Slaunyeh

The problem, for me, isn't that end level content include raid content. The problem, for me, is when you take a seven-year old, very casual-friendly game, and introduce raid content that you must take part in to advance past a certain point.

Some of us played this game for so long precisely because it didn't have this kind of content. It's a fairly significant paradigm shift that is bound to cause some friction.

(and let's not forget that compared to 'certain other MMOs', a full 8-man team in CoH is already practically a raid-sized team)

I, for one, won't demand solo-only content. But I would much rather have team-focused content (that, thanks to our wonderful scaling mechanic, usually also mean soloable) than raid-oriented content. Seriously, I can't think of any justification for raid content over team content, except if you want to make the experience as painful as possible.

That's where the current direction of co-op content is taking us. You better learn to like it!

If nothing else, that certainly explains the new art direction.

Hey! I only get six weeks of paid vacation a year.

Plus holidays of course.

I want one of them (chosen at random maybe) to seek you out as their patron. They get access to a small sample of your powers, and get to run errands for you.

Make it so!

/seconded

Third: Villains gamble that the heroes will get off the couch and save the world themselves for a change, and gleefully run off to take advantage of the confusion.

There's a Spanish Inquisition joke in here, somewhere.

I think, for the most part, most of us are just tired of the increasingly weak explanations for what those villains are even doing there in the first place. "Someone's in trouble!" might be enough to motivate the archetypical hero, but it doesn't really work for most villains. (whereas, "Someone's in trouble, so they aren't watching their stuff!" totally could be )

As it is right now, "co-op" is really just shorthand for "hero content that villains are also allowed to play through."

I think my advice to the devs, would be that if they write some Co-op content, and can't come up with a plausible reason why or how to draw in redside players... then don't. Be honest, and accept that what you have, is blueside content. Release it as blueside content. Sure, that will suck for redside, but it will make the disparity all the more obvious (and perhaps even provoke a mission-writer or two to think a little harder about it).

But we do see way too many men and women in spandex. There should be a law against wearing spandex in public. While a few people do look pretty hot like that, the vast majority, sadly, do not. *shudder*

Or to put it in more relevant terms: If it's okay for Starfire to go buck naked, it's okay for the Blob to go buck naked. And the world really isn't ready for that.

That's fine for your one villain. I have 30+. Do they all need to be morphed into thinking the same way to justify doing heroic deeds again and again?

As has been mentioned before. The "team up against a common enemy" is a fine gimmick, if not over used. The "save the world" gimmick is pretty narrow, and better not be used more than a few times before it lose all meaning.

However, both of these gimmicks have been used for absolutely everything (with a few exceptions, granted) lately. And the writing seems increasingly lazy when it comes to justifying why villains are even there.

As for the "well, just don't play any content made after I7 if you don't want to be a hero" crowd, I've tried that. I like alignment missions, but if you do nothing else it gets old. Fast.

Au contraire, my dear. It changes everything.

The same could be said of history. Which I think is exactly the point.

While there are a couple of overarching metaplots happening in the background, I feel they are not particular important to the story. The story, to me, is much more about the setting and the people that tries to carve out an existence in it, than working towards some overreaching conclusion that neatly wraps up everything at the end.

Timothy Zahn already got his nod of approval in a genuine Star Wars movie. He's the one who coined the name of Coruscant, after all.

These two stand out for me, as well.

Also, most of Praetoria 1-20, actually. I don't think there was anything in Praetoria I distinctly disliked, except for the difficulty in teaming with somebody. Anybody. But that's hardly the writing's fault.

I do have to specify 1-20 though, since I'm not terrible fond of First Ward (though, to be honest, that might just be the anti-stalker mechanics distracting me from the overall story.)

That might be true. And while that has been a fairly common complaint about CoV over the years, it's not really the crux of the complaint in this thread (at least not originally).

The issue here is that co-op content is the most cost efficient content to add to the game. But no (or close enough) existing co-op content gives you much of a choice to actually play a villain. It's all about some vague excuse to bully you into saving the day and being a hero... if that's the kind of role I wanted, I wouldn't be playing red-side in the first place. I'd like to, at least see motivation that goes beyond "well, at least I get paid!" (which, you know, you actually don't) or "well, I guess I have to save the world because I kinda live here". Heck, recent content isn't even trying that hard.

Co-op content makes sense and is here to stay, but it'd be nice if red-side was occasionally acknowledged when this content was designed. Dismissing the concern or telling people to shut up about it, isn't going to help villains get content they're happy with.

Nah, that's not true at all. He's talking about a design intent for the game they were designing. Some design intents made it into the game. Some didn't. The Arena just happens to be one of the things that did make it into the game, even if the character creation system changed dramatically.

You're not required to change your mind on all design ideas just because some change for whatever reason. That's not how system design works (at least not system design that ever leads to a finished product).

Whether or not they tried to build a game system that could support PvP, or they were just really bad at designing such a system, is, at best, guesswork at this point.

/many'ed

Hero 1 would make for a great addition to, and leader of, the Freedom Phalanx. Of course, that doesn't seem to be the intent behind this contest, so it probably won't happen.

For a player submission, however, I think I'd have to nominate (any) one of Muad_Dib's characters.

I wish.

Sadly, it's more like the heroes are staying home on the couch while the rest of us have to go earn yet another "Saved the World" badge.

The trouble is, I think, that it can work fine if some dire situation forces villains to save the day. It can work. If it's not being used for every single piece of co-op content ever released. It should have been saved for, say, the Battalion. It should not have been reduced to the point of people going "urgh, I have to save the world again??"

I mean, it's like Rise of the Silver Surfer where Dr. Doom ends up working with the Fantastic Four to save the world, but ends up screwing it up because he's a power hungry jerk who's really in it for personal gain.

As a villain, a better story would include elements of this. The rikti are invading? How can I take advantage of this. The Fifth Column are doing something I don't really care about? How can I take advantage of this. Snaptooth/Lady Winter want to cover the world in eternal winter? How do I... wait, so do I! A praetorian is trying to sink her crazy straw into an awakening death god? How do I knock her out and take control of her crazy straw?

There are plenty of opportunity for villainous behaviour in existing content, but for some reason none of us have the ambition or fiendish thinking to take advantage of it when we could just be all altruistic and save the world for free. Again.

What's the point of saving the world if you can't hold it hostage afterwards?

As a villain, I want a "destroy the world" arc. Even if it means Blue Steel has to swoop in at the very last minute to thwart my evil scheme. Being defeated at the last minute is what [comic book] villainy is all about!

Better red than dead!

Also, if I recall correctly, Wade isn't necessarily the murderer. So they kinda have to have him act a little neutral and not be all "YOU KILLED MY DAUGHTER!"

Historically, yes. This has been brought up before. AND it has also actually been implemented. Once upon a time, your enhancement tray would fill up with useless TOs even at 50. A filter was added that would just not let junk drop past a certain level.

Back then, and I think it's still a valid request, people had hoped to see an option to filter out stuff you don't care about. It'd be nice to see something like that, as well as expanding the idea to encompass the new recipes and salvage.

Still. The CoL actually does have plenty of male members. Releasing a female-only CoL pack is just plain weird even without the gender parity discussion.

I could understand a female-only Carnival of Shadows pack. But this? This is like releasing a female-only Hellion set.