A Question from The Homecoming Team

[Nericus]

3 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

You seem to keep injecting some alternate meaning or subtext to my posts that isn't there.  I never suggested lootboxes weren't worth discussing nor did I say what anyone should or should not post.  I simply tried pointing out that in my experience sub fees probably aren't going to work all that well for what the poster was after.

 

If lootboxes are what is being thought about as a means of revenue, then yes, absolutely there needs to be a big discussion about them.

The whole idea of subscriptions vs micro transactions for this game is moot right now.  If ncsoft finally gives their precious blessing then perhaps some system could be setup. But the admins have also said that the homecoming CoH servers would always be free to play.

[PopeUrban]

On 9/10/2019 at 8:02 PM, JCMcBoo said:

The idea is not to switch the PvE zones to PvP,  only to allow folks to PvP in every zone via invitation only. Anyone could challenge anyone else and players could refuse or accept the challenge as they see fit. If PvP is that marginal it won't impact the game.

 

I see it working thusly...

 

During PvP the combatants would be moved off to a nearby 30x30 area clear of any interaction points and defined by force fields generated by four PPD robots. The combatants are visible to but cannot effect or be effected by anyone outside of the force fields. Once the fight is over, the PPD robots disperse and it's business as usual. Normal PvP badges, merits or sundry other PvP type accolades apply to those involved in a given fight.

 

Combat can take place between individuals or teams but teams must be evenly matched numerically before combat will begin.

What you're suggesting is highly disruptive to people who don't actually want to PvP I think. Walling off areas of the map, even if there are no interaction points on them is going to be highly disrupting to travel, aesthetic, etc.

 

Not only that the scrying out of appropriate "dynamic arenas" and properly spawning the shields, etc seems like a ton of work for something that's going to get in other people's way. An easier to implement version of this idea that doesn't impose on people who just don't want to be interrupted or effected by PvP would be to allow a base/badge/etc that allows characters to choose to play their missions in PvP mode, and allow players of opposing moralities the opportunity to disrupt the missions for a reward. You could develop a PvP arch nemesis this way if the invasion menu allows searching for specific characters.

 

Call it "Broadcast Mode" or something and run it through contacts at newspaper buildings and broadcast centers, the idea being you've made your activities public through the media for additional influence/infamy which also opens you up to those missions being raided by the opposition. Like an advanced pvp focused evolution of what the newspaper or police scanner already does, only you're scanning for players in broadcast mode.

 

If you've taken on a target to attempt to disrupt, you get a submarine/flier/whatever door to take you to the zone, and you're confined to that zone and their mission door until either your target completes the mission or you defeat them and cause it to fail. (No getting an invasion in boomtown and taking the train to atlas park. You're a supervillain!) and your target is notified when you arrive in the instance, the idea being the time it takes you to go from the mission entrance to their location gives them time to react by either disengaging from mobs, setting traps, or abandoning your mission and taking the L to avoid a particularly notorious opponent. Since the layout and travel times within mission maps are highly variable this is a pretty interesting variable in terms of how long you may or may not have to react to an invader before they're on you.

 

Win condition for the invader is to defeat the mission runner once. This causes the mission to fail, and for good measure and risk lets lock the runner out of attempting that mission again in broadcast mode for some time, half an hour maybe? Win condition for the mission runner is to complete the mission. Defeating the invader simply kicks that invader out of town but another may take their place.

 

Give this mode some kind of additional bonus for mission completion, merits or something maybe, a set of badges etc. Have a scaling streak bonus to encourage sticking with the mode even if you get beaten, scaling rewards for winning higher the more missions you remain in broadcast mode, win or lose. Require players to collect tokens via successful mission completions and pay for invasion attempts with said tokens so that no one has the ability to only invade and must play both sides of the mode.

 

Maybe later look through existing content that subs in more randomized opponents (e.g. bank missions or other instances where an opposing hero or villain isn't plot critical) and allow people to invade those missions if the owner is in broadcast mode as a "waiting to spawn" replacement for the normal NPC hero or villain without paying the token fee.

 

This would keep the PvP in instances where it can't disrupt anyone else's play, but create a sense of free roaming danger with additional reward for the risk for players that choose to play this way, and could be accomplished with a lot less development effort, as you'd mostly only need to set already existing flags and teleports and the only new thing would be the UI to pick invasion targets (could you reuse a version of the teleport dialogue with dynamic name/zone entries? IDK)

 

This would also allow even PvE players to participate in a little passive teamwork by phoning in when they see a hostile in the zone, possibly giving players doing missions in this mode additional advanced warning. You know "Heads up Blarf Man, Docter Narf is in the neighborhood" "Thanks for the heads up! That guy has it out for me!"

Edited September 23, 2019 by PopeUrban

[MetaVileTerror]

It was TonyV who promised that Homecoming would /always/ be free, Nericus

TonyV also recently stepped down from Titan Network and the ncsoft negotiations . . . 

 

Yeah.  I'm worried too.  Some reassurances of that promise from others still engaged in the negotiations would go a long way to placating those fears.

[technohoungan]

I would love to see an evolutionary MM where each Tier of pet was from a different era:  

• Protoplasm Pets (all melee but one causes -Def, one -Res, one -Dam),
• Caveman (Scrapper) and 
• Futuristic Man (Blaster or Troller with leadership)

Also Staff Assault for Doms, Water Control, Whips, Wind Control.

 

It would be nice to see  Khallisti Warf finished, which could take care of adding new content.

 

If the game went sub or microtrans, make it affordable.

 

[Ry]

4 hours ago, JCMcBoo said:

To each their own. I tend to see the Rogue Isles more as hunting grounds for my villains. They have their own agendas that have nothing to do with Lord Recluse and his lot so proving worthy of them is never on the list of priorities. Be it money, power or other less savory goals my baddies have the power to take what they want regardless of anything.

And thats totally fair. Its totally a hunting ground, but Arachnos has (most) of the chips on the table shall we say, towards the end of live we were seeing content shifting towards tipping the balance in the players favour. I have some characters that are for Arachnos, others very much against. Sorry if I seemed a bit snippy in my response!

[ShardWarrior]

2 hours ago, Nericus said:

But the admins have also said that the homecoming CoH servers would always be free to play.

Free to play doesn't necessarily mean there will not be an item shop of some kind.

[JCMcBoo]

3 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

What you're suggesting is highly disruptive to people who don't actually want to PvP I think. Walling off areas of the map, even if there are no interaction points on them is going to be highly disrupting to travel, aesthetic, etc.

 

Not only that the scrying out of appropriate "dynamic arenas" and properly spawning the shields, etc seems like a ton of work for something that's going to get in other people's way. An easier to implement version of this idea that doesn't impose on people who just don't want to be interrupted or effected by PvP would be to allow a base/badge/etc that allows characters to choose to play their missions in PvP mode, and allow players of opposing moralities the opportunity to disrupt the missions for a reward. You could develop a PvP arch nemesis this way if the invasion menu allows searching for specific characters.

 

Call it "Broadcast Mode" or something and run it through contacts at newspaper buildings and broadcast centers, the idea being you've made your activities public through the media for additional influence/infamy which also opens you up to those missions being raided by the opposition. Like an advanced pvp focused evolution of what the newspaper or police scanner already does, only you're scanning for players in broadcast mode.

 

If you've taken on a target to attempt to disrupt, you get a submarine/flier/whatever door to take you to the zone, and you're confined to that zone and their mission door until either your target completes the mission or you defeat them and cause it to fail. (No getting an invasion in boomtown and taking the train to atlas park. You're a supervillain!) and your target is notified when you arrive in the instance, the idea being the time it takes you to go from the mission entrance to their location gives them time to react by either disengaging from mobs, setting traps, or abandoning your mission and taking the L to avoid a particularly notorious opponent. Since the layout and travel times within mission maps are highly variable this is a pretty interesting variable in terms of how long you may or may not have to react to an invader before they're on you.

 

Win condition for the invader is to defeat the mission runner once. This causes the mission to fail, and for good measure and risk lets lock the runner out of attempting that mission again in broadcast mode for some time, half an hour maybe? Win condition for the mission runner is to complete the mission. Defeating the invader simply kicks that invader out of town but another may take their place.

 

Give this mode some kind of additional bonus for mission completion, merits or something maybe, a set of badges etc. Have a scaling streak bonus to encourage sticking with the mode even if you get beaten, scaling rewards for winning higher the more missions you remain in broadcast mode, win or lose. Require players to collect tokens via successful mission completions and pay for invasion attempts with said tokens so that no one has the ability to only invade and must play both sides of the mode.

 

Maybe later look through existing content that subs in more randomized opponents (e.g. bank missions or other instances where an opposing hero or villain isn't plot critical) and allow people to invade those missions if the owner is in broadcast mode as a "waiting to spawn" replacement for the normal NPC hero or villain without paying the token fee.

 

This would keep the PvP in instances where it can't disrupt anyone else's play, but create a sense of free roaming danger with additional reward for the risk for players that choose to play this way, and could be accomplished with a lot less development effort, as you'd mostly only need to set already existing flags and teleports and the only new thing would be the UI to pick invasion targets (could you reuse a version of the teleport dialogue with dynamic name/zone entries? IDK)

 

This would also allow even PvE players to participate in a little passive teamwork by phoning in when they see a hostile in the zone, possibly giving players doing missions in this mode additional advanced warning. You know "Heads up Blarf Man, Docter Narf is in the neighborhood" "Thanks for the heads up! That guy has it out for me!"

Wow! I am liking this! I fully admit that my idea was logistically challenging but this is elegant and in keeping with the spirit of the genre! Well done!

 

There is a greifing risk but I am sure that can be addressed via the ignore command.

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by JCMcBoo

[ed fray]

 

Should HC go LIVE live I think an item shop is inevitable.  As long as it's Hats, vanity auras, emotes, maybe a few vehicles, an overpowered power or three...okay not that one.

 

[Asacledhae]

So far, i'm more than happy with everything that's been done to the game. I seriously adore the new snipes... 😄

So, what i would "actually" like to see?

 

* The Ability to keep my existing characters (at least 5 or more), as i've put a lot of love and effort into them.

* The Ability to keep playing the game, without "modern mmo" nonsense. (Locking for example Powers or Archetypes inside a Lootbox). Wouldn't mind a sub, or a cosmetic items store.

* More Mastermind Primary Sets / Mastermind Pet Customization (Would love "Modern" zombies for example, instead of the "Medieval" theme Grave Knights and the Lich have).

* Some attention to the Kheldians, as they feel "neglected".

 

I guess that's about it...

Have a nice day.

[Seigmoraig]

Hopefully come more end game content so that we can flex those billion+ inf builds somewhere where the mobs can flex back at us !

 

 

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE NO LOOTBOXES AND MICROTRANSACTIONS !!! PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Edited September 24, 2019 by Seigmoraig

[ShardWarrior]

2 minutes ago, Seigmoraig said:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE NO LOOTBOXES AND MICROTRANSACTIONS !!!

I understand people are against these.  However, I think the implementation is key.  So long as the items in them aren't required for game progression (eg. what EA tried), I don't have an issue with them.  I don't at all mind them having cosmetic pieces or salvage and such. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by ShardWarrior

[MetaVileTerror]

Cosmetics have been, and should always remain, City of Heroes' greatest strength, in my opinion.  Locking them behind paywalls is NOT conducive to the original spirit of what makes this an amazing game.  A spirit which is very much alive and well with this free server.  

I'm happy to pay for new content to be made, but I'd sooner go for a crowdfunding, subscription, or "donation" based model as we currently stand.  Pay the asset developers in advance, and trust that they'll be held accountable.  Yeah, I know . . . a lot of crowdfunded endeavours have been huge boondoggles.  But I'd still rather take that potential outcome than see microtransactions ever return to this game.

[Seigmoraig]

36 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

I understand people are against these.  However, I think the implementation is key.  So long as the items in them aren't required for game progression (eg. what EA tried), I don't have an issue with them.  I don't at all mind them having cosmetic pieces or salvage and such. 

Salvage from MTX = pay2win
"Just Cosmetics" is a terrible idea that has been ingrained over years to be acceptable when it really isn't. Paying for cosmetics in CoH would be blasphemy considering the pride and joy people derive from their costume creations. Creating a haves and haves not situation here would be awful.
If you want to charge money, let people donate - tons of people will considering the 5 seconds the donation window stays open each month

Edited September 24, 2019 by Seigmoraig

[ShardWarrior]

2 hours ago, Seigmoraig said:

Creating a haves and haves not situation here would be awful.

There are already haves and have nots in the game right now.  There will always be haves and have nots in the game, whether cosmetics are in a lootbox or not.

[MunkiLord]

On 9/21/2019 at 8:39 PM, Clave Dark 5 said:

One more annoying thought: make your build as easy (and flexible) to alter as your costume, instead of having to resort to all-or-nothing respecs.  I accidentally put one slot where I didn't want it?  Fine, I'll pay a fee to remove it and then and move it over to this power.  Decide I don't want this power at all?  Drop it and choose from one that was available at that level insread.  Respecs would be like free tailor fees, "click here to pay with free respec token."  This could be quit e a decent Inf sink for the game and would keep rebuilding/respecing from being such a nightmare of a time suck.

 

I have no idea if this is feasible or not, though.

I would pay an absurd amount of influence in order to be able to do this.

[Seigmoraig]

33 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

There are already haves and have nots in the game right now.  There will always be haves and have nots in the game, whether cosmetics are in a lootbox or not.

The only haves and haves not situation in this game currently is dictated by the amount of time you can play, not by your wallet. If you can't see the difference between these 2 situations you are either a massive troll or a denser than a black hole.

[ShardWarrior]

4 minutes ago, Seigmoraig said:

The only haves and haves not situation in this game currently is dictated by the amount of time you can play, not by your wallet. If you can't see the difference between these 2 situations you are either a massive troll or a denser than a black hole.

Why should those who can afford to buy things be penalized in any way?  I think it very naive to believe that if by some miracle the game is able to go legit, there will not be an item shop to fund development. 

[Seigmoraig]

12 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

Why should those who can afford to buy things be penalized in any way?  I think it very naive to believe that if by some miracle the game is able to go legit, there will not be an item shop to fund development. 

Last time they put an item shop in the game, it shut down less than a year later. Just saying

[Obsidius]

• Asymmetric costumes (left/ right arm/ leg options) integrated by other SCORE teams
• Powersets developed by other SCORE teams (provided the quality is high)
• Story line progression/ content (dependent on the volunteer team)
• More base options to making out-of-bounds bases easier to build (more building parts)
• Finish Khalisti Wharf❤️ 

I'm very happy the game is back at all, but these are my pie-in-the-sky wish list items at present.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Obsidius

[ShardWarrior]

1 hour ago, Seigmoraig said:

Last time they put an item shop in the game, it shut down less than a year later. Just saying

And from what we speculatively know, that wasn't the cause of the shutdown.

[MetaVileTerror]

I'm right there with the sentiment that artificially creating a "haves and have nots" mentality _for costume pieces_ is absolutely no good when tied to real world finances.  The reason such mechanics are popular is not at all in favour of the players or even the developers; it's standard practice for investors and executives.  Feeding in to a system like that is NOT healthy for long term success, as evidenced by the wider industry flirting with another collapse right now.

[Obsidius]

5 hours ago, Seigmoraig said:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE NO LOOTBOXES AND MICROTRANSACTIONS !!! PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEE

This, please.

[ShardWarrior]

I've no objection to microtransactions based on the implementation.

[Obsidius]

14 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

I've no objection to microtransactions based on the implementation.

Thanks, I think you've already made that pretty clear.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Obsidius

[ShardWarrior]

6 minutes ago, Obsidius said:

Thanks, I think you've already made that pretty clear.

Thanks.  You too. ;)