Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What puzzles and slightly worries me ,,,
gurugeorge
Member UncommonPosts: 481
... is that, as I understand it, "anybody can have any power" was already tried in the CoX beta, and it led to massive imbalances, so they switched to the AT system.
Either: it'll be deja vu all over again, and the same sort of thing will happen, and we'll end up with CoX II (not necessarily a bad thing 
) or there was some reason why free power choice wasn't properly implemented in CoX, and Cryptic know what they're doing this time.
Discuss?
Comments
If it is like pre CU/NGE SWG where you only had a limited amount of skill points to use, then it is fine. But if you can train all like in EVE over time it is a bad thing..
I like really dynamic skill systems.
But for COH I did like the archetypes to a large extent. I liked some were Defenders and others scrappers and others again were Brutes.. but this is really the exception, as I normally like more free skill systems..
____________________________
CASUAL CONFESSIONS - Draccan's blog
____________________________
The way that CoX handled it was with Power Pools and that was the issue. Since most of the builds then went to a single attack and a single defence that people had decided was the Optimum
Configuration. If Champions Online uses the same basic idea that the Pen and Paper game uses then it will be based on Points thus ultimately every choice will mean that you have to give up something else. While it can be far more complicated, it will result in for the most part balanced playing field.
I wouldn't let it concern you, keep you up at night ( ' ;
Part of the reason for the move to CoX archtypes was to ensure that players didn't gimp themselves nor all resolve to an optimized build. At least in Pre-CU SWG, they could go with this approach because you earned a living and xp from more than just combat, thus a nice variety of classes could be born (until the holo-grind, that is). Still, people cried about balance issues there too.
Can Cryptic implement it this time around? They've got the experience to do it. Perhaps if they're clever, they might let players choose any skill they want but also provide a recommended "skill tree" for those who who aren't the calculating, min-max, reasearch type just so they could avoid the gimpin factor. Or, just allow for full blown respecs.
As per Cryptic's responce to this matter, I believe that when choosing a power "outside" of your recommended "archetype", the power would be significantly powerless, compared to someone who's archetype recommends that power.
For example, a class like "Brute" will primarily choose tanking powers, like defense enhancement powers, resiliance, etc.
They'd get a 20% defense bonus, whilst a "blaster" like class choosing the same power will only get a 3% (or whatever.. 3% seems quite low) defense bonus.
I do believe this will result in some conflict of balanace, but it will surely make people think twice about where to spend those power slots..
"Should I get a power that does 500 damage since I'm a blaster, or get the defense power that gives me 3% defense so that I can survive that itty-bit longer".. =P
First of all, a system that allows all players to have access to the same abilities and restrictions is superior to one that forces class-based restrictions. This is because the remainder of the game's lifespan will be spent addressing "How a scrapper is imbalanced vs. a Stalker" and so on. That is unless, of course, they do not care about Archetypical imbalance.
Second, once an equal player field is established as the foundation, patches and updates focus on the powers and not the classes or the archetypes. Therefore, a change to a power or ability affects everyone, not just the class or archetype. And therefore, if a power is truly "uber" or literally some form of game abuse, the FIX removes the ability for anyone to become "uber or abuse it.
In other words, it's easier to fix a system where all people have access to the same resources. One patch, affects all.
Having played City of Heroes/City of Villians (Ironically, there is an update/patch occurring as I write), I have noticed that they are constantly re-addressing animation times for different Archetypes, fixes to different power descriptions, and so on. Each Archetype is addressed seperately, and therefore, after each patch, we are wondering....
....which Archetype has the advantage now?
And because of this, City of Heroes often gives out free "respecifications"...the ability to rechoose your powers...because they feel people would have chosen their powers completely different en lieu of their patch.
An equal playing field is therefore optimal, because ultimately, the end product is one that addresses the options for every player and not just a select group.
And finally, in respects to how City of Heroes handled their "massive imbalances" during their beta season. If City of Heroes had stuck with an equal optioned system, right now they would probably be in much better shape.
Note: Most of equal-playing field system arguments ultimately deal with PvP because the developers can tweak NPC/mobs/etc as they see fit.
-----------------------------
Blog -Transcendent''s Tomb - Reviews, Polls, and tortured opinions from the minions of MMORPGS
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/Hhussk
I think the key to making an open and equal system is to more narrowly define the powers. If you buy a "cold shield"...do not also make it resistance to toxic, fire, negative energy, etc.
City of Heroes/City of Villians basically gives their ATs all the resistances or none of them...or very little.
-----------------------------
Blog -Transcendent''s Tomb - Reviews, Polls, and tortured opinions from the minions of MMORPGS
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/Hhussk
Champions online should change the name of the title, if they don't go by the point system. The rpg is unique cas' of that system. And a skilled based system can have same balance as a class based one. The skilled based just gives you control over your weakness and imbalances (as well as you strength and advantages), instead of being given your imbalances cas' of class. I rather have control of my character. It's time an mmo lets youn learn to make your own decisions instead of them holding our hand. Players will play spend more time online creating different characters to perfect their game and tweaking powers, which will make the company more money. Earn your points spend your points. If your a fire blaster and you attack somene that has high resistance to fire, oh well, your not not taking him out. And vice versa. As far as, the whole everyone is the same, I don't see that happening when you allow enough powers. Players will still become tankers, blasters, controllers, etc., but will have more of a hybrid feel.
That was the offical story, but it was later learned (and suspected at the time) that this was mostly a smoke screen. Rick Dakan was the original Lead developer, and while very talented, had a hard time in managing COH into focusing into a release. Emmert was placed as the lead designer because he had ideas to streamline the system so the game could get released (quickly).
The archetypes, and the consequent inability to make any really unique characters, was my biggest gripe with CoH. Well, it was one of my gripes. No, it was the biggest. The first among equals.
Anyway, I was told that the switch to archetypes had a lot to do with the publisher, NCSoft, wanting a game that was recognizable; a game that looked like all the other games that had succeeded, which ultimately sprung from the head of the D&D class system. But who told me this? I can't remember. Someone in game? Someone from the forum? Who knows! It was a long time ago. So I'm just saying it, but I'm not saying it with any authority.
I played Champions for a while in high school, and I hardly remember a thing about it. But I do know that, three and a half years ago, when I rolled my first toon in CoH, my first thought was, "I wish this was more like Champions."
Who ever told you that was talking out their second set of cheeks. That was certainly not the position of Cryptic at the time. I spent the better part of 3 years as a daily participator on the OCH forums daily. Cryptic's position at the time was that the Archtype system allowed for more diversity.
Who ever told you that was talking out their second set of cheeks. That was certainly not the position of Cryptic at the time. I spent the better part of 3 years as a daily participator on the OCH forums daily. Cryptic's position at the time was that the Archtype system allowed for more diversity.
Which in fact it does not.
Take the example of tankers who are always supposed *to hold aggro* even if they out-damage / out-survive a blaster ( *purple-IO'd out* Fire/SS/Pyre tankers spring to my mind here).
Defenders are told to protect, heal, stay back etc., whereas they can snipe-pull, debuff, mezz as well.
It's that:
The AT system forces people into a playing style because of what the majority of players think of how they should be played as. Same for how players are let into PUGs .. or not.
It serves the noobs, but brings nothing to the *open source* playing field of true PUGs for veteran players.
I'd like to see C: O as close to the PnP system as virtually possible.
From a pre NGE SWG player, I can tell ya that mix and match skills are much more fun than archetypes.
Balance can become an issue, especially if you change the skills mid stream without thought to the ramifications. I still dont think anyone at SOE thought that out.