Something to play towards or un-necessary forced time sink

[Luminara]

1 hour ago, Omega-202 said:

I used to believe this, but having seen how it plays out in the real world, it really doesn't shake out like that.  I've worked with recruiters at big firms who told me that people have lost opportunities for putting gaming related items on their resumes, and having been on the interviewer side, there's a pattern of behavior for those people that is predictive of them not working out at the companies I've been at.  If its not a gaming related position, and you don't have more than enough accomplishments outside of gaming to fill your 2 pages, you should reassess your qualifications.

 

Same things used to be said about having an unusual haircut or hair color, or visible tattoos, or males with earrings.  Open-minded companies realized that qualifications are qualifications, hired these people and grew.  Closed-minded companies went out of business.

The wheels are already turning.  Businesses started taking gaming references seriously two decades ago.  The ones who continue to hire gamers will be the ones still around in another couple of decades, because the world has filled up with a couple of generations of gamers, who will create more gamers.  The closed-minded companies can stick to their guns, gamers will still find employment based entirely on their appropriately worded and presented gaming accomplishments and skills, and we'll talk about this like we talk about other past barriers to progress in another few decades, as a memory of a time when people were less open-minded.

[jubakumbi]

25 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

Same things used to be said about having an unusual haircut or hair color, or visible tattoos, or males with earrings.  Open-minded companies realized that qualifications are qualifications, hired these people and grew.  Closed-minded companies went out of business.

The wheels are already turning.  Businesses started taking gaming references seriously two decades ago.  The ones who continue to hire gamers will be the ones still around in another couple of decades, because the world has filled up with a couple of generations of gamers, who will create more gamers.  The closed-minded companies can stick to their guns, gamers will still find employment based entirely on their appropriately worded and presented gaming accomplishments and skills, and we'll talk about this like we talk about other past barriers to progress in another few decades, as a memory of a time when people were less open-minded.

I work in Tech.

Most geeks I work with are/have been avid gamers at some point.

Thinking that adding that one runs a WOW Raid Guild as a positive to a resume for a leadership position is not, IME, a qualification.

Listing that you are gamer as a hobby is great, we all love to hire people we think we will be able to grow to like, etc., but listing playing games as a qualifying experience for a position that has nothing to do with gaming is not, IME, worth much, for the person or for the company.

 

There is a difference from being discriminated against for having a tattoo or wild hair and using it as a qualification for a position, just like being a gamer, IME.

 

It's not about being open minded to gamers as staff, it's about thinking that having played games makes you better suited for a specific position, IMO.

If the gaming in question actually raltes to the position is some way, provided a line can be drawn, great, but otherwise IME, gaming belongs in the same place on a resume as Golf and Competitive Eating.

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by jubakumbi
speeling

[Darmian]

1 minute ago, jubakumbi said:

Competitive Eating.

 

Two Ton Tony Tubbs for the win!

[MTeague]

1 hour ago, Luminara said:

 

Branching content.  Content which changes depending on which decision the player makes.  Each run could lead to different outcomes, different follow-up missions, different endings.  Do it one way and you're given a certain mission, but one or more other missions are closed off.  Like saving a hostage or letting the bad guys take him/her, which could lead to repelling an assault by the bad guys to reclaim the hostage, or dealing with the repercussions of his/her capture, or a third option which sends you to recover the hostage.

 

A lot of the existing content could be redesigned along branching paths, with the addition of content to create suitable starting, ending or middle points.  Or rewriting parts of existing content and linking it as branches.  It would just take some creativity and proper flagging.

This I would love.  I wouldn't really even call it "Gated" content. I'd call it content that grants players some degree of agency, making their choices matter more. 

I'd hold the idea up as a gold standard of how new content should be designed.

But if people are distressed and unsatisified with the current content, I don't see this as a solution per se. 

Because I'd be shocked if we could get more than 1-2 such branching arcs per year.  (though I'd be delighted to be wrong)

[Omega-202]

30 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

Same things used to be said about having an unusual haircut or hair color, or visible tattoos, or males with earrings.  Open-minded companies realized that qualifications are qualifications, hired these people and grew.  Closed-minded companies went out of business.

The wheels are already turning.  Businesses started taking gaming references seriously two decades ago.  The ones who continue to hire gamers will be the ones still around in another couple of decades, because the world has filled up with a couple of generations of gamers, who will create more gamers.  The closed-minded companies can stick to their guns, gamers will still find employment based entirely on their appropriately worded and presented gaming accomplishments and skills, and we'll talk about this like we talk about other past barriers to progress in another few decades, as a memory of a time when people were less open-minded.

That's not reality.  No companies are going out of business for not hiring people based on gaming accomplishments. 

 

Like was said below, nobody puts their hairstyle as a qualification on your resume.  Nobody puts their tattoos or piercings on there. 

 

That's not to say that being a gamer is a negative.  When asked in an interview "What do you like to do for fun", gaming belongs right next to gardening, hiking and recreational sports.  It's an "also" or a fun fact, not a qualifying trait.  It's like saying "I ran a charity bake sale last year".  That's nice, it's a positive, but if you're putting that on your CV, that tells me you ran out of other things to talk about.  

 

Maybe we're discussing two different worlds of business, which I suspect we are.  There's a difference between a retail job and a Fortune 500 home office, but I just can't take gaming accomplishments being taken seriously in any context.  

[Luminara]

3 minutes ago, jubakumbi said:

Thinking that adding that one runs a WOW Raid Guild as a positive to a resume for a leadership position is not, IME, a qualification.

Listing that you are gamer as a hobby is great, we all love to hire people we think we will be able to grow to like, etc., but listing playing games as a qualifying experience for a position that has nothing to do with gaming is not, IME, worth much, for the person or for the company.

 

"Playing games" shouldn't be on anyone's résumé.  Nor should "I HAZ A GILD!"  Examples of how your leadership of that raid guild enabled your fellow guildmates to succeed, though, is absolutely and completely identical to providing examples of your management of a crew rebuilding a dam after a flood, or running search and rescue operations in your county.
 

How one says something is as important as what ones says.  And what we learn in video games is applicable to the real world, when viewed from the appropriate perspective and presented as assets.  I'm not going to add "Played Co*: 2004-2012" to a résumé, I'm going to add, "Firm grasp of complex mathematics and excellent problem-solving skills as demonstrated by my ability to comprehend mechanics in City of Heroes/Villains, allowing me to not only break out of archetype boundaries and create a unique and innovative approach to playing the game, but impress the development team to such a degree that they created an entire power set based on my work."  Presented properly, it says a lot more about my capabilities than "Played games".  It says I'm intelligent.  It says I'm a problem solver.  It says I think outside of the box.  It says I approach issues as interesting challenges to be met, rather than reasons to give up or complain.  And it says my work is influential.

 

What you and Omega are experiencing is not employers preferring not to hire gamers, but employers preferring not to hire people who can't present themselves, or haven't actually done anything worth presenting, or who lack the literacy to present themselves properly, or who simply can't figure out how to translate their video game experience into reality.  That's on them, the people who fail to use it properly on their résumés.  I wouldn't hire them, either, if all they really managed to do was level up and follow guides, or assault my eyeballs with bad spelling and grammar, or couldn't understand how their video game experiences could be applied to real world problems and tasks.  There are people who will work for below minimum wage and demonstrate the ability to follow instructions and do repetitive tasks, so why hire someone with that on a résumé?

[Xeres]

It depends on the situation and what you're applying for and who the targeted applicants are.  A friend of mine years ago asked if they should have put on their resume that they lead raids in WoW.  Due to the lack of real-world experience this person had, I advised them to add it, if for the sole purpose was to get the interviewer to ask, "Why did you add this?"  Then you can elaborate, and show a leadership type quality that may help you stand out vs. other people in a similar position than yours.  The idea was if you can organize, explain roles and strategies, and delegate assignments for 40 people (later 25) through a VOIP system, that may look good to the recruiter.  Of course, that would depend on the recruiter as well.

[Omega-202]

5 minutes ago, Luminara said:

What you and Omega are experiencing is not employers preferring not to hire gamers, but employers preferring not to hire people who can't present themselves, or haven't actually done anything worth presenting, or who lack the literacy to present themselves properly, or who simply can't figure out how to translate their video game experience into reality.  

No, that is not it at all.  That is fluff that is sold to you by guidance counselors.  

 

Suggesting that you developed leadership skills by running a guild or math skills based on analysis of game mechanics demonstrates a lack of social awareness to the Boomer recruiters and a lack of drive to Millenial recruiters.  If you really developed those skills, you'd have taken those skill out into the real world and said you worked as a community organizer in a local election to demonstrate leadership or programmed an app that you can demo that demonstrates your mathematics and analytical skills.  

 

The fact that the train stops in the gaming realm instead of making the leap to the practical implementation only begs the question of "why haven't you?".  The most common answer is one of (1) you don't have the skills you claim, (2) you don't have the drive to apply them, (3) you don't have the proper level of social awareness to have made that leap and the lack of social skills will likely be a detriment in the work place.  

 

We're getting way off topic at this point.  

[tidge]

Re: 'gaming' on a CV submitted as part of an application.

 

Pretty much everything on a CV should be applicable to the job being applied for. Keep in mind that the first cut of applicants is to identify those applicants that have the necessary skills as identified in the job description. The applicants who pass that cut will (if interviewed) be called on to explain everything on the CV... if the people making the decision about interviews don't flag them for some other reason that they don't want to call the applicant.

 

As @Omega-202 wrote: it is FAR more likely that 'gaming experience' is more like a hobby. Hobbies can develop skills, but I expect to see the skills listed on a CV, and not necessarily where they were developed. How skills were developed will come up in conversation (I make hiring decisions) and helps me ask further questions to make an assessment of the candidates.For example: If I was hiring someone to do rework of printed circuit board assemblies, I would expect to see 'experience with rework' listed as the actual skill rather than try to make some guess about their skills based on a Ham Radio Operator's license number.

[Solarverse]

I think all these people talking about gaming on a damn CV are working towards getting this thread locked.

[jubakumbi]

23 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

"Playing games" shouldn't be on anyone's résumé.  Nor should "I HAZ A GILD!"  Examples of how your leadership of that raid guild enabled your fellow guildmates to succeed, though, is absolutely and completely identical to providing examples of your management of a crew rebuilding a dam after a flood, or running search and rescue operations in your county.
 

How one says something is as important as what ones says.  And what we learn in video games is applicable to the real world, when viewed from the appropriate perspective and presented as assets.  I'm not going to add "Played Co*: 2004-2012" to a résumé, I'm going to add, "Firm grasp of complex mathematics and excellent problem-solving skills as demonstrated by my ability to comprehend mechanics in City of Heroes/Villains, allowing me to not only break out of archetype boundaries and create a unique and innovative approach to playing the game, but impress the development team to such a degree that they created an entire power set based on my work."  Presented properly, it says a lot more about my capabilities than "Played games".  It says I'm intelligent.  It says I'm a problem solver.  It says I think outside of the box.  It says I approach issues as interesting challenges to be met, rather than reasons to give up or complain.  And it says my work is influential.

 

What you and Omega are experiencing is not employers preferring not to hire gamers, but employers preferring not to hire people who can't present themselves, or haven't actually done anything worth presenting, or who lack the literacy to present themselves properly, or who simply can't figure out how to translate their video game experience into reality.  That's on them, the people who fail to use it properly on their résumés.  I wouldn't hire them, either, if all they really managed to do was level up and follow guides, or assault my eyeballs with bad spelling and grammar, or couldn't understand how their video game experiences could be applied to real world problems and tasks.  There are people who will work for below minimum wage and demonstrate the ability to follow instructions and do repetitive tasks, so why hire someone with that on a résumé?

Even in your example, unless the role you are applying for has some direct link, like reverse engineering software as part of the role, etc., then talking about what you did in a game still does not, IME, actually promote your brand in the way you want it to...it shows you are passionte about something, which is about you as a person, not your skills.

 

I simply think it's not a smart move for gamers to think the experience they have playing a game is a good thing to put on a resume, I want gamers to get hired. 🙂

 

YMMV.

 

Now, if you find out the CEO is a gamer and loves the game you play, just as if you find out the CEO loves your 'team', then there are always exceptions.

If you can show that you have created an entire gaming system in your spare time, like a system that could be added to CoH to extend current content, if you added a new set of powers and rules, etc., and showed your work, that's powerful.

 

So, please all you gamer geeks, make new content/grinds/gates/whatever for COH so we can all play and you can use it to get hired! 😉 

Invent that next 'treadmill' for COH and show you can create stuff.

Prop up and run a set of servers.

Organize and host and promote in-game charity activities.

Anything that shows your abilities can directly transfer to teh real world.

Hiring managers generally don't look for people that can 'think outside the box' they look for people that can perform the list of tasks they were given.

[Marine X]

3 hours ago, Omega-202 said:

A) You didn't accomplish something meaningful.  It's a videogame.

 

B) I haven't forgotten.  I have just grown up and realized I wasted hour upon hours of my teens and 20's chasing shiny baubles that didn't actually matter, doing videogame tasks I didn't enjoy, all for the dopamine hit you're describing.  

 

The fact that you're denigrating "participation trophies", as if videogame accomplishments are something to be proud of instead, is frightening.

If you have to react with hostility, that's fine. Insulting me is fine too, I have no way to know who you are, or if anything you say is real. It doesn't matter to me, I'm good.

 

I didn't play games in my teens and 20's, I started playing when I was 40 to replace things I could no longer participate in. I play COH for the enjoyment of the game, I enjoy it even more as I succeed at things, real or not, That is kind of why most people play a game isn't it ? Whether it be Chess or Softball, success still feels good.

 

[Marine X]

Sorry,double post.

Edited November 9, 2020 by Marine X

[Luminara]

42 minutes ago, Omega-202 said:

We're getting way off topic at this point.  

 

Yeah, we are.  Derailing over, let's go back to talking about whether the grind is a grind or not.

[jubakumbi]

23 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

Yeah, we are.  Derailing over, let's go back to talking about whether the grind is a grind or not.

I have always tended to say, "what others call a Grind, I call playing the game".

For me, the rewards many here are talking about 'grinding' 'just happen'.

I play the game for the joy of playing the game and killing pixels, while creating stories in my head.

For me, rewards and advancement are just 'what happens' when I play a game, not, at all, the reason I play.

Sure, I make some really powerful IOed characters that break the game when I feel like it and I have the time, but I don't start out with that goal in mind, or as the 'focus' for when I will 'eventually enjoy' playing the character after I 'grind'.

IME, setting your sights on something in game to 'work for' so you can 'one day' experience the 'fun' you think you are 'missing' by having to 'grind' is simply not a healthy way to approach the game, I like to have fun the whole time, not think I am 'working' toward anything, the point is to have fun in ones free time, IMO.

 

Let's talk capes.

I love the overall idea behind the unlocking of a cape in COH - you earned the right to wear it, you are a Hero to the City.

However, that's not why the developers put it behind a wall - it was because they were afraid rendering too many capes on peoples machines would break them.

 

Just like many of the restrictions on the AE were not about playstyle/PL/etc., even though they were presented that way, but because the developers could not make the things run well and it took up too many resources, so they villified players that dod not play the way they wanted.

 

So, IMO, it's also good to understand Why some of these things seem typical or not.

We all play to get dopamine hits, that's part of the genre.

I, for one, prefer to be able to 'set up' the circumstances for my dopamine hits, over being told by the game that I am 'supposed' to get a hit of dopamine only when the game thinks I should.

 

If I had to go back and run the cape mission on each character now that wanted one, I would have a lot less capes, because I simply do not see the artificial barriers placed by others as something to strive to overcome, just something annoying that I will skip, like I did on Live. No Capes!

I don't hunt for badges, accolades, merits, none of it, I just play the game and some of my characters get one badge, others get others, they each become thier own thing.

 

In the end, I just don't need or want someone else trying to tell me how to have fun, and I do my best to just let others do the same.

When we come together for something we all want to do, regardless of the individual reasons, we all win, IMO, because we all get to play.

[Luminara]

I think the biggest problem with grind is that it is that.  We call it grind because it is.  It's repetitive, dull and not terribly rewarding in and of itself, even if the reward at the end seems worthwhile when we start.  Taking the repetition out of it goes a long way toward removing the feeling of grind.  Co* has already gone a fair way toward that goal, with more widely available contacts and a broad range of content, but it is an old game and a lot of people have already done every mission and arc and *F so many times that it's always going to feel like a grind for them.  That's what prompted me to suggest branching content.  Having the option to do something different even though you're technically on the same content can make it feel fresh.

 

Most of the resources necessary already exist.  The code which causes certain NPCs to be present or absent depending on the player's actions is a big part of this, I think it could be adapted to apply to missions, or at least give a solid direction for writing the necessary code to branch missions.  Do X, and Y opens up.  Fail or refuse to do X, and Z opens up instead.  Maps and enemy groups would be easy to recycle, or partially redesign, @Piecemeal is already doing that.  Add the appropriate dialog and contacts and we're up the tree.

 

Ideally, this would be applied to radio/paper missions as well as normal content.  Having some randomization in the mix would really keep it feeling fresh for a lot longer.  I'd also, if I had my way, use it to revamp some of the longer story arcs and *Fs, both to shorten them to manageable lengths and to offer deliberately placed potential end points, so players could opt out for a lesser reward rather than slog through something that takes 12 hours or a week of shorter gaming sessions to complete.

 

Additionally, this would be a better way to handle alignment/morality missions.  Rather than simply offering players the choice to reinforce or change in a dialog window before the mission, have a branched path within a mission which leads to them making the choice there, as an action or decision.  It could extend to a full 10 mission arc, if the player continues to make the same decision, or end when the player changes his/her mind, at which point they could pick up a new tip and follow that path as far as they choose.  And because it's more dynamic than selecting an option in the mission window, it creates a feeling of being different.

 

In creating branching content, in offering players the feeling of doing more than rehashing what they've been through more times than they care to count, the feeling of grinding can be reduced or alleviated.  Granted, we're still just pressing 1 2 3 over and over again, but that's reflexive, we can do that by muscle memory alone.  The actual experience of going through branched mission possibilities would feel different with different play-throughs, and no longer be a grind, but an exploration.

[Luminara]

3 minutes ago, jubakumbi said:

IME, setting your sights on something in game to 'work for' so you can 'one day' experience the 'fun' you think you are 'missing' by having to 'grind' is simply not a healthy way to approach the game, I like to have fun the whole time, not think I am 'working' toward anything, the point is to have fun in ones free time, IMO.

 

Sometimes it's the pursuit of the goal which makes it enjoyable.  I like planning builds, experiencing their performance at different levels and milestones, and seeing how the whole thing comes together at the end.  I suppose, technically, the goal for me, then, is exploring the potential of my planned builds, rather than reaching the final build stage, but that final stage is just as important.  It's the purpose behind the build, that ultimate realization of what it can be and conclusive proof of a theory.  I just happen to also take pleasure in the smaller improvements and changes which come from leveling up, from finding out what works and what doesn't, from learning more about the mechanics (and there's always more to learn) and how to leverage them to my advantage.  Sometimes it does feel grindy, but there's always a sense of reward in the pursuit of the goals I've set for myself with planned builds.

[jubakumbi]

49 minutes ago, Luminara said:

In creating branching content, in offering players the feeling of doing more than rehashing what they've been through more times than they care to count, the feeling of grinding can be reduced or alleviated.  Granted, we're still just pressing 1 2 3 over and over again, but that's reflexive, we can do that by muscle memory alone.  The actual experience of going through branched mission possibilities would feel different with different play-throughs, and no longer be a grind, but an exploration.

Sounds great, but still like a ton of work.

We know level scaling can be implemented as others have done that, making most all content available most of the time to any character.

This is why I love to do Radios as you mentioned for the random factor.

I can do them all day long, because I can just make up the story, I am not painted into a corner by a writer who could only think of two branches/choices/options.

 

I don't play these games to play/read the stories of others, really.

My wife does. She has done like every combination of ending and stuff on things like Dragon Age.

She loves the branching story games!

I sit thorugh 'story/cutscenes/dialog' wondering when it will be my turn to have fun... 🙂 

 

15 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

Sometimes it's the pursuit of the goal which makes it enjoyable.  I like planning builds, experiencing their performance at different levels and milestones, and seeing how the whole thing comes together at the end.  I suppose, technically, the goal for me, then, is exploring the potential of my planned builds, rather than reaching the final build stage, but that final stage is just as important.  It's the purpose behind the build, that ultimate realization of what it can be and conclusive proof of a theory.  I just happen to also take pleasure in the smaller improvements and changes which come from leveling up, from finding out what works and what doesn't, from learning more about the mechanics (and there's always more to learn) and how to leverage them to my advantage.  Sometimes it does feel grindy, but there's always a sense of reward in the pursuit of the goals I've set for myself with planned builds.

Totally understand and agree with the outlook - you set your own goals, you set your own dopamine hit.

My only point is that for me, even with my own goals, I do not play, will not play, refuse to play, anything I don't find fun in the moment, because that is my goal.

The very moment in any game I feel like I might be 'grinding' - defined by me in this case to be hitting the buttons in the game just to get to the next stage, over having fun in the moment - I stop playing that game right then.

I find another game, take a toke break, paint the house, whatever.

CIty, ESO, STO, Civ, BattleTech, you name it - the moment I am 'just hitting buttons to get to the next thing' I am out, even if I come back to the same mission/goal/task at another time and I am having fun, the moment I am not, ESC -> Quit to Desktop.

 

For me, life is just too precious to spend it in a game that is not bringing me joy in the moment.

 

The thing I love so much about the software that makes this game is that is was and still is a 'happy accident' that allows us to have such diverse playstyles and all still enjoy it.

It is truly a singular product when it comes to enabling players to do what makes them happy, IME.

Edited November 9, 2020 by jubakumbi
speeling

[Dahkness]

3 hours ago, Darmian said:

Two Ton Tony Tubbs for the win!

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Hops

[Piecemeal]

4 hours ago, Luminara said:

Additionally, this would be a better way to handle alignment/morality missions.  Rather than simply offering players the choice to reinforce or change in a dialog window before the mission, have a branched path within a mission which leads to them making the choice there, as an action or decision.  It could extend to a full 10 mission arc, if the player continues to make the same decision, or end when the player changes his/her mind, at which point they could pick up a new tip and follow that path as far as they choose.  And because it's more dynamic than selecting an option in the mission window, it creates a feeling of being different.

 

In creating branching content, in offering players the feeling of doing more than rehashing what they've been through more times than they care to count, the feeling of grinding can be reduced or alleviated.  Granted, we're still just pressing 1 2 3 over and over again, but that's reflexive, we can do that by muscle memory alone.  The actual experience of going through branched mission possibilities would feel different with different play-throughs, and no longer be a grind, but an exploration.

In the new blueside arc, you're giving a situation with 4 possible outcomes in the penultimate mission, leading to variations in the finale and badges based on your choices.

 

You can go the hero route, with two different endings, both of which offer a morality point towards hero and a badge; you can choose the vigilante route, which also changes the finale and offers a morality point and a badge; or fail the mission, and go rogue to complete the task as penance for failure (No badge for failures!).

 

Also in the blueside arc, a large branching dialog tree is presented as an investigation. If you pick up the right clues you can shorten the chain of missions subsequent to it from 4, down to 1.

 

Believe me when I say this: I want to change the way this game plays too. Small steps. Nothing, I mean *nothing* is a simple task in this game to create. When things open up and I start forming my Content Avengers and we assemble, you're gonna see some stuff.

[Luminara]

1 hour ago, Piecemeal said:

In the new blueside arc, you're giving a situation with 4 possible outcomes in the penultimate mission, leading to variations in the finale and badges based on your choices.

 

You can go the hero route, with two different endings, both of which offer a morality point towards hero and a badge; you can choose the vigilante route, which also changes the finale and offers a morality point and a badge; or fail the mission, and go rogue to complete the task as penance for failure (No badge for failures!).

 

Also in the blueside arc, a large branching dialog tree is presented as an investigation. If you pick up the right clues you can shorten the chain of missions subsequent to it from 4, down to 1.

 

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.  I like where your head is at.

 

Unless you've removed it and surgically reattached it to one of your knees, in which case, I don't like where your head is at.  Put it back.  PUT.  IT.  BACK.

 

1 hour ago, Piecemeal said:

Believe me when I say this: I want to change the way this game plays too. Small steps. Nothing, I mean *nothing* is a simple task in this game to create.

 

It never is.  But repurposing and modifying existing content is an excellent beginning, and easier than starting from scratch.  We'll wait another week before shouting at you to do that.

 

2 hours ago, Piecemeal said:

When things open up and I start forming my Content Avengers and we assemble, you're gonna see some stuff.

 

@Jimmy already showed us some "stuff".  I've been traumatizing the forums with it.  😁

[RogerWilco]

On 11/8/2020 at 10:37 PM, DSorrow said:

There's always a very fine balance between more stuff to do and a checklist of chores to get to do the stuff you actually want to do. There's always the danger that the list of things to do is so intimidating that some people will just pick another game. I keep coming back to CoH because we don't have a grind, and I can just instantly hop on to do whatever I like instead of thinking of the stuff I "have to do" before that. For me, at least, the type of grind you have in WoW and many other MMOs fosters a short term commitment: I'll play a lot in the short to medium term, then get frustrated at how much of my precious game time is going to activities I don't actually enjoy, quit and never come back. 

 

That said, while I don't care for unlocks that basically boil down to "spend a bunch of time doing something simple", I wouldn't mind mastery sort of achievements. Spending a bunch of time getting better at something so that you can complete a skill based thing is much more satisfying.

 

But that's me, though. Different strokes for different folks.

This is one of the reasons I switched from WoW to CoH back in the day.

In WoW so much things are behind big grinds.

I play games to do fun stuff with friends and the occasional strangers.

I hate anything that stops me doing that.

 

Grinds are just methods to draw out the (expensive to make) content in a game.

People get bored when they run out of content. The amount of existing content is actually one of CoH's strong points. I have now been playing with friends almost every day since May 2020 and have hardly repeated any content, and I haven't touched AE yet.

CoH has near infinite content because of the AE system. I think promoting and integrating that more, would help.

 

The only other thing that can keep people hooked is PvP, but that's really hard to fit into this game properly.

 

I really liked the Going Rogue/Praetoria content back on live, and still do. I really hated that my friends on F2P accounts could not enjoy this content with me.

I would have made it the default starting area for new players, if I had been Paragon Studios.

 

---

I think this game can have a decent future and continued player engagement, if we would be allowed to stream and make videos again.

No game survives unless it gets new people. Two of the friends I play with today have never played the game before 2020.

As a "free" game, this game still has potential, despite it's age.

I think a few things could really help with that:

• Updates to the graphics engine, especially the lighting, which would also require changing in game models.
• Voice acted dialog.
• New content, of course.

---

I really like that all clothing options are free now.

Back on live, I found that some clothing unlocks were actually a big disappointment.

I could see a model where we crowdfund 3D artists to add stuff to the game, and it's free for everyone, after the goal has been met.

[RogerWilco]

15 hours ago, Luminara said:

I think the biggest problem with grind is that it is that.  We call it grind because it is.  It's repetitive, dull and not terribly rewarding in and of itself, even if the reward at the end seems worthwhile when we start.  Taking the repetition out of it goes a long way toward removing the feeling of grind.  Co* has already gone a fair way toward that goal, with more widely available contacts and a broad range of content, but it is an old game and a lot of people have already done every mission and arc and *F so many times that it's always going to feel like a grind for them.  That's what prompted me to suggest branching content.  Having the option to do something different even though you're technically on the same content can make it feel fresh.

 

Most of the resources necessary already exist.  The code which causes certain NPCs to be present or absent depending on the player's actions is a big part of this, I think it could be adapted to apply to missions, or at least give a solid direction for writing the necessary code to branch missions.  Do X, and Y opens up.  Fail or refuse to do X, and Z opens up instead.  Maps and enemy groups would be easy to recycle, or partially redesign, @Piecemeal is already doing that.  Add the appropriate dialog and contacts and we're up the tree.

 

Ideally, this would be applied to radio/paper missions as well as normal content.  Having some randomization in the mix would really keep it feeling fresh for a lot longer.  I'd also, if I had my way, use it to revamp some of the longer story arcs and *Fs, both to shorten them to manageable lengths and to offer deliberately placed potential end points, so players could opt out for a lesser reward rather than slog through something that takes 12 hours or a week of shorter gaming sessions to complete.

 

Additionally, this would be a better way to handle alignment/morality missions.  Rather than simply offering players the choice to reinforce or change in a dialog window before the mission, have a branched path within a mission which leads to them making the choice there, as an action or decision.  It could extend to a full 10 mission arc, if the player continues to make the same decision, or end when the player changes his/her mind, at which point they could pick up a new tip and follow that path as far as they choose.  And because it's more dynamic than selecting an option in the mission window, it creates a feeling of being different.

 

In creating branching content, in offering players the feeling of doing more than rehashing what they've been through more times than they care to count, the feeling of grinding can be reduced or alleviated.  Granted, we're still just pressing 1 2 3 over and over again, but that's reflexive, we can do that by muscle memory alone.  The actual experience of going through branched mission possibilities would feel different with different play-throughs, and no longer be a grind, but an exploration.

It is one of the reasons I like the Praetorian missions.

They offer some of this branching and choices.

There are a few missions like that in older content as well, but it seemed to be the direction that Paragon Studios was taking before the shut down.

Safe a person in mission X, and they can help you in mission Y.

Make a moral choice, and have people remember that in another mission and act accordingly.

The mechanics largely exist in the game.

 

We were going through the Loyalist missions for the first time about 2 months ago, with a new friend who was playing the game for the first time. We got to Praetor Sinclair, and we thought he was so obtuse and annoying that we decided to switch sides then and there, and do everything to work against him instead. It is when the game comes alive like that, and you can make a meaningful choice based on that decision, when I am really having fun.

 

---

I would also mix heroes and villains more. Have people do missions in each others zones, without PvP, or at least without the option to grief each other. Makes Vigilantes and Rogues more interesting as well.

[RogerWilco]

16 hours ago, Marine X said:

I didn't play games in my teens and 20's, I started playing when I was 40 to replace things I could no longer participate in. I play COH for the enjoyment of the game, I enjoy it even more as I succeed at things, real or not, That is kind of why most people play a game isn't it ? Whether it be Chess or Softball, success still feels good.

 

I started playing computer games before the internet, but not that much. It is when multiplayer games started to become a thing, that I really started to enjoy computer games.

To me it is a fun activity to do with friends (and strangers). Just like a board game, of a pen-n-paper RPG, or playing in an orchestra (which I also used to do).

My enjoyment of multiplayer games goes all the way back to MUDs in the early 1990s.

 

I don't care if I succeed, as long as we are having fun. "We" is the most important word for me there.

My friends live in different countries now, and Covid is a thing. So having an online game is even better now.

 

I also like the roleplaying aspect of CoH. I can create different characters and play them.

[RogerWilco]

23 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

In a live game that relies on players playing and more importantly paying longer, yes.  Here, no.

I did not like it on live either. I didn't like it that friends on F2P accounts could not join me in Praetoria.

It makes even less sense for a free game.

 

And it's not just MMOs.

• With Civilization, you can only play together if you have bought the same DLC, or otherwise people have to disable DLC that others do not have.
• With Paradox games like Europa Universalis, any DLC that the host of the game owns, can be played by all who join that game.

I play a lot more Paradox Studios games as a result, and am more likely to buy the DLC.

 

Make sure your best content is free and easy to access. That is what gets new players hooked. No game survives without new players.