Adaptive Content

[Clave Dark 5]

15 hours ago, Leogunner said:

You can still stealth a few missions to suppress those high crime areas solo.

 

That one is the least offensive example considering it's counterable by just decreasing the team multiplier to have fewer enemies to fight.

But you're still putting the onus on me.  I mean, sure, I'll not die mad over it, but still.

[Naraka]

6 hours ago, Clave Dark 5 said:

But you're still putting the onus on me.  I mean, sure, I'll not die mad over it, but still.

Isn't that the same as shifting from Devouring Earth to Arachnos or Malta? Some stuff will just be harder to do.

[Clave Dark 5]

11 hours ago, Naraka said:

Isn't that the same as shifting from Devouring Earth to Arachnos or Malta? Some stuff will just be harder to do.

Not when it applies across an entire zone, not just which mission I pick from a list.

[Naraka]

11 hours ago, Clave Dark 5 said:

Not when it applies across an entire zone, not just which mission I pick from a list.

You don't get to pick what mobs show up in a mission arc and sometimes there isn't going to be a uniform single faction you face for every mission.

[golstat2003]

23 minutes ago, Naraka said:

You don't get to pick what mobs show up in a mission arc and sometimes there isn't going to be a uniform single faction you face for every mission.

 

Well, there will be if you run nothing but newspaper missions. 😛 

 

With that said I'm not too keen on a change that enforces or changes whole zones based on the actions of a few. Or similar suggestions.

 

When the pvp side of the community made the same suggestion years ago or similar, many folks also didn't like that idea. (For example, the pvp outcomes in RV or SC affecting pve zones).

[golstat2003]

With that said I would not mind seeing the OP's idea implemented in a new co-op zone where it's an actual game mechanic of the zone. Similar to how the Mothership Raid was launched as a part of RWZ years back.

 

You could even make it a new Incarnate Zone.

Edited May 4, 2021 by golstat2003

[Naraka]

1 hour ago, golstat2003 said:

 

With that said I'm not too keen on a change that enforces or changes whole zones based on the actions of a few. Or similar suggestions.

 

Imagine playing an MMO and lauding the community but not wanting anything to do with said community or their actions lol.

 

And before you response with "it's because they don't have the tools to troll", I don't see anything here that is putting power in the hands of a few, merely the environment shifting. At worse, is a learning curve which comes with it's own hardships.

 

You're exaggerating the results.

[golstat2003]

2 minutes ago, Naraka said:

Imagine playing an MMO and lauding the community but not wanting anything to do with said community or their actions lol.

 

And before you response with "it's because they don't have the tools to troll", I don't see anything here that is putting power in the hands of a few, merely the environment shifting. At worse, is a learning curve which comes with it's own hardships.

 

You're exaggerating the results.

 

Yeah I wasn't talking about trolling. I just don't like MMO mechanics that affect entire zones all that much. (Specifically ones that happen the way the OP is suggesting).

 

i'm not sure where you got that anyone was talking about trolling. I don't think any comment in this thread even mentioned that.

 

LOL

Edited May 4, 2021 by golstat2003

[Naraka]

2 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

 

Yeah I wasn't talking about trolling. I just don't like MMO mechanics that affect entire zones all that much. (Specifically ones that happen the way the OP is suggesting).

 

i'm not sure where you got that anyone was talking about trolling. I don't think any comment in this thread even mentioned that.

 

LOL

You're talking about putting power of change in the hands of a few individuals. The simplest conclusion is someone my abuse that power (Ie, troll).

[golstat2003]

18 minutes ago, Naraka said:

You're talking about putting power of change in the hands of a few individuals. The simplest conclusion is someone my abuse that power (Ie, troll).

 

Nope, not necessarily. Other folks have said they're not to keen on the OP's suggestion. A no point did trolling come up.

 

EDIT: Now if you're saying trolling is something to be worried about for such a feature being implemented . . . maybe.

 

With that said as I suggested earlier, maybe try this mechanic in a new co-op zone, just like the Mothership Raid was implemented as part of the launch of RWZ.

Edited May 4, 2021 by golstat2003

[Naraka]

5 hours ago, golstat2003 said:

 

Nope, not necessarily. Other folks have said they're not to keen on the OP's suggestion. A no point did trolling come up.

 

EDIT: Now if you're saying trolling is something to be worried about for such a feature being implemented . . . maybe.

 

You don't have to say the word trolling to encapsulate the term or meaning in an argument. Why wouldn't you want the actions of a few to affect the whole zone?

 

From what I could tell, one argument made was about putting the responsibility of further regulating their own difficulty which just seemed like an excuse. The other argument seemed to be only wanting to opt into things which, either or feels like kicking the ball further down the road because the only way to make players do more difficulty content is to put a reward behind it and you likely won't be able to put a noticable reward behind it because people want the ability to opt into difficulty while still gaining the same reward. You're just kicking the ball down the road so the next sub-group of dissenters get their turn to kick.

 

Which leads to what someone else in the thread said: "this is why we can't have nice things."

Edited May 4, 2021 by Naraka

[golstat2003]

21 hours ago, Naraka said:

 

You don't have to say the word trolling to encapsulate the term or meaning in an argument. Why wouldn't you want the actions of a few to affect the whole zone?

 

From what I could tell, one argument made was about putting the responsibility of further regulating their own difficulty which just seemed like an excuse. The other argument seemed to be only wanting to opt into things which, either or feels like kicking the ball further down the road because the only way to make players do more difficulty content is to put a reward behind it and you likely won't be able to put a noticable reward behind it because people want the ability to opt into difficulty while still gaining the same reward. You're just kicking the ball down the road so the next sub-group of dissenters get their turn to kick.

 

Which leads to what someone else in the thread said: "this is why we can't have nice things."

 

I wouldn't want the actions of a few to affect the whole zone as I don't think it's good or fun game design. Full stop. Has jack all to do with troling.

 

We all have a different definition of "nice things". I don't particularly think the suggest falls in my definition (or others apparently) for COH.

 

With that said (again) I would not be opposed to them trying the OP's suggestion in a new co-op zone, similar to how they introduced the mothership raid in RWZ years back.

Edited May 5, 2021 by golstat2003

[Naraka]

19 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

 

I wouldn't want the actions of a few to affect the whole zone as I don't think it's good or fun game design. Full stop. Has jack all to do with troling.

 

I'm assuming you have some reference or example to support your conclusion.

 

Putting "full stop" means jack all here lol

[golstat2003]

4 hours ago, Naraka said:

I'm assuming you have some reference or example to support your conclusion.

 

Putting "full stop" means jack all here lol

 

As mentioned they can try it in a new co-op zone. I'm open to being proven wrong that it's fun.

 

But based on what the OP described, no it does not sound fun.

 

EDIT: As entertaining as this engagement has been, moving on. 🙂 

Edited May 5, 2021 by golstat2003