Going Rogue clarifications

Yeah I was thinking how is PvP gonna work now? Can a Rogue go through e.g. Atlas Entrance to RV one day then through GV the other? Or will he be allowed to only use one like the market system?

When BaBs was asked, "If a Rogue went through the Atlas entrance into RV, would he be vaporized by the drone?" and his answer was, "That's a good question, that I don't know the answer to."

I'm guessing either the entrances will exclude the "greys" from the other side, or will somehow flag what side they're on. Not knowing the mechanics involved, I can't really be sure which would work best.

I'll add that a similar question is whether Rogues and Vigilantes can do the special missions in Cimerora that are separated by Hero and Villain, and if so can they do both, but I'm guessing that leads into the whole question of whether those missions will be accessable by Rogues and Vigilantes anywhere. At least which gate they came in from is not likely to be an issue.

I think it goes like this in simpler terms:

Vigilantes are playing like Heroes that can go in Villain zones. if they open their contacts window, they have all the hero contacts, Police scanner, etc. They get Influence and must use Wentworth. When they go in VIllain zones, they cannot click on villain contacts, newspaper and so on. They can however team up with villains and do their missions with them. They can by themselves hunt in the streets to get badges like Electrician if they hunt Gremlins in Cap au Diable. If they want to get the whole villain contacts tab, get Infamy and use the Black MArket, then they must completely go to being a Villain. And they play as a villain from now on, untill (and if) they start doing "good actions", then go Rogue and so on.

Apply the same thing for Rogues. They play like villains, etc...

Of course, it's all speculation till we get accurate information.

And so my suggestions offer optimizations for how they could potentially achieve more with ostensibly less effort. I do not claim to know how much technical effort is involved in allowing people to cross sides, but I can make a very good educated guess that it's a lot less than 30 levels of cross-faction vigilante and rogue contacts.

I'm sorry, where did I say I concluded that? What I concluded is that I do not want to wait for them to come back and revisit it, because past experience has shown that this can literally take years to occur.

I can't think of any better indicator of future performance than past performance. I'm happy for you if you're willing to assume that past performance is not indicative of future performance, but I am not. I will certainly accept evidence that future performance may change, but I am unwilling to accept it just because it is within the realm of possibility.

Well, it's not my speculation. Other people are speculating that it will work this way, and I'm saying why I think that would be bad. If it's all wrong, I'm probably happy. I've got no argument with that.


No, I'm not disregarding that possibility, other people are framing their speculation that way, and I'm answering it. As long as a decent amount of content is left after such hypothetical filtering of missions, I'd likely be (mostly) happy with it. My main argument is that, by and large, any roleplay/concept argument for filtering missions that way can have holes shot in it by some glossing-over that's no worse than we find glaringly present elsewhere in the game. If the devs do it that way, people will find ways to take exceptions to it. I think they'd have more broad-based satisfaction by not taking that approach.

Didn't you say it would be a BAD thing if you could switch sides too quickly? Or did you just mean that you could switch sides quickly no matter how complicated the devs made it for you?

You're certainly welcome to come to that conclusion, and to leave the game based on it. It's your decision. However, that does not make it automatically correct that the devs never will get to those issues.

You are dismissing past performance in which issues were corrected and completed. You don't even bring them up.

I've got no problem with that. If you see a speculation, and you don't seem to like it, then you're welcome to say why you disagree with it. If it is a route the devs are considering then maybe they will reconsider it.

OTOH, I am not speculating. When you make an argument, which appears to be a continuing argument not based on any prior post, I am simply reminding you that this is speculation. The final product is likely to be different. It is certainly not likely to be the worst case scenario. (Such as Rogues being unable to take missions in Paragon City)

Huh? I'm lost. Are you mixing me up with another poster, or did I explain something really badly?

You know, I'm trying to be patient, but what is with you and sticking words in my mouth? I never said anything about leaving over any of this. I want GR to be the best product that it could be. There's a part of that which is selfish, and a part that is genuinely concerned for it to maximally appeal to the widest possible audience, because happy customers keep subs up, and increased subs keeps the game interesting and in business.

Really? How many examples are there? Can you give me a list? Please restrict that list to expansion content with open hooks, like the Coming Storm or the Shadow Shard, or gameplay systems like PvP Base Raids. (So I'm not talking about bug fixes here.) Please also include with each item approximately how long it took it to happen from its perceived inception to its realization. And I'm totally serious here, I'm happy to be shown wrong.

Here's an example: I6 ED was done with the promise of a future system to give us new, more powerful enhancements. This was delivered in I9, approximately 1 year and 7 months later.

Sorry, I was confusing you with someone else. EvilRyu, to be precise.

That brings up a good point, though. Someone's "too fast" is someone elses "too slow". For everyone who thinks it is a disaster that it takes too long for a Villain to be able to earn the ability to do Hero missions, someone else will think it's a disaster that it takes far too little time for a Villain to earn the ability to do Hero missions.

Why should I do that? Is this the "clap for the devs" thread? Do I have to post a long drawn out treatise on every single change to the game to prove the devs are doing their jobs? This is a game, it is a different game than when it was released, it has changed and progressed, and in all that time there have been many negative and positive changes.

I don't see any reason why I should be restricted to those things that you, personally, don't like. This isn't about you, and what you like. You have certain things you like, I have things I like, other people have other things they like. Some people are unhappy about some changes, others are unhappy about other changes, still others don't care about any of those things.

In all the time the game has been out, yes, there have been changes that I thought changed the game for the better. Changes that I didn't have to wait years and years to come out. Am I going to list them? No. I shouldn't need to.

See, you seem to have gone off down a different road than the one I'm on again. Please, read my posts. What did I say? I said revisited expansion of previous content. There's no way to confuse that with "changes I didn't like". I even gave examples!

I'm not talking about nerfs. I'm not talking about retconns of the story some people might like and others might not. I'm talking about revisiting story elements and making new content on them, or making good on new gameplay elements that replace old ones that were removed or heavily modified. Things like putting Base Raids back.

Why am I talking about those things? Because they're real examples of things the devs have said they will or would like to do, but that have taken a long time to happen because they have lots to do and limited resources. That's relelvant when we're saying it's hypothetically OK for GR to come along and only support certain things (like crossover missions for "grey stage" characters) for later. I'm leery of saying "later is OK", because "later" can be a lot later.

Do I know that what the devs will do with GR will involve "later"? Of course not! I'm just saying I really hope it doesn't. If there's any risk it would, I'm saying allowing increased crossover play of existing content is a much better alternative than having to wait (possibly a long time) for new content.

If instead we get a filtered subset of existing content, like I said, I'm OK with that. I'm having to chase down roads of this argument you've led me down as a result of my responses to other people's suppositions.

Okay. I misunderstood. Being as PvP and the Cathedral of Pain have been points of contention lately, I assumed this was negative criticism. If not, then that's good, at least we've got somewhat more of an agreement.

Still, whether it's negative or positive, or neutral, my point still applies. There's no answer to, "This is a problem with the devs, and they're going to do X". If I try to argue it, you can just answer with, "I just don't like what they did with so-and-so". It's a matter of opinion, and eventually we get bogged down in what we do and don't like about the game.

So far I haven't heard anything being put off "for later", except possibly speculation that the Markets might be merged, once Villains and Rogues have a chance to bring some money into their economy. I don't think the question of how Praetorians fit into the GR side switching mechanism, and whether they will use it or will pretty much automatically have all of its advantages (except for being a Hero or Villain and getting those "perks") is being put off until later, I think it's just being left vague for the moment.

Likewise, I don't think the decision about whether Rogues will be able to get Hero Contacts and Vigilantes will get Villain Contacts is being put off until several issues in the future, it may not necessarily be finalized yet, but it should be by the time Beta comes around. The same with what Market the Praetorians access. The devs can't say, "Oh, we'll decide later, they won't access any Market for now." Obviously they will need access to a Market, but because of the concerns the devs might be somewhat tightlipped about what their planned solution is.

Sure? Don´t you like to be free to get your Recipes/Enchances on your selected character?

I would like this and trade between Heroes/Villains almost Vigilants/Rogues on Praetoria ¿Could be this possible?

Not yet, actually. A lot of the Villain badges overlap the Hero ones. A quick look at Badge-Hunter's list gave me a total of only 147 personal badges that are unique to Villains. Add that to the 697 that a Hero could potentially have (695 that Badge-Hunter counts plus Passport and Bug Hunter, for anyone who was lucky enough to somehow end up with both) and we have 844, if a Hero can get them all. We may break 1000 with badges introduced between now and when Going Rogue launches, especially considering that a new expansion is likely to have a bunch of badges with it, but that's something that we'll have to wait to see.

I don't believe so, well not with initial release but I may be wrong so dont quote me on it. I wonder if Loyalists will have access to certain armour which resistance don't and visa versa.!

The ten basic ATs can be created in the Praetorian start areas, but not Kheldians and Arachnos Soldiers. Since the current EAT's can only be created in their side's start areas, likely they will only ever be createable on that side. Likely they can switch sides, though, it has not be stated explicitly, (AFAIK) but it has not be stated that they cannot, either.

It has been speculated that Praetoria will get its own EAT, mainly based on a survey that went around some time back, but it also makes sense logically. City of Villains was released without an EAT but was eventually given one, and if EAT's are associated with the two sides of Hero and Villain, then it makes sense there would be a neutral one as well.

I'm also not sure how side switching will effect the unlocking of EAT's. Will you unlock Kheldians for getting one of the Hero ATs to 50, or getting any AT to 50 as a Hero? Can you unlock both Kheldians and Arachnos with the same character, by side switching him after 50?

Well, armor as an in game effect I consider unlikely. The devs have never tied power effects to choosing a faction or side. OTOH, unlockable costume pieces I figure are probably a very good possibility.

I believe and this is my opinion mostly that EATs will remain locked to their respective sides. I don't believe it will matter which side a toon a switched to, a blaster will only unlock khelds, etc. Be it hero or villain in the end of its career.

The Devs have also stated in the past that unlocking EATs at 50 was mistake. Villains were kept on track only to be fair to Heroes. Future EATs will be unlocked by other methods

Yes, but IIRC the devs made that statement before Arachnos Soldiers were introduced. They also have introduced NO additional EAT's that are unlocked in any other way. Thus, it is entirely logical to conclude that if they introduce a third EAT related to the new content, it will be unlocked by getting a character related to the new content to 50.

Certainly if the devs had introduced Arachnos Soldiers and allowed them to be unlocked prior to 50, the Kheldians would have insisted that their EAT be unlocked in the same way. The same will probably be true of any new EAT that is connected to the "neutral" choice of path. It was also fairly obvious that while getting a Hero to 50 unlocked a Kheldian, getting a Villain to 50 achieved nothing. We don't really know if there will be character types that, when they get to 50, will not unlock anything, but I would guess if there ARE, it is an indication that the devs intend to develop an EAT to fill that gap.

Loyalst and Resistance are not ATs. Preatorians use the exact same ATs as Heroes and Villains, they just have access to all 10 of them. (But not the EATs) Also, supposedly Loyalist and Resistance will not have any impact on whether you are a Hero, Villain, Vigilante or Rogue, they will just effect your missions, and you can switch sides any time you want. So you won't go from Resistance to Hero or whatever, you will always be Resistance, unless you change to Loyalist.

I suppose there could be some EATs associated with Loyalist and Resistance. However, I doubt that will be planned into the system from the start. It's more likely the devs would develop a single third EAT to balance the Hero and Villain EATs instead of developing two more.

OTOH, HEATs and VEATs both come in two "subarchetypes", it's possible that the two subdivisions of the third EAT would be associated with Loyalist and Resistance. I can't tell you if those two would have to stick with their faction, or would be unlocked separately by getting one of their faction to 50.

As I said, I think the best way to get a glimpse of what kind of EATs we might get from GR is to see what holes it leaves in the existing method of unlocking EATs when you get to 50. If getting a Praetorian to 50 doesn't unlock anything, likely an EAT will be added for that. If you can get a Hero Blaster to 50 and it unlocks Kheldians, but a Villain or Vigilante Blaster doesn't unlock anything, then likely that will be an EAT. If getting a Blaster to 50 unlocks Kheldians whether he's a Hero, Villain, or Praetorian, and the Villain ATs similarly unlock SoA no matter what, there is the possiblity there will be no EAT, or the EAT will be unlocked in some other way than getting to 50. (Although it's certainly possible that getting an AT to 50 could unlock more than one EAT)

I like your thought on that! I do, for the record, fully understand the fact that Loyalist and Resistance characters can be one of the ten AT's, so no problem there.
But as said, I like the thought of what you wrote. It would fascinating, extremely much work and very unlikely, if you ask me, if we could choose from different EAT's when getting a character to lvl 50, other than the HEAT/VEAT ones, although I'm aware that that maybe wasn't what you meant.

In short, we don't know if a Praetorian that leaves Praetoria is from that moment on a Hero or Villain, just as if he had started out in Outbreak or Breakout, or if a Praetorian is always a Praetorian, and is just "considered" a Hero or Villain in Primal Earth. The clarification does not actually clarify that.

In fact, Posi's two statements on the subject are mutually exclusive. In the first he says that Praetorians do not use the GR system. In the second he says that when they leave Praetoria they become Heroes or Villains, with the implication that they do use the GR system. This leads to three possible interpretations:

1) Preatorians never use the GR system. When they leave for Primal Earth they choose either the Hero or Villain side as they pass through the gate. When they return to Praetoria they get to choose again when they pass through the gate to Primal Earth again. (Note that as a Hero or Villain they cannot go to the "other side", so their only choice is to go back to Praetoria, and they can't choose to be a Hero and go to the Rogue Isles, their choice of destination likely sets their alignment) They can continue to choose sides in the Loyalist vs Resistance conflict.

2) Preatorans never use the GR system. When they leave for Primal Earth for the first time, they choose either the Hero or Villain side, and become the equivalent of either a Vigilante or a Rogue. They can travel freely between the three zones, but cannot change their chosen alignment ever again. They can continue to choose sides in the Loyalist vs Resistance conflict.

3) Praetorians do not use the GR system until they leave for Primal Earth for the first time. At this point they become either a Hero or Villain, and are placed in the proper zone for that side. They then can use the GR system to open up the zones for the other side. If they return to Praetoria, they do so as a visiting Hero or Villain. They can continue to choose sides in the Loyalist vs Resistance conflict, but this is independent of their status as a Hero/Vigilante/Villain/Rogue. If there are no missions involving the conflict after 20, this could be irrelevant.

A fourth possibility is that when you leave Praetoria you become a Hero or Villain and are locked into that choice permanently, but I consider this way less likely than either 1) or 2), as it limits you to just two zones. You might also lose your Loyalist/Resistance status when you become a Hero or Villain, but again, it is stated that that is independent of your Hero/Villain status, and so I don't consider that likely either. Possiblity 3) has a variant where instead of becoming a Hero you become the equivalent Vigilante, shortening the side switching progression, but I would just consider that a variation.

Most people seem to be assuming 3) is the case, and it does seem the most likely, but it does require assuming "do not use" means "do not use until they leave Praetoria", and "considered" means "the same as". As the language is a bit vague, I'd say that we don't know for sure.

Also, I don't believe it has ever been said by any redname that Praetorians MUST leave Praetoria. Only what happens to them when they leave. Unless the devs force us through a portal at level 20, there is no way to make us leave anyway. The only way I can think of that this could happen is if the high level Praetorian areas are not connected to the low level areas, and you have to pass through Primal Earth to get to them. Or, there is a discontinuity in the levels, such as there are levels from 1-20 and from 30-50, but no 20-30 zones. That seems like a big assumption to make based on no information.

Well, there WILL be high level content in Praetoria, that we know. Presumably, it will not be specifically for those who start in Praetoria, though, it will be for everyone. Whether the Loyalist and Resistance factions continue to have an effect in those missions, though, is an unknown. It's probably assumed that the Heroes will side with the Resistance, while the Villains will tend toward Loyalists, although Lord Recluse has every reason to side against a duplicate of his rival Statesman.

While the Praetorians are levelling from 1-20, though, the Heroes and Villains will probably also have their missions to take them along the side switching path. And I don't see those missions ending at 20, they will probably continue right up until maximum level, although they could easily have a MINIMUM level. So there will likely be a lot of content in Praetoria. There will also be zones which could be street sweeped for XP, and maybe even branches of the AE. So I don't doubt the possiblility that you could level from 1-50 without ever leaving Praetoria, although it could be difficult, and require you to team with others. As I said, the biggest issue I see is if there is a gap between the low level and high level zones, which would make street sweeping impossible in that gap. You'd have to SK up to get over it.

Heheh. I can see that happening too. And the other way around. Heroes are going to be coming from Paragon City, likely with the understanding that "this is evil goatee Statesman world, all the heroes are villains" and ally with the Resistance. Only to find the Resistance has attracted some pretty unsavory characters too, maybe even actual Villains. A few might be taken in by the clean streets and obedient citizens and think Tyrant's ideas are right, even if his methods are a bit off. And then there will be the disgruntled Heroes who don't like Statesman and his methods any better, like Maelstrom.

The whole idea is obviously to blur the lines.

What is your obsession with an EAT being unlocked by getting to 50?
The Devs have stated that they regret making 50 the means to unlock the HEATs, and that they wouldn't have made it the way to unlock a VEAT except so that parity could be maintained.

If there is an EAT (whether that be a LEAT, REAT, PEAT or GREAT), I am confident it will have NOTHING to do with achieving a 50 of ANY alignment. The Devs finally have a chance to start fresh on this one.

This, Please THIS QUESTION RIGHT HERE!

I've been wracking my brain over it since Going Rogue news began. Am I really just missing something every time it's said?

Heck, I feel like this is the first time someone else has even asked the question.