Kitsune9tails

Of course enhancing is going to be confusing to some new players.

The questions are: why? And How to fix it?

In other MMOs, when gear drops, you can look at it and get some idea of where to put it. "Oh, I have gloves. Are these better than my old gloves?"

Or, if you have generic looking boosters like gems or what not, the bonuses they add are simple and intuitive: "+3 kill people." "+2 not die as much"

Maybe they should bury the more exact info down a bit, and when you first click on an Enhancement it just says (in large letters), "Boosts Accuracy (small)" and gives you a "would you like to know more?" button.

Of course, nothing but experience is going to help casual players realize that slotting Brawl for 6x damage might not eventually pay off.

This is getting off-topic, but the i13 changes make total sense to me in light of the complaints that were being made about PvP at the time:

"I die before I can react, that's no fun."
"There is no way to keep the team squishies from being burst down."
"How did that melee hit me from across the zone?"
"Everyone just hits once and runs, this doesn't feel like a comic book."
"I have to change my build to one that sucks in PvE."
"Why should I PvP when there are no PvE rewards?"
"I hate Stalkers!"
"There's nobody to fight except the same old faces!"

We convinced the Devs that if there was an influx of warm bodies into PvP, it would be worth their money and time. In order to get new people in, they lowered the bar (they thought). It became easier to survive long enough to strike back and hopefully feel like you have a chance. Multiple builds so you can build for PvP without nerfing PvE. The list goes on.

I admit that I certainly did not anticipate the reaction to the changes being what it was as a player. To me, as a casual occaisional PvPer, it seemed like a dream come true at the time.

But there were two major camps: the "make PvP more fun for hardcore PvPers who like things how they are, but want more balance" camp versus the "make PvP more fun for casual players so there will be more PvP camp".

In retrospect, I'm not sure pleasing either camp at the expense of the other was aviable proposition, and I'm not sure there was a way to please both.

So, I can understand if the Devs are taking their time with the next promised round of changes, regardless of how embarassed they might be over base raiding and the CoP Trial.

In fact, it begs the question: do the PvPers actually want the Devs to make more changes to PvP, even if it were just to remove non--PvP badges from the zones?

Essentially yes; so be nice to your teammates, so they don't report you. Many toons are probably a Google search away from being genericed.

Of course, then there are also the public domain characters. We can all play Dracula, The Wizard of Oz (from the books not the movies) or (in the EU)Peter Pan...

Also, everyone should totally make a Jenny Everywhere toon.

What would the difference between farming NPCs for them and farming friends for them?

On the subject of a building a game up for PvP specifically, what about it?

City of Heroes invented the "Expanshalone", a seperate game that is compatible and allows interaction with another game.

No one can deny that PvP games can be popular at MMO levels.
We already have seperate builds in this game.
We already have a different ruleset for PvP here.

So, if they thought it would be sufficiently profitable, NCSoft could create an entire, 50 level, PvP-only game set in the City of universe, and set it up so that your character in that game translated into an 'alternate build' in this one, and vice versa.

Just the bare bones of a thought.

Actually (IANAL) the EULA does not give NCSoft ownership of characters made with its' tools if you already own them. It gives them the right to use them.

Therefore, if you make up Trademark Man and go on to make millions off of him, NCSoft does not get a cut, but they can put Trademark Man on the cover of their boxes and on the website, put him ingame as a trainer, etc.

Of course, if you are, say, Mercedes Lackey, and you make a version of Vanyel in the game, NCSoft isn't going to risk litigation by immediately putting him in Azuria's spot. More likely, they are going to generic Vanyel and make you choose a new name, bio and maybe costume.

I hear this actually happened, in this game, to the guy who writes the Dresden files books.

Here's my persepctive:

If in the future you make a character and Hollywood later comes out with a similar character, you have legal but not actual protection.

NC Soft has the right to use (and therefore let you use on your account) any character created with their tools, so long as the character did not exist prior to it being entered into their database.

So if your Red Mist is first, theoretically Lion's Gate could not win a lawsuit to get NC Soft to force you to delete the character, even if the two were by coinidence identical, down to the biography.

However, that's not how it wil work in real life.

Because of the prominence of the movie, people are going to be specifically looking for Red Mist (and Hit Girl, and Big Daddy, etc) clones for a while. Characters named Red Mist are more likely to be reported now than they were a year ago.

Whatever NC Soft employee your character is reported to may have seen this thread (or heard of any PM you may have sent regarding this), but if not, they are not going to take the time to research your character and do the legwork to verify that it preexisted Mark Millar's earliest verified drawing/writeup of Red Mist. They are just going to generic the character and send you an email saying "Send us 3 alternative names for this character different from the old one."

They are not going to take the chance on even a failed lawsuit from Lion's Gate, nor should they.

Let me spell out my own thoughts and opinions on this in an effort to get the discussion clear and to the point.

I believe that we can all agree that one of the purposes of putting the Shivans in a PvP zone is to get PvE'ers to go there and try out PvP. The zones are WAI to the extent that there is enough contention about the placement of the Shivans there that we are having this discussion.

Where I beleive the design fails is that although the Shivans draw PvE'ers into the zones, they do not draw them there in such a way as to have a positive experience.

A percentage of PvE'ers will enter the zone, have a PvP encounter, then decide that PvP is fun and that they will research it, practice it and continue with it. But I don't tink anyone can deny that this type of player is indeed a minority currently, regardless of the reason.

In fact, the Shivans (and similar rewards) may be hurting PvP: people who are not currently PvPers but might otherwise have been enter the zone for the purpose of PvE and find PvP interfering in that task. This generates negative feelings rather than the curiosity the Devs intended.

One of the many things PvP needs (IMHO) is a reason for people who might possibly be swayed to PvP to go into the zones specifically to fight other players.

My problem with this problem is that it's a Catch-22: all the solutions I can think of would lead to groups of PvEers (not PVPers) standing around in the zone beating each other up and telling the PvPers "stay away, I'm just here for the rewards".

Except: if all the rewards from PvP zones gave advantages only in PvP zones. But that leads into a 'rich get richer' dilemna where only good PvPers have the rewards that make them better, therefore no one new can get into PvP because their prospective opponents already have rewards that make them better.

Unless: PvPing (and doing well) somehow moved you up into higher and higher PvP 'brackets' where you would encounter people of the same or similar skill, and you were actually restricted in the degree to which you could play below your bracket.

Which: leads me to a very strange place, and a whole 'suggestion post' that this is not the place for.

*thinks and mumbles to self*

Just as a thought exercise:

The Devs introduce "PvP Merits".
Defeat a player of equal or higher level to earn one.

Shivans and Nukes cost 10 PvP merits each, and are no longer available the old way.

What would be your (the generic 'your') reaction?

Personally, I have a number of conflicting but interesting thoughts from this scenario.

Quick poll:

If all non-PvP specific badges were moved out of PvP zones, would that...

1) Help PvP? "Anyone in the zone obviously wants to PvP, so there will be one less thing to whine about."

2) Hurt PvP? "No new players are coming to PvP zones, because there isn't even the slightest incentive."

3) Have no effect on PvP? "The hardcore PvPers will always play, and no one else will ever join, regardless, so PvP can't be affected by this."

And a follow up question:

- Should the Devs provide any kind of incentive for Non-PVPers to try PvP out, even if it isn't badges?

D'oh! Brain fart.

Shivans and Nukes, in my mind, were designed to be very powerful so that players would fight over them. Without a 'risk' (essentially a 50% chance of getting debt in the attempt to get one), they are arguably overpowered.

Just compare them to other temporary powers that can be gotten at equivalent level.

Thinking about the OP, though: no one is clearly in the wrong.

You have the right to ask a player not to attack you in a PvP zone.

They have the right to attack you anyway.

It's a Catch-22. If PvPers are not nice to badge hunters in PvP zones, they may be driving off potential PvPers. If they are nice, then what incentive is there for a badge hunter to try PvP?

Because to me, this is the real question:
What should the Devs do to encourage people who are not yet interested in PVP to try it out?

All of the answers I can think of to that question come around to 'reward people for trying PvP' which comes back around to people entering the zone just for the rewards and trying to not-PvP to get them.

Which puts us right back where we are.

In the end, I think it falls to the players to recruit and educate PvPers. All the Devs can really do is support and reward PvP, or adjust the mechanics of it.

Hmm, the love of filthy lucre is the root of all evil, but I'm not sure the pursuit of money is inherently evil...

...in any case, in the absence of telepathy, we can only assume that he intended nothing but entertainment for his fans.

On the other hand, the movie Howard the Duck showed that extradimensional Dark Overlords can possess people...

Well, that's what we're discussing here: whether a good intent negates the karmic burden of evil results.

My thought was that the Jedi Council knew all along that the Chosen One was destined to destroy them and bring balance to the Force by tipping the scales in favor of the Dark Side.

However, they could not simply kill Anakin; that would have corrupted them. Also bringing balance to the Force was simply nature asserting itself; the most they could have done was delay the inevitable.

Thus, the hostility to Anakin. Qui-Gon did not know the whole story, and mistakenly beleived that bringing up Anakin would help the Light Side.

Anakin fulfilled his destiny partly by destroying the Jedi. For years, there were only two Sith and two Jedi.

Luke enters the picture, and the last of the Jedi die off, leaving only the Sith. Anakin fulfills his destiny at last by destroying both himself and the other Sith, leaving only Luke, who at that point is neither truly Jedi nor Sith, having embraced both the Light and understood the Dark Side ("Only now, at the last, do you truly understand.") Thus, at the end of Return of the Jedi, the Force is truly in balance at last.

The Force is not necessarily a force for good; it has a Dark Side. Anakin redeemed himself in the eyes of his son and mentor (and the audience); his becoming a Force Ghost is a sign of this in story terms, and shows that he was able to utilize the Light Side at the end.

I don't think it is so much that the Force forgave him as it is that he received a reward for a job well done.

If committing a sufficiently heinous crime, such as killing millions to save billions, defines you as an evil person regardless of past good acts...

...does committing a sufficiently good act, such as saving the universe from destruction by the Cosmic Horrors (by both intent and deed), define you as a good person, regardless of past evil acts?

It's pretty simple. Here is the TL/DR version: NCSoft doesn't have to have a reason to generic you because they own the character.

...

- Anyone can petition any character they see, for any reason or no reason. The petition will likely be ignored unless you at least give the employee who looks at it reason to think the owner of the property might sue NC Soft. The employee will probably at least run a quick Google search to check your reasoning.

- If the employee even thinks the owner of the property might sue NCSoft, they should recommend your character to be genericed, just to be safe.

- After you are genericed, you are then asked to give alternative names for your character. This is your chance to get the decision reversed, by presenting whatever argument you have. The point of the argument should be 'the owner of this intellectual property absolutely cannot/will not sue NC Soft and here's why'.

- Remember that NCSoft does not want to have to deal with a lawsuit, even if they would eventually win.

- If your character is close enough to an owned and maintained intellectual property to be recognized/mistaken for them via name, bio or costume, that's too close. If they are not close enough to be recognized, then what's the point of copying?

- Remember that Cryptic Studios has been sued by Marvel for exactly this: they are not going to take chances.

- Remember that they do not have to have a reason for genericing a character. You do not own whatever name/costume/bio you give them (unless you already legally do), so they can change it if they want. It's their property, made with their tools on their servers. Even if you own the IP, NCSoft doesn't have to allow it in their game.

- This does not mean NCSoft will act on every petition. They don't have time, and probably have a database of things that they have previously checked and decided thumbs up on. Even if they act, don't expect them to tell you about it.

Some interesting thoughts:

Let me bring a few things in; a couple people have answered this, but I want to bring it back.

Even if the act of murdering unsuspecting millions to save billions is evil, is everyone who performs that act an evil person?

Ozy did countless acts of pure goodness with his massive holdings in finance and industry: charitable contributions, ethical business practices (with some notable exceptions), the development of technologies, employment, not to mention any personal fisticuffs he might have engaged in versus criminals and villains.

During much of the time where he was doing good deeds, he was planning and working toward this evil act.

Was he born evil?
Do his good deeds in any way mitigate the bad?
Is he a good person?
Does it matter?
Should Ozy go to prison (where he can presumably do no more evil or good)?
Should the truth about his act be exposed even if nuclear doom awaits as the price ("never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon")(should he stand trial)?
Should the other heroes 'let this one slide' under the circumstances/considering the alternatives?
Should Ozy be condemned for things he might do in the future to maintain world peace?

On the subject of murderers being evil...

Just some things to consider on the specific subject of 'killing a person without their foreknowledge, outside of actual ongoing combat, because in your mind they are a threat or have committed a capital crime'...

Military/SWAT snipers?
Government Assassins?
A person attempting to escape a kidnapper/captor?
A person defending against a home invader (assuming they do not know whether the invader is armed or means harm)?
A person under a mortal threat to themselves or family should they not murder (for instance, committing murder in order to ransom a loved one)?

My philosophy is that in the absence of omniscience, telepathy, etc, the ethics of a person must be defined in terms of what they beleive about the circumstances of an act as well as their overall pattern of behavior, rather than the heinous quality of an individual act.

I haven't seen the Blair Witch Project, but my understanding is that if an ugly old woman had stumbled upon the campers at the wrong time, they might have deliberately killed her with no evil intent.

The legal considerations of such an act, in my mind, are seperate from the moral ones: even if the person who regularly commits murder honestly beleives they have a good reason every time, they might still need to be imprisoned for the good of society as a whole...whether they 'deserve' it or not.

A couple of questions for those who have seen/read Watchmen...

1) If you beleive Ozymandias was a villain, do you beleive that he was evil? If you beleive he was evil, when did he cross the line?

Yes, the execution of the Civil War story was horrible. However, the concept was sound.

No organization, not even the US Government, is monolithic.

Within any government there are various agencies working at cross purposes. There would be some people trying to capture and analyze super powered beings...these people would get ahold of any villains that were captured.

Within the same governments, there would also be agencies working for the welfare of the super beings they saw as useful or helpful; trying to hinder press releases of sensitive information, honest attempts to give them resources and data, etc.

The tide of public opinion will rise and fall, but the fact is that there would eventually be a scenario similar to Marvel's Civil War. After a large, unignorable disaster, there would be a movement to identify and register heroes, and force them to work as government agents. Some heroes would comply, others would go underground and become vigilantes, hunted alongside the villains they protect us from.

Eventually, the vigilance against the vigilantes would subside, the vigilante heroes would become 'cool' again...until the next big disaster.

As Doctor Manhattan put it, "nothing ever ends."

However, as to the OP; the media would handle them like they handle everything else: with one hand reaching for unbiased journalism, and the other reaching for money.

Every powered being or spandex wearer would have to deal with Paparazzi; the villains would not be able to kill enough to get the others to back off. The heroes and villains' responses to the press would vary like stars today; some would break down under the pressure (young RDJ or Drew Barrymore) while others thrived (current RDJ and Drew Barrymore).

One factor is that powers or no, anyone who puts on a spandex suit (unless it's a ninja outfit) wants to be seen (even a reluctant Hancock). Some heroes would try to operate underground 'in plain clothes' if their powers supported that, but by and large, all kinds of people who wanted their 15 minutes of fame would be putting on the colorful spandex, powers or not. Kevlar prices would skyrocket.

The real fun would be when various agencies would be staging events for the press to create a 'brand' for their hero, much as celebrities perform publicity stunts today. "Hey, homeless guy. I'll buy you a bottle to put on this suit and rant over on that corner about conquering the world. A guy in red spandex will knock you down, try to make it look good, but don't actually fight back. Don't worry, we won't press charges."

What I wonder is whether superheroes would eventually hit a longtime equilibrium of acceptance, as anime seems to have, or would it continually rise and fall, like the 'waves' of superhero movies we get?

Evil is defined by intent.

If you take an absolutely moral person and convince that person that they absolutely must commit murder to save the innocent, they are likely to do so, compelled by the very morals that make murder abhorrent to them.

The deed is evil. The person is not evil.

By the same token, you can have a person who sadistically delights in serial killing, torture of the helpless, and griefing in PvP, and they may still be capable of donating to charity out of a sincere and selfless desire to help the homeless.

The deed is good. The person is not.

All people encounter situations every day that tempt them to perform evil acts, or to risk themselves to do good. Most people perform acts of both kinds, for various reasons.

But some people honestly try to help others and make a world a better place. Those are good people. Unfortunately, there were probably good people wearing the uniform of a Nazi or a Crusader; good people performing vile and reprehensible acts out of delusion or having been mislead.

There is also a difference between 'good' and 'heroically good'. A 'good' person avoids and tries to mitigate evil, but has their limits; they may perform an evil act to save their own lives or the lives of loved ones, for example. Only the truly heroically good would rather die than allow thier evil nemesis to fall to his doom in the volcano trap he laid for the hero.

Here's a little litmus test:

- Two people are locked in a room, probably by someone like the Jigsaw Killer. They are given a single dose of poison. If one of them does not consume the entire dose in a certain amount of time, one of them will be chosen at random.

Typically, an evil person will force or manipulate the other person into taking the poison.

A good person would take the poison themselves.

Most people would probably 'decide by not deciding' and force the killer to choose one of them to die.

A hero would find a way out of the cell.

A final thought:

- Every act that you perform should be performed with the intent of doing the most good. Simply, the more good you create into the world, the more good therefore IS in the world, which is good for you. Be responsible in your power. Evil can and will result from the most innocuous of acts; but evil arises from inaction as well. Do good, and let God or Oblivion (or the post-deathy fate of your choice) sort it out.

You cannot control whether or not you suffer. However, you can control whether or not you deserve to suffer.