Twisted Toon wrote:

Just so you know, I wasn't the author of those quotes. I believe that would be McNum that had said that. Granted, I agreed with his stance.
In my play experience, very few of the people I teamed with liked Raids. Therefore, I could assume (which is what you are doing as well) that very few people in the game liked Raids. Most of the time, you are going to find that you tend to team with like minded people, and that will skew your anecdotal evidence a bit.

Quoting in this board can get kind of... messy... real fast. HTML coding or BBCode.. Pick ONE, not both.

I kind of wish Redlynne's perspective of players was true, though. That players are informed and smart and can be trusted. That would be so nice...

That would make game and software design in general so much easier. Imagine a world where user actually used the software as intended and didn't find the most creative ways to make thing go wrong by accident. But they do, and it's often not the users' fault when it happens. It's why the term "worst case scenario" exists... and even these sometimes fail to account for the sheer spectacle that is a bunch of human beings thinking they're doing something right, but really, really aren't. New users not knowing how to do something? Eh, it's natural. Experienced users that do things just plain wrong and think they know best? *ugh* I wish to slap them with a wet trout from across the internet.

This is by the way the difference between a newbie and a n00b. I fear no newbie, they just need to learn the game, but n00bs can destroy any game, any team, any well-intentioned design. And they do, without fail. The only way to avoid it is to make it impossible. And I guarantee you that someone will try anyway. Just to find the limit.

But this is getting a little off on a tangent... again. The whole trusting the players and designing for n00bs might be a fun discussion for yet another off-shoot thread from this one, though.

Redlynne wrote:

What "smart" players prefer is a game that presents them with a (nearly) constant stream of challenges in which the player is called upon to make (intelligent) decisions in which skill, rather than just random chance, can be a factor. The number of factors and influences the Player can control then determines the "scope" of how far their intelligence and skill can reach. Like I said, there is a "sweet spot" for this where it's not too much and not too little ... but we just disagree over where that "is" in relation to what we think of as the "average gamer" who would want to play City of Titans.

In reality, you can only speak for yourself concerning what "smart" players want. Not everyone wants the same thing. And just becasue they don't agree with you, doesn't mean that they are not "smart". The Incarnate introduction mission, when it first came out, was everything you described. A challenge which called upon the player to make intelligent decisions in which skills and tactics to use. Most people hated the mission. I didn't really care for it all that much either, and I could complete it with any character I had at level 50.

Redlynne wrote:

Just for context purposes, I enjoyed "raids" in City of Heroes ... things like Hamidon, Rikti Mothership, Task Forces, Strike Forces and that sort of thing.

I hated the Actual Raids in CoH. I never attended a Hami raid. I was in a Rikti Mothership Raid once. The only reason I did the first 2 Incarnate raids as many times as I did was because, at the time, that was the [b]only[/b] way to progress the character beyond level 50. Once Dark Astoria was changed to an Incarnate zone where you could progress there, I never attended another Incarnate Raid. I did, however, participate in quite a few TFs.

Abnormal Joe wrote:

Redlynne wrote:
What "smart" players prefer is a game that presents them with a (nearly) constant stream of challenges in which the player is called upon to make (intelligent) decisions in which skill, rather than just random chance, can be a factor. The number of factors and influences the Player can control then determines the "scope" of how far their intelligence and skill can reach. Like I said, there is a "sweet spot" for this where it's not too much and not too little ... but we just disagree over where that "is" in relation to what we think of as the "average gamer" who would want to play City of Titans.
In reality, you can only speak for yourself concerning what "smart" players want. Not everyone wants the same thing. And just becasue they don't agree with you, doesn't mean that they are not "smart". The Incarnate introduction mission, when it first came out, was everything you described. A challenge which called upon the player to make intelligent decisions in which skills and tactics to use. Most people hated the mission. I didn't really care for it all that much either, and I could complete it with any character I had at level 50.
Like twist says intellect has nothing to do with choice of play style. I teamed with a lot of very intelligent folks. Surgeons, lawyers, engineers,professors, heck even a handful of the dev team for the game. A few, like you, got their jollies by dancing on the razors edge. Most wanted the something easy and comfortable to unwind after a day that challenged their intellect more than enough already.
Basically you want a game just complex enough to feel like you are smart for beating it. You want to feel challenged, not be challenged.
This is in a nutshell is why everyone at a certain point in history owned a rubiks cube but only a few actually played it after an hour or so.

And you'd be surprised at how many non Surgeons, lawyers, engineers,professors or other stereotypical assumed intelligent people actually solve the thing. Intelligence come in many forms and within those many forms of what is smart or intelligent comes many more things of what they look for in a game.

Yeah I too know some people that were, man, I think they could be certified geniuses, but they get online, they write a different way, they type a different way, and they simply don't want everything in their lives to be super hard, aka they enjoy a game where it's more relaxing than challenging.

Then on the flip side, know plenty of people who act smart and come off as "smart" online are complete, well not complete because I swear some parts are missing, idiots in real life but have everyone online fooled thinking they are College level English professors (but closer look realize the BS as they seem to think English Professor only care about grammar and forget that grammar is beginner level 10% of what a professor look at and understand and forget about style, language, pace, tone in writing, communication, target audience, informal and formal writing. AKA the yare easy to spot as they focus too much on the high school formal writing but know nothing of the other styles of writing.). But in a way, they are smart too if they are smart enough to fool people like that and some of them love challenge are actually great chess players and solving complex things. While some of them too simply want ot relax.

Then how do a game maker find a balance of challenge? Easy, look at the extremes, super super easy (relatively), put it in there, then super super hard (relatively), put that in there, then fill in the middle with adjustable rate and thus allowing the player themselves to choose how much of or how much less of a challenge they want to play that day. And then listen. If people are saying the hard challenge is too easy, well hell then, throw some more hot sauce on it while leaving the easy stuff for those that want an easy time and relax in a game.

Me personally, I play games for fun. My fun is relaxing. I work all day, have to deal with family, bills, money, market stuff, and when I relax I want to relax. When I want a challenge puzzle I havea Mercedes out back where everything is in German with parts that barely exist to put together and quite frankly that is about conqoured and stepped up to an XJ8 where it's a tanglement of American fuses with classical British wiring and way of doing things with parts that only can be special ordered from GB fro ma dude named Nigel. But as I said, what is fun to one is bloody burning fire brimstone poke their eyes out with a acid tipped fork hellish to the ninth circle torture.

Wanders wrote:

Abnormal Joe wrote:
Like twist says intellect has nothing to do with choice of play style.

huh... I wasn't thinking that Redlynne was saying anything about intellect, but maybe you are right and I am mistaken. By putting quotes around the "smart" like that, it seemed to me that he was identifying playstyle and not making some claim that they might [or might not] be "very intelligent folks"

hmmm. that is very possible come to think of it.

Then again what constitutes a "smart" playstyle, which also have just as many variables from person to person.

Wanders wrote:

jag40 wrote:
Then again what constitutes a "smart" playstyle, which also have just as many variables from person to person.

Yeah, the exact definitions of playstyles can be in the eye of the beholder, though I don't believe there are as many as there are people (IOW, different games do seem to happily cater to this or that playstyle group, and those groups seem to include multiple people).
That said, I actually haven't been following the details of the "smart" playstyle suggestions in the thread very closely, since I think the playstyle supported by CoT will have to track reasonably closely to that provided by CoX's, unless they decide to abandon the spiritual successor deal.
Even CoH danced on the edge of what they could get away with a bit, if you consider the problem some players had with just the somewhat-more-dynamic AV battles that were added in later updates. Since such battles were a very tiny percentage of the total (and were not the most common fare of the "casual" player, to use another somewhat vague, but popular, term) it wasn't that big a deal. If even mechanics as mild as those became features of general combat, though, I suspect it would turn away a chunk of CoH players (I probably am not alone in having family and friends who played CoH that would fall into that group).
IOW, MWM designers will probably be pondering the definition of "CoX playstyle" more than anything other type of playstyle.

Indeed.

And the pondering of "what is COX play style" That is the million dollar question. Because COX was a bit more flexible on play style than a lot of other games. Although, some things seem to be common, like grind. Seems like a lot of people hate grind but many grind games, multiple millions of players are attracted. But even then, some people say COX was a bit too grindy over all and some say not enough grind.

A focus too much on certain section of COX playstyle will result in alienating others. Trying to build a new game that feel new but with the same feel of an old game some played for 8.5 years already, without feeling, Meh, I played this game for 8 years already. I'll play for a few months get bored again and leave.". If they find a balance there, that in itself is a great feat.

And yeah, even the COX playstyle changed over the years, while there was some that been there since I1, the population number even if it ended with 100,000 players COX once had nearly 200,000 ALL subscription and many of those people left after a while due to the changes. Then in the mean time, there were some people that didn't even start playing until i19-i20 time period and what they view as the COX playstyle is way different that what it was in I1 days. But which one is really the essence of COX playstyle? the early days or the later days? I say both of them are.

Next time I come across some old players that left in the past (ones that I haven't came across yet and or know already) I'm going to do something that is unthinkable in the COX community. I'm going to ask, why did they leave and or what caused them to leave. And for new players that came later, besides not hearing about it until then or coming across it accidentally and curiosity, I wonder why assuming again, they heard of it, didn't play earlier or as deeply as they later did. Then you have the old school keep it the way it was, then you had some people play COX because it was always evolving and looking for further evolution. COX started out as COH, no villain side for PC, and no PVP. And SOs being standard gear with Hami soon becoming the great leet gear. By the end, we had heroes villains, rogues, vigilantes, IOs, post-ED PVP that came and changed significantly, some TFs changes, Ouro, MA, different currencies, Gold side, co-oop zones, End game, new power sets that was once said "That is impossible. Stop asking for impossible stuff, troll!" to it being in the game and people asking for more. The eays part is making a COX clone. That dead simple. That is all laid out.

But then how can they say stuff about "We want to make a challenge because challenge is fun" when they don't rise to the challenge themselves and aim for something beyond a mere clone? Not saying they are only aiming for a mere clone, but to not be a clone, things will have to be different. The question is what. As we see, even with many aspects of the game and those that stuck around didn't mean they loved every aspect. They simply tolerated it because it was built in 2004 and probably too much code to change it. But now, it's free range. The tangle code is no longer an issue and there is year 2013 nearly a decade worth of gaming progress to go by. Now how will they find that balance? I think it's hard and simple at the same time and the answer is to "look at COX." Not only at HOW they did it, but what they did. See, there was grind, then there was non grind, there was at the end a way for someone to make it easy, then there was way to crank up the difficulty, there was some straight forward pound the AV fights, there was some if you don't move from that spot you are dead AV fights (although I always found that portion a bit odd in a super hero game. I'm supposed ot be this big time hero yet, this Villain, can smack me around like I was Robin). To some people felt powerful others felt like lackeys to the key players. One way to find a middle is ask everyone not simply "yes people" but go out and find those players that may not be here and ask them without being a dick about it, why did they leave or what changes could have been done differently. Go outside the COX community where COX is viewed by many a game that can do no wrong. while it's good to get all praise sometimes unbiased outside point of view can be very helpful in not building merely a clone of an old game. Ask them what do they find fun, what features they wished games had that no games or not many games have that they would love to be able to do. You'd be surprised at how many gamers play games simply because it's the "better choice" but not the best choice and would love to find their best choice or play a game that have something new to offer and not merely a clone of another game, I.E another game clone. Ask people who couldn't get into COX what was preventing them from getting into COX and actually listen, without being judgemental like 'Oh they just saying that because they are an NCSOFT shill". Listen, sometimes the best way to make a great game is to listen to the gamers and not always to the people that will also say yes yes yes good good good, simly because it's like COX and they love COX no matter what you put out. And to make it not so obvious may suggest some trivial change just to say "See see I want change too." Because the reality is that not every member of the community even the ones that stuck it out until black out will come back whether it's changes or it's direct clone.

So then, given that there will be a F2P option planned that suggest that they are thinking of trying to attract new players. Thus, what will be new to offer new players, some may have played COX for free not liking it enough to actually pay for anything and entice them to spend, and how can one draw new new people to the super hero genre. There is a reason why most WoW clones don't succeed. Not many people like imitations. And while some of us still want to fight, still will neverforget, and etc. remember the people on TItan and here are only a small part of the community. Don't believ me, do the math, maybe what 5,000 funded, some were not COX players, 20,000 signed petition and some were not COX players, and some double and triple account signed, and in the end COH had reported 80,0000-100,000 people.

So then what happened to those other 60,0000-80,000 people? .I know a small percentage feel like their opinions wouldn't matter and simply moved on, and looking back at the old COX forum archive I can see why they felt that way. Others, it was just a game, others, who knows. I haven't asked that question yet. Point is cox community are words thrown around pretty often but what does it mean? Only people who is here or the 80,000-100,000 people? if so, then why are those people that may not be here or their opinions always get disrespected don't matter?

Trying to fill COX is no easy task. But hats off those that will do it. Even if they miss the mark, great job going for it. Because COX play style is about as hard to define as to trying to find a single answer to why do people like or dislike ties.

Redlynne wrote:

jag40 wrote:
Then again what constitutes a "smart" playstyle, which also have just as many variables from person to person.
How about this?

I'd argue that a "smart" playstyle is one that adapts to changing situations and circumstances, and is therefore somewhat flexible. A "dumb" playstyle is one where all you do is Wash, Rinse, Repeat regardless of situations and circumstances, because there really isn't a whole lot of "thought" involved.
One of the factors in gameplay that allows the "dumb" playstyles to survive and flourish is predictability ... in the sense that every situation you are confronted with can be resolved in exactly the same way, no matter what. Thus, the "conditions" of every confrontation are relatively "static" and unchanging ... and as we all know the old saying, familiarity breeds contempt.
This is why I keep looking for ways to throw variables into situations and circumstances of combat which can present a "puzzle" aspect for the Player's to "solve" in order to reach an optimal resolution, thus encouraging "smart" gameplay. These challenges don't even have to be terribly complex ... such as the "do I want to use Knockback or Knockdown right now?" player controlled switch ... but their presence can add a richness of texture and variability to the game experience which otherwise would not be present if these decisions were being made for you (ie. the game plays itself for you on your behalf so you don't have to).
Of course, the ultimate in "dumb" gameplay is quintessentially represented by Progress Quest ... a ZERO PLAYER GAME that eliminates the human user entirely from gameplay so as to literally create a game that "plays itself" for as long as you let it run.

lol at that pic.

Yeah but that is basically my definition and view of "smart" gameplay. Which is actually kind of hard to find in games. Usually the mobs all have the same AI, with only weapons being a different factor but over all they behave the same or divided into two AI setting. Range type AI for the game and melee type AI for the game. Or KB works well ome enemy but pisses others off Or some enemy are a bit more cautious while others are beserkers and be on ya case until they die. Most games don't have aggressive enough enemy. They shoot a bit, and in COX they tuck tail and flee randomly across the map. Many times I wished for a fight, an enemy that fought like they meant business and wanted me dead for real. It seems the AI was going about it in half butt manner. And a little bit more dynamic ambushes would have helped instead of simply spawning more at a certain spawn point and hear them coming from a mile away. How about enter a room, in the middle in a pillar of light there is a goody or the glowie, and then as soon as I touch it, the lights go out, and the walls open up and a bunch of enemy spring their trap that they planned.

Speaking of KB, I always wished for a mission where there was an interrogation mish and instead of simply depleting their health one had to find a way to get information out of them. Like knocking them around, or hacking into their brain, or freezing their fingers or roasting their nuts until they talk. .

And that zero player gameplay, that is how I feel sitting around on speed run/farm teams. Ones that I wouldn't have bothered with if I didn't need (want) that accolade or other badge or see what the TF was like.

Abnormal Joe wrote:

While I am not personally bothered by the odd twist in game play (and this is from someone who led fire/storm troller and all prefix stalker projects) it didn't really seem like even a minor twist was well received by the majority. Wash, rinse, repeat seemed to be precisely what they wanted. That is, if the AE, Puppy farms, speed run tfs etc were any indication.
Incarnate trials displayed the same mob mentality quirks. I saw folks swap through endless bafs, and a handful of lambdas while completely skipping keyes for the very reason that it had a few twists to it.
Now I'm not advocating a mindless grind game, but there is a big difference between a twist that appears in an easily skippable boss battle or mission, and a twist that impacts an entire underlying mechanic.

Now you do make a very good point there and I noticed that too. Over the years, gameplay seemed ot evolve from people saying "hey lets do such and such TF for old time sakes" to being dominated by speed runs and farms. And even more so wit the incarnate trials. It's was almost as if the work put in making those other incarnate trials outside BAF and lambdas basically a total waste of resources and time overall. But yeah that indication do seem like that is what is wanted by majority.

But then I think minority of players could have been kept in mind if they made missions like that, the ones with a twist, not team gated behind things. Like I caught a glimpse of MoM one time, good stuff, would have loved a singler player version especially since it was not one run commonly and rarely did people seem to want ot stick around and complete it. Same with the one where ya finally battle Emperor Cole, that could be epic, but seeing the end from what I hear was rare as most people only farmed the first part and no interest in playing the rest of the Trial. Thus basically one set of game play style basically dominated the rest in that regards. I think varied missions that may not be the ordinary or have twists definitely should not be team gated. Because judging from past happenings, people will flock to the simple easy farmable TFs and the rest will languish.* Cough* *shadow shard* And the people interested in doing that stuff, cant due to lack of interest from other players and thus indirectly other players are controlling what they are able to play and puts that player in the position of either join the farming of ITF, BAF, and Lambda, like everyone else or forget about doing certain content that have been made due to other's lack of interest, no matter what the player's at hand interest may lie at. It's Indirect majority rule and control over what minority of people that may not want to farm the select few TFs to death over and over when stuff is team gated.

cause and effect. Making the player actions actually matter in the situation. Good stuff. I wouldn't mind feeling like my actions or choices affect things and not merely slave to the RNG gods all the time. Hell if I wanted that all the time every time I play a game I'd go to Vegas and gamble on the slot machines.

But I'm wondering is how would this Tactical decision making mesh well teams and who decides what tactical situation is best? For example,to one player, it looks like it's a good tactical situation to kb the foes at a certain time, someone else, who hates KB think it's stupid, and hence friction. Or one get kicked from team because the one that is doing the kicking feel the player is deciding to not play in a tactical manner by not knocking the foes back. And of course as usuall the person being kicked, "Fins another team yada yada" yeah assuming there is another team that is available to do something that may have not been the path of least resistance to rewards TF. Which then simply end up as before, the person making a tactical decision end up the one being punished unless they play how other people tell them to play if they wish to team.

Solo, I think the system you suggest will work near flawless.

Redlynne wrote:

jag40 wrote:
But I'm wondering is how would this Tactical decision making mesh well teams and who decides what tactical situation is best?
Short answer ... the same way it always has in pretty much every multi-player online game ... IMPERFECTLY. In teams with Players who work well together and have "practiced" together and who know how to play the game using teamwork and all the rest of it ... they'll be more successful than the Pick Up Group Of Chaos where there's no teamwork at all and everyone is just blasting everything in sight as fast as their Powers recharge so long as they have Endurance to burn, regardless of how use of their Powers affect everyone else.
AND THAT'S OKAY.
It's as it should be.
The difference is that Players would have the CHOICE to work together more cohesively, rather than being BOUND (read: forced) to work together more cooperatively ... and there would be a "reward" for doing so (more efficient XP gain over time, faster Looting, less faceplanting by Team members, etc.).
jag40 wrote:
For example,to one player, it looks like it's a good tactical situation to kb the foes at a certain time, someone else, who hates KB think it's stupid, and hence friction. Or one get kicked from team because the one that is doing the kicking feel the player is deciding to not play in a tactical manner by not knocking the foes back. And of course as usuall the person being kicked, "Fins another team yada yada" yeah assuming there is another team that is available to do something that may have not been the path of least resistance to rewards TF. Which then simply end up as before, the person making a tactical decision end up the one being punished unless they play how other people tell them to play if they wish to team.
That's just how the social dynamics of Team play work. Kind of like how it's hard to swim without getting wet, or make an omlette without breaking any eggs ... there's pretty much no way to PREVENT jerks from being obnoxious on Teams (and indeed, trying to find ways of doing so from the Developer end of things is a fool's errand doomed to failure). There are obnoxious people in the world, and some of them play games. What you're talking about is a social phenomenon.
Ideally, the Developers would want to create conditions and circumstances where the obnoxious jerks do not have a strong case for persisting in their behavioral prejudices ... but that's about as far as the Developers can go because ... Haters Gonna Hate.

That is probably one of the best answers I seen on that subject.

Yup people will be jerks no matter what. It's a social problem. But the devs should "create conditions and circumstances where the obnoxious jerks do not have a strong case for persisting in their behavioral prejudices". And that is the key, some devs say they cant solve the jerk problem so they do not do anything and or add stuff that give the jerks more power than they should have. In reality I think many people know that the problem of the jerk is near impossible to solve unless the social aspect of people change but that doesn't mean that the jerks should be getting gift drops that enable them to be jerks more efficiently.

Choice. yes choice. I think choice should extend to the player. If their tactics are say, not very well liked then they should be able to do the content even if they feel they must do it solo. IE on TF team that is rarely ran. player one, think all groups should be in nice neat packs first and put to sleep then picked off one by one. The player 2 brute wants to go in group to group and quick as possible so that he can deal more damage through fury bar. Now player 1 have the star and if player 2 do not do the tactic like player 1 say is supposed to be done, player 2 is liable to get kicked. If that should happen, player 2 should still be able to have the choice to get the task done whether or not he is able to find another team that is interested at the time to do that task. And of course the situation could be easily flipped where player 2 brute have the star and kicks the player 1 for not playing in a way that conductive for efficient damage output of the brute. And thus if player 1 get kicked, they should too have opportunity to still complete the task with finding another team irrelevant and not a hindrance to completing the task they wish to complete. Choice, true choice. Not gun to the head choice in the manner of "play like I want you to play or else you will be punished by not being able to complete this task." AKA other player holding too much power over what task other players can complete in that given play session. I think when the true choice of that manner is available it will also cut down on jerk team leaders that kick people that simply don't play the way they feel other people should play because now they know they cant punish people with threat and submission if they know that even if they kick someone that person still can complete the task without them. Compared to when stuff is team gated, then they know they have power and if they kick a person on an odd TF then the person they kicked is being punished by the way of they wont be able to complete the task and or will have to spend a lot of time finding another team so they can complete the task. Like I noticed that peole rarely got kicked from ITFs in the later part of the game. It ran so many times that it probably was a reward being kicked fro ma jerk team. But synapse tf, people got kicked often because the one with the star know that it's a rarely ran TF and teams are hard to come by for that TF same with SHadow Shard TF and thus they had the power to punish other players that do not bow down to their playstyle and way of playing how they feel other players should play their toons. In a way devs by team gated inadvertently gave lot of power to the jerks.