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

[Arcana]

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

In various public discussions about ED, I believe so.

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 ?

Given the way game development generally goes, and specifically the way it went at Cryptic and Paragon, I do not believe this question has a definitive answer as phrased.  Development was so very rarely linear in that fashion in City of Heroes.  Things were brainstormed, white-boarded, and then abandoned, then resurrected many times.  Often, one designer would propose an idea to satisfy a specific intent, and then another developer would pick up the idea and use it to satisfy a completely different, and sometimes completely contradictory intent.

What we know for certain is this: the devs were aware of, and explicitly stated publicly that there were multiple problems with the enhancement system at the time.  Diminishing returns concepts were actually proposed *by the players* long before ED, and the devs acknowledged those ideas.  And we know that by issue four runaway enhancement strength due to the rapid proliferation of HOs was considered a major problem by the devs - they specifically nerfed HO strength in response.

But as to what was the "first reason" for implementing ED, there may exist no such "first reason."  And incidentally you're not mentioning the third reason for ED in your two listed options, the reason the devs named the feature after: to reduce the practice of slotting very specific, and generally highly stacked, enhancement patterns (the canonical 5/1 slotting pattern, for example).  Its a somewhat illogical reason, and the only reason its canonically supportable is because of the actual name of the feature: if the devs did not name it "enhancement diversification" I suspect there would be people attempting to revise history to negate that reason as being unlikely.  Hindsight is dangerous to apply to the devs motivations during periods when they did not have a good handle on their own mechanics in the first place.

Let me suggest a scenario that could have occurred given how I know other things have happened that would make your question unanswerable, even by the devs themselves.  Very early on, a developer realizes common wisdom is to slot one accuracy and five damage in all attacks, and this is considered by many to be the "objectively correct" way to slot.  They suggest attempting to do something to change that problem, but its considered by the design team as a whole to be a relatively minor problem not worth dedicating resources to.  However, problems begin to mount: the "power ten" issue comes up, demanding a change to stores.  The "full-SO" issue arrives, whereby many players begin fully slotting characters with SOs by transferring influence from higher characters to lower ones (it was explicitly stated by the devs that prior to launch it was believed SOs would be uncommon prior to the level cap and most characters would be slotted with a mix of SOs, DOs, and even TOs throughout their leveling career).  And then Hami starts getting taken down regularly beginning around March '05, causing a massive influx of HOs.  PvP gets introduced and they see problems arising where slotting and power strength is literally breaking the game mechanics (for example, the "negative tohit" problem that forced the devs to add the intermediate tohit floor).  In each case someone somewhere advocates for some change to address the issue, but its only when the combination of issues reaches critical mass that the devs collectively decide to do something about it.  By then tons of ideas from diminishing returns to enhancement changes to other mechanical changes have been on the boards for months.  All of them are kicked around and enhancement strength diminishing returns is selected as the mechanic to address as many of them as possible.  By then no one even *remembers* what its "original" intent was meant to be, if it ever had a singular one.  But even if it had one, its irrelevant to the present discussion of whether it is a good means of addressing the set of problems before the powers team at that time.

Lots of changes to the game happened in this way.  If ED was explicitly proposed to address one single problem and implemented with that intent directly, with all other issues being considered secondary, it would be the rare exception.

[Mister Bison]

Thanks for the answer, good info as always.

[thunderforce]

I hopefully look forward to more of that.

But not everyone who played the game was a munchkin.

[Mister Bison]

But not everyone who played the game was a munchkin.

If you look at how easy it is to perform well compared to other MMOs, I would disagree, everybody here was a munchkin :-)

[sindyr]

If you look at how easy it is to perform well compared to other MMOs, I would disagree, everybody here was a munchkin :-)

Not only this - I also think those who put clever thought into their builds and looked for all the synergies and strategies went way farther than that, into almost god-like territory.  I think one of the most treasured memories I have is my S/L Def capped blaster with the 7 AoEs, herding dozens of baddies around a corner, webnading them in place, and then roasting them fast.  It felt godlike.

[Starsman]

If I was able to do something to CoH... I would make it easier... and harder.

There were certain mechanics in the game that allowed certain basic builds to become completely immortal against too much content. I would not want to turn those situations into hard situations, but it would have been nice to feel at least some urge, to think "it may not be a good idea to go afk with this guy shooting me in the face over and over."

At the same time, to deal with the immortal builds, the game enemies got continuously crafter to be harder and deadlier. The threat for the immortals never became real, but those weaker builds (*cough* blasters *cough* lowlvldefenders) simply found themselves in too hard of a game.

It's easy to make the game harder. It's easy to make the game easier. It's harder to make it easier and harder in the proper balance way. And yes, I have a few ideas on how to execute this kind of thing, but I think most players would hate the ideas in concept alone. They are the kind of mechanics that must be hidden under the rug or very creatively disguised as fun things. Like Patrol XP could always have been seen as an XP penalty after you earn X amount of XP per day, they simply painted it in a positive way.

[Arcana]

If you look at how easy it is to perform well compared to other MMOs, I would disagree, everybody here was a munchkin :-)

By the common definition of the word, few players were really munchkins.  Quite the reverse: City of Heroes handed so much power to the players (relatively speaking) there was far less incentive to be a munchkin in CoH than in most MMOs.  In fact, with only a decent understanding of the game mechanics and how to earn influence, an average min/maxer could probably achieve 85% of the powerlevel of the strongest min/maxing munchkins in the game in almost all areas.  High end min/maxing was, for the most part, a niche past time, not a competitive sport in City of Heroes.

[Mister Bison]

By the common definition of the word, few players were really munchkins.  Quite the reverse: City of Heroes handed so much power to the players (relatively speaking) there was far less incentive to be a munchkin in CoH than in most MMOs.  In fact, with only a decent understanding of the game mechanics and how to earn influence, an average min/maxer could probably achieve 85% of the powerlevel of the strongest min/maxing munchkins in the game in almost all areas.  High end min/maxing was, for the most part, a niche past time, not a competitive sport in City of Heroes.

I was in the French Speed Running community, and communicated with the English one (on Defiant. Hi Speed Monkeys !). There was quite the challenge. Our 10.41 minutes ITF was seemingly the european record (without temps), but we should have broken it soon enough. (didn't try with the new Hybrid or temporaries). We were also taking regular players with us for a 15 minutes ride, even on "Incarnate" TFs in the RWZ. They reportedly always had a blast going this fast.

There were also people trying (and succeeding) to solo TFs.

But overall you're right, it wasn't a difficult game, nor was "100%" that far from the average level the quidam players achieved. And that's really cool.

(If I may add, if one could please put the ability to remove random maps for TFs, so that the runs are always the same. Thank you ^^)

[Starsman]

By the common definition of the word, few players were really munchkins.  Quite the reverse: City of Heroes handed so much power to the players (relatively speaking) there was far less incentive to be a munchkin in CoH than in most MMOs.  In fact, with only a decent understanding of the game mechanics and how to earn influence, an average min/maxer could probably achieve 85% of the powerlevel of the strongest min/maxing munchkins in the game in almost all areas.  High end min/maxing was, for the most part, a niche past time, not a competitive sport in City of Heroes.

I think we did have a moderate level of "munchkins" (first time I see the term, had to google it up) show up every once in a while, when new hard content was introduce and no strategy was set in place. Things like demanding a Granite Tank for X encounter were not extremely rare at the introduction of things like Master Of badges, although once people came up with a safe strategy (other than brute force with epic builds) things relaxed heavily. Strategy or proliferation of rewards (like incarnate powers or HOs if we want to go that far back.)

Even in those situations, though, I think its rare or unheard of that any content require an exact team build. Sure, they may demand a Kin Buffer built with maximum recharge, or a Granite Tank with soft-capped defenses, running Tough, but at least half the team was running whatever.

Your statement is still likely safe, though, in that this represented a very small percentage of the player-base. Heck, even if we optimized every single team ever done in the game, we are unlikely to be talking about more than 25% of the player-base.

[Arcana]

I think we did have a moderate level of "munchkins" (first time I see the term, had to google it up) show up every once in a while, when new hard content was introduce and no strategy was set in place. Things like demanding a Granite Tank for X encounter were not extremely rare at the introduction of things like Master Of badges, although once people came up with a safe strategy (other than brute force with epic builds) things relaxed heavily. Strategy or proliferation of rewards (like incarnate powers or HOs if we want to go that far back.)

I wouldn't call such players munchkins myself.  Annoying play does not a munchkin make.  There has to be an element of the belief that the game was made to be beaten by amassing the most everything possible, and anyone who challenges that belief is either naive or jealous.

If you ask for a stone tank because you genuinely believe the lack of one radically reduces the odds of completing the content, you're not a munchkin.  You might be wrong, but I've also noted that often when a group of players believe they need something to complete the content, they had the ability to make that statement true.

[Starsman]

I wouldn't call such players munchkins myself.  Annoying play does not a munchkin make.  There has to be an element of the belief that the game was made to be beaten by amassing the most everything possible, and anyone who challenges that belief is either naive or jealous.

Well I had to google for my definition so I can't argue  :P but now that you say it that way... maybe we had a unique type of them... Badge Munchkins!  8)

If you ask for a stone tank because you genuinely believe the lack of one radically reduces the odds of completing the content, you're not a munchkin.  You might be wrong, but I've also noted that often when a group of players believe they need something to complete the content, they had the ability to make that statement true.

I think there were a few players that genuinely believed (but very small number) at some point that certain content was precisely designed as proof that the devs finally acknowledged the need to reward the most epic of epic builds.

Now that you say this, though... the "falsely believe you need X"... reminds me of a time I was told by a random guy "what is your build" (never heard people demand build names so had no clue what to answer) eventually once I get it I tell him "Im an Invuln/SS tank but not LFG right now". He replied "nvm we need a Granite anyways", I was not able to resist replying "yea those tend to be good for teams without or with bad defenders." I got a three dotted reply. I searched the individual asking and look and behold... a defender that lists himself as Emapth/Healer in his search comment  :roll:

Anyways, I was thinking a "munchkins" was a powergamer that demanded to build for the most epic build possible and there to be content only he can do the job for. Didn't realize judging others was part of the definition  :o

[sindyr]

Badge Munchkins is funny.

[Blue Pulsar]

Just to clarify, you all are using the term Munchkin to basically mean a powergamer, right? If not, please fill me in here. lol

[Aggelakis]

Just to clarify, you all are using the term Munchkin to basically mean a powergamer, right? If not, please fill me in here. lol

Not exactly. Powergamer ++. Read again:

I wouldn't call such players munchkins myself.  Annoying play does not a munchkin make.  There has to be an element of the belief that the game was made to be beaten by amassing the most everything possible, and anyone who challenges that belief is either naive or jealous.

If you ask for a stone tank because you genuinely believe the lack of one radically reduces the odds of completing the content, you're not a munchkin.  You might be wrong, but I've also noted that often when a group of players believe they need something to complete the content, they had the ability to make that statement true.

[Minotaur]

Interesting, to me a munchkin is the man with a mega billion inf build having been on a gold site, an attitude that says he's top dog, and no hint of a clue what he's doing.

[Segev]

Generally speaking, a "munchkin" is a player who has the worst aspects of a power-gamer, a rules lawyer, and a "as long as I don't get caught..." attitude towards "forgetting" rules that inconvenience him at the time. They're cheaters who have some mild attachment to appearing like they've "earned" it, but who will happily argue a rule one way once and the opposite way the next time, as long as it gives them an advantage. They just want to win, by any means. Even dishonest ones.

[Arcana]

Generally speaking, a "munchkin" is a player who has the worst aspects of a power-gamer, a rules lawyer, and a "as long as I don't get caught..." attitude towards "forgetting" rules that inconvenience him at the time. They're cheaters who have some mild attachment to appearing like they've "earned" it, but who will happily argue a rule one way once and the opposite way the next time, as long as it gives them an advantage. They just want to win, by any means. Even dishonest ones.

I don't think you need to "cheat" to be a munchkin, although they can be driven to do so.  The clearest example I can think of to what a munchkin would be in City of Heroes is imagine someone power-leveling a character to 50, building an optimized multi-billion inf level 50 build, and then exemping back down and teaming with a bunch of natural level 25s and then charging forward and killing everything ahead of the group before they can even get there and using that as proof they are the better player.  Perfectly within the rules, but oozing munchkin mentality.

Interesting, to me a munchkin is the man with a mega billion inf build having been on a gold site, an attitude that says he's top dog, and no hint of a clue what he's doing.

[Blue Pulsar]

Well, this bums me out even more.  From the vibes I am picking up, TPP (The Phoenix Project) has a lot of support, but isn't apparently going to really be CoH, it's going to be some folks ideas on what they would do if they made their own superhero game.  And HaV (Heroes and Villains) seems to be the game I want to play, but doesn't seem to have nearly as much support, backing, and personnel.

So that's upsetting.

I kinda feel the same way.

[Segev]

Might I ask what it is, specifically, you loved in CoH that you fear is to be left out or downgraded in the Phoenix Project? I'd love to either lay your fears to rest or to take them into consideration as we move forward, as our goal is NOT to make something that is unfamiliar to this community and its members.

[Arcana]

No offense intended to either project, but in my opinion it is incredibly premature to judge either project in terms of the degree to which they will recapture the gameplay spirit of City of Heroes.  I would withhold judgment until they launch viable gameplay platforms first.

I also suspect strongly (although I can speak for neither) that both projects, if they produce viable game platforms, would support modding those platforms.  Which means to the degree either projects departs from specific City of Heroes gameplay details, its likely someone will come along and fork a version that does. 

Just like with the original City of Heroes, what both teams produce will be very strongly influenced by what the community wants to play.  I think the best way to interpret the design discussions that are going on now would be to consider them reference points for what the games *could* deliver, not what they will ultimately deliver.

One more thing: had City of Heroes survived, its likely the City of Heroes of 2014 would be in many ways unrecognizable relative to the City of Heroes of 2012 in terms of technological capability.  It would still have looked basically the same and played basically the same, just like CoH2012 looked and played basically like CoH2004, but was far superior in terms of what could be done.  Both teams should be given the benefit of the doubt to explore what can be done in 2013 that might make the games better. 

We were literally days away from having a City of Heroes with a general scripting engine in Issue 24.  In the long run, that was going to change *everything*.  But it would have still been City of Heroes.