Valerika

And I couldn't stand it--one of the main draws this game had for me early on was that it DIDN'T have a system like that.

WoW didn't have the annoyances of global PvP? Complete and utter B.S.

"Sizable vocal minority" Really? What on Earth makes you think that those favoring global/flagged PvP are in the majority? You must be smoking the really good stuff...

I appreciate that, and I'm sorry myself--I should have been more clear about what I was talking about.

I feel your pain My first 50 was an energy/energy blaster--arguably one of the hardest characters to team on, and due to the debt penalties (harsher at the time), and my own inexperience, it took a long time to hit 50. But I had fun the entire way there, and even with all my knockback, I still got invited to teams on a regular basis. I enjoyed the Arcs, and I even did a few Taskforces--after that, I was hooked for life.

Hey, Virtue people rock! *looks at signature* 6 months real time 1 to 70 sounds about right--it took my Warrior roughly that long. And I almost never teamed until I discovered (I had to be told) autoteaming. The zones, weather, and enemies were beautifuly done, but since I teamed very little, I ended up grinding a LOT--but I stuck with it, because I knew that once I hit the level cap, the fun would really start, since that was the focus of the development effort (raids, endgame content, etc was BIG there). I got so tired of going to a new zone, and just basically either grinding quests that I considered quitting very frequently, though.

I wish I were that well-connected. Unfortunately, I only knew a few people playing WoW, and they quit shortly after I joined (the bastards). As a result, I was pretty isolated, and the grind to the cap was painful for me.

That's a good point--up to now, other than purpling out a character, the EAT/VEATs are the biggest draw (Personally, I'd argue the VEAT was worth it, and if they'd tweak the EATs a bit, they would too), but rather than encourage you to stay at the level cap on your main, they push you to explore altitis and start over at the beginning.

I hear you there--after coming from games like WoW, I was pretty focused on the numbers at first myself. Gradually, I became more interested in the social aspects (RPing, theme teams, etc), and now I don't really care about leveling as long as I'm having fun.

Fair enough--I know that discussion threads aren't the most scientific way to gauge public opinion, but they do carry some weight. I think that forums like this (and threads like that) should be ignored at the developer's peril, though. Small subset or not, the forumgoers are often among the most savy and articulate players in the game. But, you don't have to accept that. God knows Statesman never did.

Search is your friend, and yes, those are the polls I was referring to, glad you've seen them. I've argued against starting at level 20 myself.

Again, CITE YOUR SOURCE. Stop saying this without proof. Otherwise, it's B.S.


Exactly what are you grinding to? Unlike WoW, there are no endgame raids, and the majority of teaming occurs in the mid-levels--why are you grinding to 50 in the first place? It makes sense there, but not here.


I have no problem with anecdotal data--as long as it isn't used as fact. I welcome your stories about leveling in WoW versus CoH because I want as many perspectives as I can get. That's not why I called B.S. I did that because you didn't say "my experience is different", you just said
In other words, you presented as fact, something which is at best, anecdotal. That's all I was taking issue with--nothing more. I don't think you are a liar or dishonest.

I doubt that. They've done numerous polls on whether or not people would like the ability to start at level 20, and the majority of responses were negative. Aside from concerns regarding stamina, I've never felt that leveling was too slow on CoH. However, the grind on WoW was so rough that I seriously considered asking friends for PL help.

Don't be dense--calling B.S. was justified then, and still is. If you claim that leveling in WoW is faster/less of a grind without any data whatsoever, then your post is 100% B.S.


Actually, I'm not that much of a teamstarter, but teaming in CoH encourages it to a large degree. I've been invited to so many teams that I figured, hey, starting my own can't be that hard. And it allows me to form all RP teams, all scrapper teams, etc--I can customize to a much greater degree than any software program could.


Ugh. I don't enjoy teams where everyone is fixated on "phat xp/loot". That's part of the reason I like the level cap where it is--as it stands right now, "phat xp" won't take you too far.

I don't usually recruit friends to start with, but I often find new ones while teaming. But that's the point--I enjoy the luxury of chosing any criteria I like in order to find teammates. While I would like an auto-team finder option, I think it's far less REQUIRED here than it is in WoW.

I'm very glad you didn't have those experiences, because I wouldn't wish them on anyone. However, I have, especially on WoW. It left a very bad taste in my mouth, and I didn't want to play MMOs at all for a good long while after that. It's not being exaggerated here--you've just been fortunate enough not to have seen just how bad people can behave given enough griefing tools. But don't assume that just because you personally haven't experienced it, it isn't that bad--that's like telling someone that their migrane "is just a little headache, so stop pretending it hurts" because you've never had one.

(Goodbye, AE farming)--did you miss the nerf? And no, they don't have to bring the servers down to stop PL'ers, because that would be like using an uzi to swat flies--that level of exploitation just isn't that common here. When it occurs, they don't have to yank down the servers to fix it.

This is exactly what you did in your first post--if you really believe this, then stop pretending your assumptions are fact rather than your opinion.

You really think that having a computer program automatically pick teammates for you is better than being able to consistently pick teammates from a large list of possible choices on your own? I can start a team in CoH in less than 5 minutes, and that's being picky about who I invite. I couldn't do that in WoW--in many cases, the auto-team finder is the ONLY way I could find teams there.

I agree. While I tend to prefer playing /energy blasters, which are big on self-buffs and getting you out of melee, /energy is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to blaster secondaries. New secondaries shouldn't necessarily be patterned after that.

No, it isn't. You're passing a highly subjective personal experience as fact--it isn't. I can play that game as well--it took me much, much longer to level a single character to the level cap in WoW than it ever took me to level hit the cap in CoH, even on my first attempt.

The fact that Blizzard has to bring down their servers to stop PLing speaks volumes for how much people enjoy WoW's mid-level content. Not.

I think comparing WoW questing to the CoH story-arcs is like comparing a tired donkey carrying a cart filled with balloons to a new Ferrari.

There is nothing wrong with Dungeon Finder, and I think an auto-teaming option in CoH would be a great idea. But if you think it makes for more/better teaming than CoH, you're sadly mistaken...

I call B.S.

It's a good question, but I think that unfortunately, the longer the journey, the more focused on the destination people become. When I played WoW, I was pretty upset at how deserted the lower levels were, and this was BEFORE the Lich King expansion. Regardless, I did enjoy the game, but due to time constraints (and the incredibly long grind to end content) in that game, I had absolutely no desire to try other alts. My exposure to the game was limited as a result. The incredibly long journey did little but make me want to scream, "Are we there yet?"

On the other hand, the shorter the journey, the more likely I'll try it again and again without getting frustrated or overwhelmed. That's one of the advantages of having a level 50 cap--I've been able to try every archetype the game has to offer and bring them to decent levels without quitting my job and chaining myself to my computer. I'm not eager to get to the level cap, and neither are most players. As a result, there are plenty of opportunities to team with others along the way (unlike WoW, where there are almost no teams until the level cap and raids begin).

I'm sorry, Cade Lawson, but if you want polite responses, don't request /duel. It's a very touchy subject, and very unpopular among non-PvP'ers. You even mentioned some of the reasons for its unpopularity in your own post. It has the potential to be used as a griefing tool, and provides little in return other than "look at me, I'm PvPing in a PvE zone!".

Hehe, yes you did.

I do like your idea though--I never completely understood why they were separate in the first place. Greater collaboration is always preferable, and there's no need for duplicated effort.

Big /signed!

No, no absolutely NOT. The arena implementation is preferable precisely because it doesn't allow for this. I don't want to have to wait while people on my team fight each other in public. I don't want Atlas Park to be an even BIGGER lag fest because morons are using high particle effects in high traffic areas. If you want to PvP, take it outside (to the arena).

In other words, you posted this crap even though you knew better. Bravo.

So, yes, by all means, let's make their griefing/PvP goading efforts even MORE accessible and rewarding. Let's give them the gradification of having everyone near them watch them fight other players in public! Power to the griefers!

...And that is what makes all the difference. Keeping the duels in the arena keeps PvP separate from PvE. That's not a slight oversight--it's deliberate design, and those of us who don't want to PvP appreciate it.

Remember what I said about how people would implement this in the highest traffic areas, maximizing the annoyance and lag involved? I rest my case.

I just wanted to take this particular line out of context so that you would know why I giggled when I read that.

...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha !!!

I dunno...sometimes it is warranted, but I agree most of the time, it isn't. I like the fact that some courts require you to pay the legal fees of the defendant if you try to sue them and lose, but I don't think that goes far enough. You've already disrupted their business, their reputations, and their lives by dragging them through a lengthy legal dispute. Even if the person you sue and lose, you still win to an extent--the damage is already largely done, in my opinion.

It's only a good deal in the short term--that's the part you fail to understand. In the long term, it alters the business model for the game in a negative way.


It really irritates me when people who put no thought into their arguments assume that everyone else puts no thought into theirs, either. Steampunkette isn't just assuming, as you are. She has existing business models to back it up. You don't have to look very hard to find examples of lifetime subscriptions in action. If you want to see what happens to a company that places a great deal of faith in lifetime subscriptions, look at Atari/Cryptic and CO.


I know people like that too, but they aren't game software developers...

I would accept it with heartfelt thanks

The problem isn't that it send a signal that the game was dying (which I believe it would, to a certain extent, but nevertheless). The real problem is that it would change NCSoft's business model for the game as a result.

Here's our current model: When all of your players are paying to play on a monthly basis, it is in the game's best interest to provide free new content on a regular basis, and focus on community relations. Our free issues are a perfect example of that. When you stop offering new content, or when you start charging for it, people who are paying on a monthly basis will either get bored, or become angry that the updates to the game aren't included in their monthly subscription fees.

Here's what would happen with lifetime subscriptions: The business model becomes inverted--instead of the company earning more money the longer your players stick with the game, now the longer a player plays your game, the more money you lose over time. Lifetime sub players will benefit from upgrades, server maintenance and development costs without contributing any new funds. Your incentive to keep people interested in staying with your game disappears--your only real incentive to give people their money's worth is so that they will be interested in purchasing your next game. If you hope to make any money off the lifetime sub players, you have to charge for any new updates to the game. This enrages the monthly sub players, who still have the option to quit whenever they become unsatisfied. The lifers stick it out, since they've already paid their dues, but they feel tricked. They aren't being tricked, of course, their company is just trying to stay afloat, but that's the way it looks. They start to complain that the devs don't listen to them, and they are only in it for the money, etc...

It's just not a good idea.

Are you suggesting this watch is "hot"?