Did you ever ask "Where did this guy learn to play?" Well maybe he didn't. Maybe he just sandbagged his way through lightning fast team content letting his teammates carry the load. Let's find out.
I stole this idea from another game [TSW Gatekeeper]. Before you can do the hardest PvE content in the game (which is your standard dungeon team fare) you have to pass a one on one challenge. The nature of this challenge varies depending upon if your forte is tanking, damage, or healing. Your opponent does different things in each of these three areas. The goal is to see if a Tank knows the basics of tanking, etc.
You could have multiple skill challenges at multiple level points. You could decide to restrict future content based on passing the skill test... or not. You could (I'd say you should) offer a perk for completing a skill test. Comments please.
I am up for this, although some people could say that this is a form of gating content, and that if there is a team around to do carry the person, that person should be allowed to take part no matter what.
Ironically, CoX had this type of "hard gate" when Incarnates were initially released, where there was some content that you might have had to find people to team with to complete. I know I had to get some help to complete the arc, although I was stuck on The Honoree/Hero 1 part, and not the "fire pit" mission (I forget who you had to fight for that one).
Cimmeroa was also another load of content that was gated behind the completion of other stuff....
Agreed, you need to know how to play you're toon, with you're chosen role. If you can solo successfully then you've learned how to play your character.
"Gotcha!"
But there are still going to be some things, *particularly* with how CoX was, in that some power sets, although they could *solo* fairly well, they had an upper limit as to what they could do themselves. But them on a team though, and the whole performance shoots through the roof.
So this is why something like this, where *some* setups would have a lower level of "solo ability", it becomes harder to tweak it around. Now saying that, if this was a challenge where you could bring in help with other players, I would go for it more...
But forcing something *solo* for something that is *purely* team based, not so much.
It is one of my complaints with Final Fantasy 14; where you *cannot* progress with the main story line, until you have cleared a dungeon. And there was (at least when I last checked it) NO WAY to get around this. You *had* to run and *complete* the dungeon to proceed.
Personal unofficial opinion
Hard gating is bad, and unless you're going to write hundreds of these for all the possible powerset combinations (and as we go through, future powersets), it wouldn't work.
Also many people hated the solo only content in Praetoria. I know I did when we had a team of RL friends working through htere.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Yeah I can see where hard gating would be bad thing. I'm more of a perk man myself.
There are hundreds of possible powerset combinations in TSW too. And this works.
As far as the "hating" part goes you could say that about a lot of things including PvP, pugs, and you name it. I will say this: teaming is by design a lower risk higher reward proposition. I get that. And in many games (including CoH) team play disguised a multitude of individual player weaknesses... to the point where you could go through levels 1 through max essentially as a pad (try that solo). Now if you are ok with that so am I. But there are things you can do to check and rewards you can give... if you are so inclined.
Thank you! I've thought that for years, but the CoX devs always said teaming (especially team-only content) had higher rewards because it had higher risk. I never understood that.
Spurn all ye kindle.
Teaming had higher rewards because of all the wasted damage you did to stuff that somebody else already killed. While a balanced team has force multipliers, two scrappers would actually most of the time get less XP than they would solo if it wasn't for this.
I don't know TSW, are they as different as say Fire/FF troller vs fire/kin in terms of soloability and kill speed ?
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
I don't think TSW really translates very well to CoH terms.
In TSW, you can unlock all abilities on any toon given enough time and effort. You get skill points and ability points as you play which you spend to unlock stuff. Abilities farther up a given set cost many more points. You can only load five or seven at a time (haven't played it in a while and am still pretty low-level so I might be misremembering some stuff). So your speed and soloability really depend on what abilities you chose, which ones you have loaded to use in a given situation what weapons you have loaded which use those abilities and what gear you have that enhances them.
"I don't think you understand the gravity of your situation."
I loved doing newspaper missions on my emp I had no problem soloing but it was fun teaming too but each person has their own definition of fun hell I would fly through the shadow shard for hours just to look at the scenery
This explaining stuff on the internet is hard. The object here is not to turn anyone into a soloist. Nor is it to evaluate their ability in a solo capacity. It's an exercise to determine if a Tank can tank, a healer can heal and a damage dealer can do enough damage. It's a powers, gear, and strategy check to ensure players know enough about the basics to tackle the very hardest PvE content the game has to offer. Probably for CoT you'd need a separate exercise for each AT... but I do not see that as being overly complex either.
Let's take Tank. The object is absorb agro while an NPC ally kills the bad guy. If we can agree that this is a skill a Tank needs to know (absorbing agro while protecting others)... well, this confirms that. But if you don't do your job tanking you fail. If the NPC takes damage you fail.. This is a solo instance and there are no other players around to pick up the slack for you (as would be the case in a team environment).
The healer has to heal an NPC well enough to kill the bad guy. And the damage dealer has to do enough damage solo to kill the bad guy (while staying out of harm's way if you are ranged or going into scrapperlock if melee).
Why do this? It's essentially a skills check to ensure you will be able to carry your share of the load. I can see where this would be a desirable thing to verify in a CoT context.
I want a chess area set up in the park so we can play each other
A potential issue I can see with this, even though I like the sound of it, is Elitism.
Lets say that there are 5 Solo Skill Test (SST) levels. I chose the Tanking one for my Stalwart AND Enforcer. I can only get to level 3.
Now I see in General Chat "ITF lf Stalwart. Tanking SST4+". Sorry Im not a good enough Tank for the team so wont be accepted. Does the team need a really good tank? Cant the tank be just OK? How do I learn to be a good Task Force/Team Tank if I cant get in a TF/Team?
While this wouldn't happen ALL the time, it could happen fairly often.
However with the design of CoT not using the Holy Trinity where Tank + Healer + 2 DPS is the required formula maybe it wouldn't happen that often... My Tank that is just 'OK' or still learning can be helped by the Support toons (not Healorz).
The Phoenix Rising Initiative Rules Lawyer
Also you would need to have tests to accommodate multiple set types.
"Healer" in CoH was almost non-existent. But Support, what does that mean? Yes Im Support but I DeBuff not Buff so having a Solo Skill Test (SST) that is based on keeping someone alive doesn't work for me in the same was as a Buffer or Healer.
Then you have do we need different SST for the different types of Sub-Support:
-Def DeBuffer (NPC Kill Rate?)
-Res DeBuffer (NPC Kill Rate?)
-Acc DeBuffer (NPC Survival Rate?)
-Etc
+Def Buffer (NPC Survival Rate)
+Res Buffer (NPC Survival Rate)
+Regen (NPC Survival Rate)
+Etc
Not saying this is a bad idea but just pointing out how far we would need to go with this.
The Phoenix Rising Initiative Rules Lawyer
I'm not sure, i understand the theory..... but the idea of a game telling anyone whether they can or cant play the content they paid for just seems wrong to me, and smells of some elitism i'm just not comfortable coming from the game itself (its bad enough when you have people acting like jerks because they think they are God's gift to gaming)
And this shows a great lack of understanding of CoH, the game to which this is a spiritual successor.
Roles were not so tightly defined. I could "tank" stuff on a scrapper or defender (or even stalker), I didn't need to be a tank. I could spec my tank to be somewhere between tank and DPS and still do a job. I could spec a warshade or peacebringer to do any of several jobs. I could spec a blaster to be a melee damage character or even a controller of sorts. Also many teams could deal so much damage a tank was not required, just somebody to take the alpha.
Setting a "test of role" is just impossible, you don't know from the powersets what role a character occupies, and not all teams needed all roles.
My guess is that this was a USP of CoH that we will attempt to emulate, although I have no inside knowledge.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Yay ! Love you Minotaur !
cool Minotaur, does this mean even in this i can Spec my Bulwark to be more Offensive? :-D
Not sure I appreciate "the great lack of understanding" comment but ok I see your point Minotaur. In CoH you could be anything or do anything (including absolutely nothing. I saw plenty of that in my eight years in CoH) and it was all great. I would point out (1) There is not an infinite number of skill sets... far from it (2) There's nothing stopping a player from demonstrating proficiency in more than one skill set and (3) There is something wrong with people leveling through say 50 levels without any real knowledge of how to spec or play a character up to some minimum level of ability... and it's not elitism to suggest that.
I was on plenty of teams that did great without a tank (or whatever)... and others that did great in spite of a tank (or whatever) that was clueless; or not even present. There is a difference but you could not tell by the results. Something is broke when that happens. Looks like it'll stay that way. Bummer.
I tend to think that there is a difference in the ability of a person to solo a character and that of a person that can team with others. Those are two different play styles. If you try to solo a tank there is no need for you to take taunt or any other form of a team power. So if you solo'd a character all the way to level 50, well you'd know how to play a character solo to level 50. If you team play a Tank all the way to 50 then you'd know to have taunt and how to use it. You'd take other team oriented powers and how to use them to maximum efficiency. Team playing all the way to 50 would also allow you the ability to know how to strategize with other people unlike solo where you'd just run in and start smashing everything in sight. So while I understand that you want to know that a person knows how to play their character realize there are a lot of different ways that people can play, not every way will guarantee that it is the style you are looking for.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
Hmm, I concede that there are skills and abilities that allow a character to excel in a given role. I realize that a player would like to have some assurance that the new guy on the team can pull his weight. It makes sense that a hard-core player would like some way to tell if the new guy can survive hard-core play in a given role.
What I can't imagine is how the game could tell the difference. I don't see how it could test for competence.
Be Well!
Fireheart
First of all, for the reasons Minotaur listed, it is highly unlikely that there will be any content that is so difficult that it will require people to pass some kind of iLevel/skill test to complete. The only realistic way MWM could tune content that tightly would be to prescribe which power sets are required for the encounters.
Second, as Static points out, teaming and soloing can require fundamentally different styles of play. With sufficient buffs (this includes healing) even the most unlikely character can tank.
Third, would such a skill test allow people to team up to complete them? If not, what happens if a SG wants to carry one or more players through this content?
Last, but not least, deal with such players if they upset you. Speak to them or, if you must, kick them from your team. Such a test is not going to prevent people from joining teams and doing nothing but 'auto-attacking'. Is the team SOL at that point because they cannot do anything, since that player passed the test?
- - - - -
[font=Pristina][size=18][b]Hail Beard![/b][/size][/font]
Support [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/52149#comment-52149]trap clowns[/url] for CoT!
I'm not saying in general it's a bad idea, it's just not good for this game. An example:
Did you ever come across the green machine ? I wasn't involved, but as I understand it, it was a group of empaths who through buffing each other were completely awesome. An empath specced for that team might be rather different to your typical h34lz0r. Having to build a second build to get through the healing trial would be a right PITA.
I understand the wish to test competence, I've detailed my encounter with the AE baby FF defender elsewhere, I just think it's impractical.
I was a little spoiled, I got most of my groups through global channels and SG, so even when I PUGd I usually had a couple of people with me so that the 3 of us could handle the TF at +3x8, so unless people were actively disruptive we didn't worry.
Not sure exactly, but I suspect you will be able to take tanky/less tanky masteries eventually to be more offensive, not sure at launch.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
<------member of the Green Machine.
Being a part of the Repeat Offenders Network I was on a lot of uniquely designed teams. When Green Machine was rolling right, there was nothing that could stand in their way.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
Le sigh. First of all I already mentioned my position on hard gating of content.
Second, I have also already pointed out the case where this is applicable. The goal is to reward a player has progressed through say 50 levels and demonstrates some proficiency in performing a skill set that may be useful in performing the most difficult tasks in the game. If you want to look at it as identifying players who have either chosen not to or are incapable of performing the function I am ok with that too.
Third. You can team with whoever you want. Let's stick with tanks since I like that example. Want to head out without a tank? Go for it. Nothing is stopping you. Have fun. But wouldn't it be nice to know before you depart that somebody has spec'ed and demonstrated they can perform this function to some standard if needed? Or that you had a back up that could tank (or you could use a multi tank strategy)? Or that you have somebody aboard who plays a tank AT that either cannot or will not do the job? Or that you have somebody you would not typically think of as a tank but has completed a task that shows they can do this function? Or you are just going to have to figure out a way to accomplish the objective without a tank? I can think of all kinds circumstances where such info is useful and where it could be viewed as a sense of accomplishment.
Lastly, what I can't see is a game that tolerates (encourages) incompetent or absentee behavior at the highest level (to do the most difficult things) as cost of doing business because we don't want to anything that smacks of elitism. The anybody can do anything syndrome is not only untrue; it promotes the idea we cannot really determine if anyone can do a job at a passable level.
I do not see what everybody is so afraid of. There is an exercise. It's called Tank. The player choses if they wish to attempt to complete it. It may be a beneficial skill to have to complete some of the most difficult content in the game. It involves absorbing agro, killing a boss, and protecting an NPC from damage. What specs are needed (taunt, no taunt, etc)? You tell me. As far a I am concerned if you are an empath and can somehow figure out a way to complete the exercise (on your own) you pass. And you receive some kind of perk. That's it.
This is not as complex as some people are making it out to be. There is not an infinite set of skills. And some people may be proficient at more than one. And all may not be needed. But the road ahead is as tough as it gets. And I am from Missouri. Show me you can contribute. If you are a squish can you stay out of harm's way and do some good things (damage or buff/debuff) for the good of the team? If you are a tank, can you Tank? And so on.
As far as I am concerned, this "different people different playstyle" stuff has reached the point where what it really means is "do whatever you want to do (including nothing)" cause no individual is held to any standard to pull their weight for any reason. That should not be.
For the sake of argument, if this were implemented, would each character you make have to run through these tests each and every time? Would it be something that is unlockable account wide? Would it be something that is included in the Tutorial? Would it be an option to not run? If it weren't ran, is there something else that can be substituted to show that a person is capable? Would a person who chose not to run these tests be any less of a Tank than a person who did? If a person that did do the tests be a better Tank than someone who didn't? Would this affect builds leading to some form of Min/Maxing? Would it grant some kind of badge? Would it grant some kind of temporary power? Does completing it give you a badge and some kind of xp, money, or enhancement reward?
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
Good questions. The skill test is optional. You run it when you want to run it. The first time you succeed you receive a perk (TBD). It's not "farmable" but you can run it under different builds. How you change your build (min/max) is up to you. How someone is perceived as a Tank is subjective. Whether someone passed the skill test is objective. Those are my thoughts off the top of my head. I'm still at the stage of people maybe getting over how lousy and/or impossible idea it is as step one.
I'm still trying to get over the idea that anyone might believe that such a test is any guarantee that their PuG will be awesome.[color=red]*[/color] To me, this falls into the category of asking people to link their raid/TF achievement before inviting them to that raid or TF. Frankly, I'd prefer that those who must have some guarantee of competence ask for the achievements. I certainly find it preferable to having the devs spend time developing a slew of missions for a badge that amounts to little more than an indication that, yes, this person is aware that they are playing a tank, or a blaster, or whatever.
[br]
[color=red]*[/color] If this premise were sound, our roads would be very safe and we likely would not require insurance.
- - - - -
[font=Pristina][size=18][b]Hail Beard![/b][/size][/font]
Support [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/52149#comment-52149]trap clowns[/url] for CoT!
Bottle necks like this can hamper game flow, but I do love optional content that progresses my character, and especially my own personal skill. If there was a danger room simulation one could take part in at any time, as many times as they'd want, filled with tool tips, and gives a certificate at the end, it could be pretty cool. However, I don't think it should be a predetermined test per specification for the reasons mentioned above about different play styles/builds. If the simulation started off like a personality test, where it analyzes your play style first, then after a series of stages, it determines how you were effective. A panel pops up asking a series of questions based on a living flowchart you made from your actions figures out how to make you more effective (Do you prefer to fight a single target? Do you prefer to stun enemies? Do you want to fight quickly, or deal large amounts of damage?). Sure you determine a lot of this when you're making your character, but you could be mistaken or sort of threw a dart at a board, and don't really comprehend where the character is going. After the questions are complete, you'd resume in the path your answers led you.
Upon completion the dialogue would recommend which enhancements (or whatever system there will be) you should choose for the next 10 levels, zones you should focus on, contacts you should visit, what mobs you'll be most effective towards/most vulnerable to, and why. You'd be able to choose from the recommended contacts and receive said enhancement(s), and which power it should go into. I even see a free respec option in it to swap 1 or 2 powers you should go with to make you closer to the set you're trying to play. "You would be more sufficient in single target attacks if you switched quick cone attack with medium double attack. Do you wish to switch these two powers?" I'd probably call it something like Player Calibration Test. Then it could open access to multiple tests that would teach you how to use your powers during specific instances: Classification-Primary Test (you are being out numbered, cast mass sleep ability.), Specialization-Secondary Test (your second defense toggle isn't activated, and you're taking too much damage. Activate defense toggle now)--I've seen this happen far too many times. I view this as an optional guidance system that gives your character credentials upon completion, rather than a mandatory battle test to take part in game play.
I should mention, I think completing prerequisites to enter certain zones or access to a story arc is vital for giving a sense of accomplishment to the game--anything like that should be wide open for solo or team access, and have shared victory.
Perhaps I'm selfish, though I did help a lot of people learn about their characters and how to spec, but I enjoyed the fact that I was an innately better player than others. Forcing people through tutorials or epic trials is a pain in the ass when they don't want to do it. I say, let them suck, ignorance is bliss. I think having access to such a danger room can increase the likelihood someone will optimize their skill rather than making it a chore. To be honest, I learned all of this on my own. I like cause and effect, and learning from my mistakes in the "real world" rather than a simulation. The only reason I'd want it is to add to the list of accomplishments to my characters. Forcing a hard gate such as a play style test isn't in my personal play style of having fun.
5 OClock Shadow
"The Five", "Old Scruff", "Wolfbrand", "Tashomono"
Your shaving days are numbered...
I could see something like this used as a Danger Room where people could test out builds in very specific scenarios. Some people are shy and would rather learn on their own without inconveniencing a whole team while they figure stuff out. Maybe a tie-in with the trainer so you can test each of your available powers.
For all of CO's flaws, the Power House was an excellent idea.
As far as it conferring a badge so people, or the game itself can judge your worthiness for a given task; I'm not wild about that.
"I don't think you understand the gravity of your situation."
This seems like an idea to revisit after there are functioning powersets and content that can be playtested. Until then, if I assume that CoT combat will feel close enough to CoH's, such hypothetical skill tests would need to be very carefully designed to avoid "one way to accomplish X" pigeonholing. As with anything that requires development work, I'd also expect it to need to justify its usefulness as a game feature... what's wrong with the "invite and go; sort out problems/kick if needed" method that already exists, and is the new idea so much better that it's worth the effort to design it?
As described so far, it is not something I'd personally use (or require of my teammates). A "tanking test" for players who want to prove their ability (regardless of which class/spec they are, not just tanks) and similar tests for other playstyles will not supercede the existing manual team leadership method. For example, there is nothing to prevent a player from passing the tanking test once, then joining teams and slacking or using poor tanking tactics. In another example, there is also no way for a solo tanking test to allow a duo of players to demonstrate their ability to "tank" content via controls or harsh debuffs; therefore I am concerned that the mere existence of such a skill test would give team leaders an easy excuse to reject that duo's ability when (in CoH) the game culture was more open to new tactics. An open, accepting culture stems from having no game-induced gear/skill score, so that a player's "worth" to the team is determined continually without artificial how-to-play restrictions; they simply use their skills alongside a team of fellow humans and the team focuses on getting the mission done.
All that being said, I would like to see "special challenges" designed by players through the mission creator. That seems completely in line with the spirit of CoH. That way if a supergroup or team leader wants to send prospective invitees through boot camp, they can.
Good point. But let's look at what we know. (1) There is no end game, (2) Dinging 50 in CoH was about as an anticlimactic an experience as you could have. (3) I just got a pretty good lecture from some pretty smart people on how a "Defender" can be a "Tank" and an EAT can be anything. So, let's see and (4) Yeah I admit I have a vested interest in having some idea of what you can bring to the table in the highest level team content. Even then, we may not prevail... and I'm ok with that too.
My brain hurts. It goes without saying that you are all very sharp cookies. And I have reached the maximum level of my ability to add value to the discussion. So I am going to slide out. But I still think the idea has merit.
The only way that I see that anyone can be certain that another player is competent, and/or a good match for the team, is to play with them. When I played WoW I was always apprehensive about being the odd person out in a guild run, even for 'simple' heroic instances. Without talking to them I could not know how they approached any given fight. I might fall flat on my face because they did something unexpected. That is no indication that I am incompetent. Likewise, if their tactic works for them it's irrelevant if for most people they're "doing it wrong".
To belabor my driving license metaphor, just by seeing the license one cannot judge if they're getting Nico Hülkenberg or some half-suicidal, half-homicidal woman who's already had her license revoked half a dozen times.
If such missions were presented as a kind of challenge, as per 5 O'Clock Shadow's and Rigel's suggestions, they would still serve as voluntary skill tests without being saddled with the implication that anyone who does not pass is not a good player. In essence they might be something akin to WoW's challenge mode dungeons (these were introduced after I'd stopped playing, so I have no personal experience with them). Big bonus points if these missions measured things like DPS, healing done, buff up-time, etc., etc.
Yeah, we're going to have a game where two DPS might compare who did more healing.
- - - - -
[font=Pristina][size=18][b]Hail Beard![/b][/size][/font]
Support [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/52149#comment-52149]trap clowns[/url] for CoT!
I've had MANY a Persons tell me I was a good tank in CoH, but only Some of them clicked on my name and gave me 5 Stars for the Tanking ROLE from the Listing. >:(
I bet others would have seen, maybe from the ROLE Averages Tab (never Existed.. just made it up), I was a 4.8 Stars Tank. :D
And each VOTE came with a Comment. YAY. One person said I did Super Awesome on the last part of the ITF, when I was tanking Romulus. ;D
[b]Tanking[/b] [color=green]***** 4.8[/color] (18 votes)
[b]Support[/b] [color=red]** 1.5[/color] (2 votes)
...
I cant wait for 400 people to vote before i get my SUPREME Tanking badge. :D
Anyone with 400 votes with an average of 4.5 gets it. Weeeeeee. ;)
As I said in another thread, pre-incarnate and pre-IO, the scrapper forums were loaded with discussions of loadouts that would let you solo a Rikti pylon. That was the challenge for some of them.
It would be interesting to see other kinds of challenges, like a healer/defender type challenge, a controller type challenge. Heck, for that matter, a better scrapper-type challenge, say, 3 mini-AVs that regenerated quickly such that you had to leap around, keeping their health within 10% of each other, until you killed them.
__________________
[IMG]http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll38/Gnurl/a72b7fba-8da2-4ac8-8e18-0f8453f7d3ee_zpscc5b27b5.jpg[/IMG]
The very existence of the taunting tank irritates, for it requires idiotic AI that obeys the taunt.
Yes, yes and again yes. CO had plenty of problems but the Power House was a pretty useful tool, something similar implemented here would help players figure out how to use their new powers in a variety of ways, if the Travel powers become more in depth, or just trying to learn how to handle your new AoE or Cone based ability. As for the thread in general, I guess I don't have an opinion either way, I had a Rad\Rad defender on Justice Server and I Tanked with him constantly. I should of taken Sands of Mu but I took Ghost Slayer Axe. Oops. I Buffed, Debuffed, and Tanked, To go back to example of the Tank 'trial' If I were doing that, wouldn't I just have to keep using "taunt" or the equivalent to earn the victory?
"Taunt Taunt Taunt" Good job! Here's a Medal for doing something mindless." What about the 'healer'?
"Heal the NPC Heal the NPC Heal the NPC, Success! You've won a new car!"
What's the point of that if your already past level one?
You know what?
CoH had it right in the beginning, and the idea can be expanded on here. The outbreak, does everyone remember that? The start up mission! Hmm... so if each individual class, had it's own start up mission that was tailored to teach the player how to effectively use their class, obviously not every player type, or skill set combo, but a mission that brought the player through several basic concepts of their archtype while giving the players the chance to feel out their powers and controls. Each 'account' has to go through each classes unique mission the first time before they received the option to skip for the next build. That might be the most effective way to go. Sorry if I'm missing the point, but I think that's what it's about, trying to ensure that players know how to use their characters.
Love is like a Rhino, short-sighted and hasty; If it cannot find it a way, it will make a way.
-Flavor text on Crash of Rhinos.
Looking at it as a extended tutorial missions as opposed to a certification tests, the idea could have merit. There is only so much you can teach a person through words. Many of us will just learn by doing, and there is nothing wrong with that. More than once in CoH I saw in chat something along the lines of "I've only played blasters before, this is my first tank, how do I do this?" Having a focused tutorial on aggro control could really of helped players like that. Not that I am saying to do away with feedback and help from our fellow players.
-----------------------------------------
I never set anything on fire accidentally!
The Titan Legacy - Defender of the Inner Flame
I agree with implementing some kind of Class based tutorial mission. It would help you learn the basics on top of learning how that class performs under certain conditions. Now obviously there will be exceptions to every role, but for the most part it should help you learn what to expect from whatever you decide to play. At the end of the tutorial they could make it somewhat beneficial by rewarding the player with something that will help them get their character started. Will this solve the answer to the question as to whether or not this person can play this character "correctly", which is subjective, maybe not, but it will at least let everybody know that this person "should" know basically the role they are going to be playing.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
Hmm.. instead of limiting, lets say MasterMinds to just Supporting, I would like to nominate my Thugs MasterMind for the Tanking ROLE, which some MasterMinds might Not want to ever do. :)
So, I rather let players VOTE how well I'm doing at a specific ROLE, even if my Archetype isn't a Tank.
My Thugs MasterMind could get player Voted ratings like this:
[b]Tanking[/b] ***** 4.8 (20 votes)
[b]Support[/b] **** 4.2 (10 votes)
etc...
Also, my Thugs masterMind would FAIL miserably if I tried to pass some kind of TEST for Tanking, unless it was After level 26. ;)
I object to the very premise that someone else (even the devs) should be allowed to tell ME how I should build, slot, enhance, or play my toon. That ought to be my decision alone, I think. If you don't think I'm a tanky enough tank to be on your team, so be it. Just don't invite me, or kick me from the team, or whatever. It's not my job to build a tank that meets your (or the devs') expectations. I want to just build my toons to my liking, without having to conform to some fascist ideal of utility or fitness.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Do you object to offering suggestions to people who have no idea what they are doing? Because that seems to me what most people are going for in this thread.
-----------------------------------------
I never set anything on fire accidentally!
The Titan Legacy - Defender of the Inner Flame
While I'm not all for somebody telling me exactly how to play my character, I see no harm in having an introductory tutorial to try to guide someone through the basics of playing a character at the beginning of the game. That's not saying that you have to play that character exactly like that every time. It still gives you the freedom to play around with your character and try out things that may not be in the norm.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
All I was suggesting was if you know you wanted to be a SS/WP tanker who wanted to knock mobs around rather than herding all the time, then the tutorial could ask questions from an algorithm created based off of how you play, and find out how to let you do that more effectively.
I know most people didn't want me to tank their team with this style, and I didn't want to, so I'd definitely ignore any tutorial trying to tell me how to play my character. That's why I think the tutorial could be designed to find out how to optimize your play style. The best part is you wouldn't have to take part in it, or take partially take it to heart. The people it would help the most are people who don't have a unique vision and understanding of the game.
5 OClock Shadow
"The Five", "Old Scruff", "Wolfbrand", "Tashomono"
Your shaving days are numbered...
CoX had two (then just one) tutorials that many people routinely skipped after the initial newbie phase. I think tutorials, or at least A tutorial should be in there for those who need it to get started in the game controls, etc. Adding an "Advanced" tutorial for those people wanting to test their toons, to me, has no added value over just organically playing your toon and respeccing when you feel you need to. In that sense, just playing your toon is itself a type of tutorial. You learn as you go, and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't see a person saying to themself "I don't want to do even a single mission with this toon until I'm sure it's built perfectly right." I think people are more than okay with just building it in a way that makes sense, then tweaking it as they go along. It's not like this is WoW where everyone hates on newbies and yells at you for not knowing how to play your toon. CoX was NEVER like that, as far as I remember it, and I don't expect CoT to be that way. Besides, you're probably going to respec after playing that "perfect" build anyway. No toon is ever really "done" as long as the option exists to respec again.
If there needs to be a tutorial for something, SG base building and user-generated content would be the big areas that need that. It really doesn't bother me to know that my toon is not "perfect", in fact that's an assumption I tend to make about all of my toons. And anyway, there are different missions, play styles, etc that don't fit nicely into a particular "role" and aren't trying to.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Yep, most of the time if someone sucked, the team would help them out. Give suggestions, explain how enhancements worked, whatever the issue was.
I'm definitely with you as far as making a toon that is flawed or completely deviates from all the other Tankers and Blasters. I believe most of my alts were that way. I'm even more so with you about decking it out in the streets, and learn about your character without any guidance. These are the main reasons I loved CoH.
I meant this testing area would be building like AE you could go to at any time, and figure out where you're short changing yourself instead of what this whole post is about: having to certify yourself as an appropriate representative for your Classification through completing a trial. My point was I'd rather have a helpful developmental system instead of a hard gate. It wouldn't be a prerequisite of any kind, nor a menu prompted option. I didn't infer anywhere that no one would want to play their character before they tested their abilities here, or learned more about their powers. Someone could think they made a debuff oriented toon, when they're only at 75% effective because the two powers they thought were good for their debuff theme, really aren't fulfilling their play style. I think it'd be quite useful, and fun for people RPing academic characters/characters living by the book. Learn technique or control through a system/university, or learn on the streets on your own.
It's just an idea. I'd use it for some characters, but I'd be 100% fine without it in the game. I would definitely not enjoy any features that hold you back for faulty reasons that a based off of misinterpretation.
5 OClock Shadow
"The Five", "Old Scruff", "Wolfbrand", "Tashomono"
Your shaving days are numbered...
I admit that I have only scanned some of the responses to this idea, but here is my succinct if simplistic take on it:
I like the idea of a "Danger Room" or specific content that allows me to test my build or hone my skills. I DON'T like the idea of it being some kind of pass/fail certificate that can be demanded of me any time I'm invited to a team.
Does anyone remember the Metal Gear Solid VR Missions game? It launched soon after Metal Gear Solid and built upon the training mode. In essence it was a stand alone training/tutorial for MGS. My roommate was really into MGS and he told me once how playing the VR missions did improve his game, and this was after playing through the game at least twice. Now for plenty of people out there the VR Missions wasn't worth it. After all, they could just play the game and get better. For some people though, there was an advantage to playing it. Whether someone who could play used it to hone their skills to razor sharpness, or a new player who wanted an extended tutorial without the fear of failure.
I'm not saying it should be a high priority for the devs. Perhaps it is even something that could be done via the mission creator by the players themselves. In any case, I can see it having merit, even if I am a "learn by smacking my head against the wall" kind of guy.
-----------------------------------------
I never set anything on fire accidentally!
The Titan Legacy - Defender of the Inner Flame
I know its corny, but the Spidar-man Tutorial was something i thought was nice.
http://youtu.be/IciL7TPAjTI?t=1m58s
It was optional, but it gave me confidence, since I get anxious about having to read a whole bunch of text and sometimes not really getting what the guy/gal writing the text was trying to convey, especially if its a little more involved. So to this day, I recall how FAST and PLEASANT it was to get into the game and not feel like I better just stick to the basic 1 or 2 attack buttons. :)