BAB on why Shields was a toggle set, not a click set.
Problem is there’s a shield on your arm, which prevents you from being able to use certain emotes or from just standing around without a shield on your arm. So we wanted to make the shield something that you as a player had control over when it was out or not…ie, toggle power.
That in turn leads us down the path were we can’t have any powers that are based off of having a shield that work when you don’t have the shield actually in hand. So the passives were designed around physical prowess and conditioning and not necessarily the shield itself.
I think we may have ended up deviating from that philosophy at some point, but that was the original intent.
I confess, I am still less-than-thrilled about shields.
Sunstorm’s Q&A on the Base Changes in I13
There have been many posts on the Closed Beta boards and here that I’ve wanted to answer. I’d like to answer as many of those critical questions as I can.
Here is a quick Q&A based on those questions, but first, some really good news:
Prestige Refunds: The programming team has set up a refund system for all base plots, rooms and items. As soon a player loads into a base, that base will automatically refund the Prestige difference. This is crucial: the base must be entered in order to trigger the Prestige refund. If your base is not loaded, then the refund will not happen until someone enters it.
Teleporter recipes: The Rare salvage requirement on these should be removed in the next patch.
Now for the Q&A:
Q. Why re-price bases?
A. Bases were priced in a way that prevented many players from accessing the larger size bases they would like to build.
The goal here was to allow everyone to build larger and more interesting bases on a smaller budget. (I’m really looking forward to seeing all the new base pics!)
Q. What has been re-priced?
A. Primarily the Plots, Rooms, and many Energy and Control items. Plots received a large reduction in cost, and rooms were significantly reduced. The cost of energy and control items is also reduced, and is now based on the amount of energy and control they provide.
Q. Base salvage, why replace it, and what will happen to it?
A. Base salvage has little value to most players. Since there are a limited number of base items to construct, once those items are built there is little need for any further base salvage.
As a result, base salvage tends to either gather dust on salvage racks, or be a source of confusion with Invention salvage. Base salvage will not be removed though, so anything not converted to Brain Storm tokens will remain in game.
Q. Salvage Storage Racks, Why only 30 pieces of invention salvage?
A. In short, the market. The market system is designed to have a steady supply of salvage coming in. If large salvage racks were added, it would create a temporary supply problem of unknown duration until the salvage racks filled up.
Since having salvage temporarily dry up would be a big problem for all players, this number was intentionally kept low. Once the impact on the markets as a whole can be measured, we will look at adjusting these numbers again.
So … do the racks replace or join with putting salvage in the Vault?
Q. What’s happening to Rent?
A. Rent still exists, but it has been reduced dramatically. Rent is no longer charged by plot size, and is instead based on the number of utility items in the base.
These are the items that charge rent:
– Storage bins: 100 prestige per bin.
– Workbenches, and Enhancement terminals: 100 per tier
– Medical Items: 100 per item, excluding Basic Reclaimator
No rent is charged for basic utility items like Teleporters, Teleport beacons, Medical Reclaimator’s, Basic Work Tables, and Invention work tables. Rent free bases of any size can still be built, with all the normal utilities available. In the future, we will be looking into improving how rent is charged as well.
Q. Base Pathing issues, why was pathing changed?
A. The base pathing was never intended to be changed. The fix for it was not simple though, so it took some time for the programming team to get the fix in. We are actively looking at ways to make the pathing system easier for base builders, however, in the future there may be pathing requirements for raiding.
Q. Why was X feature not looked into?
A. Actually, we looked at a lot of features. We have plans for not only Base Raiding and the Cathedral of Pain, but also the base editor as well. We want to add new base decorations, new permissions features, and a few more goodies as well. We are still working on these, and they will be added in as we can get them completed.
So, beyond that, I’ve been a long time reader of the base threads, and am looking forward to seeing the new bases that will be built. My goal is always to make base building better, and we will keep working to bring in new features to improve bases.
Not as interested in all this as Margie is. She’s the family base architect.
BAB on why we can run but not walk.
To add walking into the game we’re looking at anywhere from 15 to 75 animations. That would get us a single ‘style’ of walking for the male, female, and huge player models. Doubtful that we’d ever be able to create a single walk animation that would make everyone happy…based on the mixed feedback about flight poses and the new hover animations.
We’re not opposed to adding walking into the game…it’s just really hard to prioritize it over so many other things that require animation time.
Aside from some RPG applications, it’s not that big a deal, but …
Synapse on the Merit system in I13.
Before I answer your questions, I’d like to give you some information about the Merit Reward system. As most of you understand average (median) completion time is the primary metric we chose to use to determine the how many merits a task would grant. In fact, longer tasks give an additional 5% bonus to the number of merits they award for every 100 minutes of average time. Lastly, we use difficulty as a factor to round out numbers. So, some tasks get bonus merits because of their overall challenge. A good example of this is the Lord Recluse Strike Force. It normally would grant 18 merits due to its relatively short average completion time, however because of its difficulty it gets a +7 bonus granting a total of 25 merits!
Taskforces give an average of 1 merit every 5 minutes of average time (12 merits an hour), Trials give an average of 1 merit every 4.5 minutes (13-14 merits an hour), and Story Arcs give an average of 1 merit every 12.5 minutes (4-5 merits an hour). The reason for this major difference is due to the considerable time and effort Task/Strike Forces can take to set up and complete, so naturally these tasks grant a much greater reward.
Now, I’d like to answer some of your questions you asked:
Poster: EarthWyrm
Q: Is it intended that Flashbacks follow the 1 merit/5 minute benchmark for TFs? If not (most do not seem to, based on testing prior to 11/18), what is the benchmark meant to be?
A: Story Arcs run normally or through Ouroboros do not use the same 1 merit/5 minute benchmark. Story Arcs offer substantially less merits per hour than task forces.
Q: Why is the (non-unique) Steadfast Protection: Knockback Protection 125 merits to purchase, when all other non-unique Pool B recipes are 50 merits, including the Karma: Knockback Protection recipe?
A: This will actually be corrected in a future update. They will both sell for 75 merits each.
Poster: KeepDistance
Q: Would you consider removing items from the merit purchase system that already have direct-inf purchase availability through vendors? (Specifically, I mean SOs and common IO recipes.) If not, what do you see as the benefit to offering them through merits?
A: We understand that there are some players who prefer to not use the invention system at all, so we’d like the Merit Reward system to mean something for these players too. Common IO recipes are there for players who don’t like to worry about IO sets.
See, this is one of my complaints. Too many mechanisms for buying too many different sorts of things that do somewhat the same things but not really. The drug interactions between influence, salvage, inventions, invention sets, merits, etc., is starting to give me a migraine.
Poster: Mirai
Q: The merit system had been advertised as a way to purchase a wide variety of items, including certain costume parts and badges. That variety is not there. Are there plans to add these things in shortly, or has that strategy been scrapped?
A: The Merit system has a lot of room for growth and items like costume pieces and badges would be a great addition to this system. We’ll be looking at ways of expanding upon this system in the future.
That said, I’d rather the Merit System not be the *only* way to buy anything in particular. Unless it turns out I get a lot of merit.
Which seems a bit sketchy — 4-5 merits per hour for a story arc, while “non-unique Pool B recipes” will be 75 merits. Um … not terribly enticing there.
Poster: Paradox1
Q: The Story Arc merit system seems to encourage us to solo non-TF missions, as running other people’s story arcs earns 0 merits (unless we happen to have the same arc open). Is this really the way you want to encourage us to play the game?
A: While only offering Merits upon story arc completion to the owner of the story arc is consistent with our original reward system (only the mission owner earns the bonus story arc XP and gets to choose the SO enhancement) we understand that there is certainly room for improvement upon this. We will evaluate our options on how we can improve the rewards for party members along for the ride on a story arc.
Gah? So if we aren’t in the same story arc as a “committed duo,” only one of us gets merit? Bleah.
I mean, we usually get the same arcs — but now there’s a “pressure” to do so.
Poster: IronTiger
Q: Why do pool D random recipes cost more than pool C random? The price for a specific pool D is the same to a Pool C in most cases.
A: The cost of pool D rewards are higher due to the significantly higher likelihood of getting the desired enhancement with a single roll. Taskforce reward tables have substantially more items on them than Trial reward tables.
Oh, yeah, random reward pools with different classes of whatever. Meh.
Poster: macskull
Q: What is the intent and purpose of the merit system? Originally it seemed intended to be an alternate, additional, avenue for those who did not wish to use the market, or for a deterministic way to get a recipe you wanted. Now it seems like it’s replacing the current system instead of adding onto it.
A: The basic intent for the Merit Reward system is to more accurately reward players for their time invested doing missions. Ultimately, what it came down to is that not all Task Forces and Strike Forces were created equal. Some take 30 minutes, some can take upwards of 10 hours. The fact that all of these Task Forces had been granting the same reward made us realize we needed to incorporate time into the reward equation. That’s essentially where Merits came in.
I’ve never specifically minded the diffferent lengths/efforts of different TFs because, basically, you get buckets o’ experience and influence for it. I don’t mind something that rewards beyond that for level of effort — but I’m feeling like this is less an added reward than a new hoop to jump through.
Poster: NotPutzing
Q: Have you considered reducing the merit timer slightly from 23 hours or even 20 hours? This would let people do thing at the same thing the next night at the same time. So, if someone wanted to run Friday and Saturday Hami raids at the same time, they wouldn’t have to worry about finishing a few minutes earlier than they had the last night.
A: We’re aware of the issue and why this would be important to players. We’ll be looking at this and we’ll try and find a fair solution in the near future. Reducing the timer to 18-20 hours does not sound unreasonable.
Poster: Tempest_56
Q: How much a reduction are we going to see in future changes to merit awards, given that it’s been shown that speed-runs of all the rewarding content can be (and will be) run? See: the 25 minute ITF. What failsafes are in place should the rewards for all available content drop to ridiculously low levels, thereby effectively locking out those of us who don’t do TF speed runs four-plus times a day?
A: We’re aware that there are Task Forces out there that can be completed far faster than they were intended. There will always be groups of players who will maximize their rewards for the amount of time they invest. Any increases or reductions to merits granted will only be done along with ample data supporting this decision. Let me give an example: Currently we show an average completion time of the Positron’s taskforce of 235 minutes. If we saw this average completion time, not the fastest times mind you, drop to say 120 or 90 minutes, then we’d look into how this is being done. What we could do mission side to fix this, and consider toning down merit rewards if necessary. On the up side, if we see a task that simply isn’t giving enough rewards for the time required, we’ll bump that up.
On the other hand, since I’m not a PvPer, I don’t mind folks farming in this fashion. It doesn’t harm me, unless the game difficulty gets adjusted for folks who farm/speed-TF.
Poster: Beef_Cake
Q: Do you plan on granting merits to normal missions other than arc completion?
A: It is something we’re looking at, if we decide this is a good way to go we’ll consider different ways of implementing this.
At which point, Merit because quasi-Influence.
Q: Will you consider letting us increase our Merits awarded by using the Ouroboros Difficulty System?
A: This was a stretch goal for this feature, we hope to have mission difficulty and Ouroboros challenge settings impact the number of rewards players receive for completing these tasks added in future updates.
This seems a worthwhile addition.
Q: Wouldn’t the casual players running task forces essentially be punished, if and when the data mining shows that the reward should be lowered due to Speed Runners and Farmers?
A: We’re going to have a very good reason for decreasing the rewards for a task. We’ll periodically be doing data mining to check on average completion times. We’ll consider options with making changes to Task Forces before making changes to the merits awarded, and only do so if we see a substantial decrease in average completion time.
As noted, I don’t mind folks “farming” because it doesn’t affect me — unless the game is made more difficult (or less rewarding) because of it.
Poster: OfficerZap
Q: Are there any major, easy, exploits that would mean awarding merits to all team members upon completion would not be possible? If not, could you please explain the reasoning for the limitation, and also the impact you think this may/may not have on group vs solo play?
A: The reasoning behind not initially having group members, that are not the mission owner, receiving Merit Rewards is that the original reward system didn’t give mission helpers rewards either. However, we understand how some players might perceive this as a penalty for not being the mission owner and we will consider our options on how to best address this issue.
Actually, that’s funny — I had forgotten that there used to not be such a thing as “shared mission credit.” That’s such a natural addition that it’s hard to remember that once that wasn’t the case. I don’t think the old way is a good design model, though.
Q: Is it possible to, if not at launch, add purple recipes to the list at a suitable price? If not, could you explain the concept behind excluding these from the list?
A: It’s technically possible, yes. However, purple recipes would be so expensive Merit wise due to the statistical likelihood of one dropping that we decided to omit them from the items on the list at this time. That isn’t to say we won’t ever add them to it in the future.
Poster: Snow_Globe
Q: Would the developers be willing to not only decrease merit drops based on time, but actually increase merit drops? Would there be a commitment to review times on a regular basis?
A: Any decision to increase or decrease merits rewarded for completing tasks will only be done after careful consideration, gathering ample data and reviewing all of our options. It’s our goal to periodically data mine task completion times to make sure tasks aren’t grossly over or under rewarding our players.
Poster: MadScientist
Q: Pool C and D are no longer dropped anywhere in-game. To my knowledge, those will be the only items purchased from stores that never drop in the wild. My question is: What are your goals in making that design move? What do you expect that unique situation to achieve?
A: In the past, completing a Task Force gave you the option to choose a random IO recipe. This rolled on a reward table. All we’ve done is remove where you roll on the reward table. Instead of it being upon completion of a Task Force, now it’s purchased from a vendor.
One of the benefits of doing it this way actually gives the players the option to choose rewards from a large amount of task force level ranges instead of whatever one the Task Force would normally use. So, you can spend your 20 merits to roll on random roll from a variety of level ranges (10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-45 or 46-50.)
Q: Do you still plan to go back and revise some of the older, less-popular, grindy-er TFs? (such as Positron, Synapse) Or do you now feel that all TFs will stay as they are and use higher Merit rewards to balance content that’s longer or more difficult than players normally would go for?
A: One of the factors we’ll be looking at when considering making changes to the number of merits a task gives out is the mission itself. The Merit Reward system is going to be going through on going improvements over time, this might mean revamping missions in the future if we feel that is necessary.
Poster: Kitsune9tails
Q: What is the intended relationship between the Merit system and the markets?
A: The Merit system gives players who don’t like to fiddle with the markets the chance to buy that IO enhancement they’ve always wanted but haven’t been able to afford with influence/infamy. It also gives players a way to have greater control over supply and demand on specific items by allowing players to buy that incredibly overpriced recipe listed on the Auction House, thus decreasing the demand for the item on the auction house.
As someone who’s ambivalent about the markets, the fact is it’s easy enough to just freaking buy the (simple) IOs you want in the market with minimum muss (and price).
Poster: EvilGeko
Q: Will you state right here, right now, that you will not further nerf rewards on content that the playerbase learns to do quicker?
A: We can’t do that. However, we can state right here and now that we won’t take such decisions lightly. We’re going to only decrease rewards on a task if we don’t have the option of immediately making adjustments to a Task Force and we find that the majority of players are running the Task Force at a significantly reduced average time than before.
Q: Why not fix Katie and Eden instead of taking away their rewards?
A: We don’t always have time between issues to make changes like this. Keep in mind that this is just the first step for the Merit Reward system and is going to be an on going task to make sure Task Forces are where we want them as far as completion time.
Poster: _Synchotron_
Q: Why are merits untradable/unsellable? All the rewards they’re replacing had no such restrictions, why these? If they have to be untradable/unsellable, why aren’t they account-based, rather than character-based? If you run more than a couple characters at a time, this will fragment your merit pools and dramatically reduce the value of the merits you earn. If its a reward for time played, why should the particular hero I play matter?
A: Merits were designed to represent an individual character’s accomplishments and time invested doing missions. Thus, untradeable and unsellable.
I actually wish there was more account-based stuff, rather than toon-based stuff. It’s less “comic booky,” but would make for a better play experience, I think.
Poster: Lemur_Lad
Q: Will villains get more villain only options for earning chunks of merits to balance out the larger number of hero trials and TFs?
A: We will be monitoring this. We want to make sure that a villain doing missions from 1 to 50 will be earning roughly the same amount of merits a hero can earn. If we find a serious imbalance between heroes and villains in the number of earnable merits, we’ll look at ways of improving this.
Poster: TheWeaver
Q: What impact are you expecting the merit system to have on those of us who (for one reason or another) tend not to run TF/SF’s?
A: The intention of the system was to also give players who don’t tend to run Task Forces and Strike Forces the chance at earning the same high end rewards as players normally running Task Forces, however at a diminished rate. This gives player an opportunity to earn rewards they normally would not have had access to outside of the Black Market/Wentworth’s.
Poster: Healing_Phoenix
Q: Why is it that the Villain side SF payout is way less than Hero side TF payout? I feel that as a villain I’m being punished.
A: On average Villain Strike Forces take significantly less time to complete when compared to Hero Task Forces. Since time is the major factor when determining the number of Merits a task gives upon completion Villains on average receive less Merits per task, but roughly the same Merits per hour.
Poster: Zombie_Man
Q: Why were Merits not put in Pool A or B drops so that the rule of 1 Merit for every 5 minutes could be normalized to actual play rather than racing toward the end of a multi-part task bypassing content?
A: The 1 merit for every 5 minute rule is for Task Forces and Strike Forces, not for Story Arcs. Story Arcs award players with roughly 4-6 merits per hour (of average completion time) instead of the 12 merits per hour (of average completion time) that Task Forces give. We will be evaluating options of putting merits through alternate means for the future.
I’d like to conclude this first Merit Rewards System Q&A by repeating that the existing Merit Reward System is by no means the final version you’ll ever see of it. Just like every system we’ve implemented into City of Heroes, we’re always looking at ways of improving them and making them more fun for a larger group of players.
Still not impressed.
The intro of the Leveling Pact has had us going out and playing some new alt pairs. One of them is this duo, Leilah and Kazima, two otherworldly sisters (with a standing argument over who’s the eldest). One’s a plant/storm controller, the other’s a broadsword/will scrapper. Both appear to have broadswords in this picture, though …