Radiac wrote:

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

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

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

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

Beeker wrote:

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

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

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

Radiac wrote:

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

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

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

Super M. wrote:

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

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

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

Radiac wrote:

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

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

We are considering several options for revisiting older content.

Tannim222 wrote:

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

I'm pleased to hear all this.

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

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

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

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

[youtube]q2nNzNo_Xps[/youtube]

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

But that (Player) subjective view of "which came first" isn't the only possible option. There's also the precedent of the "controlled rewind" option that was made available through the Flashback system in City of Heroes. What the Flashback system made possible was for characters to [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_L2NSuSNs]Quantum Leap[/url] into their own history/time stream so as to "replay" past content (including content they never got to play through in the first place). It was a way to Go Back, as opposed to being a way to Jump Forward ... but the key thing is that the Flashback system "broke" the strictly linear progression of time within the context of the game. While Players continued to experience the game in a linear fashion [i]their characters were not necessarily also limited the same way[/i] since you could always "Flashback" to do something over/different/new from a previous "era" of gameplay.

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

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

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

Redlynne wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I cant disagree with you more Huck.

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

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

Lothic wrote:

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

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

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

Huckleberry wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what is my opinion on all of this?

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

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

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

There. Those are my opinions on this.

Super M. wrote:

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

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

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

KnightMask wrote:

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

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

KnightMask wrote:

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

Truer words were never spoken.

blacke4dawn wrote:

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

hmmm....

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

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

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

Redlynne wrote:

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

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

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