So, what good are UNITY missions now? 2.0

thegrandnagus1

Last time, in "So, what good are UNITY missions now?"...

@thegrandnagus1 said: Now that you get SC rep with every Alert, what good are UNITY missions? It seems like they should have gotten...something(questionite?) to make them still worth doing. Or am I just missing something?

@crypticarkayne said: We're going to be taking a look at UNITY missions at some point and doing a refresh/revamp of them.

@thegrandnagus1 said: Thank you so much for the response. If you would tolerate an impassioned plea: One of my favorite things about the UNITY missions is that they are one of the few things at end game that give you a reason to actually go back out into the world of Champs rather than just standing around RenCen waiting for a queue to pop.

Champs has a *huge* sandbox for people to play in, but it's almost completely wasted at end game because 99% of the content isn't actually in the "real" world, it's in a queue. PLEASE do not scrap these missions. PLEASE give them better rewards and even add some new missions to the dozen or so that exist to give people a real(rewarding) reason to keep enjoying traveling the awesome locations in the game world.

@thatcursedwolf said: Soloist is getting to be the new "dirty casual". It may be massively multiplayer online but I've never found the all teaming all the time in MMO that people seem to think is in there.

@crypticarkayne said: We hear ya. There are plans to provide more solo end-game content. We're just focused on group-based content and rewards at the moment.

And finally, @biffsmackwell said: Closing. If you want to still talk about UNITY stuff, just make a new thread, and pretend you all love each other deeply.

So, if you have any thoughts about the UNITY missions, please share them!

@ladygadfly @crypticarkayne @splosions​​ @kaizerin

roughbearmattach

You didn't include my posts.
Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.

guyhumual

Right now they're site seeing missions, for people that haven't done them there are a few worth while missions, like the one where you get to see the inside of the Qularr mother ship complete with bullet Ironclad rode into the ship at the end of the tutorial, or the one where you get shrunk down and get to see that only female scientist in the game. Sadly the rest are pretty forgettable and often annoying. Rescue 50 manamals? Not for just 3 SCR thank you.

xcelsior41

guyhumual said:

Right now they're site seeing missions, for people that haven't done them there are a few worth while missions, like the one where you get to see the inside of the Qularr mother ship complete with bullet Ironclad rode into the ship at the end of the tutorial, or the one where you get shrunk down and get to see that only female scientist in the game. Sadly the rest are pretty forgettable and often annoying. Rescue 50 manamals? Not for just 3 SCR thank you.

I agree . Though I'm not the site-seeing(unless it's irl) type.

thegrandnagus1

guyhumual said:

Right now they're site seeing missions, for people that haven't done them there are a few worth while missions, like the one where you get to see the inside of the Qularr mother ship complete with bullet Ironclad rode into the ship at the end of the tutorial, or the one where you get shrunk down and get to see that only female scientist in the game. Sadly the rest are pretty forgettable and often annoying. Rescue 50 manamals? Not for just 3 SCR thank you.

Yeah, that manimal mission sucks

That said, the mission where you actually have a member of the Champions with you are awesome, IMO

canadascott

My hope is that we'll have stronger storytelling than "unconnected random missions lead to a special but still unconnected random mission". Tie the final mission to the ones before it. Tell a story (though go easy on the cutscenes).

Making the final mission for a 2-3 person team (like the end mission of Steel Crusade) wouldn't be bad either. Team content doesn't have to come in 5s and 10s. Also, beef up the end bosses. Cazulon shouldn't be a pushover.

Finally, make sure we can find the caves in Lemuria. Make the arrow point the way to the cave, and make some sib-objectives to create waypoints that the arrow will identity to navigate the tunnels.

legendarylycan

thegrandnagus1 wrote: »

That said, the mission where you actually have a member of the Champions with you are awesome, IMO

except for the fact they keep breaking the fourth wall....​​

thatcursedwolf

canadascott said:

My hope is that we'll have stronger storytelling than "unconnected random missions lead to a special but still unconnected random mission". Tie the final mission to the ones before it. Tell a story (though go easy on the cutscenes).

Making the final mission for a 2-3 person team (like the end mission of Steel Crusade) wouldn't be bad either. Team content doesn't have to come in 5s and 10s. Also, beef up the end bosses. Cazulon shouldn't be a pushover.

Finally, make sure we can find the caves in Lemuria. Make the arrow point the way to the cave, and make some sib-objectives to create waypoints that the arrow will identity to navigate the tunnels.

Can we have some solo content so we're not always at the mercy of other people?

raighn

O.o alerts give SC now... wow not being able to get on lately due to computer issues has caused me to miss things... I should be able to get my lv 40s full outfitted much quicker now once I can get on again...

My shock and awe about this change aside...

Unity missions should still be a moderately enjoyable escape from the repititious grind that is alerts...

sigmaseven0

canadascott said:

My hope is that we'll have stronger storytelling than "unconnected random missions lead to a special but still unconnected random mission". Tie the final mission to the ones before it. Tell a story (though go easy on the cutscenes).

Making the final mission for a 2-3 person team (like the end mission of Steel Crusade) wouldn't be bad either. Team content doesn't have to come in 5s and 10s. Also, beef up the end bosses. Cazulon shouldn't be a pushover.

Finally, make sure we can find the caves in Lemuria. Make the arrow point the way to the cave, and make some sib-objectives to create waypoints that the arrow will identity to navigate the tunnels.

This is almost exactly what I want.
Instead of being story driven, I waould want something more modular like alerts, where the boss/villain group behind the plot is randomized and maybe include your nemesis.

As much as I like story missions, I dont think what works with UNITY because it is going to be repeated so much.
I could only support story driven unity missions if we were getting new story driven unity missions at least every 3 months.

sigmaseven0

thatcursedwolf said:

>
Can we have some solo content so we're not always at the mercy of other people?

Steel Crusade is soloable though.

decorumfriends

raighn said:

O.o alerts give SC now... wow not being able to get on lately due to computer issues has caused me to miss things... I should be able to get my lv 40s full outfitted much quicker now once I can get on again...

Or maybe not, as the price on Heroic gear was also raised considerably.

thatcursedwolf

sigmaseven0 said:

thatcursedwolf said:

>
Can we have some solo content so we're not always at the mercy of other people?

Steel Crusade is soloable though.

Then it shouldn't have the team tag on it.

morigosa

thatcursedwolf said:

sigmaseven0 said:

thatcursedwolf said:

>
Can we have some solo content so we're not always at the mercy of other people?

Steel Crusade is soloable though.

Then it shouldn't have the team tag on it.

It should, and (fortunately), it does. Missions that don't have the team tag on them should be soloable by just about anyone. The team tag serves as a warning that trying them with just, say, an Inferno AT, is probably not going to end well. Similarly, Andrithal (for an example) is soloable - but I certainly wouldn't suggest taking the team tag off of lairs just because certain high-performance freeform tank builds can get through them!

On-topic: I'd like to see UNITY missions scaling size of enemy groups with number of players in the team; we know that CO has this capability (a few missions in Vibora Bay use it), but it's used so rarely...

sigmaseven0

morigosa said:

On-topic: I'd like to see UNITY missions scaling size of enemy groups with number of players in the team; we know that CO has this capability (a few missions in Vibora Bay use it), but it's used so rarely...

I've never tried to do unity with a team so I didn't know this.
ALL instanced content should scale to team size. Even COX had this as a standard. How did this get overlooked?

thatcursedwolf

morigosa said:

thatcursedwolf said:

sigmaseven0 said:

thatcursedwolf said:

>
Can we have some solo content so we're not always at the mercy of other people?

Steel Crusade is soloable though.

Then it shouldn't have the team tag on it.

It should, and (fortunately), it does. Missions that don't have the team tag on them should be soloable by just about anyone. The team tag serves as a warning that trying them with just, say, an Inferno AT, is probably not going to end well. Similarly, Andrithal (for an example) is soloable - but I certainly wouldn't suggest taking the team tag off of lairs just because certain high-performance freeform tank builds can get through them!

On-topic: I'd like to see UNITY missions scaling size of enemy groups with number of players in the team; we know that CO has this capability (a few missions in Vibora Bay use it), but it's used so rarely...

So if you're a high performing FF you have the privilege of not being shackled to other people to do formerly solo friendly content?

sigmaseven0

thatcursedwolf said:

So if you're a high performing FF you have the privilege of not being shackled to other people to do formerly solo friendly content?

If soloing that mission was such a big deal, people would already be crying about it (especially now that you can get recognition from it).
you don't need some "high performing" build to solo SC dude...

thatcursedwolf

sigmaseven0 said:

thatcursedwolf said:

So if you're a high performing FF you have the privilege of not being shackled to other people to do formerly solo friendly content?

If soloing that mission was such a big deal, people would already be crying about it (especially now that you can get recognition from it).
you don't need some "high performing" build to solo SC dude...

So why force teaming on the final UNITY mission to be like SC if it's already soloed?

pantagruel01

thatcursedwolf said:

Then it shouldn't have the team tag on it.

The team tag means the mob scaling is set for N times normal. However, player power level has been escalated so much that x2 or x3 is soloable for most builds and x5 for some builds.

morigosa

thatcursedwolf said:

morigosa said:

thatcursedwolf said:

sigmaseven0 said:

thatcursedwolf said:

Can we have some solo content so we're not always at the mercy of other people?

Steel Crusade is soloable though.

Then it shouldn't have the team tag on it.

It should, and (fortunately), it does. Missions that don't have the team tag on them should be soloable by just about anyone. The team tag serves as a warning that trying them with just, say, an Inferno AT, is probably not going to end well. Similarly, Andrithal (for an example) is soloable - but I certainly wouldn't suggest taking the team tag off of lairs just because certain high-performance freeform tank builds can get through them!

So if you're a high performing FF you have the privilege of not being shackled to other people to do formerly solo friendly content?

Since when is SC "formerly solo friendly"?

Now, if your complaint is that UNITY shouldn't go in a less-solo-friendly direction, that's something I can agree with; though I think making the ending missions slightly tougher - maybe around "team (2)" difficulty - would be fine, since someone on a squishy Inferno can still solo that difficulty - they just have to be a bit more careful.

But that's not what you said - what you said is that Steel Crusade "shouldn't have the team tag on it", which I strongly disagree with.

thatcursedwolf

morigosa said:

thatcursedwolf said:

morigosa said:

thatcursedwolf said:

sigmaseven0 said:

thatcursedwolf said:

Can we have some solo content so we're not always at the mercy of other people?

Steel Crusade is soloable though.

Then it shouldn't have the team tag on it.

It should, and (fortunately), it does. Missions that don't have the team tag on them should be soloable by just about anyone. The team tag serves as a warning that trying them with just, say, an Inferno AT, is probably not going to end well. Similarly, Andrithal (for an example) is soloable - but I certainly wouldn't suggest taking the team tag off of lairs just because certain high-performance freeform tank builds can get through them!

So if you're a high performing FF you have the privilege of not being shackled to other people to do formerly solo friendly content?

Since when is SC "formerly solo friendly"?

Now, if your complaint is that UNITY shouldn't go in a less-solo-friendly direction, that's something I can agree with; though I think making the ending missions slightly tougher - maybe around "team (2)" difficulty - would be fine, since someone on a squishy Inferno can still solo that difficulty - they just have to be a bit more careful.

But that's not what you said - what you said is that Steel Crusade "shouldn't have the team tag on it", which I strongly disagree with.



UNITY was formerly solo friendly. Now the team and only teaming and always teaming crew wants UNITY to require teaming.

The reason I said SC shouldn't have the team tag on it is because the people who wanted UNITY to force teaming said it's not so bad, SC can be soloed. So if SC is done solo, it shouldn't have the team tag on it.

sigmaseven0

thatcursedwolf said:

So if SC is done solo, it shouldn't have the team tag on it.

Lets not start arguing semantics...
Ok, so maybe they should rename the tags. I don't know that that's necessary but I don't have a problem with it either...

thegrandnagus1

thatcursedwolf said:

sigmaseven0 said:

thatcursedwolf said:

>
Can we have some solo content so we're not always at the mercy of other people?

Steel Crusade is soloable though.

Then it shouldn't have the team tag on it.

The tag of "team" would *not* imply that it would be absolutely impossible for *any* player to ever solo it, but rather than it would require the *average* player to team up with others to complete it.

sigmaseven0

"@crypticarkayne said: We're going to be taking a look at UNITY missions at some point and doing a refresh/revamp of them."
"@crypticarkayne said: We hear ya. There are plans to provide more solo end-game content. We're just focused on group-based content and rewards at the moment."
I see nothing here that explicitly states that Unity is actually going to be this "solo end-game content" maybe a dev could clarify this point.

Until then any argument that Unity should be solo friendly is simply an opinion.
And if UNITY ends up going in a more team oriented direction, don't start crying and flaming, that just means your getting something new for solo end-game.

thatcursedwolf

thegrandnagus1 said:

thatcursedwolf said:

sigmaseven0 said:

thatcursedwolf said:

>
Can we have some solo content so we're not always at the mercy of other people?

Steel Crusade is soloable though.

Then it shouldn't have the team tag on it.

The tag of "team" would *not* imply that it would be absolutely impossible for *any* player to ever solo it, but rather than it would require the *average* player to team up with others to complete it.

Which is why UNITY should not have a team tag on the final mission.

If I have an AT with average gear doing UNITY to get better gear I shouldn't be forced to team because the teamsters felt like dirty soloists still have it too easy.

If I wanted to team I wouldn't be wasting time on UNITY.

sigmaseven0

thatcursedwolf said:

I shouldn't be forced to team because the teamsters felt like dirty soloists still have it too easy.
If I wanted to team I wouldn't be wasting time on UNITY.

This kind of divisive language is what causes the forums to get ugly. Team players aren't at war with solo players, and most players are somewhere in-between.
And again, we don't even know if UNITY is intended to be team, solo or in-between. See my above post...

thatcursedwolf

sigmaseven0 said:

thatcursedwolf said:

I shouldn't be forced to team because the teamsters felt like dirty soloists still have it too easy.
If I wanted to team I wouldn't be wasting time on UNITY.

This kind of divisive language is what causes the forums to get ugly. Team players aren't at war with solo players, and most players are somewhere in-between.
And again, we don't even know if UNITY is intended to be team, solo or in-between. See my above post...

Asking for even more content to be pulled into team only land is divisive as well. When is enough going to be enough?

sterga

"ALL instanced content should scale to team size."

This! Why make content for solo OR teams when both can be done? People still run Serpents Lantern in teams and solo.

thatcursedwolf

sterga said:

"ALL instanced content should scale to team size."

This! Why make content for solo OR teams when both can be done? People still run Serpents Lantern in teams and solo.

^QFT

Slapping set scaling Team:X for X >= 2 on content and you exclude people soloing on average or below characters from doing it on their own.

Having something scale for team size and difficulty no one loses access to the content. Teams are *not* restricted to only doing Team:X content.

crypticarkayne

Great feedback, folks!

thatcursedwolf said:

sterga said:

"ALL instanced content should scale to team size."

This! Why make content for solo OR teams when both can be done? People still run Serpents Lantern in teams and solo.

^QFT

Slapping set scaling Team:X for X >= 2 on content and you exclude people soloing on average or below characters from doing it on their own.

Having something scale for team size and difficulty no one loses access to the content. Teams are *not* restricted to only doing Team:X content.

FYI, it's not as simple as "turning on team scaling". Encounters need to be built with scaling in mind, and not all encounter groups are set up that way.

Having worked on content for both CoX and CO, I can tell you there are a lot of upsides and downsides with encounter scaling. The obvious upside is of course it becomes accessible at various team sizes. The downside is that it requires a lot of extra setup on the encounters and rewards, which means you'd be getting less overall content.

(I personally like scaling in encounters; I pushed for that when CO launched, but it was until the Adventure Packs that we got proper scaling tech in place.)

xcelsior41

crypticarkayne said:

Great feedback, folks!

thatcursedwolf said:

sterga said:

"ALL instanced content should scale to team size."

This! Why make content for solo OR teams when both can be done? People still run Serpents Lantern in teams and solo.

^QFT

Slapping set scaling Team:X for X >= 2 on content and you exclude people soloing on average or below characters from doing it on their own.

Having something scale for team size and difficulty no one loses access to the content. Teams are *not* restricted to only doing Team:X content.

FYI, it's not as simple as "turning on team scaling". Encounters need to be built with scaling in mind, and not all encounter groups are set up that way.

Having worked on content for both CoX and CO, I can tell you there are a lot of upsides and downsides with encounter scaling. The obvious upside is of course it becomes accessible at various team sizes. The downside is that it requires a lot of extra setup on the encounters and rewards, which means you'd be getting less overall content.

(I personally like scaling in encounters; I pushed for that when CO launched, but it was until the Adventure Packs that we got proper scaling tech in place.)

Heyhey! CoH dev!! Cool , and I see... I believe what CoH had in terms of content with scaling was brute-force, so to speak, in that due to all the scaling, content needed to appear in droves, much like a king sending his entire army out to attack a target(s)

^
This may be horribly put, but, in my mind I get it

thegrandnagus1

crypticarkayne said:

Great feedback, folks!

And I would like to thank you again for your responses. To be honest, STO kind of "spoiled" me when it comes to dev interaction. For a long time, the STO devs were extremely active responding to various threads on the forums, and I came to expect that on other MMO forums, only to be disappointed with how little interaction I saw elsewhere.

As far as Champs, I think most of us are aware the game has gone through some periods of very light development, but I can see a clear difference in the last 6 months. It's very encouraging to actually be able to post a thread, hear from the devs, and have some hope your ideas might actually make their way into the game at some point.

sigmaseven0

UNITY missions scaled to team size with random elements and a tougher missions at the end of a series... This almost reminds of the paper missions from COX.

sterga

"Having worked on content for both CoX and CO, I can tell you there are a lot of upsides and downsides with encounter scaling. The obvious upside is of course it becomes accessible at various team sizes. The downside is that it requires a lot of extra setup on the encounters and rewards, which means you'd be getting less overall content."

Not seeing the downside there. More concerned about quality and if it's fun to do more than once. And if the map is pretty like Fury of the Dragon.

thatcursedwolf

Hopefully we're not at the point where any quality of life change costs us a raid tier.

holloweaver

thatcursedwolf said:

Hopefully we're not at the point where any quality of life change costs us a raid tier.

Right.
When we asked for new zones, we got Alerts instead.
When we asked for more rewards, we got high SCR pricings.
So looking at it, I think we should ask to remove all the UNITY missions... maybe we would have a chance to get the exact opposite?

thatcursedwolf

holloweaver said:

thatcursedwolf said:

Hopefully we're not at the point where any quality of life change costs us a raid tier.

Right.
When we asked for new zones, we got Alerts instead.
When we asked for more rewards, we got high SCR pricings.
So looking at it, I think we should ask to remove all the UNITY missions... maybe we would have a chance to get the exact opposite?

Reverse psychology gets you exactly what you asked for and never what you wanted when used on devs.

holloweaver

And vice versa, asking for something gets us to have the exact opposite.
Maybe we shoud simply ask nothing, think nothing, play nothing and buy nothing too...

Oh and I love you all very deeply. *waves to biff*

pantagruel01

sterga said:

Not seeing the downside there.

How is "it takes a lot of extra work and therefore less total content can be produced" not a downside?

deadman20

I honestly can't wait to see what is in mind for the UNITY Revamp, among other things for endgame. Ah, were the post-Therakial's Temple missions brought up yet? You know, the ones available at certain NPCs after getting an item at the end of the lair? Valerian's Sewer Map, Letter to Dracul, Baron's Delivery Schedule, Black Fang's Crypt Key. Those would be nice to add a couple of rewards or something to. Maybe tie them into UNITY somehow?

Hmm, I'll probably just keep my mouth shut for now and let you guys do your thing. Good luck!​​

thatcursedwolf

pantagruel01 said:

sterga said:

Not seeing the downside there.

How is "it takes a lot of extra work and therefore less total content can be produced" not a downside?

Using Censoredcraft as an example, which is a greater benefit to the players: (DevEffort * .02 * PlayerPopulation) or (DevEffort * .8 * PlayerPopulation)?

spinnytop

thatcursedwolf said:

pantagruel01 said:

sterga said:

Not seeing the downside there.

How is "it takes a lot of extra work and therefore less total content can be produced" not a downside?

Using Censoredcraft as an example, which is a greater benefit to the players: (DevEffort * .02 * PlayerPopulation) or (DevEffort * .8 * PlayerPopulation)?

the formula is wrong. in the real world of the CO forum-posting userbase it works like this:

"PercievedDevEffort" * PlayerPopulation.

PercievedDevEffort = frequently of updates


Of course, in the real world outside the forums none of this has any bearing whatsoever and the formula is # people having fun playing the game = population. After all, people who decide if they're having fun based on how frequently a game gets updated are a niche group that you can never cater to because their demands will always outpace your abilities.

As for the point that was actually being made, spending extra time making encounters scale to level/group means less stuff. While I really like scaling stuff, I do agree that we need a greater variety of things so now is not the time to spend extra time on fewer things. Now is the time to make level specific content in quantity, specifically to fill out one part of the game that's the most barren: end game.

sterga

Requiring more work is a dev issue. I'm not a dev. Taking longer to make content is still making content. Ergo, no downside.

thegrandnagus1

sterga said:

Requiring more work is a dev issue. I'm not a dev. Taking longer to make content is still making content. Ergo, no downside.

As a player, I prefer more content more often. So "more work" and "taking longer" are not *just* dev issues, they directly effect the people playing.

holloweaver

sterga said:

Requiring more work is a dev issue. I'm not a dev. Taking longer to make content is still making content. Ergo, no downside.

Smart, hehe.
So what about taking longer to release content?

biffsmackwell

Well we kinda got used to that, didn't we? :P

xcelsior41

biffsmackwell said:

Well we kinda got used to that, didn't we? :P

True true :P

spinnytop said:

thatcursedwolf said:

pantagruel01 said:

sterga said:

Not seeing the downside there.

How is "it takes a lot of extra work and therefore less total content can be produced" not a downside?

Using Censoredcraft as an example, which is a greater benefit to the players: (DevEffort * .02 * PlayerPopulation) or (DevEffort * .8 * PlayerPopulation)?

the formula is wrong. in the real world of the CO forum-posting userbase it works like this:

"PercievedDevEffort" * PlayerPopulation.

PercievedDevEffort = frequently of updates


Of course, in the real world outside the forums none of this has any bearing whatsoever and the formula is # people having fun playing the game = population. After all, people who decide if they're having fun based on how frequently a game gets updated are a niche group that you can never cater to because their demands will always outpace your abilities.

As for the point that was actually being made, spending extra time making encounters scale to level/group means less stuff. While I really like scaling stuff, I do agree that we need a greater variety of things so now is not the time to spend extra time on fewer things. Now is the time to make level specific content in quantity, specifically to fill out one part of the game that's the most barren: end game.

While I agree on adding end-game, maybe do something like this: One endgame, one arc for a random range?(2-3 mishs will do, doesn't have to be pulitzer worthy :P). To encourage more arc/mish based leveling in the more drudging levels?.

sterga

"So what about taking longer to release content?"

I'm not five. I can wait a bit longer for something without flipping tables and frothing at the mouth. In fact, I'd rather content take a bit longer if it means not having a horrid first experience because it's filled with bugs.

spinnytop

sterga said:

"So what about taking longer to release content?"

I'm not five. I can wait a bit longer for something without flipping tables and frothing at the mouth. In fact, I'd rather content take a bit longer if it means not having a horrid first experience because it's filled with bugs.

I don't think anyone here is five, but that doesn't mean that none of us sees the value in a bit more frequency of content releases. After having gotten used to waiting a long time between releases it'd be nice to see a change of pace. I'd be willing to give up a few luxuries for that, and to me 'scaling content' is a luxury rather than a necessity.

xcelsior41 said:

While I agree on adding end-game, maybe do something like this: One endgame, one arc for a random range?(2-3 mishs will do, doesn't have to be pulitzer worthy :P). To encourage more arc/mish based leveling in the more drudging levels?.

I disagree but only on the idea that anything they add doesn't have to be great. It should actually be fairly inspired stuff. I'd be pretty disappointed if they added some new missions and it was just "go here, kill some weak npcs, come back" since I can already do that in spades with what we have now. Some legitimately fun new stuff to do in the 30-40 range would be pretty great though. Maybe even some fairly challenging stuff that gives a hefty bit more xp than those other easy missions.

xcelsior41

spinnytop said:

sterga said:

"So what about taking longer to release content?"

I'm not five. I can wait a bit longer for something without flipping tables and frothing at the mouth. In fact, I'd rather content take a bit longer if it means not having a horrid first experience because it's filled with bugs.

I don't think anyone here is five, but that doesn't mean that none of us sees the value in a bit more frequency of content releases. After having gotten used to waiting a long time between releases it'd be nice to see a change of pace. I'd be willing to give up a few luxuries for that, and to me 'scaling content' is a luxury rather than a necessity.

xcelsior41 said:

While I agree on adding end-game, maybe do something like this: One endgame, one arc for a random range?(2-3 mishs will do, doesn't have to be pulitzer worthy :P). To encourage more arc/mish based leveling in the more drudging levels?.

I disagree but only on the idea that anything they add doesn't have to be great. It should actually be fairly inspired stuff. I'd be pretty disappointed if they added some new missions and it was just "go here, kill some weak npcs, come back" since I can already do that in spades with what we have now. Some legitimately fun new stuff to do in the 30-40 range would be pretty great though. Maybe even some fairly challenging stuff that gives a hefty bit more xp than those other easy missions.

True true, then it'll become as mundane as the rest of the mishs(ironically, their all go here kill this..hm.. ), some fun content would be nice, and maybe even throw in a little pre-cursor(think Queen City style precursor) to the new level 40 content in the 20-30 range

As far as frequent content? It better be good. And I mean, not like sterg said, bug ridden BS like some things that have been released, no, I mean Good. If not, wait and release, it'll be more long-lasting with the players that way.(You can even give little teasers and things for those who are really on the edge of their seats).

thegrandnagus1

sterga said:

"So what about taking longer to release content?"

I'm not five. I can wait a bit longer for something without flipping tables and frothing at the mouth.

^^^Ladies and Gentlemen, this is what you call a "strawman" argument. You invent some statement or behavior which no one is actually doing, then respond to that statement or behavior rather than respond to the actual discussion taking place. Thus far, this thread has been a very reasonable discussion. No one is even close to "flipping tables and frothing at the mouth". However, since a reasonable discussion did not fit with the talking points Sterga wanted to use, the strawman was created.