Bill Roper talks powers in Champions Online
by Eliot Lefebvre 
Nov 24th 2009 at 9:00AM
Filed under: Super-hero, Game mechanics, Interviews, Opinion, Champions Online
Two of the biggest aspects of Champions Online are easy to point out: the character creator and the wide selection of powers. Certainly it's not the first game to use a classless system by a long shot, but the visual and immediate nature of power selection and the cosmetic effects of those choice are a big part of the game's distinctiveness. So it's hard not to be interested when Bill Roper sits down and talks with MMOCrunch about which powers he thinks worked excellently out of the gate and which onces were a bit less impressive.
Bill gushes quite enthusiastically about powers such as Force Cascade, Killer Instinct, and Thermal Reverberation -- powers that encourage alternate playstyles or different combinations of abilities. He's also enthusiastic about Uppercut and Haymaker, which he feels have an excellent payoff if they're used successfully and force the player to think more carefully. On the flipside, passive offensive powers don't have nearly enough effect, Chain Lightning tries to encourage alternate approaches but fails to do so, and summoning doesn't mesh nicely with the game's core play aspects. Roper also talks about what's being planned for the underwhelming powers to help bring them more in line, as well as discussing data mining and the infamous launch day nerfs. Take a look at the full interview for more details.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
JP said on 10:10AM 11-24-2009
"The biggest impact was that there was a lot of outcry when it happened and this leaked into reviews – even from editors that never played in the head-start time period"
Did this guy really just say that they got some negative reviews b/c writers were jumping on the "bandwagon" and it wasn't b/c they shipped a game w/ minimal content & upped the difficulty on launch day? Really? wow. You got some balls, Roper. You may want to come out and clarify that. B/c if it was just writers "making waves" how comes people aren't flocking to (or back to) the game 2.5 months after release?
Also, the bit about "trust us - w/ STO we'll have more people in beta": LOL. 2.25 months to launch, and they're on the EXACT same schedule. 2 days a week, 3 hours. Whoopty-freakin-do. Doesn't sound like Cryptic has learned dick, IMO.
Reply
MrGutts said on 10:40AM 11-24-2009
Yeah folks, never pay for beta. At least not from Cryptic.
I can't wait too see a class action lawsuit when they fail to invite everyone who did pay for the closed beta.
derella said on 10:44AM 11-24-2009
Ugh... That's bad news. I honestly think that a lot of Champions' problems could have been sorted before release if the game was online for more than a few hours per week. Have they ever said why they limit the testing times so much? I just don't see how that benefits them.
Brian! said on 11:53AM 11-24-2009
With their beta schedule, they are CLEARLY not interested in really testing the game. Some people claim that they have to monitor the servers so that is why they are not up 24/7 - yet the game is going to be running that way in just a couple months and supposedly they have the tech from Champions (so they claim in interviews) to handle massive clients perfectly now.
So, past that bullshit, one has to wonder why Cryptic keeps the content so guarded? Afraid that testers might actually find the suck fast? Or perhaps Cryptic has a chip on their shoulder thinking they are perfect?
I see the same. Critics of Champions where silenced. Many testers gave up not only due to talking to deaf ears, but the lame testing times marred by downtimes just trying to patch the client makes you want to go elsewhere.
Plus, in addition, the holidays are coming up. A few days off for Thanksgiving, more for Christmas and New Years. Really, February is coming fast - work day wise. If they keep up this testing, there will only be like 40ish hours of beta testing information. I predict open beta cluster-fk followed by an attempt to fix things at the last minute with a launch patch that also goes rocky due to late-in-the-game stress testing.
Temploiter said on 10:53AM 11-24-2009
There were "tons" of players in the alpha and beta of Champions Online. Just not all at once. That place had more roll-over than a McDonalds. Alot of people quit, not liking it. Alot of people were banned for consitantly criticizing the direction of the game. Alot more people kept giving good ideas right up until the end, but I have to say that in the end, the beta population was pretty much made up of fan boys and whatever critics were left had been cowed into silence, given up, or had been banned.
I think Cryptic really wanted the game to be good, the developers were vocal and talked alot with the testing community, but they definately had their own idea on how the core gameplay and design should be, and they didn't take alot of suggestions in that area. In other areas I'd say that it was one of the best games to be a tester on, but those don't shine if players can't sit through the first couple weeks of playing.
Reply
Utakata said on 3:38PM 11-24-2009
I have to give it to Bill...he really knows how to shovel it, when tough questions are being asked.
The timing of the "big launch day nerf" and now the MT'ing of full Recons, amoung other things strongly suggest to many of us, that Cryptic is only seems to be it for the fast buck. This is no conspiracy, no tin foil hats, no trying to find smoke on a Mosshide Gnoll, Mr. Roper...the game already speaks volumes to this effect.
Now I understand that games are ultimately developed to make money. I do not dispute this in the least. But how a devs approach this speaks to how well it will do. One has to compare the launch of WoW 5 years ago to the launch of CO 3 months ago. I can attest and I suspect many others can that Blizz had a very different approach of putting quality first and making big gains in the long term. Where CO is most definitely lacking in this - even by Mr. Roper's own admission in the article - and quite opposite to Blizz's approach. This is what makes the difference. And all the screaming CO fanbois will never change this fact.
That being said, I will add CO itself is still pretty good. But as stated by many before, it lacks polish by miles. And probabley due because this game's proprietors wants to make a quick turn around. Very unfortunate indeed.
Reply
LancerX92 said on 11:56AM 11-25-2009
I am not going ot put the blaim totaly on Cyptics shoulders (even though alot is there) but I think Atari has alot to do with it also. I am sure they came to Cyptic and demanded a release date in a state that can be best played. This game needed atleast 6 more months of Dev time but it had to rushed out the door.
They are doing the same thing with STO. 3 months of beta time on a 4 day a week cycle. 4 days because if its like CO beta its 2 days for the US and 2 days for Europe. But 4 to 6 hours is not enough time to find the bugs or see what works. I wont be touching this game when it goes live thats for sure.
Good luck you are going to need it..
Reply
Fisty said on 2:43PM 11-25-2009
All the ill-wishers of the game really need to change their tune. Being a COH veteran of 5 years, and having started playing CO since about a week after launch, I'm having fun, and that's all that matters.
Does the game have bugs? sure! However, each week I log in, I see the problems get resolved. If the server goes down, I switch back to COH or read a book. No stress, no drama.
If you remember COH in the first year, it had its quirks and bugs as well. Geez! The grind between lvl 5 and 10 was a horrible pain! Still, the game persevered, the bugs and playability were fixed, and 5 years later, the game lives on.
The same will happen with CO.
Reply