Hertz

I totally agree with this idea. They could just make the glowies shout "Woo woo woo!" every few minutes.

Or they could make the character say "It's got to be around here somewhere!" to himself (in the same way he says, "I'm getting too far away from my mentor!"). And when he gets out of range of the glowie, he can say, "I'd better keep looking."
[ QUOTE ]
But what about the blind? Braille touch screens for all?

[/ QUOTE ]
Um.

Braille Screens + Mission Architect + Custom Enemies + Chest Slider = Never leaving home again?

[ QUOTE ]
You really only see this villainside, but Dr. Aeon is fond of doing this, as are many of the signature heroes. Let us choose for an enemy to teleport rather than collapse upon defeat, or at 25% health.

[/ QUOTE ]
Anti-Matter also teleports out the first time you meet him, in the Praetorian arcs.

1. Obvious farm is obvious.
2. I burning your farm.
3. Hi, Opal!

[ QUOTE ]
You'd think that, but people [censored] when they did.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those people should be Old Yeller'd.

[ QUOTE ]
The devs must must mantain an air of imparitality...

[/ QUOTE ]
They must?

I'd rather the developers err on the side of good missions, no matter who makes them.

I highly doubt that there is a hard-and-fast rule delimiting "one Dev Choice per author, no matter what." Maybe during the transfer from Beta to Live, that was the rule, but ...

Is there any logical reason why you would tell a good author with a proven track record that they shouldn't bother contributing any more?

Just think of it: one Dev Choice per author, X number of Dev Choices per month, inevitably means one of two things. Either everybody would get a Dev Choice no matter how bad their arc was, or they'd stop giving them out. Makes no sense.

I strongly suspect that this isn't a rule going forward into Live.

What are the Mission Architect unlockables I'm hearing so much about? Paragon Wiki didn't seem to have anything on it.

I presume: signature villains, special maps, unusual contacts. (I just want a dagnabbed telephone contact. Is that so wrong?)

Are any mission objectives unlockable? Powersets?

My choices are two: make missions, or play missions. I would happily make missions. I would happily play MA missions, too, to earn unlockables, so I could make better missions, but I don't want to spend weeks building a super-fantastic mission and then discover that I could've had Wonderful Special Unlockable Tool X if only I'd spent some time earning it. Then I earn it, then I have to redesign my mission all over again.

What unlockables can I look forward to?

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, I tried using the MA, and had to stop after having my dreams of making my dream of making several groups dashed by clunky and severely restricted creature creation tools.

[/ QUOTE ]
<Homer Simpson voice>

Let that be a lesson to you, boy. Never, ever dream.

</Homer>

There's a reason why I didn't plan out any of my hoped-for missions until I saw the toolset. I didn't want to get my hopes up.

And how's about a little Stan and Lou in Cap au Diable?

Coming up next, in this tentative order order, will be
31: Cap au Dible
32: Sharkhead Isle
33: St. Martial
34: Nerva Archipelago
35: Warburg

I'm pretty sure 31 will be about Luddites and the Mission Architect. Warburg, of course, will be about the nukes.

What are your suggestions for 32, 33 and 34?

I have no problems with the idea of sending something through the mail. None whatsoever. Postage fees would be a money sink, which this game desperately needs.

Mind you, I seem to recall that there was a developer response along the following lines: "The reason we don't have an in-game mailing system is that we didn't assign anybody to program one."

So there you are.

[ QUOTE ]
...

still...

semi....

patiently...

waiting.........

[/ QUOTE ]
Well ... okay.

Stan and Lou talk tactics in Siren's Call.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh! Better idea... Is there any way you can give certain ratings more 'weight' than others? If someone rates a mission without playing it, it would have a low weight against the total rating, while someone who completes it has a greater effect on the overall rating. What do you think?

*EDIT* This could count more towards the badge, too, in some way.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a reasonable idea. Someone who rates an arc after playing half of the first mission shouldn't have an equal vote compared to the person who played all the missions in the arc.

[/ QUOTE ]
But in the case of "Mission That's Virtually Impossible" you'd get a bunch of low-weighted 1-stars from people who couldn't finish it, and a bunch of heavily-weighted 5-stars from the few who could finish it and enjoyed the challenge.

Or you'd get a mission so annoying that nobody would ever complete it except the mission designer and his friends, who all 5-star it.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but there are ways to game virtually every rating system.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you could always write a story arc that begins like it's taking place in the virtual reality, and then the villain comes along and tampers with it or something. I'm sure there are ways to get around this conceptual issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
But that means your mission can never become canon: it will never move out of the virtual world into the real one because its concept depends on beginning in virtual space.

Thanks. I just went to read the FAQ, belatedly. I don't know what to say, except

[ QUOTE ]
When this baby hits eighty-eight miles per hour...

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, if it were "50+ votes at average 5 stars" you'd stand in Atlas Park and shout, "I'll pay you 500,000 inf if you vote 5 stars for my mission!"

I'd be inclined to wonder if the MA missions are available cross-server and cross US/UK.

[ QUOTE ]
Well does anyone have any ideas as to how we could make this work?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure the developers have given it much more thought than I have, but let me try to illustrate the scope of the problem as I see it:

1. There is, at present, no tool in the game for removing badges and contacts from a character, once earned. Any system of side-switching is going to have to overcome or work around the hurdle of how certain achievements are labeled. The matter of level-dependent badges would have to be worked out (for instance, if your level 35 Mastermind switches over to Paragon City, should he even be given the level 20 "Defender of Truth" badge that all Heroes get?

2. The current implementation of trading prohibits the exchange between Heroes and Villains of any Influence, Infamy, Enhancements, IOs, Recipes, Inspirations, and everything else. The markets are separate by design. (Whether this is appropriate is not a matter I will debate here.) In order to permit side-switching I would expect one of two things to happen. Either a) the markets are opened up to exchange between both sides and full trading between Heroes and Villains allowed, or b) side-switching would strip the player of any tradable goods and unslot all of his Enhancements currently in place. Without b) then side-switching becomes a de facto trading mechanism: carry as much as you can, hop to the other side, dump it on the market, repeat.

3. The character would have to be booted out of the SG or VG he's presently in, as well as any team he's on, which means he'd have to be kicked out of any associated chat channels.

4. There will almost certainly be a minimum level for side-switching. Logically, if you could swap over from Hero to Villain at level 1, they'd just open up the Archetypes to both sides, right?

5. There will probably be some kind of Task/Strike Force associated with side-switching, which presents a problem all its own. How do you make sure that all the players on that team really want to switch sides? Given that it would probably strip them of all their possessions it would have potential for griefing unless the Task/Strike Force technology is used. (Example: if side-switching were a regular mission, you could try to lure somebody on your team and not tell them that it's the side-switching mission.)

6. Access to doors, trams, ferries, helicopters, Pocket D, bases, and other inter-zone travel would have to be rigorously tested so that you could not (for instance) side-switch and then use the Valkyrie Pack Mission Teleporter to zap your "heroic villain" from Steel Canyon to your mission door in Sharkhead Isle.

7. Buffs and debuffs and mezzes of all kinds would probably be stripped away as you switched sides, particularly Confuse. (Cast Confuse on somebody and get them to switch sides... suddenly your Corruptor is a Hero, but he's Confused, so he can lay waste to newbies in Atlas Park...)

8. Side-switching would almost certainly not take place in any PVP zone. The cooperatives zones, however, seem like good candidates: Midnighter Club, Pocket D, Rikti War Zone.

9. Your first contacts are given to you for free when you begin, but almost every other contact from that point is given by your other contacts. If switching sides means you lose all your old contacts, there must be some way to grant the side-switched character access into this self-perpetuating chain. Content for the side-switched character would have to be created, probably in the form of a "Welcome to Paragon City, you untrustworthy turncoat, here's how you can prove your loyalty to us." This is more difficult than it sounds; in order to dispense a mission to your Paragon City Brute, that contact is going to need to a) be easy to get to, no matter what level you are; b) have missions you can do at a wide range of levels (eg, against Lost/Rikti, Council, or COT), c) give you access to one or more ordinary contacts fairly quickly.

So we begin to see the scope of the problem. A side-switching mission would probably require a minimum level, be Task-Force or Strike-Force based, have some kind of independent confirmation window for every player, and would carefully have to strip away all Hero-Villain identifiers, badges, contacts, missions, rewards, possibly accolades, and buffs/debuffs prior to switching over.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I go to a sandwich store and buy 10 sandwiches at $5.00. I get my card punched. At 10 punches I get a free sandwich. My loyalty is being rewarded.

Someone else goes to the sandwich shop 1 time, buys 1 sandwich, and wants to pay $2.50 for an additional sandwich.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Veteran's Rewards in this game do not work that way. You don't get a free week's playtime with every 3 months of time you purchase...

[/ QUOTE ]
Please do not deliberately misunderstand my point. Customer loyalty is rewarded, in whatever fashion, by various businesses. Such incentives are part of a proven business model. Customers who are loyal have access to greater privileges than do first-time customers: whether you call it buy-10-get-1-free, or frequent flier miles, or season tickets, or veteran rewards.

And a business does this because customers who return frequently should be encouraged to continue to do so. Customers who arrive for the first time should see that there is an incentive program.

You should note that there is in fact a buy-X-months-get-Y-months-free incentive going on right now. Same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pointing out that the veteran is not paying $45 per reward: he's paying zero per reward. You already get his money whether or not he gets any reward. But the $10 you get from the fly-by-nighter is actually for the reward: you only get it if he gets the reward. And that's in addition to the cost for him to keep his account active long enough to purchase the shiny.

[/ QUOTE ]
And how long would he have to keep his account open to compete with the amount of money the veteran contributed? That's my point. No matter how you break it down, the veteran has paid more money than the other guy.

I go to a sandwich store and buy 10 sandwiches at $5.00. I get my card punched. At 10 punches I get a free sandwich. My loyalty is being rewarded.

Someone else goes to the sandwich shop 1 time, buys 1 sandwich, and wants to pay $2.50 for an additional sandwich.

Who has contributed more?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Edit: What it breaks down to, in my eyes, is this: if a veteran pays $45 per reward and a new player pays $10 per reward, which customer would you rather have, and how do you get more of the former? Which player helps offset the cost of game development, the loyal fan who pays and plays, or the on-again-off-again fan who wants a discount?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems to me the correct answer is both.

But if I had to choose, I'd probably favor the fly-by-night fan...

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you answering the same question I asked? I said which player helps offset the cost of game development? Are you sure that a player who maaaaaybe pays for 1 month out of every 12 is the one funding the game, more so than the one who pays for 12/12?

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, I don't see that giving players the option to buy veteran rewards -- in packs, through micropayments, whatever -- would be a bad thing, either. ... Seems like it'd be the best solution, honestly.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't agree at all.

City of Heroes is based on a subscription-only fee system. There is no cost to buy new upgrades (except for the optional costume packs), there are no expansion packs to purchase. You can join today and receive the benefit of 5+ years of game development, for the cost of $19.99 (or whatever they're selling the box for these days).

Such a fee structure also means you can quit for any length of time and come back without penalty. Your stuff doesn't decay, your equipment doesn't lose its charges, and your base doesn't get confiscated. The only things you might lose are a) your name, and b) veteran rewards.

This has the effect of encouraging on-again, off-again subscribers. When a new Issue is released after 5 months, they come back for 30 days, pay $15 bucks, and get all the content that the rest of us paid $75 to help develop. Their penalty? Usually, nothing.

Look at purchasable Veteran Rewards in that light. They are made by design to reward the people who aren't the bouncy in-and-out on-and-off users. What other system can you imagine will have this effect?

If a Veteran Reward is purchased at the cost of 3 months' subscription, why should they sell it for less, especially when the system itself is designed to encourage people to stay subscribed?

The alternatives, as I see it:

1. As soon as you unsubscribe, your base is deleted, and all your superhero names are erased. This would be draconian but it would give people a disincentive to play the leave-and-come-back game. It would also, however, be a disincentive for departing players ever to return — it would burn bridges permanently. Some people would stomp off and quit because they can't have everything for free.

2. Reward people based on longevity, as now. Some people would be rewarded for staying and paying, and some people would stomp off and quit because they can't have everything for free.

3. Allow people to purchase VRs in some order, for cash. Some people who currently pay $45/reward would downgrade to buying the VR packs at $10/reward. Some people who currently pay nothing might fork over for the VRs. Some people would stomp off and quit because they can't have everything for free.

4. Allow people to purchase VRs in some fashion, with Influence or in-game missions. Some people would stomp off and quit because they can't have everything for free. Real money trading would skyrocket and gold farmers would have a field day. Items offered as long-term veteran rewards would be acquired in a weekend.

5. Switch to a pay-for-each-Issue business model. All issues are now $50 each. Some people would stomp off and quit because they can't have everything for free.

Did I miss any?

Edit: What it breaks down to, in my eyes, is this: if a veteran pays $45 per reward and a new player pays $10 per reward, which customer would you rather have, and how do you get more of the former? Which player helps offset the cost of game development, the loyal fan who pays and plays, or the on-again-off-again fan who wants a discount?

[ QUOTE ]
being a 51 month vet, i wouldn't care if people baught the rewards, the only ones worth having are...

sands of mu / ghost slaying axe
blackwand / nam staff
Port team
base teleport
and the respec rewards

[/ QUOTE ]
And that is why "just sell them!" isn't an effective war cry. Allowing people to cherry-pick the rewards they want at will means, inevitably, most people will only ever want to spring for 3-4 items at most. I don't know if I'd call that an effective program to encourage player longevity and to spark revenue.

Even then, "just sell them!" doesn't accomplish the major benefit of having players, and that's having people in the zones. A new player who joins today — buys the new Mac version, let's suppose — could walk into Atlas Park and find people to team with.

It isn't about having the money. It's about having a population.

I wouldn't object if they had some way of letting players select which of the several costume pieces they wanted, every 3 months. Every 12 months, you could select which power you wanted. I think that would accomplish the goal. "Buy the Nemesis staff for $2.99 on the first day" is not something I think could contribute much to server population.

[ QUOTE ]
I like the 60 month reward but not to happy with the 57 month one. My main character has 50 free icon tokens already.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've thought about this, and I like it.

Save Costume #1. Change costume to something else at half-price. Save Costume #2. Re-load costume #1 for half-price.

[ QUOTE ]
Many do make some use out of CJ. But is it really *more* useful than whatever you could put in its place?

[/ QUOTE ]
That depends on what you plan to put in its place. Most travel pre-reqs don't require heavy slotting. When was the last time you saw a six-slotted Recall Friend? Six-slotted Jump Kick? Even Hasten can't be six-slotted very often these days.

It'd have to be something that doesn't need any more slots than your travel pool pre-req — so probably not an expensive toggle or an attack power. About the best bang for your buck on "doesn't take many slots" would be a power like Revive, Aim, Buildup, or maybe Resurrect, but chances are you already have them.

The question is not "whatever you can put in its place," but "what one power can you put in its place that wasn't so good that you didn't already take it the first time around?"

[ QUOTE ]
I mean I can't think of a term for a person who goes beyond 60 months with this game, but the term veteran for such folks just doesn't do them justice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Emeritus.