Ultra_Violence

[ QUOTE ]

Level 5 and below is affected because it is the least intrusive to our player base but nets the greatest number of names.

Trial accounts are in a different pool altogether. We can free up names from trial accounts whenever we want without recourse because they were never paid for accounts.

Ex

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the first I'd heard that they were clearing the trial accounts out of hand. THAT I agree with.

I also agree with the below level 6 thing. These are character players never really played. Level 20 is too high for some that is about as high as they ever get and they could be attached to that character.

Remember the point isn't to punish people, the point is to free up names from people who aren't ever going to use them or miss them.

I don't personally see this as having all that much effect, sure it will free up names but almost all of the names names no one will want anyway. Why everyone assumes that the magical name that they want must be locked up by someone who doesn't play anymore and who was low level I don't know.

Lots of names are locked/squatted by current players who just don't use them. I have characters I haven't run in over 2 years, one of them a level 50. Actually just last weekend I respeced a character for ED changes.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't have time to scour everywhere - is anywhere tracking Lady Grey's TF, get kicked of TF if rez in base issue.....is this recognized as a bug?

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know that is working as intended. If you leave the co-op zone, you leave the team.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a requirement not a bug. Heros and villains can't team anywhere else so team must be broken when you leave zone.

Warn your teammates not to rez in base before starting TF (unless you don't like one of them and want to lose him lol).

I think these people are going to be seriously disappointed.

They have made the first mistake of the internet. They have forgotten that behind the cute little elf chick is a fat middle aged man. While the skills may be the same the people aren't.

Having been in well organized guilds in EQ/WoW from my experience I can tell you they were all run by people who were:

a) Already aware they had leadership ability and certainly not kids. Most of the best leaders I ran into were older. What they were were oddly enough were usually people not interested in sitting at a desk LOL. Always cracked me up that people who could play a computer game for hours refused to work at a desk (and in many cases get a decent wage).

b) Obsession with game != competence at work. For many MORP gamers who raid constantly this is the result of their total focus on the game. Unless IBM is planning on springing for therapy or has some plan to turn them into workaholics from gameaholics I don't see how you can transfer the skills.

My personal experience has been that people who "herd cats" for a living don't like doing it in games, I know I don't. I'd rather have my eye's poked out than organize raids in my free time.

It is a fantasy setting a chance to do what you DON'T do in real life. If your not a leader in RL you can be one for a few hours a day on-line. If you have to lead in RL, you have the chance on-line to go be a loner and thumb your nose at everyone else for a change.

Maybe they can find some people who want to express their fantasy persona in RL but hopefully they are in the minority, because they would be unhappy people - afraid to be who they are.

Seems like a huge amount of effort for an accolade like power you can't use very often. It isn't just a matter of whether it is a good idea but whether is it the best use of resources.

I would say the only thing I actually had a real use for was the new costume pieces, which are near impossible to get a hold of.

I really could care less about inventions and don't care about crafting. I use IOs only because they are cheaper/better than SOs and don't bother with sets as they are more trouble than they are worth. But then I consider all the Villain Accolades more trouble than they are worth.

I don't Raid ever and have no plans to start. I don't even care for TFs/SFs. There is just way too much down time involved for me, I play to play not to socialize or stare at the screen.

Lack of raiding and Loot were major attractions of this game for me. As long as they remain optional I will stick around. As soon as they become the point I'll likely be gone.

That said:
I understand that the game isn't designed just for me so it doesn't bother me to have an Issue that I find useless. The game is for everyone and these things are popular with others (I assume) and the more players the better for the game.

As long as the game doesn't become something I don't enjoy anymore I don't mind if it is expanded to include other styles of play.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just ask the UO people about how that works. They used "Freely submitted" code and then got sued for it and lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cite?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's referring to the UO "volunteer" program. It wasn't code-based, but volunteer guides. A few years ago, there was a dept. of labor review that examined "volunteer programs" and employment law.

First I remember hearing of was the AOL volunteer forum moderators. While they were "volunteers" they started getting perks (like discounts) and even were scheduled by AOL like employees. In some instances, the line between "volunteer" was crossed and the people won class-action suits in some states claiming violations of "labor laws" (if they weren't volunteers, then child labor and even minimum wage compensation applied.)

This hit UO- where UO's volunteer guide system similarly crossed the line (to the point where the volunteer (unpaid) guides TRAINED the not-so-volunteer (paid) replacements (without their knowledge.) They sued. They won.

Games are much more careful with their organized "volunteer" programs as a result. When I "battlemastered" WizKids official tournaments, for example, I had to file as a private contractor and report my limited edition "thank you" mechs as compensation.

You're starting to see a return to volunteer-related stuff online, but with few of the old perks or organizational structure, as nobody wants to get burned again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I was referring to the people who "fixed" UO since the original release was basically unplayable and fans actually released code to get it on its feet so they could play. They signed releases, but because UO made money off of their work they were later sued by the people who signed the releases and lost.

I'm not your lawyer so I can't give you the details just that even with signed releases you aren't guarenteed you will be getting free content.

Free content works for other games because no one charges for it. No one has tried it (successfully) on an MMO.

The best bet would be for an MMO which is all player content to work out all the bugs for everyone else first. Because odds are the game will be trashed if most of the suggestions above were tried. They are just too trusting.

I've said the same long ago but there are apparently also legal issues involved that are near impossible to untangle. In the US no matter what people sign there is always some basis for them to come back later and sue because Cryptic is making money off of their uncompensated submission.

Just ask the UO people about how that works. They used "Freely submitted" code and then got sued for it and lost.

And that doesn't even get into the people trying to sneak cheats into the game for themselves and their friends issue. This means the Devs have to go everything with a fine tooth comb to make sure there isn't a hidden mob with 1 hp that drops only rares hidden behind a wall or something. Plus 100's of submissions from people who have trouble designing a costume, much less a story arc and artwork LOL. Everyone wants to get in on it, even if they aren't qualified.

Sadly again the jerks and the over-eager ruin things for everyone else which I suppose is the way of the world. Look at the downloadable stuff for other games and you can see what could happen to a MMO that could tap into that kind of fan base. Unfortuantely because of a relatively few people it is probably cheaper to develop in house than to accept submissions.

[ QUOTE ]
I still remember running around Atlas Park for the first time in beta and seeing another player in there. It about BLEW...MY...MIND.


[/ QUOTE ]

This I can relate to. I can still remember the first time I got on CoX (after 5 years of playing EQ of all things). It was like night and day, everyone looked so different they looked like they were all created for different games. And 3 years later there STILL isn't a MMO that comes anywhere close to the individuality and flexibility of play in CoX.

PlayNC time cards for for ANY PlayNC game. When you enter the number it asks you want game you want to apply it to.

My understanding is that everything is based on 75% with a ceiling of 95% and floor of 5% which works for me.

1) 75%, 25%
2) 95%, 5%
3) 5%, 95%
4) 75%, 25%

You want proof of suppression exploits? Turn on SS, then Snipe, run away, Snipe again. You can kill mobs forever and mobs can never counter-attack. THERE. An exploit that supression fixed. Certainly not the only one but a major one and one I admit I used on mobs I couldn't split/get past otherwise at the time.

There were many examples of jousting used by players because mobs can't kill a player in one shot, so they took advantage of this by speeding past them. That way even if a low HP character got hit he could never get killed because he would be a safe distance away before the mob could make a second attack.

As far as whether the mythos supports it. It doesn't matter. It is a game. It can't be said enough:

When designing a game, the game comes first the mythos second.

If the game isn't fun who cares if it is accurate? It is nice when it can follow the mythos as close as possible but a balanced game is more important. The same goes for players wanting something. Just because they want something doesn't mean it's good for the game.

Finally, the point is moot. It has already been decided, it isn't up for debate. If the Devs haven't repealed it by now they aren't going to. Leave the dead horse be.

I have to agree that part of what makes Counter Strike popular is that it is "cheap" to play. For those on a tight budget it is better than a single player game which have a definite end, but it has the same cost.

Oddly this would argue against competitiveness being a factor as much as the limits of money and technology.

The fact remains if you had a choice between a single player game of unlimited length/depth, a muliplayer coop game of unlimited length and a PvP game of unlimited length. People would still sign up for all 3. This is what makes people, people and developers nuts.

At work we have a group of people who are in charge a project the know nothing about we call it a Steering Committee. I posted the following in their conference room (which I'm sure they didn't get)

"He who steers by committee has a fool for a passenger."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I do suggest, is that not funding PvP is entirely short sighted because PvP content is much more reusable than PvE content and I see both as contributing to the success of a modern MMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you defining "reusable"? I ask because I know players who have been here two years now, know the PvE content by heart, and yet still come up with new toons on a regular basis to re-experience that same "less reusable" content. Seeing that, I think the entire issue of "content reusability" is entirely subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it isn't subjective at all, however keep in mind that I speaking of gaming in general not just gaming here in CoX. There are certainly people who can and will play the same PvE content many times in as many different variations as is possible. Having said that, no pure PvE implementation shows anything like the longevity seen with PvP implementations. Keep in mind that both Counter Strike, StarCraft, Warcraft, BF, BF2, and a multitude of other "old" games.

Lets just look at CS since its the grand daddy of em all.

In 2002 there were over 30,000 populated Counter-Strike servers on line.

In 2004, GameSpy statistics showed over 85,000 players simultaneously playing Counter-Strike at any point in time.

in 2006, Steam regularly shows over 200,000 players for Counter-Strike at the same time (though this number includes some of the later releases as well).

According to statistics gathered by Valve's content-delivery platform, Steam, these players collectively contribute to over 6.177 billion minutes of playing time each month.

Thats a game that was released in 2000 (started as a mod back in 1999).

PvP implementations derive much of their re-playability because of the variation. Any time I enter a PvP match, even if I've been on the map thousands of times before, the experience is fresh because I have no idea what my opponents are going to do. The same cannot be said of (most) PvE implementations. (I can run the FrostFire mission in my sleep I believe.)

Now, are there some people who don't get bored by the repetition that is common in PvE? Certainly, but I don't think its all that common, otherwise I wouldn't expect people to constantly ask for more content. Guild Wars only has 4 PvP venues (really just 3 IMO), each with a limited set of maps. Compare that the number of PvE venues, 3 lands each with 40+ regions.
(http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Main_Page)

The same is true for most games that don't have open PvP, there are almost always far more PvE content (in terms of maps, assets, etc) than PvP content. I don't think that is subjective at all, it doesn't mean that it holds true for each individual but its certainly true from a statistical view point.

[/ QUOTE ]

You ignore a major difference. Counter Strike and CoX are very different games. Counter Strike fits very clearly into one a single game type while CoX doesn't.

One of the problems CoX has is also it's biggest advantage. It can be look at as a Role playing, Strategy or a Video Game and played as any one or combination of those 3. Some could even make an arguement for it as a FPS but I would think it is a terrible FPS lol.

To the point though. The players who are playing CoX aren't the same type of players as those on the Counter Strike servers. So they will not get the same replayability. Most of them are looking for a different gaming experience (or they would likely be playing Counter Strike).

There will be some of the same types of players but there will be a lot of players who will need other "carrots" to bring them in. The two biggest complaints I hear are: 1. I don't see the point since there is no reward, 2. poor sportsmanship. Hard to do anything about the later but the former:

Role Players: Need engaging story lines to follow that require PvP, role playing community involvement in PvP ("Lets Make a Difference!") or something of this sort.

Video Gamers: May need some reward for PvP besides eventually getting a badge.

Strategy Gamers: May get bored with PvP after a while because the situations don't change enough. The idea of team vs team missions would seem to be a good solution.

CoX is a different game than any other game on the market as far as I can see and attracts a different group of players than other games. So it will require different solutions.

I don't understand the point of view many people have that they can afford to buy new games but can't afford to overlap subscriptions EVER. It is like they are being unfaithful to their wife or something.

The cost of the new game far outweighs the subscription cost and if you can afford to keep buying new games you can probably afford 2 subscriptions. It certainly makes things less tedious when you can go between games at will.

Just because I like the CoX games doesn't mean I never play anything else nor does it mean I cancel my subcription every time I want to play solitare lol.

Now if money is a problem I can understand but then you probably can't afford a lot of new games if money is a problem heh heh sort of a Catch 22. $15 a month is not the grand investment some make it out to be. It costs that much to see "Meet the Robinsons" in 3D by yourself.

So YES I'm UNFAITHFUL! I play with other games. Oh I feel so dirty.

Right now people put 3 SOs a each power and know it is pretty much maxed out. It is very simple. You don't need tons of math to understand how to maximize an attribute. Whether you should is a different arguement.

With this they will never be able to figure out what to do except to have someone tell them. And different people will tell them different things about stacking, they will get disgusted and quit.

Complexity is fine for the players who actually enjoy it but if you look at the games that succeed you will find that complexity is not popular. People need an easy path to get to more or less the same result or they will say it is too complicated. The example above shows that the Devs went back on their promise to keep SOs nearly as powerful as IOs and made it so that anyone using SOs will now be 1/2 as powerful as those using IOs. Effectively forcing everyone to not only use IOs but to use complex sets of IOs.

The fact is in the current game most of the players won't even spend the time to learn how to get the best use out of their powers, much less spend an extended amount of time to get the most use of enhancements. This will end up being FOTD builds for everyone in self defense.

I like complex strategy games but I am getting fed up with IOs myself. Enhancements are not supposed to be the point of the game. There is a difference between complexity which serves the game and complexity which is just complex.

Of course you can tell people to avoid them until they understand the game better but there will be lots of people argueing not to, making everything EVEN MORE confusing for new players.

I find this rather frightening. This just shows that virtually no casual player will ever be able to figure out how to use this system.

While flexible it is way to complex and not nearly intuitive enough. SOs you could explain to new players in a couple sentences. IOs new players will have to read a thesis, or more likely find a new game.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
team buffs have a mechanics problem. Teams vary in size from 1-8 so a buff that applies to everyone on the team is multiplied in effectiveness from 1x to 8x. Either a buff is useless for small teams or godmode for large teams - or both.

What if team buffs had diminishing returns? Say 150% effectiveness for teams of 1-2, 125% for 3-4, 100% for 5-6, and 75% for 7-8 (numbers given are just an idea, the real numbers would need to be better balanced and more complex like (Y-1) X (12.5% + R/2.3).

That way buffs would be more useful on smaller teams and less powerful on bigger teams than they are now. A team buff should still give a bigger total boost on a large team but not 4x on an 8 person team what it does on a 2 person team.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they should. In fact, adding diminishing returns to buffs and debuffs of all sorts would allow us to alter many, many problematic powers. In all likelyhood, though, it will not happen. The change would simply be too fundmental and require a great deal of work on our part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lord help us, they'd do it if they could!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure! Then Weave could give 15% Defense, and Combat Jumping could give 25% Defense (or whatever) and combined, they'd give 30% instead of 40%. When the local FF Defender buffed the character, instead of the normal 25% for the FF, it'd be 5% for 35% defense.*

Basically, additional buffs would always be helpful, but the base level abilities could be made better and more useful across the board.

* Disclaimer: All numbers used illustratively and do not indicate any relation to what said values or formulae would actually be if we were ever to implement a system such as this, which I doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

The downside being you'd have to learn Calculus to know your actual defense.

Why is it Pets and certain NPCs have no trouble seeing through stealth? I assume those NPCs have been linked to you as pets even though they don't fight but I can't see the code. All I know is some NPCs are near impossible to shake and some would get lost in a phone booth.

An example is the reporter (I forget her name) in CoV in the Shivan mission. I tried hard to lose her and couldn't. SS across the zone then hit the elevator and there she is on the next level like Droppy Dog. She is an escort mission, doesn't fight but doesn't get lost easy either. Heck NPCs that fight get lost easier than her, she's a real terrier.

I find it best to ignore the mobs at the entrance to the bank (just run past them) and attack the named mob first. That way the vault never gets opened and no one can make a run for the getaway car.

One side note that can be VERY important. Due to a bug in the program if you can (and will) knock a villain through the vault door into the vault! If you do so there is no way to get at him until he destroys the vault door from the inside, triggering everyone to run for it. So make sure not to KB anyone toward the vault door.

It is a fun event, the main problem is that everyone does it the first week (during which it is very easy to do), after that it can be hard to find a villain/hero to partner with.

I would agree that I would leave old Snappy out of new events but I see no reason not to keep bringing back the old ones like this.

The Snaptooth fight is a particuarly fun one actually. Not enough people play it at their level to see what a fun fight it is.

Accomplishment badges are no different than linking IOs to Story Arcs since you get them the same way, via missions. Only difference is that they are easier to get and present no challenge at all.

The fact that there are more badges than necessary isn't a big deal. They just limit it to to Kill Badges or flag the badges they want to tie IOs to so anyone can tell which ones they are by looking at their badge screen.

The same applies to PvP zones. Don't flag those badges or just do what they do now (you won't want to hunt there, don't go for that reward). Some people will whine unless you hand them everything with sugar on it, so worrying about complaints is pointless.

You just try and suggest the best system you can just as the Devs try and design the best system they can. Nothing will make everyone you just shoot for making a lot of people happy and not totally alienating any group.

Personally I would rather see recipies tied to Achievement Badges than story arcs. That way everyone can work towards them together by a LOT of different means but they are still quite limited.

The only problem would be how you would determine the level of the reward. I would think that the reward would have to be tied to the badge in the case of many of the badges NOT to the player's level. Getting the Skulls/Hellions badge at 50 shouldn't entitle you to a level 50 reward. Plus you might not WANT to only get level 50 IO rewards in the case of recipies.

I still think there is a way to make it work with badges though that would actually make them a lot more fun to go after and change the face of the game yet again (lots of outdoor hunting groups again, farmers, etc).

IOs as Story Arc rewards have just as many holes and don't add anything to the game (you already get rewards for doing Story Arcs).

Note that Safecraker is not for safes in Mayhem missions but safes in general. It increments for safes from newspaper missions but won't start until you open one in a Mayhem mission near as I can tell. Of course this is such an easy badge to get it hardly matters.

Badge info there are much better sources than me and it isn't static the way strategy is. Since I can't edit my guide, easily anyway, I just avoided the whole subject. I'm just surprised it is the only guide on the subject.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd forgotten about this for awhile 'till I saw it on my favorite topics. Someone needs to ask _Castle_ at his Ask a Dev about it... or perhaps we all spam it for every dev interview citing that it "could" be done...

[/ QUOTE ]

Why bother "Asking a Dev" they have already said multiple times NO. It can't be done with the current engine and they aren't writting a new one, for this. Deal with it.