Anyone seen this? New expansion?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont want the moral compass. I have over 300 hours in kotor 1, the bland kotor 2 and crappy jade empire and i still say no. I didnt buy cox to be a jedi or sith i just wanted a mmo based on comics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Superman, the Punisher and the Joker are all in comics - they have moral compasses that are different from each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is an aspect of their character. Something that is part of the lore and the mythology. Not a cliche'd game mechanic.

My main villain, on the NWN scale, is chaotic neutral. My main hero, Chaotic Good. I've written that into their bios, and keep it in mind when engrossed in playing them. I don't have a 'what you just did was good *pat on the head*' moment telling me so

[/ QUOTE ]

So you wouldn't want missions with say, three different outcomes, that would allow you to play your avatar the way you'd written its bio?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd much rather have a well written story, than a tacky (a) Kill him, b)torture him, c)free him) outcome system, as i'm dubious as to if the writing standard will be the same in the latter. In a quite lax game, i'm uncomfortable with being forced to make a false 'choice', when accepting the progression of the story is fine by me

[ QUOTE ]

Well with everybody being able to access both games now with just the one version (heroes or villains) then i pressume that there will be a serperate starting zone in which you can pick ANY AT and a choice of two contacts (just like the current version of the game).

Depending on which contact you pick, they send you on numerous missions before sending you off to either rogue isles/paragon city.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what if you did missions from both contacts?
There'd be no point in making you choose a contact, and then that decides your alignment - they could just as easily have a button to click to do that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This whole good and bad was done in the 90's and spawned among things rob liefelds atrocities and ugly hair. More coop zones against a greater threat would be fun though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure the whole good and bad thing was done in comics a bit before the 90s...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure he meant the trend in video-games at the time. Fable, Black and White, KotoR

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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont want the moral compass. I have over 300 hours in kotor 1, the bland kotor 2 and crappy jade empire and i still say no. I didnt buy cox to be a jedi or sith i just wanted a mmo based on comics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Superman, the Punisher and the Joker are all in comics - they have moral compasses that are different from each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is an aspect of their character. Something that is part of the lore and the mythology. Not a cliche'd game mechanic.

My main villain, on the NWN scale, is chaotic neutral. My main hero, Chaotic Good. I've written that into their bios, and keep it in mind when engrossed in playing them. I don't have a 'what you just did was good *pat on the head*' moment telling me so

[/ QUOTE ]

So you wouldn't want missions with say, three different outcomes, that would allow you to play your avatar the way you'd written its bio?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd much rather have a well written story, than a tacky (a) Kill him, b)torture him, c)free him) outcome system, as i'm dubious as to if the writing standard will be the same in the latter. In a quite lax game, i'm uncomfortable with being forced to make a false 'choice', when accepting the progression of the story is fine by me

[/ QUOTE ]

But the writing standard wouldn't drop - it'd just be like one big arc made up of three mini-arcs, depending on the choices you made.
Like killing the guy means 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 ]
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.

[ 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

Edit: 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 ]
[ 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 ]
[ 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 ]
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 ]
[ 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 ]
[ 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 ]
[ 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.

/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

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 ]
/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 ]
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 ]
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 ]
[ 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 ]
[ 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 ]
[ 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 ]
/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)

[edited because it was unpleasant]

...I simply won't get the response/feedback I'd want. I'll leave things at that

[ 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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I suspect the morality will be based on the outcome of missions. Perhaps you have a choice of rescuing or kidnapping, robbing or recovering, saving or killing? Seems the easiest way to do it.. You have an alignment meter which swings based on the outcome of missions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I reckon that'll be it, nice and simple.

Hopefully it won't be too abusable in the mission generator. It would suck if, for example, some nefarious mission maker made their "good" mission outcome give an "evil" swing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly my point. If you make it simple, it's not just less than adequate, it sucks.

In the example I gave, you can let someone go, or kill them. Letting them go swings the metre to good, killing them swings it to evil. Now, if they can't resist then it's a basic moral choice and can be judged by a machine, but the guy is trying to escape, so it's not that simple. If he escapes because you aren't good enough to catch him, that doesn't make you a good guy, it makes you an incompetent bad guy.

Now, in the eyes of your superior, that may amount to the same thing and you get booted out of the bad guy club, but that isn't likely to get you voted into the good guy club either.

Simplify this kind of thing to the point where a computer can judge it and you trivialise it to the point where it's just a game mechanic allowing people to switch sides when they want to.

[/ QUOTE ]
One way of stopping this example from happening would be to not have the guy attempt to escape at all but have the mission end once the players leave the map or complete another goal further into the map, and just imply that the guy escapes afterwards unless he's been killed. If false morality swings occur it'll be as much a fault of the mission designer as with the morality system itself.

We don't yet know how any of this is going to work, or even if all this stuff will actually make it into the final expansion. But, if the tools are cleverly enough designed, there'll be some impressive results coming out from the best and most creative mission designers who work within and with the limitations of the systems. That'll probably be the biggest challenge and most fun of working with the mission designer.

[ 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