that there is a base line time investment with commensurate rewards for investment of time.
We can look into tracking progress of task force style content and allow players to add different players who meet the basic requirements - this may not be applicable to obtaining certain types of achievements (speed runs, etc).
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
All I'd want MWM to do is to produce GOOD trial/TF/raid content regardless of how long it takes to run that content. Make a mix of short and long runs that are ALL worth doing, period. Don't listen to anyone tell you X length content is ALWAYS bad or that Y length content is ALWAYS good.
Make good things and there will be plenty of people who'll want to play no matter how long it takes to play.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I used to do at least 1 and sometimes 2 or 3 tf's a day, There were plenty of people doing them. Swtor seems to find plenty of people doing raids all the time. This isnt a FPS that requires short attention spans.
The Dr. Q TF in Firebase Zulu was the absolute pinnacle of [b]ARE WE THERE YET!?[/b] repetition for no discernably good reason. FOUR missions in a row where you need to have 4 PCs click glowies simultaneously? That got OLD in a hurry.
But to Tannim's point of directives for composition ... City of Titans ought to be capable of something which wasn't "really possible" to do in City of Heroes ... branching paths for the story.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, having a story arc with multiple possible outcomes that depend upon the decisions made by the Players would seem to offer a rich variety of opportunities to "refresh" known content in Task Force designs and compositions even after first release. Simply design [b]Decision Points[/b] into the TF which can be added onto later with additional options and then use the SWToR method of group engagement in which the Team gets to vote on which choice to pick, with the Team Leader's vote acting as a tie breaker in the event of a tie between votes for options.
These [b]Decision Points[/b] can be set up as a "single path" through a TF in order to get the TF released, but which can act as "hooks" for other composition ideas to be developed later with different options for alternative paths through the events of the TF. That way you don't have to develop EVERYTHING for the TF all at once and have EVERYTHING tested prior to being released. Instead, you can plot/plan for an incremental approach of adding content to the TFs over time as resources (including dev time and inspiration/motivation) become available so as to engage in what amounts to [i]Collaborative Storytelling[/i] as different writers add their "bits" of alternative paths to old(er) content. The result is a sort of [i]Plug In To Play[/i] structure for the TFs that allows their development to be spread over time.
Now take that idea and start contemplating what you can do with "shortcut" versus "scenic route" paths through a particular TF. For example ... you could pick the 4 mission route, or the 14 mission route ... through what amounts to the same story [i]told different ways with different events[/i] based on the choices of the Players involved. All you have to do is "advertise" to the Players voting on which path to take the differences between the choices (so as to make informed decisions) and you're good to go.
Show of hands from anyone who thinks that might be a good idea?
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Multiple choice TFs!
Simply do what the biggest budget MMO in history did, it's easy.
It is a clever idea, though.
[color=red]PR Team, Forum Moderator, Live Response Team[/color]
I want to reassure everyone that I am not personally opposed to long TFs. I did TONS of them back in the day. I get the summer off and can do a two or three 4-hour TFs in one day if I want to. But I also realize not everyone has that kind of time, and game devs these days have learned this. The evidence is there. It is the cold, hard, objective, observable truth that there is no 4-hour long Strike, Trial, Raid or TF in Destiny 2 or Guild Wars 2, from what I've seen. I haven't played EVERY game out there, but I'm pretty sure most of the newer ones are not making a lot of 4-hour long team raids or whatever. I was simply trying to point out that such content is not the order of the day in the year 2019, from what I've seen playing other "successful" games. The LONGEST content I'm aware of in either GW2 and D2 is like 30-45 min.
I'm not saying there should be a hard time restriction on what the CoT devs should make, just pointing out that the evolution of content has pushed a lot of games away from that longer format, so I personally don't expect to see a lot of it in the future in ANY game, CoT included. I'm not saying MWM should AVOID doing it, just that I wouldn't hold my breath. I also think it's extremely unlikely they'd make like eight to ten different 4-hour long TFs.
Also, I'm NOT trying to turn CoT into a looter-shooter or into Destiny 2 or into anything else, I'm just making observations and talking about ideas that come to mind. CoX was a REALLY fun game, but it wasn't perfect, and the devs of that game did design later content to be less time consuming.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
One more time I can easily accept/agree that the trend in computer games in the last 5 or 10 years is to offer shorter duration content. I myself have said several times that CoT should also offer plenty of short duration content that can be accomplished in say 15-30 minutes. I will even go on record to agree with you that "it's extremely unlikely [MWM would] make like eight to ten different 4-hour long TFs" in CoT.
But I will continue to [b]wholeheartedly disagree[/b] with you that long duration content (i.e. 4+ hour trials) are inherently BAD or a MISTAKE either back in 2004 or NOW. You keep trying to make the case that "CoT shouldn't repeat the mistakes of the past" while we keep telling you that what you think were "mistakes" were nothing of the kind. I'll let you in on a little secret - Destiny 2 or Guild Wars 2 are not "perfect games" either so taking everything they do as gospel is equally foolish.
The only reason modern games are trending towards "super quick yet basically generically trivial" content is that people today seem to have shorter attention spans and are too fucking whiny about instant gratification. Frankly I feel if a player is going to give up on a game just because he/she thinks the trials are "too long" then that's their fucking problem to begin with.
I don't want CoT to become a clone of another game just because you say "all the cool 2019 games do X, Y and Z so CoT should do that too". If MWM was going to design CoT based on that silly bandwagon mentality then CoT might as well be another WoW clone.
Please tell us why it would be a "mistake" for CoT to include BOTH short and long duration content? Even I probably wouldn't want to see "eight to ten different 4-hour long TFs" in CoT but I ABSOLUTELY expect to see at least a few of them. I still contend that CoT would be LESS of a true spiritual successor to CoH if it completely eliminated that option for play. As always if you don't have the time to do a long trial then don't do them but I'll be DAMNED if I let someone like you dictate what I'm supposed to like in terms of how long my trials are supposed to be.
If you prefer "goldfish attention spanned" games there are plenty of them out there to choose from. Stop trying to make the claim that EVERYTHING a game like D2 is doing is better than anything else that has ever come before - I'm sure in 10 years we'll all be laughing at how "stupid" D2 was doing this, that or the other thing.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
+1
I liked Dr Q. I would like a few TF's in the 3 to 4 hour range, Dr q could be done in 4 hours if you knew how.
+1
@Radiac
We don't need to slavishly follow trends within the gaming industry. You are giving the impression that you think players will leave this because of the mere existence of a single hour+ TF, even if all others are 20-30 mins. As Tannim essentially explained, it was not so much the existence of the hour+ long TFs but rather how they were implemented and how they "aged" with the game that was the problem.
To be honest I never played a game where long raids were possible... And I regret it. I love to play longer missions and I'm always looking for those.
So I would love to see 1h - 4h TFs [b]besides[/b] the shorter ones.
[font=courier][color=#FF0000]Tech[/color][/font]
45 52 52 4F 52 3A 20 34 30 34 0D 0A 48 65 72 6F 20 6E 6F 74 20 66 6F 75 6E 64 21
I'm not arguing that MWM should be slaves to trends, merely pointing out that those trends exist, and in the case of this particular trend, it exists for a well known, well documented reason, and that in my opinion it's a good reason. Many gamers who would want to play this game don't have that kind of time or want to make that kind of commitment up front, so developers tend not to make a lot of that type of content anymore. I'm not making a hard value judgement there, just stating the fact of what's happened and how design has evolved from information gathered.
Like I said, _I_ would and will do these sorts of TFs, if there are any. I did them before, I'd do them again. I'm just saying I personally am not holding my breath until we get six to ten 3+ hour long TFs to do, because I doubt anyone's going to make that much of that type of content ever again. I just isn't done anymore, from what I've seen.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
There is a fine balance between keeping up with gaming trends, old style mmo design, and coming up with something new.
The mmo genre uses tonhave raids based on world pawns with multi/day timers and could require multi-hour commitments to go through multiple stages to complete. Raid guides would communicate in server forums to form their own “raid queue” to progress through various stages of raids and over multiple raids, essentially blocking out smaller guilds from accessing the raid, at times for years before the guilds moved on to higher end raids.
WoW comes along and takes the long, multi-hour huge crowd raid style and makes them instanced, allowing multiple guilds to run them.
If we were to go back to the old style of raid design, no matter how “compelling” the story was, the majority of players would never touch the content, the gaming community at large would lambast us for antiquated design, and we would have spent large amounts of resources on content only the smallest percentage of players would access.
It is upon us to make compelling game play (and story based) content, that is worth the return of investment for both us as developers and for the players who orticuoate in the content. When it comes to raid-like content, like a strike force, we should have an understanding of where gaming tends are, but also hold true to our vision of what we want to implement.
As content designers, even if we were to have what is considered too long for content now - common example being 4 hours - there are some options we can explore to making said content more acceptable to players and time investment constraints they may have.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
Documented? Please... It's simply an unfortunate preference that the "goldfish attention spanned" people like right now.
People who don't have time to play long duration content are NOT going to avoid a game that offers a FEW options for that. Stop pushing this narrow-minded narrative that "If CoT makes the 'horrible mistake' of offering ANY long trials that people would completely avoid playing the game". You're frankly starting to sound fairly alarmist pushing that silly zero-sum, all or nothing argument.
Exactly who was suggesting that CoT ought to provide THAT MANY multi-hour trials in the first place? I've NEVER suggested that myself and I don't think anyone else has either. You seem to be the only person worried about this issue one way or the other.
Here's the problem here: Somehow you've decided that a game that offered "six to ten 3+ hour long TFs" (like CoH did) was BAD so [b][i]your[/i][/b] only possible solution to that BAD thing is to have a game with "NO 3+ hour long TFs". You do understand there are other quantities between 0 and 6-10?
The solution to having [b]too many[/b] of something is not automatically to have [b]none[/b] of those things. The ACTUAL solution in this situation would be to simply have fewer of them. Do you understand that some people actually still WANT to have long trials in CoT? Again who are you to decide for the rest of us that CoT should have absolutely no long trials? CoT is not and never will be a D2 clone - get over yourself with this silliness.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I remember the old Positron TF. I preferred the 'New' one, where it was broken up into shorter segments. 'Shorter' TFs gave me more control of my playtime. I have no objection to long mission-arcs, I just prefer to not be 'locked into' a particular content for hours on end.
Be Well!
Fireheart
Same! I'd rather have 4 intense missions than 7 longer ones. Also please never have an escort in a TF, unless you've somehow got them not to be toddlers
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
In theory, if you had a TF that takes an average of 3 hours to complete successfully, that TF should probably award at least six times as much loot at the end as a 30-min mission or trial would award. I say "at least" because assuming the 3-hour event only awards loot at the end upon successful completion, people are still going to weigh the chances of failing or the TF team falling apart before it's done. Short timed content is less likely to fall prey to people having to drop out unexpectedly, and if you fail or the team falls apart, you might have only lost like 15-20 minutes and you can always just try to start another one. There's nothing worse than getting 2+ hours into a 3 hour TF and having it fall apart on you.
There's also the question of what it is about the TF that makes it take so long in the first place. In the old days, Jack Emmert wanted people to have to team up for optimal game play, and he wanted travel powers to be relevant. So he made use run all over hell and creation for missions and TFs and the like. Go to warehouse, do mission, go back to Synapse, go to next warehouse, etc. The games I've played since CoX all have some sort of fast travel teleporter that lets you skip all the running/flying/superjumping you used to need to do to get around. GW2 has teleporters all over the outdoor maps, which you have to explore to unlock (you get XP for doing that) and which can get locked down and made unavailable if there's a fight going on right on top of them. D2 has fast travel teleporters scattered around in convenient places and you get jetbikes for faster travel over land between them if you need it.
Personally, if the long format TF of the future mostly takes that long because of the time it takes to get to the various places it takes you to, I think a lot of gamers are going to be like "You mean I have to WALK there!?!?". This is another place where I think super vehicles could come in as a nice content roll out post-launch. In D2 whenever you change planets there's a cutscene where your ship takes of and then warps out then warps back in near the new planet, then you see it flying in a low orbit and final diving down to the ground below. Maybe as a cutscene thingy like that we could get super-car-mobiles that do some similar type of cinematic where your supercar is seen driving through the streets in a dramatic cutscene, then you arrive at the new location. And super-motorcycles could work like the jetbikes do in D2, you just use them as a prestige power to travel faster, but they don't let you use other powers while active. Both of those vehicles in D2 have different skins and so forth you can get as cosmetic add-ons. What the shape and color of the ship or bike is can vary a lot, but they all animate and move pretty much the same.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
I think the biggest strike against CoH's longer task forces was how it locked you out of all other content. I have no issue with a 4 hour task force, which is essentially just a longer, more difficult quest line. But CoH said once you sign up, that's it until you finish. No new group members, no other content.
So how do we fix this? Well, I'd say take page from both FFXIV and GTA5.
FFXIV likes to string all 16 8-man raids for each expansion into single story. I has Main Story Quests that occasionally loop back to older content and dungeons again (Such as fighting Titan (Hard) a second time between HW and SB). Both of these are just part of your quest log, team members don't matter.
GTA5 Online has their heists, where 1 player goes through a bunch of missions in order, while other players are just hired on. Everyone gets rewards, but only the player in charge gets to progress their story and unlock the next mission.
We need to separate the long form and short term content. Short term content (90ish minutes) can be like other game's dungeons, let's call them trials. A single group through to the end. Long form content, such as our much beloved original Positron Task Force equivalent needs to operate differently. Call it an 'epic story', make it clear that once you accept this, all of it's content will be meant for full groups. But don't lock the group and don't disable all other content. When you accept this (repeatable) epic story, you are the main character. Your choices matter. Everyone else is 'supporting cast', they can drop in and drop out. They get rewards on a per mission basis. Only you get the big pay off for actually finishing the epic story and only 1 epic story can be in progress at a time.
There can be badges related to being a supporting cast member x times, or for each mission. There can be badges for finishing an epic story with a single group.
There are ways to bring that long form group content, that doesn't cover the same pitfalls it did in CoH.
I didnt see it as pitfalls. The rewards were recipes or later, tokens later so you could pick your own reward. Purples dropped from all 50 content so you didnt need to farm any one place.One thing the inability to add characters to the team did was eliminate the behavior of kicking pugs to make room for your friends just before the last boss.There was good with the bad. It wasnt perfect, but it was the best I have ever seen. If the coh servers came up tonight, I would drop every other "modern" game to play them.
Pitfalls can be subjective, I would also swap back to CoH if it came back online, I think many here would. I was mostly referring to being stuck with a singular group for 4 hours and being locked out of all other content. That's fine for shorter content around 90min, but not when it's 4 or more hours and people invariably need to leave with no clear picture as to when you'll all be online again. That's the issue I was trying to solve. As to people kicking you to bring a friend just as you reach a boss during an epic story, the answer I see is to lock group once an individual section is started, but unlock between sections.
I liked the old long form group content, but gaming trends have moved past it. The 'Epic Story' idea was my attempt to modernize it a bit so it's not lost completely to short form group content.
I never imagined this thread would blow up so much! Lots of good points made here. Sounds like the devs understand the issue and have a goal in mind that will keep many benefits of modern game group finding tools that make getting into content easier without losing too much in the camaraderie department. Part of that is of course on the player base, but having little options built into the interface that encourage engaging other players in a positive manner go a long way. Not everyone is overly gregarious or eloquent, especially when they are tired or unwinding after a long day. Having features that facilitate that as a sort of social lubricant can go a long way towards helping with that while still allowing for the benefits of speedy group finding.
I'm excited as always!
I don't mind having content that has a variety of playtimes, even the CoH TFs that took a few hours, but the Shadow Shard TFs are a good example of how NOT to design a Raid/Task Force, etc. I only attempted them once each on one character, and only because I wanted the badges. After that I never wanted to do them again. They took WAY too much time and were monotonous. Good to hear that MWM has some ideas on how to improve the formula.
I did them often, those zones were easy to do if you knew how. Just goes to show that all content cant make everyone happy all the time.
Yeah I didn't know people had such preferences either!
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
The interesting thing to me is that there was so much vitriol in the early parts of the thread when I dared introduce another point of view into an echo chamber discussion. That sort of thing happens a fair amount on the internet in general and this forum is definitely not immune to it, so I was pleasantly surprised to see it turn into something a bit interesting and productive. It looks like the devs are pretty comfortable with the topics discussed and have plans for players to be able to have their cake and eat it too. I think everyone is going to win out.