Golden Girl

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And it wasn't Eve who was at fault for taking the apple - it was the (male) serpent that lied to her

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically, it was a snake possessed by Satan, which had no masculinity or feminity, except we've been brainwashed by popular mythology that Satan is male. And let's not even start on Lilith...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in Matthew 12, Jesus refers to Satan as "he" - plus there are other passages where he is identified as a male.

[ QUOTE ]
Well... Personally, I draw the line as smacktalk... I just don't like it full stop. It's infantile most of the time, often highly insulting, and about as much fun as shoving my head through a blender.

If there was no smacktalk, I would PvP. As there IS, and as there always will be, I rarely PvP.

[/ QUOTE ]

You ain't got no game?

Naughty Gauge?

It'd have a warning too, like the red text for entering a PvP zone - so if you were a Hero during the winter event, and were planting bombs disguised as presents at the local orphanage, you'd get flashing red text telling you what you were doing was naughty, and it would affect your reputaion.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But daddy isn't holding my hand at all atm. The arcs are what they are, and I enjoy them for that fact. Turning, say, Peter Themari's arc into [SPOILER]

do you a) take pryss out, or b) tell her the truth and beat the snot out of thermai, or c) do nothing and have a cup of tea, would *totally* cheapen it for me. Did you ever use to read those adventure books? 'did you eat the melon? turn to page 98, if you didn't and fought the wolves, turn to page 4...

Are their stories comparable to great works of fiction that don't give you a choice of outcome. I know that's subjective, but I'm pretty sure that one of those is far more popular and renowned than the other

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the impression I get. I like CoX because it's like reading a book/comic/watching a film. I want to be able to play the game without worrying about making the "wrong choice" Going Rogue is a great idea but I'd rather it was an arc that can be done (or not) depending on whether you want to.

I want to play a comic book, not write it. And, while I'm all for new ATs; "City of Not-quite-heroes-but-not-really-evil-villains-either" just doesn't float my boat.

Sorry NC, but mission creator, power customisation and new zones are great - I just don't want anything to do with your "moral compass".

And yes - I think that it may be enough to push me away from the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really mean that you've never ever done a mission or arc where you've found yourself wishing you were able to do it in a different way?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Actually I often felt ME 'tricked' me into doing things I hadn't planned. I often chose a response when talking to someone based on the text example of what I was going to say only for the words that came out of my mouth to bare little if any relation to the tone of the example, which would lead the conversation off on a tangent to where I wanted it to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for, y'know, the game making it pretty clear that the lowest options on the right were confrontational or pushy, with the ones on the left being expositionary in nature. They never said the dialogue you could choose was specific; it only set the tone of your response.



[/ QUOTE ]

Weird. I never picked up on that all the time I was playing!

[/ QUOTE ]

Baldur's Gate was similar - option 1 was almost always the right option, and option 3 was almost always the evil option, while option 2 was neutral.

And it wasn't Eve who was at fault for taking the apple - it was the (male) serpent that lied to her

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The arcs are what they are, and I enjoy them for that fact. Turning, say, Peter Themari's arc into [SPOILER]

do you a) take pryss out, or b) tell her the truth and beat the snot out of thermai, or c) do nothing and have a cup of tea, would *totally* cheapen it for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why? You can just choose to do whatever the current option is for that arc - right now, you're forced to do it - a branching system would give you the choice to do it, which is hardly cheapening it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think forced is the wrong word GG, you seem to have totally internalised this idea of branching outcomes, because I havn't seen anyone complaining that you can't do anything other than complete a mission as the story dictates, other than failing.

I can't really see this being implamented outside of a pop-up/text screen.

'Pop up: would you like to do one of the follow options
option a (btw this is good)
option b (btw this is naughty)
option c (btw this is niether)'

just seems like such a dumbing down. I agree with Cyronic. It doesn't interest me. But maybe, because I personally see no benefit on taking my villains to do the frankly dire, stale, boring, rubbish, outdates CoH arcs, and seeing all the hero players play Masterminds (coz they r kewl!) in atlas...perhaps I'm a little bitter. Chaning sides doesn't interest me. Being given a choice really doesn't interest me, in the current story arcs. Tastefully done in newer ones (on the space station? lol, do you a) blow it up, b) not blow it up (btw this is bad)) then fine

[/ QUOTE ]

Forced isn't the wrong word - the current mission system allows you only one path through an arc - that's forcing you to do it the one way only.
And giving players more freedom in their progress through the game is hadly dumbing it down.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whilst I understand the point you're making Cryo, I hardly think it's relevant in a 16 rated game about comic superheroes. *resists urge to insert a semi colon and right bracket*

[/ QUOTE ]

It probably isn't. However I think a black = bad and white = good along with maybe an exactly in the middle third option is a horribly simplistic system if they chose to use it, and to me massively uninteresting. For the Beano or Dandy, or whatever the kids read today, black and white is fine but for an audience of 16+ it needs to be a bit less cut and dried.

[/ QUOTE ]

But not so much that you were unsure what was the right thing to do - otherwise, as pointed out, you could go rogue by mistake.

[ QUOTE ]
The arcs are what they are, and I enjoy them for that fact. Turning, say, Peter Themari's arc into [SPOILER]

do you a) take pryss out, or b) tell her the truth and beat the snot out of thermai, or c) do nothing and have a cup of tea, would *totally* cheapen it for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why? You can just choose to do whatever the current option is for that arc - right now, you're forced to do it - a branching system would give you the choice to do it, which is hardly cheapening it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'd be happy for a system like that - but would it be fair in general?
Would CoV players, some of who say they're not treated the same as CoH players, really be very happy that they'd have to work much harder in the going rogue system than CoH players becoming Villains?

[/ QUOTE ]

May not be fair but it's realistic, play Fabel of KOTOR for a bit, it's a lot harder to remain good in those games than to fall to evil.

Being good is about making sacrifices, giving up the things we want in order to help others, being evil is about giving into those desires, thus by reasoning it is easier to become evil than to remain good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for Fable but I found in games Kotor and particularly Mass Effect it was quite difficult to sway away from good into evil. Of course it was easier in Kotor as with one fell swoop late in the game you could erase all the good you'd done in the game to that point and suddenly become the embodiment of all evil. Mass Effect I found quite hard to be as bad I wanted without becoming the biggest a*s in the universe to achieve it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe that was the point?
It sounds like the morality was clearly signposted, so there was no dnager of the game "tricking" you into being good or evil.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What if these needless choices (yes, they are needless, the story content is fine as it is), end up 'locking out' other content, and forcing you to the hero arcs that i'm simply 10000% disinterested in doing, all because of some choice whose consequences i'm unable to see.

Sure, heroes may get the great chance to go down the dark path and experience some good content. Us villains will get to accidentally earn a few brownie points and be rewarded with 10 hours long task forces and about 1 good arc per level range.

It's the old, 'if it 'aint broke, don't fix it' approach I'm afraid. Which is why i'd prefer it in a sequal, something that wont get in the way of currently existing 50 characters, large badge collections, task force dynamics (don't get me started on how bad CoV could suck, when tankers march on the scene and start giving the orders). If this were in a sequal GG, I would agree with you completely

[/ QUOTE ]

But that's one of the uses of a moral compass - if the choices you were making as a Villain were pushing your moral compass towards neutral, then you'd be able to get it back to evil with a few misisons where you did the worst possible things in the choices given to you.

And don't forget, I don't think the system would be so subtle and shaded that you'd have trouble telling what was the "correct" thing to do as a Villain - like an assassination mission, for example - your contact sends you to kill someone - you can either kill them, let them go, or kidnap them and see if they might be useful for your own plans.
That gives you one obvious evil choice, one obvious good choice, and one not so evil choice, and, depending on who the target is, maybe the kidnapping is even a semi-good choice - so you get good, bad and neutral choices, and all three are quite easy to spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying is, that the great bit i13/14 that is meant to sway the competition, is a big daddy holding my hand, and giving me a choice of two ways to go

L for LEFT

and R for RETARDED

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is still better than daddy leading you by the hand the whole time
By having clear chocies, you can still play through the game as an evil Villain, while other pleyers can make themselves more neutral, and others can try and redeem themselves and become Heroes - it's a system that adds diversity to the game, and gives players more freedom in the way they explore the game and progress through the content.

[ QUOTE ]

What if these needless choices (yes, they are needless, the story content is fine as it is), end up 'locking out' other content, and forcing you to the hero arcs that i'm simply 10000% disinterested in doing, all because of some choice whose consequences i'm unable to see.

Sure, heroes may get the great chance to go down the dark path and experience some good content. Us villains will get to accidentally earn a few brownie points and be rewarded with 10 hours long task forces and about 1 good arc per level range.

It's the old, 'if it 'aint broke, don't fix it' approach I'm afraid. Which is why i'd prefer it in a sequal, something that wont get in the way of currently existing 50 characters, large badge collections, task force dynamics (don't get me started on how bad CoV could suck, when tankers march on the scene and start giving the orders). If this were in a sequal GG, I would agree with you completely

[/ QUOTE ]

But that's one of the uses of a moral compass - if the choices you were making as a Villain were pushing your moral compass towards neutral, then you'd be able to get it back to evil with a few misisons where you did the worst possible things in the choices given to you.

And don't forget, I don't think the system would be so subtle and shaded that you'd have trouble telling what was the "correct" thing to do as a Villain - like an assassination mission, for example - your contact sends you to kill someone - you can either kill them, let them go, or kidnap them and see if they might be useful for your own plans.
That gives you one obvious evil choice, one obvious good choice, and one not so evil choice, and, depending on who the target is, maybe the kidnapping is even a semi-good choice - so you get good, bad and neutral choices, and all three are quite easy to spot.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless it's done *very* well, then all it's going to boil down to is a formulaic system that people will maniupulat to swap sides at will, with no actual gravitas at all. Guess we'll have to wait and see

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's going to be a formulaic system. All systems in all MMOs are formulaic systems which are open to abuse or embrace depending on what you want from them.

Take the old Dreck mission, it was either an epic battle in an alternative dimension to save it from Freakshow domination, or an awesome farming level with no gravitas at all. Whichever it was was up to the players.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's awfully true. Then I think, what i was getting at is that it will feel formulaic, more than anything. Like the difference between Christmas morning when you were 7, and Christmas morning now

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't a limited choice system still better than no choices at all?
Giving you the choice to be good, be bad or be neutral is very limited, but it's still a step up from having your progression decided for you.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
/end quote Pyramid.

We'll see. I simply don't agree with you, but I've run out of endurance, not enough to use the [form viable argument] power

[/ QUOTE ]

But you can't really say that a system that gives you multiple ways to progress through the game and access different content depending on the choices you make is worse than a system where you have no choices and only one path of progression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I can.

The reason I wanted to stopped discussing it, is that no matter how much detail I go into about what I actually think...the repercussions of allowing CoH Archetypes to team with villains in villain's content, the degredation of old story arcs when updated into this new 'superior'(to quote your earlier post) system, and various other things about these changes that worry me from a villain perspective (involving badges, etc)

...will all be met with a one (maybe 2) liner with an emote. I'm happy for you to bleed others of their opinions that way, but i'll keep quiet and fester to myself, I think

[/ QUOTE ]

But old story arcs wouldn't be "degreaded" - there'd still be the option to play them through and have them turn out the way they do now - only it'd rely on the choices you made during the missions - all the old story arcs would remain intact - they'd just have the option of branching into alternative versions with different endings.

For example - a typical mission right now would be to enter a building, search for a computer, and get the info on it, then return to the contact with the clue, and be given the next mission in the arc.
But a branching mission would give you the option of returning to your contact and either giving them the info (get the next mission, just as you do now) or telling them you found nothing, which would mean they'd give you an alternative mission that would take the arc in another direction.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just a thought - in theory descending to villainly should be easier than rising to heroics. Longbow won't welcome in a guy who saved a few hostages if he destroyed atlas park, but as a villain no one will care if you freed a few people, so long as you show you can do bad stuff. Villains only care if you wrong them, or their close friends.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'd be happy for a system like that - but would it be fair in general?
Would CoV players, some of who say they're not treated the same as CoH players, really be very happy that they'd have to work much harder in the going rogue system than CoH players becoming Villains?

[/ QUOTE ]

May not be fair but it's realistic, play Fabel of KOTOR for a bit, it's a lot harder to remain good in those games than to fall to evil.

Being good is about making sacrifices, giving up the things we want in order to help others, being evil is about giving into those desires, thus by reasoning it is easier to become evil than to remain good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, like I said, I'd have no problem with Villains finding it harder to win the trust of the good side than the other way around - I was just wondering how those CoV players who feel the devs ignore Villains in favor of Heroes would react.
I suppose it could be argued that as CoH has more zones and content, the effort to unlock them should be greater than unlocking the fewer zones and content of CoV...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We'll see. I simply don't agree with you, but I've run out of endurance, not enough to use the [form viable argument] power

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but GG's Stoic Recalcitrance power provides 100% protection from Knockback, even from Form Viable Argument. We know, we've tried everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're not arguing - we're giving our opinions on why we think multi-choice misisons and moral alignment scales are a good/bad thing for the game

[ QUOTE ]
Just a thought - in theory descending to villainly should be easier than rising to heroics. Longbow won't welcome in a guy who saved a few hostages if he destroyed atlas park, but as a villain no one will care if you freed a few people, so long as you show you can do bad stuff. Villains only care if you wrong them, or their close friends.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'd be happy for a system like that - but would it be fair in general?
Would CoV players, some of who say they're not treated the same as CoH players, really be very happy that they'd have to work much harder in the going rogue system than CoH players becoming Villains?

[ QUOTE ]
/end quote Pyramid.

We'll see. I simply don't agree with you, but I've run out of endurance, not enough to use the [form viable argument] power

[/ QUOTE ]

But you can't really say that a system that gives you multiple ways to progress through the game and access different content depending on the choices you make is worse than a system where you have no choices and only one path of progression.

Chelsea's avatar has more accurate punches

It was a gender related persecution becuase religous teachings at the time said women were evil.
And the figure of 4 to 1 is mentioned in books on the subject - and I don't mean the crazy ones that try and exaggerate the death toll - I mean properly researched books.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like killing the guy menas the contatc is happy, and gives you more missions - letting him go means the contact refuses to give you anymore misisons, but the guy you let go becomes an unlocked contact - your choices determine your progress in the game, and the content you access - isn't that a superior form of game mechanics?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably. But IMVHO, save it for a sequal, instead of [censored] around with something that is perfectly fine as it is

[/ QUOTE ]

But they've already mentioned branching mission text, switching sides and morla compasses - I think they are planning on taking the curren tgame to a new level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, certainly looks like it.

doesn't stop me from thinking that (from the impression the article gave), it's a steaming pile of horse [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, no devs have actually commented on that article yet, as far as I know - and we've not had any details about how a system like that would work, so I think we shouldn't juidge it too quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence my constant reference to the article's spin, and my semi-faith in the devs having the clout to be careful with these 'improvements'

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, they are improvements - anything that adds diversity and depths is good for a game - but how big the improvements are depends on what the devs have in mind for us.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like killing the guy menas the contatc is happy, and gives you more missions - letting him go means the contact refuses to give you anymore misisons, but the guy you let go becomes an unlocked contact - your choices determine your progress in the game, and the content you access - isn't that a superior form of game mechanics?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably. But IMVHO, save it for a sequal, instead of [censored] around with something that is perfectly fine as it is

[/ QUOTE ]

But they've already mentioned branching mission text, switching sides and morla compasses - I think they are planning on taking the curren tgame to a new level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, certainly looks like it.

doesn't stop me from thinking that (from the impression the article gave), it's a steaming pile of horse [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, no devs have actually commented on that article yet, as far as I know - and we've not had any details about how a system like that would work, so I think we shouldn't juidge it too quickly.

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is, i don't want the game to tell me how good or evil I am. That horse has well and truly been flogged, and I find it very tacky and patronising, considering that CoX hasn't really suffered from some chronic lack of strong player avatar identity (or moral alignment)

[/ QUOTE ]

But it's not really just about telling you how good or evil you are - it's a system of unlocking or blocking content based on your actions.
If you always choose to kill people in your missions, then that means you're more likely to attract the attention of someone who needs an assassin - you've unlocked content because of your in-game choices - it's no longer just about completing misssions until you unlock the next contact - it's about giving you a choice how you progress through the game.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like killing the guy menas the contatc is happy, and gives you more missions - letting him go means the contact refuses to give you anymore misisons, but the guy you let go becomes an unlocked contact - your choices determine your progress in the game, and the content you access - isn't that a superior form of game mechanics?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably. But IMVHO, save it for a sequal, instead of [censored] around with something that is perfectly fine as it is

[/ QUOTE ]

But they've already mentioned branching mission text, switching sides and morla compasses - I think they are planning on taking the curren tgame to a new level.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry for my poor english. I meant walking the tight rope. The whole jedi/sith thing has been done to death and nothing i want in the current version of cox. Maybe in a new game with a new engine something enjoyable could be achieved.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I myself wouldn't have any use for a system that allows you to be morally neutral, I think I'd be great to allow players to choose to be that way if they want to - the more diversity in the game the better.