Sardan
-
Posts
1530 -
Joined
-
Excellent intro video and the comic was great too!
-
I know this is going to come across as totally trivial (and it is), but: while I appreciate the new emoticons, the "rolleyes" one is more like most IM's "cute" smileys. The eyes need to be looking skyward! Who rolls their eyes by looking at the floor, fer cryin' out loud?
-
So I was mulling on this, and decided to send a PM to Synapse. He's the dev in charge of rewards, and (IMO) an all around good guy. Here's what I wrote:
Quote:In terms of expectations please keep in mind that a) Synapse might simply not agree this is worth pursuing, and b) even if he does like this idea, it would have to find its way onto the development calendar. They work out issue contents up to a year in advance. Plus, while this might seem simple to us players it might not be such a small programming task. As such, even if Synapse liked it and Posi approved it, it might take a very long time to find its way into the game.I mainly generate merits by doing TFs. But with Going Rogue's new content on the horizon, it reminded me that right now the merit system isn't really ideal in terms of how it allocates rewards.
I'm referring to the "arc holder gets all rewards, teammates get none" problem. It penalizes those of us that like to team but are perfectly happy doing other people's arcs. To my way of thinking, an MMO should have reward mechanics that don't punish those who team but the current merit system inadvertantly does (with the exception of TFs).
I'm aware that you don't want a system that's gameable or that will inadvertantly create new methods for merit farming.
So with those caveats out of the way, my proposal:
1) Teammates other than the mission owner have a 33% chance of getting a reward merit on mission completion.
2) This would not apply to AE, newspaper, scanner, or TF missions.
- On average non-mission owner teammates would get 1 merit per 3 missions. It's not so many that it'll drastically devalue merits, but not so few that the new reward will fail to be meaningful.
- By not having it tied to arc completion, you avoid people gaming the system by inviting teammates at the very end of their arcs for a reward-fest.You also fairly reward those who help in the beginning of an arc but can't stay to arc completion.
- By not having the drop chance apply to the mission holder they still get the nice fixed reward at arc's end.
- Not having it apply to AE/newspaper/scanner missions will prevent people from gaming the system via insta-complete missions.
As always, thanks for your consideration! -
You make good points, Aett. Basically I'm in favor of any tweaks to merits that will allow teammates of the arc holder to get them. I have thought it was unfair since day one that the merit system punishes those who team and help with other people's missions.
My big concerns are 1) it has to be reasonable in magnitude, since any proposal that ends up doling out dramatically more merits probably won't have a chance of being implemented, and 2) it shouldn't swing from a system now that favors soloers over teamers to one that favors teamers over soloers.
Right now I mainly generate merits via task forces, but I'd love a system that allowed me to team and do other people's missions and not feel like I'm being penalized.
-
Quote:I just saw that my above post got negative rep, being labeled an assumption. When I wrote that, I didn't know that at least one badge goal was a flat-out data entry error (thank you Snow Globe, for proving that was the case). What drove my comment was a PM from Synapse: "Some of these badges were designed without a whole lot of data, just a lot of speculation on data we did have." This is a small quote out of context of a larger conversation but the point he was making is that some badge goals were set at a level that they thought were reasonable but later it became apparent that they weren't. That's the genesis for my "unintentionally difficult goals" statement. I wasn't assuming anything. It was the result of a private conversation with a dev.Originally Posted by Sardan
Many of the badges were set up with unintentionally difficult goals. It was a mistake. Mistakes should be corrected.
I also got negative rep for being short-tempered with _23X_, for which I plead guilty.
EDIT: woot! 3000 posts! -
Quote:Yeah going back and re-watching it, what they're saying is "Going Rogue's new low level content will be more compelling than existing low level content." Which is still good, but not quite as good as actually reworking existing low level content.Originally Posted by Golden Girl
That still doesn't seem to be clear if they mean the entire game, or just that GR will add a new starting zone with new low level content in it for those players who choose to start off as neutral instead of good or evil.
-
Quote:On a full team you'd have a 70% chance to get a merit for each mission plus end of arc bonuses? It could easily end up doubling merit rewards. I'd personally love this, but it's hard to see this being agreed to by the devs. As described (as a bonus for teammates), it also punishes soloers.Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
Maybe a 10% chance per teammate, per mission, of getting a merit upon mission completion? For missions outside of the AE only, of course, and would not be awarded for TF or Trial missions either.
This way, if you have a full team, you have a 70% chance of getting a merit upon mission completion. It's not a guaranteed chance, but it's a good chance. A duo would have a 10% chance each of getting a merit.
On the other hand I could see a flat 15% chance of getting a reward merit at mission completion. That way people who aren't the mission holder would have a chance of getting merits (a particular gripe of mine right now: only the arc holder gets merit rewards). And on a full team you'd usually have someone getting a merit for every mission completed. And if you're soloing you'd get more merits than are currently rewarded but the difference wouldn't be so huge as to dramatically devalue merits.
-
The OP is obviously a troll, because the self-evident answer to the question "Enough AoE?" is: you can't have enough AoE!
-
Quote:Brutes had Ice Armor and Ice Melee for CoV beta. They were pulled because they hampered Fury generation by slowing incoming attacks.Originally Posted by Ahmon
Ice Armor'd be a great set for Brutes. Not sure why you think it's a bad idea.
Fixed.Quote:Originally Posted by Spiritchaser
I'm certain it'd be a viable set... but for min maxing? I'm just not sure why I'd pick it over Shield Defense for most PvE content.
-
Quote:I dunno. My daughter, whom I love with all my heart, once asked if her 3 years younger brother was her twin.Originally Posted by Prof_Backfire
The only dumb question is one you don't ask.
-
Quote:Not to be a curmudgeon but what would've been so hard titling the thread "I16 Likes and Dislikes" or "I16 Favorite Features"?Originally Posted by Novawulfe
Well the title maybe misleading but the true point of this thread would be the things you do like bout i16 (From what we know as of now) and the things your not so crazy about.
Or you could go here, which is already doing that.Quote:( If this get famous enough, I'll take the time to round up all the info I can bout i16 
) )
As for what I'm looking forward to, it's hard to choose because this issue is packed full o' win. I have 2 kids that often both want to play with me so I'd have to say the new Super SK system is tops, followed closely by power customization. I'm so looking forward to changing Foot Stomp to Fist Smash on my brute. Right after I do that, I'm going to set the new mission difficulty slider to "team of 8" and go do some missions in Cimerora. Honestly I'm more excited about this issue than anything since CoV first came out. It's almost a shame that Going Rogue has been announced since it's stealing some of i16's thunder in terms of anticipation.
-
Quote:MAYBE SWEARING BY ITSELF WON'T, BUT SWEARING COMBINED WITH CAPSLOCK WILL, YOU ******!!!!Originally Posted by SunGryphon
And by the way? Swearing isn't going to get you anywhere here.
-
Quote:By "the way CoX's economy has been going lately" you mean how desirable recipe sets have gotten dramatically cheaper? And recipes that often weren't available at any price redside for days at a time are now abundant? And how rare salvage that used to regularly cost over 4M is now rarely above 1M?Originally Posted by Rowdy
Yes I know that, but considering the way CoXs economy has been going lately and the direction if seems to be heading, something needs to be done. Often times, past decisions must be reviewed.
If you're referring to purples and PvP recipes, *shrug*. Those are meant to be rare, only available to ultra-dedicated players. Purples will become a lot more common when i16 hits. I think PvP recipes should be purchasable for PvP rep, but I think the purple rarity "problem" will be self-correcting. -
Quote:I don't know how that would "fast track" you earning the badges. It's just time spent mentoring. If you spend an hour under the old system of having a single SK or an hour under the new system of having up to 7 SK's, it's still one hour. Perhaps you were thinking 1 chronological hour would earn you 7 SK hours? Very doubtful.Originally Posted by hardknight
thank you for your reply Snow.
Your reply 'Mentor badge credit is still given whenever you are the Mission Owner, and someone is auto-sidekicked to you.' intrigues me
For instance once v16 comes out, this means I will be able to invite seven lowbies to my farm mission have them door sit while I clear the map and fast track earning the mentoring badges.
Am I understanding your answer correctly? -
Quote:Okay, congratulations, you did it the hard way. You're hardcore. We all bow in your direction and marvel at the size of your e-peen. Now give it a rest already.Originally Posted by _23X_
Ohh there will be meaning, it means that those that have ******* and moaned for years finally get the same badge rewards that we got years ago by working with the tools we had.
yay everyone wins!
Many of the badges were set up with unintentionally difficult goals. It was a mistake. Mistakes should be corrected. They shouldn't be enshrined because some people have suffered through them and feel that others must thus evermore endure the same level of suffering. -
I think it's safe to assert that this'll be temporary. BaBs has done a tremendous amount of work to get the primaries/secondaries colorable. He knows that Hasten and Super Speed are among the most oft-requested powers to be toned down or customized so I'm sure he'll do them eventually. But whether that's soon after i16 or after the (presumably) ton of stuff he has assigned to him for GR is anyone's guess.
-
Quote:Let me reiterate that this is a step backwards from simple quoting of FULL messages. The board software is actually explicitly stripping embedded quotes. I'd rather that code be disabled and embedded quotes be left in. Using the technique you outline to do multiquotes is laborious compared to the old boards that simply did the right thing automatically.Originally Posted by Cende
They'll all be in your reply screen, in the correct chronological sequence (I checked). No searching required.
Edit: to elaborate a bit more, I actually have tried the method Cende suggests. One huge weakness is if someone quotes just an excerpt of a post, as I did above. To get the reply looking right, you have to first open any referred-to posts, use the multiquote feature, then when you reply you have to carefully strip out the unused parts of the posts. For example, you'd have to manually strip oout the first 2 paragraphs of Cende's post that I quoted. Lame. Much simpler to do full quotes of posts so that all embedded quotes come through in full fidelity. I know that the mods don't like quote pyramids, but being able to quote more than one user in a conversation is foundational functionality for good forum software. -
Quote:I think it might be more accurate to say that they intentionally created multiple layers of bonuses so that as you strove for ever more of a certain type of bonus you'd have to get more expensive/rarer sets. We've seen in the case of recharge, for example, you can get gigantic bonuses, but not via "easy mode" stacking up of tons of 5% values.Originally Posted by Fulmens
The Invention System must have had, at some point, a design goal that said or implied, "Give people the ability to get this much power AND NO MORE."
-
Quote:I'm pleased to say you're quite wrong. The video of the CoH panel discussion at San Diego Comicon features the devs saying such interesting things about Going Rogue as:Originally Posted by DarkGob
I really wish people would stop spreading this rumor. The only time this was ever mentioned was as part of an NCSoft survey on what features players would like to see. This was one of them, but so far nobody has said anything about it being a part of I16 or GR or I17 or anything.
- They're freshening up low level content
- There will be a way in Going Rogue to increase your level 50's power (without increasing the level cap).
- There will be a challenging end-game that makes existing content look easy by comparison.
-
I've had a few strangers generously give seed funds to my lowbies. So periodically I've made a point of either finding a lowbie with no vet badges and giving them some inf. I don't do it constantly but it's very satisfying.
-
Quote:I normally don't like it when people quote multiple paragraphs just to say "I agree" but that's exactly what I'm going here.Originally Posted by Lakanna
The devs dont' want people to PL. The quick ways to do it have gotten nerfed one by one, and the new super-sidekick system pretty much eliminates the last remaining loophole. They feel so strongly about PLing that they have banned accounts following the AE debacle, and the only metric they announced publicly was "time to 50." There may or may not have been other factors, but that was the only one they came out and said they were looking at.
Farming is another matter. They seem to regard it as something they can at least tolerate. They've nerfed the most outrageous farming maps and tactics (for example, giving all critters ranged attacks) but have never come down with excessive force for simply farming. I believe that they see farming as "something some people enjoy" and not as a deadly sin.
PLing destabilizes the playerbase. People hit 50, wander around bored or get into groups where they have no idea what they're doing. All the complaint threads about the bAEbies should have been a sign that people were getting PL'd, but never learned to play. People like that are unlikely to stick around long: they "won" and then they get bored and leave.
Farmers don't much affect the playerbase directly, except that the best farmers are those with a lot of experience and playtime under their belts: the people who have already shown that they are going to stick around and keep paying the monthly fee. Farmers incidently create wealth, both INF and the things to spend them on, which acts as a stabilizing force for the markets. The new difficulty slider changes seem to be aimed at helping farmers do exactly what they want; play their maps without bothering anyone else. Seriously, getting fillers for a map is annoying for the farmer, annoying for some of the people asked to fill, and in general didn't help anyone. The new difficulty sliders eliminate the last real problem people had with farmers: the tells for fillers.
-
Quote:In this video of the dev panel discussion at San Diego Comicon, they explicitly say they're revisiting low level content.Originally Posted by Leese
Frankly, I'm more interested in WoW's redesign of their low-level content than I am in their raised level cap. Now there's somewhere whhere copying WoW in CoH is not only plausable but a good idea.
This has been said a few times in this thread (especially via the excellent Memphis_bill copy-paste), but this isn't a simple case of pro vs anti. There are very substantial baked-in reasons why we won't see the level cap go up. The devs have emphatically stated many times they're not going to increase the level cap.Quote:Originally Posted by Flyman
Am I the only one who would like a level cap rise? At least the vocal majority seems to be violently against it.
Why do I want the level cap to be raised? Because I want more things to do with my top-level favourite toons, I want to progress them further. I especially want more powers for them. More enhancement slots wouldn't hurt, either.
And most of all, I'd like a few more high-level maps with new challenging enemies, TF's and missions.
That does NOT mean that we won't see any means of character progression, new enemies, TFs, etc. On the contrary, as has stated in this thread numerous times, it means that when the new content gets added it doesn't automatically invalidate old content.
By the way, in the same video, the devs clearly indicate they are implementing a way to advance character power in Going Rogue without increasing the level cap (my bet is on the Universal Enhancement Slots first mentioned in the August '08 survey). They also say they're going to be adding challenging end game content that will make existing content look easy in comparison. -
I believe one of the devs commented on this a couple of years ago and said that changes of this sort in buff powers wouldn't be free. Like an AoE or 5 minute long Speed Boost would end up with either a weaker buff, dramatically increased End, or both. At which point everyone in the thread said "never mind!"
-
My first blaster's battle cry was "Not in the face!"
-
Quote:Maybe you could just wait until Halloween.Originally Posted by Mr_Samoa
This does indeed work, but a warning - there's no way out of the room. I'd recommend not going in unless you have an O portal or someone who can TP you out (though I haven't tested TP, an O portal works.) I know all kinds of interesting stuff comes out of those doors on the second floor of the Arena during the Halloween event!