Soul_System

You get very subjective there though. 90% of the time me and many others could care less about double exp. Many others feel differently than us. Considering we've already gotten more than a double exp weekend I'd say we are being greedy. 1 day interruption = entirely new weekend plainly does not assume an equal return for them and it's already been done once.

Well if you wanted to get technical about it you could consider it 1 bump. Though to be honest people bump their stuff all the time, all such a ruling does is make you "need" to argue to bump.

Nevertheless I wasn't seriously going to pursue this or anything. Just a light joke for those that participated in the thread. Ironically your response is helping keep it alive though. Also, thread is outdated anyhow, OP no longer accurately reflects my opinion . Remember I dropped the rewards thing.

Regardless, you taking it too seriously means I wasn't clear enough in my humor. Back to the game for me hehe.

If there are any worries about the thread I'd actually recommend locking it myself, If I wish to return to the subject I can make a new thread that more accurately reflects my current views. Important difference since most people don't read beyond the first page.

So, where do you want your 53 cents?

I agree with you I really do. I'm going to continue to play the game and enjoy it. It will be a minor irritation I will work around. But since I felt it could be better or more fair, by my own perspective, I spoke up. You are absolutely right though. This is why teaming with my friends and having fun pretty much locks me out of my merit rewards. I'd rather run tip missions with them and lose out on rewards and have fun than go grind my tip missions solo/search for other vigs to grind with. That's my choice. I just don't feel I should have to choose that is all and see ways to thematically not have to while still giving me a tradeoff as intended.

It's also why I'm ending my participation in this arguement. We've covered everything thoroughly. It's not worth more of my time fighting for, my view has been put out there. I'll be playing instead of arguing. I'll also not be belittling others on an online forums, I don't care how big/small my Epeen is. I don't care how "right/wrong" I am on matters of opinion lol. It's opinion for a reason. It's not something that should cause you to insult other people just because the view things differently, but that's something many forget. (not aimed at you mega)

Now please do hold some sense of humility. The devs have made many changes based on feedback and they have not responded to each one. Nor did they respond to each one immediate that they DID get involved in. While obviously we each think we are right, we can at least try to discuss things as if we are indeed right and it's a fact.

Even science and religion rewrites itself when it finds problems. How could you assume some frivolous game on the interent would be an exception for this? How could you assume that you are DEFINITIVELY right when generations have believed things later dis-proven.

Fact is we disagree, but you overstep your bounds as an individual presenting an opinion. As do many others in this thread. We all have opinions. We discuss them. We believe in them. But they ARE opinions. The status quo does not make them right, nor does it make them wrong.

A sense of respect should be held for every poster when at all possible. With that also some courtesy. Bias has been accused in this thread. Yes I will admit I play primarily vigilante's. Because I have a running theme making many of my characters robots. Robots being logical make choices hero's would not. The "greater good". I DID NOT make this choice for rewards, nor did I have any idea that there would be significant awards attached.

I agreed with yall already on the reward type being separate. IE keep current rewards and values for vigilante and hero and rogue and villain. What I disagree with is that the penalty should be doubled by making it harder to complete the exact same course of action to achieve those lesser rewards by limiting teaming. As if limiting teaming wasn't bad enough in and of itself.

Also, please try to remember that everyone plays in different ways with different amounts of time. Just because your fine with it and it doesn't bother you doesn't mean it doesn't bother others. It's been mentioned before, it'll be mentioned again, and I can already find quite a few threads discussing similar things.

Perhaps the greater irony here will be if change WAS to get implemented. Would you complain? Would you switch places with us an wonder why anyone has problems with your ideas? Would you merely go about your game and not even care about something you made such a fuss about defending? Perspective is a tricky thing and we don't always even know/present ourselves well.

I'm just aiming to make it a little easier for the same side to continue teaming. Ease of teaming has been one thing COH has always had over any competition. As far as what your saying about different systems, I'm just saying you'd get the option of getting half credit for hero tips. Not that you had to, nor that it would change the 5 fame a day cap, and you could still run vig/rogue tips. You'd help out with 10 hero missions and hit your 5 fame cap. Or maybe you helped with 4, get 2 fame, and then run 3 of your own. Still better than currently. It's a tweak or an addition, removing no current functionality.

If the extent of my entitlement issues is that I would like to be able to team with people on the same side as me in a video game and still be able progress, while staying thematically correct, is the extent of my entitlement issues then I think I'm ok .

I'm still right there beside you in the thread arguing people wanting everything in Freedom for free. We simply disagree on another subject. I could belittle you as well for that fact, but what would that accomplish?

Whether you feel I am right or wrong I'm merely presenting a view from another walk of the game. One where I am forced to either wait for everyone else's tips to be filled and then have their help for mine, or solo them on my own time while they handle theirs together. This for a thematic choice on how to be "good" or "evil". If it had significant impacts as other people have stated, such as being KOS or chased by police or etc I'd understand. The difference currently is pretty arbitrary.

So yes, I disagree. I feel I have to play the game in a way I shouldn't have to. Not for a new experience and actual consequences and repercussions, but for arbitrary restrictions based on a thematic choice.

If you feel that my time and my "fun factor" at being able to play the type of character of my choosing should be negatively impacted by arbitrary restrictions then yes, consider me entitled. I should not be restricted thematically arbitrarily. The thematics has remained one of the strengths of this game that has helped carry it.

Chances are you too are entitled in some small opinion somewhere. Would you be equally magnanimous in acknowledging your possible fault or would you, as you have against many people, cast aspersions and assume yourself superior instead of merely different?

Quite a response to so small a comment, but then again quite an opposition to so small an idea. One with thematic/QOL backing at that. What would it hurt after all?

Check the lore, check comic lore. Sometimes the goals of vigilante's and heros coincide. Soemtimes the vigilante is the minority and cannot do something alone. Sometimes they are simply outnumbered and thus are passively forced to act with the group. This is both comic book lore and COH lore.

Check some of my former posts, I've given example both in game lore and out of vigilante's in hero teams. I've also pointed out that said vigilante's could actually hijack the mission in lore. However that would never be accepted in game. Nonetheless they usually make their viewpoints very known when they disagree and earn a reputation for this, even if they are doing a "hero mission". Batman, Wolverine, Manticore. These are just a few examples of vigilante's who have teamed up with more heroic characters and have nonetheless shown their vigilante flair.

Try reading more .

No, they are all alignment missions. All meant to test our alignment via our choices. Choices are not always the end result. Choices are our input and actions. Our viewpoints and our voices. You can dissent and still decide not to fight 7 heros to do what you think is best because you'll lose. You'll never be able to hijack a mission like Manticore because people would never tolerate that in games. They would call it greifing.

But see, these limitations are level based or "controlled access to end game progression" based. They specifically limit you to gain X with Y. As long as your 1 of the two alignments of that particular side, your morality has no bearing on those at all.

I'm asking to gain alignment/morality points based on alignment morality missions. Missions that, thematically, everyone would put their individual spin on it. IE Wolverine might decide to go a little overboard if not held back by his team. He's still known for that regardless of the overall decision on what to do. Batman has similar relations with Superman when they team up.

Here lemme kick it up a notch with direct COH lore. Matnicore: Vigilante. He betrayed everyone to infiltrate Arachnos and sabotage their plot to detonate a psychic bomb in paragon. He attempted to kill Protean. He threatened to split Positron's armor and kill everyone in the area when attempting to save Statesman in the Prometheus arc. Later in that Arc he actually kills Statesman to get super powers returned to Paragon City, then racing the clock to see if he can get him revived. He portrays the end justifies the means mentality many times, even during teams with the rest that have "good objectives". If it wasn't for how much he cares it would rule him. For example none of them woulda shot Statesman dead. It doesn't matter that the team decided to do X. He decided to do "Y" and made his mark.

If COH was to have full functionality like this, 1 single person could completely change the outcome of a mission. Or they could truly show their vigilante side even during a heroic mission. Unfortunately this has not been implemented yet and prolly won't because people are not mature enough to take a situation unfolding differently than they planned because of 1 person's actions. This becomes utterly apparent if you check out reactions to player rolls for choices on SWTOR. Those are not even lasting choices and they happen on things you run as many times as you want. What they could do though is let vigilante's/Rogues/hero's/villains make their ideas and feelings known inside missions even though they agree to follow the specified mission decision they could voice/show their dissent. The way it really WOULD be.

Giving us the option to at least theorize and thematically say we gave our own personal "flavor" to a mission and got some recognition for it would be nice though.

It takes 1 1/2 days tops. 1 full day if you get there the next day close to 20 hours from the last tip. It only takes 3-4 days if your looking to go from extreme to extreme. If however, you just want to get my teaming "advantage" it takes you 1 full day or a 1 1/2 days.

Simple solution to not losing merits? Spend em lol. You cannot lose something that's slotted.

You say there is no chance, then you qualify it by attempting to remove some of the variables that create that chance. Sometimes you log in red side and it's dead. Some people play late night or non-peak hours and it's double dead.

You can't possibly look with a straight face and tell me Red Side is even close to equally populated. There is a reason they have been asking for red side love for a long time now and you see tons of villains rolling to blue side and few heros rolling to red side.

Dood, you said you can't team in AE because you have to be in the same zone. Then you listed RWZ, which contains an AE building. Trust me I've teamed with people from both sides THIS WEEK in it. Solid villain with solid hero.

If your friend rolls an alt and you want to team with him and don't have a toon on that side? You roll an alt if you feel like it. OR you roll to AE in RWZ. OR you run missions in RWZ and he joins.

I personally think variety remains a boon. Much like my any "legacy" ideas are still good. They don't lose worth simply because they are old. You just start taking them from granted is all.



Because people get properly rewarded for their time with mission arcs, teams get rewarded equally, and horrendous travel time that people love is included. /sarcasm. There is a reason that story arcs are alot more rarely run and shortcuts such as PL and AE are used more and more. Outside of the new end game focus there is alot in need of fixing for story arc runs. Oh and because you can never ever access that content if you outlevel it *cough* oroborus *cough*.

I could prolly experience the entire content of 1 side in 2 weeks or less. But it seems to me that in 90% of cases people enjoy teaming and fighting whatever more than they enjoy "x story". In fact only a very small % of the stories are even well remembered by the community as a whole.

That reward is lessened significantly by all this. The fact that population is also low on one side only exacerbates this.

So if I want to progress I have to decide not to team with most of my friends or choose only vigilante friends. OR If I want to team with all my friends and both sides I have to give up progression. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

The game has taken great strides over the years to combat exactly this. Down to making sking and mentoring automatic and enabling side switching, creating zones where both could enter and team in, and finally making you able to switch sides.

1. Saying it doesn't match my alignment so I shouldn't get any credit is merely circular logic providing nothing except an unsupported statement. It doesn't make sense thematically, I've already explained how a vigilante could still gain notoriety as a vigilante while helping hero's. It doesn't make sense game-play wise. The rewards can still be separate thus providing you the trade-off of rewards. You can still make it take longer through partial credit. All it does is arbitrarily put an additional restriction on accomplishing it.

2. The problem here is that you can be "pure" and if you ever decide to go to the other side you can easily do so and easily return but until you do so you enjoy a long term advantage. While easily being able to access the short term advantage.

If you are grey you give up the long term advantage and can still only fully access one side. Yes you can team with the other side and experience content that way but that is still incredibly random and limited. It's not like both sides are fully opened up. Also both sides can team up no matter what thanks to RWZ and AE. With so many reds going blue side it's also not like you'll even be teaming with different power sets. Just yesterday on blue i team with all villain power sets completely randomly.



"Honestly, though, I keep wishing there were only ONE middle-of-the-road alignment."

I'm conflicted on this. I think rather they should just make it easier to change over or remove the arbitrary time limitation on tips, but keep it for the rewards. Thematically Rogue and Vigilante are drastically different outlooks.


That's the danger of building thematically. I didn't get moral choices added into the game just to completely ignore them and go farm whatever's convenient. I don't think I should be punished progression wise for being a certain moral alignment.

Though thematic moral repercussions for all alignments would be a nice touch. IE your alignment backfiring on you occasionally. The villain outsmarting themselves, the Rogue being overly greedy, the vigilante going to far/being pursued by the good guys, the hero occasionally suffering penalties for their altruism. All mission/arc/atmosphere based. Not single missions or limiting people's ability to competitively progress. I guess that's pretty much saying: Pretoria needs to touch everything :P.

I always understood, though not the knowledge the devs had made it clear they felt exactly that way. As someone else pointed out the relative worth is subjective. You can sit up here all day and tell me how there is equal trade off but for me, I can go red side any time i wish with a hero, and go back. I can earn my rewards and if i feel like dipping my toe i can do so and suffer relatively little for it.

As vigilante I've teamed with a few people red side, they all needed help to come blue side faster. I've also rolled red side, intending to go blue side. As far as I'm concerned as long as there is a serious inequity in the relative worth of being on one side or another the so called trade-off is bunk.

Current state of game focuses more on end game than ever. More and more people are rolling and being PL'd through or rushing as fast as they can to end game. Even with the sad state of Red side it's worse than normal. Teams are more scarce than they used to be and most people just wanna hit 50. In the current clime how can you claim that trade-off as an item of significant worth?

Meanwhile their perk is helping them with what the game is actually focused on now. While mine is on the ability to team both sides. I suppose I can hit the occasional SF where nothing would be capable of being ran blue side, but from the spam that occasion would be rare indeed.

I understand I just don't agree, not with the way that things stand now. I respect you feel otherwise, but i'm looking at both practical and themantic impacts of this. I suffer QOL issues and I progress slower for the tradeoff of being able to team with people in a ghost town. For a themantic choice. Granted I wouldn't mind if the consequences were thermantic and in the same general vicinity of equal, but earning differently is not a themantic decision but a progression/currency decision. If I was to say, have custom content/story/grey merits for vigilante/rogue it starts to become a new ball park, but certainly not as is.



ALL OF THAT ASIDE, the most impactful thing for me still remains the QOL value of not being able to handle my tips along with the vast majority of people and having to run them by myself outside of the teams solo. Much like story arcs and reward merits going to only 1 person, you don't reward people comparatively for the time put in and they will avoid it (generally speaking).

? Everything settled on the rewards, which i dropped, im just asking for more comparable ease of running the tip missions for fame by letting us get partial credit from our sides other alignment missions. When most are pure because of the rewards most run pure tip missions. That's usually 7 members of the team getting their tips done all at once during the fun of a team, while i'll have to go solo them unless i search for as long as it takes to solo them to get a partner. Either that or i grab someone that gets no additional rewards for helping me. Which is not fair to them considering we could be running something to progress us both.

The fact that we do not get true access to both sides is just part of our tradeoff, right?

I was just thinking with the time set i'd finally mess around with the last controller primary I've not messed with much. It is indeed gravity :P. I'm just so used to seeing -kb on immob and having overzealous controllers preventing me from mitigating dmg lol :P.

P.S. I rolled a grav/stun dom and am having alot of fun abusing the knockup/knockbacks hehe .

But those were the rewards i originally stated and was talking about since step one lol. Dunno how what i meant changed without me . The other was more of a making it easier to team together and get the "dailies" accomplished.

I agree with this as well. Not only should the artificial jump be removed but the tip limit per day (for the purpose of transferring) should be removed. They can put a 20 hour lockout on the reward, let us "rise" or "fall" much more quickly. I would be ok with having to do some sort of arc, or double the amount of missions, but the time lockout is just arbitrary (as far as switching sides goes).

Thank you, while it might not have been what I wanted to hear it was pertinent to what I was saying :P. I assume this increased merit earning potential (IE possible if conditions are just right) and the ability to team on both sides are big enough perks to outweigh the significantly higher (and easier) earning potential of A-merits? (whether it be recipe or inf)

Perhaps I'll agree with you post I-21. Maybe new life will be breathed into red side with the easier rolling to either side/start.

Would both of you drop the bloody A-merits. I know this goes against all internet logic but I agreed with you, albeit grudgingly, and CHANGED MY MIND on that. The last post that both of yall ran hard core towards A-merits on, had nothing whatsoever to do with A-merits.

Read again "I want VIGILANTE FAME for VIGILANTE REWARDS that are DIFFERENT THAN HERO REWARDS from helping with my sides tip missions." I'm not even asking the same pacing, I even gave thematic justification of how, for instance, a vigilante would earn vigilante fame while helping with a heroic mission. After all vigilante's do their own thing, but if they didn't share heroic sympathies they would be Rogue's. Helping hero's sometimes and choosing their own way others is what vigilante's do. Same story with Rogue and Villain.

So here is the focal sentence: "Do you think it's fair for me to earn vigilante fame, for vigilante rewards (reward merits) at a reduced rate for helping hero missions?" (and the same for rogue/villains). It could be set to a choice so as to allow ascending but also allow vigilante's/rogues to play the field, as is their wont.

You didn't pay attention much to what you quoted did you? This is in regards to simple QOL being able to handle your vigilante/rogue tips, and get your vigilante/rogue rewards by running with heros/villains, albeit at a slower pace. That way maybe if i help people run 10 hero missions in a day, I get my 5 vigilante fame at the same time.

You could reason that me being there I added my vigilante spin to things, but was overruled by the group. Much the way Batman is known for conflicting with Superman, even if only 1 end decision is made. Even though they might do the goody goody thing, Batman still gets more known as being vigilante.

Ya, after thinking about it a little I'll concede that the A-merits thing is fair enough. Not optimal but fair enough.

Dropping the A-merit thing for the moment, assuming thats the tradeoff, is there any reason we couldnt get some sort of partial credit for helping others with their alignment missions? It's not like we'll progress faster, we'll still progress slower. But it will at least make us not have to dismiss and then run 5 missions solo just to get ANY rewards.