What I think the major flaw of this game always was....

[Krzbrg1]

What I think the major flaw of this game always was, since it started (only my! oppinion):

 

In short term:
CoH/V did never really suceed in creating a vibrant hero against villain open world. Each side plays on his own.
The profile of the game en complete was never sharp enough to maintain a feeling taking part in such.
What you have is fighting colorful npcs in all the same colorful patterns every day, unless you split from the crowd and do roleplay somewhere.

 

So, what can you do about it?

 

1. Installing a more global, a more serious pvp system with a set of rules, that people, who want to avoid it, can do that.
2. Enriching the common set of pve missions with a more complex system of missions of different point of views to choose from.

 

 

Let me try some ideas:

 

1.
- All zones (excluding the first two areas as a low level safe haven) are open to everyone everywhere always or at a particular time (weekend?). Then players can attack and disrupt keyinstallations in that particular area, giving the enemy faction a malus once suceeded.
or
- Supergroups can stage raids on the enemy side (again with first two areas out of contest) by planning them, paying with resources and then finally release a raid with sg members at the wished date with the same effect like mentioned above. This would empower supergroups as a gamefeature and make them more interesting.

 

1.a
To make trolling the enemy faction this way hard, the game could/should:
- give a global continous alert to the attacked faction
- dispatch npc units to intercept the raiders (homebonus), that are more difficult according to the number and level of the raiders + how long the last raid is back in the past...for example a 8 hero group with level 50 +, raiding an area that was raided just one day ago, will see archvillains intercepting them next to the standart npcs (raids should be considered to NOT be sure victories as usual aka extreme high risk endeavours)
- the malus should not be too strong and the installations attacked recover over time (with the help of faction players donating?).

 

1.b
The outcome (profit) should be the loot and badges.

 

1.c
Only villain supergroups can declare pvp war with a supergroup of the same side. This would make villain side more attractive for players, which is dearly needed to do.

 

1.d
The whole field of ideas need able people adding new code to the game. 😞

 

2.
- new missions are added to the common newspaper/radio mission range. They differ in content by your point of view as a hero or a villain. The game offers you a mission from each field next to the normal newspaper and radio missions. The fields could be:

 

Heroes:
- benevolent (true hero)
- revenge (batman kind of style, Rorschach?)
- compulsive justice (taking in every drug addict you see, fuck social work)
- maybe corrupt justice? (the comedian style, bullying hippies?)

 

Villains:
- criminal (heists, robberies, kidnapping....all for money and only this)
- fanatic  (Isis style...hungry for power or dishing out damage to the one and only enemy of your world....dirty bombs, assasinations, kamikaze actions)
- some people just want to see the world burn (Joker style....throwing a mafia competitioner on a pile of money and burning it with gasoline)

 

2.a
This idea needs people writing stories for all the different fields and create settings/new npcs.

 

2.a.a
I would and could help here the devs. :))

 

2.b
The different kind of missions should provide different loot/outcome. Villain missions for example are easy that way:
Criminal missions should give more money then usual.
Fanatic  missions give better recipes and enhancements (because you attack powerpoints of your enemy, taking his equipment).
"Joker" missions at the other should give a special "loot"....these missions always should cater the destructive joy in you by making everything and everyone in these mission destroy- and killable. Like in villain bank missions, but even more...these missions are for all the boys and girls, who just want to rampage.

 

2.b.a

Hero missions at the other side could be seen the same way....benevolent more money (public help and charity), revenge more recipes and enhancements (because no one looks on your fingers after you are done with the culprit) and compulsive justice can just kick every poor sod around, that slightly looks like guilty.

 

 

I hope you don´t take my ideas personally, but I am really sure, that the ideas above put into CoH/V would make it a better game.

 

Have fun!

Edited October 3, 2020 by Krzbrg1

[EmmySky]

I think those are CoH2 type ideas....I think such major shifts in the current game would be too difficult or impossible to implement (actual code breakage) and I think the playerbase would revolt because a lot of the ideas are...controversial.

 

Mostly, I think the current code for this game, lovingly called spaghetti code, cannot be unraveled enough to make this deep of changes.  Excellent thoughts though, keep thinking!

[FoulVileTerror]

I can't remember if it was Cipher, Number Six, or someone else, but they had said that the spaghetti (in their opinion) was no where near as bad as people made it out to be, and that many complex changes just needed someone to roll up their sleeves and dive in (paraphrasing, and welcome to corrections if I got it wrong).

Since they're volunteers, work is going to be limited.  That suggests the best return of time and work invested would be small, compound changes that would gently take steps toward a target outcome, while also simultaneously being "feature complete" enough to stand on their own should development cease for an indefinite period of time.

[Darmian]

I've started and stopped writing an answer several times. So here's the end result. You've just described a game I for one don't want to play and would never want to play. And don't take it personally but I am really sure that the majority of the ideas expressed would not make this a better game.

[Blackfeather]

18 minutes ago, FoulVileTerror said:

I can't remember if it was Cipher, Number Six, or someone else, but they had said that the spaghetti (in their opinion) was no where near as bad as people made it out to be, and that many complex changes just needed someone to roll up their sleeves and dive in (paraphrasing, and welcome to corrections if I got it wrong).

Since they're volunteers, work is going to be limited.  That suggests the best return of time and work invested would be small, compound changes that would gently take steps toward a target outcome, while also simultaneously being "feature complete" enough to stand on their own should development cease for an indefinite period of time.

I do like this post from Number Six about code changes:

They've got a follow up post in the next page about this, but to paraphrase, while the difficulty of implementing something is certainly to be considered, it's just a single facet of discussion when it comes to proposals and so on. Which is all we can do as players, I suppose! 😄

Edited October 3, 2020 by Blackfeather

[Luminara]

2 hours ago, Krzbrg1 said:

- All zones (excluding the first two areas as a low level safe haven) are open to everyone everywhere always or at a particular time (weekend?). Then players can attack and disrupt keyinstallations in that particular area, giving the enemy faction a malus once suceeded.
or
- Supergroups can stage raids on the enemy side (again with first two areas out of contest) by planning them, paying with resources and then finally release a raid with sg members at the wished date with the same effect like mentioned above. This would empower supergroups as a gamefeature and make them more interesting.

 

You're going go find that suggestions which imply that PvP activity would have a direct impact on PvE activity historically gain no traction.  The majority of players who respond indicate that they don't want that in this game.  The search function for these forums works quite well, give it a whirl and sift through similar threads and see what the general sentiment is.

[Grouchybeast]

2 hours ago, Krzbrg1 said:

2.
- new missions are added to the common newspaper/radio mission range. They differ in content by your point of view as a hero or a villain. The game offers you a mission from each field next to the normal newspaper and radio missions.

Have you tried the tip missions system?  It doesn't pop up much in discussions these days, because Null the Gull lets people avoid it when they want to side-switch, but it's actually already pretty close to the kind of system you describe.  Personally, I enjoy the missions a lot and one of my hopes for the game on HC is that they'll eventually add more to the pool.

[Andreah]

There could be many ways to greatly improve how CoH/V handles PvP, except for one big problem -- most of us don't want to play a heavily pvp-centric game, and many don't want to play a pvp game at all.

 

So let me propose that your PvP suggestions are activated/deactivated on a per-server basis, and that only one server need be a PvP centric one.

 

Edit: just to clarify, I mean the proposed new features that would otherwise tie into, and change, the previous PvE experience would be enabled on the one PvP-centric server.

Edited October 4, 2020 by Andreah

[The_Warpact]

2 minutes ago, Andreah said:

 

 

So let me propose that your PvP suggestions are activated/deactivated on a per-server basis, and that only one server need be a PvP centric one.

No...I don't want to go to a specific server to pvp. If I'm on Everlasting and want to pop into Warburg to get some nukes and maybe fight other players then that should be mine and others options.

There shouldn't be a specific server to do this.

 

Also, I'd rather do base raids than make some crazy cool base, so there should be an option for that. 

[Andreah]

2 minutes ago, The_Warpact said:

No...I don't want to go to a specific server to pvp. If I'm on Everlasting and want to pop into Warburg to get some nukes and maybe fight other players then that should be mine and others options.

You can already do that, this isn't one of his pvp suggestions.

[Dazl]

What your suggesting is a whole new game. Your probably not going to find much support for it in this community. This game wasn't designed to be a PvP centered game. Heck it didn't even have a villain side till well after launch.

 

PvP could use some tweaking, but it shouldn't be a priority given the general lack of interest in it here. There might be more interest in it if they could create a system that allows everyone to participate without having to build for it.

[Andreah]

I think, if when you do a bank mish from either side, you could set a flag to invite someone from the other side to be the bank robbing villain or robbery stopper hero. I wouldn't use it, but it would be a cool tweak.

[nightroarer]

1 hour ago, Luminara said:

 

You're going go find that suggestions which imply that PvP activity would have a direct impact on PvE activity historically gain no traction.  The majority of players who respond indicate that they don't want that in this game.  The search function for these forums works quite well, give it a whirl and sift through similar threads and see what the general sentiment is.

This. I'm very happy with PvP and PvE being separate spaces where players can focus on what they like best.

[FoulVileTerror]

Although . . . I'm curious.  How do you folks (@nightroarer, @Luminara, @Darmian, and all the other players) feel about asynchronous PvP?   That is, the Villains set up something against a PvE challenge metric (like a Bank Heist), and then get to choose an optional-on-both-sides PvE challenge for Hero players to respond to?

[srmalloy]

1 hour ago, The_Warpact said:

No...I don't want to go to a specific server to pvp. If I'm on Everlasting and want to pop into Warburg to get some nukes and maybe fight other players then that should be mine and others options.

What the OP is describing isn't changing the PvP that already exists, but creating an entirely new PvP system (in addition to the existing system) that allows one side to arbitrarily jerk over the other side in any zone at any time, regardless of the players' desire not to have PvP forced down their throats. As it is now, if you want PvP, you can go to one of the PvP zones and participate; under his proposal, you would still be able to go to a PvP zone to engage in PvP, but if you didn't want to PvP, then regardless of what zone you're in, your play experience can be affected by someone on the other side deciding to jerk things over for everyone in the zone on your side, and the only way to stop it is to participate in PvP. 

[Darmian]

1 hour ago, FoulVileTerror said:

Although . . . I'm curious.  How do you folks (@nightroarer, @Luminara, @Darmian, and all the other players) feel about asynchronous PvP?   That is, the Villains set up something against a PvE challenge metric (like a Bank Heist), and then get to choose an optional-on-both-sides PvE challenge for Hero players to respond to?

Now if this could be worked into an "Ocean's Eleven" style of thing then I'd definitely want to have a look at it at the very least. Adapting the SBB for instance to cater for such a design? Then again adding SBB style mechanics to AE will do that for us, no?

 

(as per the above suggestions, and they seem considered, and you'll know from other posts of mine that while I don't believe CoX is set in stone and sacrosanct as is, it is not, never has been, and frankly shouldn't be, a game that encourages factions or PVP beyond that already there.)

Edited October 3, 2020 by Darmian

[Luminara]

8 minutes ago, FoulVileTerror said:

Although . . . I'm curious.  How do you folks (@nightroarer, @Luminara, @Darmian, and all the other players) feel about asynchronous PvP?   That is, the Villains set up something against a PvE challenge metric (like a Bank Heist), and then get to choose an optional-on-both-sides PvE challenge for Hero players to respond to?

 

I prefer objective-based PvP.  Defending the MacGuffin, stealing the MacGuffin, completing objectives like repairing the MacGuffin and keeping it moving.  PvP in which beating other players is a secondary or tertiary reason to engage in that mode.  You can, and typically do fight other players, but doing so is neither mandatory nor, often, the most effective way to win, and when PvP combat does occur, it's for a reason other than to fight other players.

 

Here, that would translate to... let's say someone designs and builds a prototype tank.  Crey.  Vanguard.  The Freakshow.  Whoever.  Longbow acquires the tank and decides to take it to the RWZ to test it.  They pass through Warburg on the way to the RWZ.  Arachnos sees the tank and decides to steal it.  Players working on the Longbow side are escorting the tank to an extraction point, and are expected to arrive within X minutes.  Players working on the Arachnos side are setting traps to disable the tank, force it to change course so it ends up in a dead end, or some other strategy.  Longbow players have to work to keep the tank moving, on the right path, etc.  If the Arachnos players can prevent the tank from reaching the extraction point, by whatever means, Arachnos gains control of the tank and a new match begins with them escorting the tank to their extraction point.  If the tank makes it to the Longbow extraction point, then another MacGuffin is brought in for the next match.  Winner has escort duty, loser tries to stop the escort.

 

Obviously, any of the above groups, locations, or MacGuffin can be changed.  None of that is actually important, it's the style of play that matters.  Objectives.  Something to do, a reason to be there.  Something that even people who don't like fighting other players can participate in and feel like they're accomplishing something.  I'm horribly frightened every time I set foot in PvP, in any game, because of my mental illness.  My hands shake so much, I can barely manage to operate a keyboard.  And, in spite of that, I'll still engage in PvP when it's actually interesting, like objective-based PvP.  I've even (hold on to your knickers) had fun, made friends and have some great memories of experiences in objective-based PvP, because playing wasn't about killing others, it was about completing objectives, working as a team and having fun.

 

If the system you're proposing worked like that, I'd be all over it.  But it doesn't sound like it, and as vague as you've left it, I have the sense that it wouldn't appeal to me.  I'm not interested in fighting NPCs to get a score for comparison against someone else's score.  Robbing or defending a bank filled with NPCs, and doing so just because someone else set the challenges to be met or created a different floor plan, isn't any different from standard PvE activities of the same type, and it's not even PvP, it's... comparing times on pylon defeats.  Dick measuring.  I don't care how big my virtual babymaker is when laid out alongside anyone else's, and I don't care how big anyone else's is, either.

[nightroarer]

1 hour ago, FoulVileTerror said:

Although . . . I'm curious.  How do you folks (@nightroarer, @Luminara, @Darmian, and all the other players) feel about asynchronous PvP?   That is, the Villains set up something against a PvE challenge metric (like a Bank Heist), and then get to choose an optional-on-both-sides PvE challenge for Hero players to respond to?

[edit] Just to clarify my response below, I was assuming you are talking about a PvP encounter with another player. I'm not familiar with asynchronous PvP. If you are talking about a PvE event defined by a PvPer, I have no interest at all. If I want customized challenges, I'll go to the AE.

 

For myself, I'm just not interested in PvP and would prefer it did not impact my gameplay at all.

 

That said, in the scenario you present here it would be instanced for those who choose to participate. Those of us who do not wish to participate would not even be aware of it. That still keeps it in the spirit of "separate" spaces for each.

 

I would prefer that it be a separate panel that players could reference to see if said events were available. I do not want it to pop up on my screen as an option when I enter a bank mission or at any other time. If something like this were to be implemented it should be an "opt in" system, not an "opt out."

Edited October 3, 2020 by nightroarer

[Coyotedancer]

CoH/V just isn't a PvP-centric game.  It never has been, and never will be and the majority of the player base like it that way. We have very little interest in regularly trying to slaughter each other or in seeing the game become an open-world kill-fest.

 

One of these days the people who keep making these suggestions may realize all that, and maybe accept the truth that the majority of us are scrubs and carebears... or whatever the current trash-talk terms for PvE players happen to be... But I'm starting to have doubts. 

 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2020 by Coyotedancer

[Krzbrg1]

Hm....seems like almost everyone bites into my "once per week all areas open for pvp", ignoring the other "make it a rare sg raid event with preparations" and treat it like I adamantly want the game to be like that.

 

These were ideas. Possibilities. Sandbox mind games. Thought bubbles. All based on playing the game since it appeared. It´s an old "problem" with the game for me, an unfullfilled desire....

 

If you are against it, present more acceptable versions for pvp in this game. Just some pvp zones, were you kill each other for nothing isn´t really a thing.

 

 

The other answers, that just state, that they want each side on their own, were kind of foreseen by me. Have to live with that. Still think villains and heroes have no real contact in this game, that matters.

 

 

Also almost zero reactions to my pve suggesstions. So killing different factions in the always same office rooms/bases/sewers is to be hero or villain for you? Interesting...

 

 

PS: I am not a pvp hardcore fan. I just feel like heroes and villains (how many times do I have to repeat that, it is obvious) in this game about heroes and villains, have almost no significant contact and interaction with each other. If one side is shut down for example, it will change nothing important.

Edited October 3, 2020 by Krzbrg1

[LiquidBandage]

8 hours ago, Krzbrg1 said:

What I think the major flaw of this game always was, since it started (only my! oppinion):

 

In short term:
CoH/V did never really suceed in creating a vibrant hero against villain open world. Each side plays on his own.

<snip>

City of Heroes was built as a superhero game and unfortunately not as a supers game. And by that I mean the superheroes have powers that only affect "the bad guys" (unless you get confused). The system determines who gets damaged (the bad guys) and who does not (the good guys). The "villains" in City of Villains are nothing but reskinned heroes that are separated from the "hero" player base. 

 

Ask yourself what makes your character concept a hero or a villain. Then ask yourself how others (the world in general & specifically other players) would see/judge your character concept. Some might see you as a hard binary of "hero" or "villain" while others would see you as gray (aka, don't care). A static system would have a real hard time trying to model that interaction (who can I hurt, who can hurt me), so players would be dumped into one of two buckets (hero or villain, aka what CoX does). 

 

City of Titans is building a system that accounts for pvp right from the beginning. Take a look at the first two posts in this thread (https://cityoftitans.com/forum/pvp-phase-suggestion-part-2). It allows for a dynamic system that you the player gets to decide by your actions (who you associate with) who is the enemy (aka who I can hurt and who can hurt me). You can act as a splinter faction that spreads wanton destruction as far as the eye sees. You can act as part of a collective do-gooders association that protects the public "for the greater good". You can act as an invading host of aliens bent on dominating the planet. You can act as a group of super human mutants that are trying to save the world. All of these groups could potentially see an ally or foe in each other or maybe see a common foe. 

 

This kind of arrangement makes how you use AoE attacks even more important. If on the regular you just AoE everything, damaging foe & potential friend alike it could paint you into a smaller corner (make more enemies). How you behave and who you associate with impacts the gyre of the player base. 

 

Long story short, CoX does a good job of providing a superhero experience. 

[LiquidBandage]

3 minutes ago, Krzbrg1 said:

If you are against it, present more acceptable versions for pvp in this game.

My suggestion is to not try to further tweak CoX into some grand melee pvp game.

Shoehorning pvp into a pve game didn't work and will continue to not work. If you want a better pvp system in a supers game, wait for a better game to come along that factors in pvp from the start. 

[Coyotedancer]

And with that one post Liquid has absolutely erased any interest I ever had in Titans.... Not that I had all that much to start with, mind. But still. 😝 

[macskull]

15 minutes ago, LiquidBandage said:

Shoehorning pvp into a pve game didn't work

How can you shoehorn something into a system that was designed with that thing in mind from the very beginning? I am curious to hear your logic here.

[Coyotedancer]

So Mac, you're going with the idea that City was designed with the idea of open-world factional PvP from the very start... Interesting.

 

I know SOME form of PvP was planned, but I've never heard that idea before. 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2020 by Coyotedancer