Samuel_Tow

[ QUOTE ]
But, for the last time, the insane notion that CoH needs to be *THE* focus becuase it has the most people only spells the death of CoV, and hurts CoX as a whole for it. Attention is needed most where the content is lacking, NOT where content is already abundant.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I have to agree with. It does the game nothing but a disservice to shift focus off that which isn't played and into that which is. One can easily argue that one of the big reasons one side does have a greater population is exactly BECAUSE it has more content. But beyond that, to keep our game healthy and good, we need to keep every part of it up to scratch. It doesn't pay to neglect parts because they're not being used, as that's a vicious circle.

To me, the game needs to fix what's broken and add more where it lacks. It doesn't need to fine-tune what's working and add redundancy where we have more than enough. A good game is a game that's good overall, not excellent in some areas and terrible in others. It KILLS the replay value of my heroes that I have to spend all my time in frikkin' Sharkhead. And having run a series of low-level villains recently, I'm getting sick of Cap, too, while I've seen barely anything of Port Oaks.

[ QUOTE ]
CoV has not gotten anything "Fluffy" since introduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely agreed. For as much as people complain about "too many zones" and "too many meaningless missions" in CoH, it still adds a lot to the game. Makes it feel a LOT bigger.

So we're back to a few hundred replies ago - us vs. them.

Me, I don't care which side gets content and if one or the other is "neglected" for a while. Didn't bother me with Issues 6 and 7, and it won't bother me now.

I don't think it's a good idea to completely neglect adding content for either side, though, just as it's not a good idea to neglect adding content that a particular AT can take part in for more than a passing instance. I just don't think it's feasible. The more focused the content you add, the fewer the people you please at a time, and the more the ones complaining they're being forgotten.

I do, however, refuse to accept the "giving more content to fewer people" idea in terms of CoV getting more content than CoH. As I've stated numerous times, it's the same game, so putting in content anywhere in it is content for everybody, not just a few people. Adding content for level 50s is rather different, because not everyone physically has a level 50, and even more so because new players take years before they get one. Adding content for either side is different, as everyone has access to both sides from creation on.

There is, also, something to be said about adding content where it's most needed. And, frankly, if I can't get from 20-25 without rotting in Sharkhead Island, that may be a place that needs it. If CoV needs more, then CoV should get more. Doesn't make sense to have one part of the game significantly more poor.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the only thing "unique" ATs accomplish for me is to deny me access to some of the things I'd like to try out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point of order: ATs that are unique to a given side don't deny you access to anything. You may choose to deny yourself access, though (and yes, I know you don't care for a lot of the redside ambiance and content ). Functionally the result is the same for you, but there is a distinction nonetheless.
I thought this thread had already covered that point though

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, the distinction is there, I make no contest. All I'm saying is that, at least for me, locking ATs to only one side does NOT make me switch over to that side to play characters that would require these ATs, it makes me not create those characters in the first place. I know there are people who play a side with the express purpose of playing its ATs, so obviously it works for some, but that still doesn't convince me locking ATs is superior to sharing them.

There are people who want to play an AT, but don't like the side it's on, or want to play a powerset but don't like the AT it's for. There are also people who don't care about side or AT and play whatever they like regardless of circumstances. So it works for some and fails for others. I'm not really sure as to what the ratio between these two types of people is, but it feels that, in terms of concept, at least, the current system favours coercion to play a side or AT over conceptual freedom. The only downside I see to sharing stuff is that people who played a side/AT they didn't like before will now stop playing it when they no longer HAVE to.

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's just a BAD IDEA all around to fully combine the games. Having unique content in each game is a good thing, it's more reason to actually play them, and despite how many people refuse to accept it (devs included) they are different games, they play differently, they should BE different. Heroes != Villains. It's a damn shame the devs can't see past the "hero" side of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both sides play pretty much the same. And the only thing "unique" ATs accomplish for me is to deny me access to some of the things I'd like to try out. If I can't have a hero who uses Electric Melee, I certainly won't make a villain, instead. Concepts don't cross faction boundaries very easily.

[ QUOTE ]
I was wondering if it was claws or weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much. I've done lists of what I want to see shared, but most immediately I want to see Broadsword for Brutes and Tankers, and Battle Axe for Brutes and Scrappers.

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't he be a brute?

[/ QUOTE ]

Brutes don't get access to Broadsword most of all I'm be just as happy if I could share powersets.

There's also the fact that a Brute is brutish and... Well, furious, and I had something more akin to a light but stout fighter in mind. Half-way between a Stalker and a Brute. More or less where Scrappers fall

Personally, I do want AT sharing, and pretty badly. I have a villain concept that would be perfect for a Scrapper, but I can't make one CoV side. Which is a pity.

[ QUOTE ]
You lose the zone. Your access points from in the city are closed down. No char can enter the zone. Chars that were in the zone eventually get relocated when they log back in.
You don't want the damn zone anyway. You guys [censored] and moan that there's nothing to do there. So fine, your "empty" zone is gone, CoV has something new to do. Mmmkthnxbaibai.

[/ QUOTE ]

Question: Why do you insist on porting old, crappy zones and then sprucing them up instead of brand new zones build specifically for the side and within the plotline of the game? Both are about as likely to happen.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm doing something wrong, I just don't know what.

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming the other side has a clue ...?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seeing as how there are days when I feel like I have a foot permanently ingrown into my mouth like a cancerous tumour, even if that were problem it would be only half the story.

And you can quote me on that

[ QUOTE ]
To be fair, you did say the same thing about 10 times....ya kinda gave it away

[/ QUOTE ]

Sucks to be me, I know. One of these days I'll learn to repeat myself less. It's not like trying to explain ever helps me get my point across better. I'm doing something wrong, I just don't know what.

[ QUOTE ]
I so love it when I'm right

[/ QUOTE ]

It's such a heart-warming feeling, indeed

I hope my being painfully predictable doesn't do much to spoil it

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to be that group two's problem isn't about what is or isn't content, they'd just be mad if Villains got hazard zones that Heroes already have because that wouldn't be adding something to HERO side, and that just won't do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly, I'd be mad if villains got hero hazard zones because of two reasons.

Firstly, it's a cheap, arrogant cop-out of CoV's need for real content. Throwing villains a zone that's already among the least used content is, in my opinion, insulting, especially if the claim that this is meant to solve CoV's need for more content. Villains need good content designed specifically for their side, and taking the easy way out and just tossing them a few hazard zones is insulting, in my eyes.

Secondly, this means that hazard zones that get shared will not be improved the way Faultline was, leaving CoH with a bunch of ghost town zones AND adding a few ghost town zones to CoV for good measure. Villains need their own new zones and heroes need their own old zones refurbished. Anything less than that is taking the cheap, easy road, and one would hope the developers have well learned to do things right the first time around.

[ QUOTE ]
You're not "considering" anything but your own backwards idea of how people should play the game.
This post is the verbal equivalent of someone hitting "random" in the character generator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me put it in plain English, then. Creating content for you and the other two people who prefer their zones to not have any missions is a waste. An empty zone with nothing but street spawns is nothing because nobody needs that.

Oh, look, I've been sugar-coating a really shallow idea. I'm ashamed of holding that opinion, myself, but it cannot be helped. I will not deny some people like hazard zones. I will deny, however, that hazard zones are content in anything but the most technical definition, the one by which we can claim that the PDP (Paragon Dance Party, the precursor of Pocket D) is content.

It's really not that complicated. A zone without missions in it is empty for all that matters. Salvaging some use out of it does not constitute content, not such more of which needs to be added.

You're arguing semantics, yet when I get down to arguing semantics I'm certainly contradicting myself. But that's OK, that's how semantic arguments go, I suppose.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes you did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, but let's entertain the notion. I would have said "hazard zones are nothing" in several instances, that much is true. However, one needs to examine the context. Hazard zones THEMSELVES are not "nothing." They are a very clearly defined "something," and would count as content, under a rather loose definition of the term.

However, within the context of what we are discussing, that adding hazard zones is better than adding "nothing," then hazard zones ARE nothing. Not in and of themselves, but in this context. Adding hazard zones to a game that shipped without them is not only the same as adding nothing, it is demonstrably worse in certain cases. It is a logical shorthand, then, to say "hazard zones are nothing," considering that you will read it within that given context.

Obviously you are not, and given your above "random" comment I can only conclude you missed my point by a mile. But that's OK, it was probably my mistake, and I say that quite seriously. I'll look into my own use of expressions to ensure that such misunderstandings don't happen in the future. It is disappointing to see people doing the Internet equivalent of stepping back before they lose their cool. Normally, that would make you the bigger person by not insisting you are right at all costs. I'm not sure this applies here, as I did not view this as a heated debate, but for the sake of open discussion, I'll concede that backing off is the intelligent thing to do and keeping at it (which is what I'm doing) is the less than intelligent thing to do. I suppose I'll suffer my own consequences, then.

[ QUOTE ]
Hazard zones ARE content, and good-night.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would really rather not examine the perceived tone of this, as my examination would be nothing short of insulting and that is hardly called for. Chances are I'm reading it wrong, anyway, since everyone knows tone does not transfer well over the Internet. I will, however, attempt to put my point in a single sentence so at to try and avoid any further claims of contradiction.

Hazard zones are content in and of themselves, but within the context which suggests adding hazard zones to CoV is better than nothing, they are not better, and are in fact pretty much the same as the abovementioned "nothing," and often demonstrably worse. What they are in and of themselves is quite different from what they are within a pre-set context with clearly defined terms.

OK, so two sentences. It's pretty hard to argue semantics in simple terms.

[ QUOTE ]
I would just like to point out that everyone [censored] about the "wasted content" of CoV hazard zones has only proven the point of the Villains players who feel that I8-11 have been "wasted content" for CoV.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason hazard zones are wasted content "for CoV" rather than "for the game" is because hazard zones WILL NOT be added to CoH come hell or high water. The return is not worth the investment as the zones lie empty the majority of the time. While it is self-evident that hazard zones will not be added to CoH, it is not as easy to claim so for CoV, as CoV doesn't have any, and there is a very real notion to keep the sides balanced in terms of concepts that exist. Naturally, one would expect that, since CoV doesn't have trial and hazard zones, it should.

The existence of that notion is what brings about the response that hazard zones would be wasted content for CoV, just like they are wasted content for CoH. Adding them when similar-price alternative designs of superior quality have become the norm.

By comparison, almost everything added from I2 onwards has been effective content, seeing enough characters of appropriate level making use of it. The Arena, PvP in general and bases may or may not be exceptions, but the fact remains - unlike hazard and trial zones, people use that content regularly, therefore it's not wasted.

[ QUOTE ]
You are completely wrong.
There are plenty of us who enjoy spending time in hazard zones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, I don't deny it. I've yet to see such people, though, being one who likes to just trot around hazard zones, myself. I don't doubt your word, but I do believe history has shown that, even though some people enjoy hazard zones, they are wasted content, all things considered.

And besides, having missions inside hazard zones does not prevent anyone from spending time in them. It should, therefore, follow, that adding hazard zones (without missions in them) to CoV would be about equivalent to nothing, considering the same amount effort could have gone towards adding REAL zones to CoV that allow you to spend time in them just as you would in a barren hazard zone, but also have missions to draw everyone else in.

I never said hazard zones themselves are nothing. Said adding them is the same as adding nothing - it takes a great deal of resources, time and money for what amounts to nothing in return. You can argue how much more than nothing it is, but the fact remains that it is not enough to offset the cost of creation by a long shot.

Frankly, one just needs to look at the Shadow Shard, the game's biggest example of "just about nothing" to see just how much of a waste mission-less hazard zones really are. I LOVE the Shadow Shard and I've spent countless hours in there and I STILL feel it is just about nothing in terms of content.

[ QUOTE ]
Happily, the only place you're the arbiter of what content is "good" and "bad" is in your own head.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I know this was intended to be a belittling insult, you are very correct. I don't have the burden of decision and consequence on my shoulders, so I don't feel particularly bound by a responsibility to be mindful of negative feedback. Since I don't have a game to run, I don't feel I need to "hold my tongue," as it were. The decision is not in my hands, so believe me, you have nothing to fear from me, no matter how much you may disagree with what I say.

However, I am more than convinced in my standpoint. Adding hazard zones to CoV would be worse than adding nothing, because nothing now means content later. A hazard zone now means bupkis later. You have one more zone which counts towards solving CoV's problem with a lack of zones, when in fact it solves nothing. CoV remains as lacking as it was, only now the developers believe they've fixed the problem, and Lord knows how long it'll be before they acknowledge, like they did with City of Heroes, that hazard zones solve nothing and better means are required.

Then again, looking at the past few Issues, I can safely say that that is one lesson they have already learned. Whether you agree with me or not, you can be pretty sure City of Villains will NOT see any hazard zones added to it. No part of the game ever will. Level-locked zones will continue to exist, and zones which contain Hazard- and even Trial-size spawns will exist, as well. But all future zones will have missions in them.

Hazard zones would only be better than nothing if they were significantly faster, cheaper and easier to make than zones with missions. They are not, not by much. As such it is an outright waste to bother with them.

I'm sorry if you like hunting in hazard zones and I seem to be peeing on your begonias, but I cannot see a single justifiable reason for any new zone to be developed without mission content in it. And anything less IS just about nothing.

It is content, yes. It's just not better than nothing. As a matter of fact, it IS nothing. Some kinds of content simply are.

[ QUOTE ]
Explain how a zone full of enemies to defeat that give you exp and drops isn't content.

[/ QUOTE ]

While it IS content in purely technical terms, it is largely WASTED content. And I, for one, am of the opinion that nothing is indeed better than wasted content. We do not need more eggs like the Shadow Shard that consume massive amounts of the level designers' time and end up seeing exactly diddly squat use.

Sometimes any content is not better than no content, specifically when it costs a hell of a lot more than it actually helps. Better that we wait a little longer and get something that's actually worth the disk space it's saved on. Which is a shame, since that wasted content consists of some of the most beautiful zones in the game, yet there's not POINT in actually going there.

Giving villains access to hero Hazard zones will simply see people complain that villains are still getting hero content that they are only given as an afterthought. Evidence to this exists within this very thread.

Furthermore, simply giving villains access to hazard zones Warburg-style makes no sense. What do villains stand to gain from tearing up Perez Park? How do they even get there? Flier? How long is it going to take before the US Air Force puts a few Raptors on constant air superiority patrol over the city and before the army installs a few million SAM sites. Mayhems and the occasional jail break is one thing, but a constant on-demand flier service is quite another.

Lastly, simply retooling the Hazard zones into mixed content comes with its own host of problems. We don't want to see them turned into PvP zones (no, really, we don't), and having heroes and villains coexist in the same zone without PvP, err... Makes no sense whatsoever. Oruborous is sort of an exception to this, as it's a small place where you don't actually have to do anything that would pit you against the other people there, so you can assume you just go there when there are no enemies around.

And, as a side note, retooling the Hazard zones to accomodate villains is a crude solution that doesn't actually fix any problems at all. CoV nees more villain zones to define its own environment. Going to, say, Eden means nothing within the context of CoV, it's just "one more zone that's off in another place." What CoV needs is zones made and designed specifically for it, not more shared and shoehorned content. Sharing Hazard zones will just end up diluting the essence of CoV further still, and there isn't much left to dilute before we lose it altogether.

[ QUOTE ]
Why are the hazard zones being remade? I hate to point this out, but I really want to know this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hazard zones are being remade because there is no point to visiting them any more. Once upon a time streethunting was by far the most lucrative way to level up. That has since moved on to missions for reasons of convenience and experience, so a zone the sole purpose of which is to facilitate streethunting is pointless. Changes are made to add missions to the zone in an effort to bring a reason for people to visit it, thereby turning what is wasted space into useful content.

Once upon a time, City of Heroes broke many MMO clichés half by accident. The game was designed with the idea that, among other things, people will want to streethunt in big teams and level up this way. To facilitate that, large zones virtually devoid of other content were designed. However, the developers failed to realise that streethunting would not end up as popular as they expected. Maybe it's because they simply saw other MMOs completely made out of hunting and felt it was a natural activity to focus on, or perhaps because they underestimated how much people would flock to the "best" way to level.

For whatever reason, we ended up with gigantic, beautiful, memorable zones that are almost completely unused. Adding content to them, as opposed to creating brand new zones, is a good way to recycle some of the better parts of the game into something that will be used.

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: Sam answered while I was posting. Never mind!

[/ QUOTE ]

That's it pretty much, yes

I have a beef with paper/scanner missions in that they're random, but the framework uses very, VERY few possible options and just switches a few names around. This is incredibly obvious when you fire up the radio and see how "the Arachnos" are on the rampage, or learn that "Jerian strikes again. You hated that guy on the can, and you hate him now!" when "that guy" is actually a Ring Mistress. Just feels like a lot of names got dumped into a fairly small pool.

Personally, if the only effort involved were writing the mission briefings, I'd be perfectly willing to do it for free and abandon all claims on them. At an average of about 5-6 paragraphs per well-described mission and an average of probably 2 lines A4 (the contact communications screen is very narrow) per paragraph, that doesn't strike me as a monumental effort. Hell, check out my posting history - I write more than than in an average post here on the boards

It just seems like something that should (SHOULD) be a simple, cheap and easy solution to dump more of the same content by the truckload. And, yes, I know "more of the same" isn't exactly an inspiring proposition, but considering it feels like it shouldn't (SHOULD not) come at the expense of other new stuff, I really wonder why this has never become a standard practice.

Imagine a world where we have the current specific arcs, and then literally thousands upon thousands of other missions to choose from, each unique unto itself, even if none is really anything special. In such a world, there would never be a case of "Oh, Colonel Metzger! I fought him last week. He didn't deserve being called 'slaughter.'"

Yeah, it's a silly notion, to be sure. There's probably a very real technical reason about why we don't get many cheap missions per Issue. Honestly, I'd like to know about it.

[ QUOTE ]
I am completely behind you on this. Throwing a new contact or three down every new issue into pre-existing zones doesn't seem like a huge undertaking to me. Yes, you need to come up with a model for the guy (and this can take time, but some don't need to), you need to make sure the contact fits the zone, fills a hole, or whatever, you need to make sure the stories are alright...

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't even have to be for new contacts, either. Just dump, say, a dozen missions in the queues of all 5-6 contacts in a zone and you're golden. Give the Golden Roller a few more jobs to pull. Give Moongoose a few more critters to hunt and small fish to beat up. Give the Shadowy Figure more shadowy missions. Give Hard Luck more gamblers to strongarm. Give Tavish Bell more a few more deniable missions. There's ground to add.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like them to take it further, in the efforts to bring CoV up to par, and have 'em just release a full new zone to the Rogue Isles every issue - one not tied to the issue story arc, just something to help the villains get their alt. path set up. You throw in one each issue, you'd be DONE by now. Although I know that this is a lot more work tha just sprinkling contacts around.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that were possible, I'd be down with that. Or should I say "up for that?" Regardless, I continue to maintain that CoV needs more zones, so adding a CoV zone on the side with every Issue would be a pretty dang good way to add a few more. Just more places to visit, because diverse as the current CoV maps may be, I'm sick and tired of all 7 of 'em.

Technically, yes. For some reason, though, the developers always make a really big deal out of making new missions (just missions, not enemy factions, zones, specific enemies, temporary powers or anything like that) and so we see incredibly few missions added. I've never seen an official explanation, but it feels like we should have been getting literally hundreds of new random missions with every Issue. They take all of three paragraphs of text, a pre-fab instanced map and an enemy faction allocation.

I understand why GOOD missions and GOOD story arcs would take a while to make and why they would require specific arcs, but why aren't we getting masses of random missions all the time? I'd really like to see a developer response as to why it's so laborious to make them one of these years.

Not to the PvP contacts, but speaking to a contact that belongs to the enemy faction simple results in them refusing to talk to you, like you haven't been introduced. They usually have some [censored] remark to make, as well.

There was also a bug wherein the Recluse's Victory technician in Grandville treated villains like heroes and had a "A hero? Help! Security!" line when you spoke to him, rather than the long diatribe about what to do in the zone. It has since been fixed.

[ QUOTE ]
My Dark Corr still wants to know how Soul Storm is any different from the plethora of other Holds, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's pastel darkness. Doesn't that count for something?

[ QUOTE ]
I find the idea of ranged attacks ludicrous for this AT[Brute].

[/ QUOTE ]

Different strokes for different folks. I adore the idea of having at least one single ranged attack per melee set. Works wonders on those damnable runners. It's so satisfying to pop them in the back as they flee. It's also good for taking out fliers and just generally taking pot shots at things out of melee range that you may not necessarily want to disengage and go chase after, like Mook Hitmen or Longbow Eagles.

That, and sometimes it's conceptually accurate to have a ranged attack. My Energy/Energy Brute would kill for a ranged attack that's not lightning. You know, like the Mek Men get.