What's the difference between Heroes and Villains and the Phoenix Project?

[downix]

It struck me this morning one of the fundamental differences between two projects has nothing to do with the game, with the importance of lore, etc.

It has to do with what the underlying structure is and how we're handling it.

Heroes and Villains from appearances is looking to stay forever a community project.

The Phoenix Project on the other hand is looking to turn itself into a business, with a focus on the community.

Neither approach is wrong, they are just different ways to get it done.

[Blue Pulsar]

It needed a lot more than a new engine, as far as I'm concerned. I personally never saw City of Heroes as "perfect," and indeed it became less and less so as it developed. The lore turned into an infinite continuity snarly of old stories disregarded and replaced with newer ones, fudges and kludges and frankly BAD stories. Gameplay, which had once been simple and straightforward, turned into a mixture of complex statistics and much grinding, plus Market PvP. And even power balance was slated towards the need for a team. I said this about Blasters in the actual Blah blah blah blah...

I'm really sorry. I am not trying to cause any trouble here, but I am super curious what your intent on here is. As far as I can see, a vast majority of the posters here would like to see Project: Hail Mary work to bring us right back into our City as we knew/know it. Plan Z(s) are there as a back up and it seems as though they are trying to create a game that gives us as close to what we had as they can without infringement, which most seem to accept as an alternative. And an extreme few on here express their ongoing pessimism about whether or not anything is going to happen (but still seem to want their game back).

But, seriously friend, you are the only one I have read on here (and, perhaps that's because I have only been reading recent posts) that actually has a slew of things they dislike/disliked about the game. It sounds as though you would prefer a completely different game with only slightly similar gameplay and lore. It seems so far out of contrast with the consensus here that I am really curious as to what you are here for. I think I speak for at least most here (if not 99%) when I say we want our city back the way it was. You just don't seem to fit in.

Again, not trying to start a fight or anything like that, just kind of curious.

[Minotaur]

I'm really sorry. I am not trying to cause any trouble here, but I am super curious what your intent on here is. As far as I can see, a vast majority of the posters here would like to see Project: Hail Mary work to bring us right back into our City as we knew/know it. Plan Z(s) are there as a back up and it seems as though they are trying to create a game that gives us as close to what we had as they can without infringement, which most seem to accept as an alternative. And an extreme few on here express their ongoing pessimism about whether or not anything is going to happen (but still seem to want their game back).

But, seriously friend, you are the only one I have read on here (and, perhaps that's because I have only been reading recent posts) that actually has a slew of things they dislike/disliked about the game. It sounds as though you would prefer a completely different game with only slightly similar gameplay and lore. It seems so far out of contrast with the consensus here that I am really curious as to what you are here for. I think I speak for at least most here (if not 99%) when I say we want our city back the way it was. You just don't seem to fit in.

Again, not trying to start a fight or anything like that, just kind of curious.

Actually I think most of us have our eyes open as to what was wrong with CoH, but even with those faults, it was still so much better than anything else out there. I think a lot of us would like CoH back with or without those faults rectified, there's just quite a lot of disagreements about where the faults lay.

My fear is that TPP will go too far away from CoH to be a game I want to play, while H&V won't actually fix any of the problems and will introduce more.

[Segev]

All I can say is that I hope you're wrong about it being so far away that it isn't something you want to play. We are doing our best to capture what the aggregate consensus is that the spirit of CoH was. We're trying to break down everything people say they liked and not just mimic the mechanism, but analyze the core, and rebuild with mechanisms designed to encapsulate and enhance that core. Many times, that means following the original mechanism, but not always.

For instance, if there was a very popular car in an area known for long, cold winters that people loved for its ability to run its heater every 20 min. for about 5 min. in order to maintain a comfortable internal temperature when people weren't in it, but that car was discontinued, we could attempt to mimic that exact feature. Or, we could just decide to mimic it in part and have the heater run all the time, or have it run if you turn on that feature but not run if you leave it off in order to save your gas/battery life/whatever.

Those would be ways to mimic the mechanism, perhaps with a little bit of change.

But if we examine what it was that people actually liked about it, we might discover that the majority of the comments are about how it's so nice not to have to sit on freezing cold seats and how their fingers didn't freeze from holding the steering wheel. They didn't care all that much about the ambient air temp. in the car, and in fact were split about 50/50 on whether it was a good thing to have it be warmed enough to keep the seats and steering wheel warm or made it a little stuffy and hot when they first got in.

So, in light of that discovery, instead of running the car's heating system to keep the car warm, we design ours to have a material for the steering wheel and the seats that is less temperature-conductive to the touch, and develop a quick-acting heater that makes the seats and steering wheel a bit warmer very quickly after the doors are opened. It's more efficient on the battery and still feels great to the people climbing in and to the driver.

It's not at all the same mechanism, but it's an effort to capture what people really liked and make it better with a more focused mechanism.

I'm not saying we're making these changes all over the place; the car still has four wheels, and everybody loved that it was a 4-door (rather than 2-door) sedan, and we're keeping those features and mechanisms the same where they worked well. It still will feel like the same kind of car, even if it's not identical. But we're hoping to make it BETTER rather than a copy. Where "better" means "more of what made CoH great, and better-emphasized."

[Blue Pulsar]

Actually I think most of us have our eyes open as to what was wrong with CoH, but even with those faults, it was still so much better than anything else out there.

Well, I agree that the game was not perfect. Some found the imperfections to be more bothersome than others. I am not one of those. After playing for a while, I was smacked in the face with a global powers nerf, and then ED a short time after. I was pissed for a while, but got over it. After a year or so, I got used to it and learned to just play any way I could. After a while, I got to where I could ignore the nerfs if not adjust to them.

But as you said, CoX was the best game out there. Being the best does not mean it's perfect. Being the best does not mean it can't be better. My point was that, in a thread where we are talking about the potential revival (in some incarnation or another) of our game, Sam Tow seems to stick out with a banal list of negatives that just seems out of place. I was only curious as to why he was doing so. Nothing more.

[Kistulot]

Well, I agree that the game was not perfect. Some found the imperfections to be more bothersome than others. I am not one of those. After playing for a while, I was smacked in the face with a global powers nerf, and then ED a short time after. I was pissed for a while, but got over it. After a year or so, I got used to it and learned to just play any way I could. After a while, I got to where I could ignore the nerfs if not adjust to them.

Having come in after these things, a part of me worries that development of a Plan Z attempting to be more similar to Coh may strive to be closer to such a pre nerf state. While things were nerfed or adjusted, to me, they were just a part of the game.

Besides that Elec was too weak in damage to compensate for its end draining abilities - which were useless unless the enemies hit 0. And even then...

[Minotaur]

I always wondered once IOs came in whether ED was in fact necessary. Balance IOs so that if you wanted the set bonuses, you were around the ED cap, but if you didn't want set bonuses, you could exceed it by a long way, and see what people did.

[Aggelakis]

I always wondered once IOs came in whether ED was in fact necessary. Balance IOs so that if you wanted the set bonuses, you were around the ED cap, but if you didn't want set bonuses, you could exceed it by a long way, and see what people did.

ED laid the groundwork foundation so that IOs could exist at all.

[Mister Bison]

ED laid the groundwork foundation so that IOs could exist at all.

ED Wasn't a foundation as much as terrain leveling that was merely compliant with the rise of IOs. ED was necessary by itself, it wasn't the first step to IO.

[Arcana]

ED Wasn't a foundation as much as terrain leveling that was merely compliant with the rise of IOs. ED was necessary by itself, it wasn't the first step to IO.

The invention system was, if my memory is correct, actually in the embryonic stages of conceptualization when ED was put in place.  ED was said at the time to be a response to three things: the perception of "correct" slotting patterns, the power level achievable by strength overstacking, and the elimination of any opportunity to add stronger enhancements to the game.

The devs were already nerfing HOs, and realized even that step was insufficient to address the issue.  They knew that higher strength enhancements were essentially impossible without something like ED in place.  It wasn't the only reason for ED, but it was an exigent reason for ED. 

[Aggelakis]

ED Wasn't a foundation as much as terrain leveling that was merely compliant with the rise of IOs. ED was necessary by itself, it wasn't the first step to IO.

When the devs themselves have said that ED was required for their crafted system to go forward, then I'm going to call ED the groundwork foundation for IOs. Without ED, IOs would have been ginormously different.

[Mister Bison]

When the devs themselves have said that ED was required for their crafted system to go forward, then I'm going to call ED the groundwork foundation for IOs. Without ED, IOs would have been ginormously different.

I did not mean to say ED was not required :-) it's just that calling ED a "foundation" or groundwork for IOs means that the idea was to introduce IOs before even designing ED, which might be true, BUT, ED also had an immediate an required effect that was munchkinism prevention (6-slot perma-haste, 6-slot Endurance, 6-recharge Foot Stomp to name a few). It's like cleaning your desk, you do it every day or week or whatever, for its own sake, but you also can't install a printer on your desk without cleaning it first. And you don't call cleaning a "foundation" of printer installation.

The invention system was, if my memory is correct, actually in the embryonic stages of conceptualization when ED was put in place.  ED was said at the time to be a response to three things: the perception of "correct" slotting patterns, the power level achievable by strength overstacking, and the elimination of any opportunity to add stronger enhancements to the game.

The devs were already nerfing HOs, and realized even that step was insufficient to address the issue.  They knew that higher strength enhancements were essentially impossible without something like ED in place.  It wasn't the only reason for ED, but it was an exigent reason for ED.

Well, I don't know why it would be impossible to introduce more powerful enhancement without ED. Except if you didn't want the player to access even more cookie-cutter powers stemmed by the stack of certain patterns of these new enhancements. Which was already partly attainable with what was existing.

Anyway, I think ED was already fully justified by munchkinism, and if the invention system (any global boni) was already planned, when was ED planned ? issue 3 ? ED may well have been the last measure to stabilize the game experience.

But, if it was a founding step, of course the devs wouldn't have let known what would come later with Inventions.

So the conclusion should be, we won't know wether ED was "groundwork foundation to", or "not initially part of, but defining" IOs unless we ask devs themselves.

[Aggelakis]

I did not mean to say ED was not required :-) it's just that calling ED a "foundation" or groundwork for IOs means that the idea was to introduce IOs before even designing ED, which might be true, BUT, ED also had an immediate an required effect that was munchkinism prevention (6-slot perma-haste, 6-slot Endurance, 6-recharge Foot Stomp to name a few). It's like cleaning your desk, you do it every day or week or whatever, for its own sake, but you also can't install a printer on your desk without cleaning it first. And you don't call cleaning a "foundation" of printer installation.
Well, I don't know why it would be impossible to introduce more powerful enhancement without ED. Except if you didn't want the player to access even more cookie-cutter powers stemmed by the stack of certain patterns of these new enhancements. Which was already partly attainable with what was existing.

Anyway, I think ED was already fully justified by munchkinism, and if the invention system (any global boni) was already planned, when was ED planned ? issue 3 ? ED may well have been the last measure to stabilize the game experience.

But, if it was a founding step, of course the devs wouldn't have let known what would come later with Inventions.

So the conclusion should be, we won't know wether ED was "groundwork foundation to", or "not initially part of, but defining" IOs unless we ask devs themselves.

I will repeat myself: when the devs said that ED was required FOR THEIR CRAFTED SYSTEM TO GO FORWARD, then that is groundwork foundation in the very basic meaning of the phrase. If ED hadn't happened, IOs would not have happened as they had. That in and of itself means ED was the first building block of their crafted system moving forward. The first few building blocks of any system are, by nature, the foundation of those systems.

[Mister Bison]

I will repeat myself: when the devs said that ED was required FOR THEIR CRAFTED SYSTEM TO GO FORWARD, then that is groundwork foundation in the very basic meaning of the phrase. If ED hadn't happened, IOs would not have happened as they had. That in and of itself means ED was the first building block of their crafted system moving forward. The first few building blocks of any system are, by nature, the foundation of those systems.

Peace, no need to shout here. Bold, italics or stars here suffice.

I will repeat myself: if the devs said that ED was required for their crafted system to go forward, then that is plannification in the very basic meaning of the phrase. They had to wait for ED to be finished before finalizing their crafted system. As you said, it would have been different without ED, so they couldn't finalize it without ED finalized. Doesn't mean the same team was on the same project and that was the first step of the same plan IOs were the second step.

Let me illustrate:
We are a european consortium designing a plane. I am the team responsible for making the autopilot. At one point, the engine specs are going to be required to go forward since I need the power output to compute flight profiles. But it's not really the groundwork foundation of making this autopilot. The mathematics would be.

Particularly, ED was already needed because of glaring exploits in the game power and enhancement system, it was made as a fix to those problems, so the crafted system was put on hold.

How is that interpretation less probable than yours ?

[Blue Pulsar]

I will repeat myself: when the devs said that ED was required FOR THEIR CRAFTED SYSTEM TO GO FORWARD, then that is groundwork foundation in the very basic meaning of the phrase. If ED hadn't happened, IOs would not have happened as they had. That in and of itself means ED was the first building block of their crafted system moving forward. The first few building blocks of any system are, by nature, the foundation of those systems.

I'm with Bison. ED was the bulldozer that leveled an uneven terrain. A year and a half later, they came out with the building that would go there, and added to it. It was bulldozed because the zone was an eyesore, not specifically for the building that was to exist in the future.

To be honest, I think that IOs were, in a small part, a "fix" to how harsh of a nerf ED was. Incarnates even more so. I mean, even the different powers of the Alpha slot were designed to directly circumvent the effects of ED.

ED was an answer to a question that needed to be answered (although it was like shooting a purse snatcher with a rocket launcher.) The Invention System was a separate system and ED was not enacted to pave the way. It just worked out that way.

[Mister Bison]

I'm with Bison. ED was the bulldozer that leveled an uneven terrain. A year and a half later, they came out with the building that would go there, and added to it. It was bulldozed because the zone was an eyesore, not specifically for the building that was to exist in the future.

To be honest, I think that IOs were, in a small part, a "fix" to how harsh of a nerf ED was. Incarnates even more so. I mean, even the different powers of the Alpha slot were designed to directly circumvent the effects of ED.

ED was an answer to a question that needed to be answered (although it was like shooting a purse snatcher with a rocket launcher.) The Invention System was a separate system and ED was not enacted to pave the way. It just worked out that way.

That's not my stand either =). I stand uncertain between Aggelakis' and my interpretations, so I needed to build that interpretation. There is a strong possibility Aggelakis is right, but ultimately not even the dev quote can really decide which. I would not say anything but "that's my opinion" without asking the devs.

[Minotaur]

They could have designed an IO system without ED, it would have been a different one to the one they did design, as the incarnate powers would have been too.

[Arcana]

So the conclusion should be, we won't know wether ED was "groundwork foundation to", or "not initially part of, but defining" IOs unless we ask devs themselves.

I thought it was clear, but I did ask the devs themselves.

[Mister Bison]

(tl;dr: last 2, bolded, paragraphs)

I thought it was clear, but I did ask the devs themselves.

That it was from the devs' unspoken thoughts was not clear ("ED was said"), and other parts are cryptic as well, but that must be a second nature to you now :-)

The invention system was, if my memory is correct, actually in the embryonic stages of conceptualization when ED was put in place.

No question here, given they said they always planned 5 issues ahead. But no indication that ED was the older brother or the ovum, to ride on with your metaphor.

ED was said at the time to be a response to three things:

So I should understand that the 3 things were publicly announced.

the perception of "correct" slotting patterns,

That I heard about.

the power level achievable by strength overstacking,

i.e. balancing too powerful slottings (6-res granite, 6-rech Hasten, 6-rech Foot Stomp, ... I forgot some, and worse ones)

and the elimination of any opportunity to add stronger enhancements to the game.

That I didn't hear at all until now, but either I wasn't here at that time, or more likely, I didn't read the forum as acutely.

The devs were already nerfing HOs,

So, nerfing "more powerful enhancement". To address what exactly ? (Sorry, it seems I came to CoV right after this story)

and realized even that step was insufficient to address the issue.

Again, which issue of the three ?

They knew that higher strength enhancements were essentially impossible without something like ED in place.

It would have worked, anything would have worked, it just needed, or would have ended, to be less dramatic. It sure would have been different. I prefer the way it is I24 (where power levels of back before ED are largely attainable at the max with current powers/sets/incarnate now, so with significantly higher effort than before ED)

It wasn't the only reason for ED, but it was an exigent reason for ED.

Doesn't answer if it was the first reason that would make it a groundwork foundation, that in my mind is firstly dedicated to what is built on top. Instead it would merely be a basis or grounding.

Well, set aside my interpretation of "groundwork foundation", I was not really nitpicking for its own sake. My honest, maybe unnecessarily investigative question, is this: Did the devs think of ED first for introducing new, more powerful enhancements, or to balance the then-current power level of enhancements ?

I'm sorry for the thread derailment, I think the next answer by Arcana should end this (either by "I don't know" or "yes")

[Illusionss]

ST: City of Heroes was easy because it let me choose how hard to make the game, and I made it easy. Simple as that.

A point completely missed by the game I am passing time with at the moment. I know to a lot of people, incredibly difficult = the most fun ever. Or, "I'm level 5 and dying at least once per fight = fun!" I'm not one of them.

I avoided Praetorian and zones like First Ward over this issue. I always felt like those zones were in place specifically to humble the player, and my level 10 Corruptor could not handle eight NPCs beating on him or her. You could mitigate some of this by strategy, but not all, and those NPCs aggroed very easily. So I stayed out of those zones unless on something running some good shielding.

I sincerely hope any potential successor to CoX stays far, far away from the difficult = good trap.