Is it time to move on from Recluse and Statesman? (non-doom post)
By
Anti_Proton,
Posted on: 2010-06-25 06:31 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
At least we get to beat them up all the same.
|
Originally Posted by Decorum
Close. He's saying they essentially created a "new character" (and a "new" faction, although he didn't actually say that) with Tyrant's reboot, so that makes it similar to his Recluse complaint.
|
Quote:
Well, technically Praetoria 2.0 is actually just a revamp, rather than totally new content - although the retcon is so major that there aren't many parts of Paretoria 1.0 left.
|
Originally Posted by ChaosExMachina
That's actually a rather good point. Why does Going Rogue involve Praetoria? I'm guessing it's because expansions are expected to have new zones, and there was a desire for another low level option, but it probably would have been just as good to remake the existing zones.
|
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
maybe, i was immensely surprised that they used praetoria, because as i said, i previously disliked it, but they did make the reboot make sense, and it introduced a version of paraetoria that was mostly consistant with their prior characterization but fleshed out enough to be interesting. I do expect both states and recluse to be reenergized(perhaps a better term for my view of it than a reboot) in the future, maybe they will take a more actie role since they will soon be being joined with a lot of new incarnates. frankly i'd like to see the phlanx, vindicators and recluse's lieutenants getting some personality added as well, but the paretoria thing does make sense, lore wise, so i can accept it.
|
Originally Posted by Cantatus
To be overly critical, I'm not particularly wild about Tyrant being "rebooted". It sort of goes along the lines of what I said with Lord Recluse. The game already has tons of fantastic characters, so it feels like a missed opportunity to essentially create a new character by retconning an old one.
I suppose it also strikes me as odd to have an expansion revolve around the Praetorians when they've never really been that significant of an enemy. Not that I won't get it because of the lore or anything, just nitpicking. |
Quote:
Right. When the Praetorians were originally added, they were basically "Bizarro Freedom Phalanx". Now that Going Rogue has come out, they're getting a whole lot of paint and glitter.|
Originally Posted by Decorum
Close. He's saying they essentially created a "new character" (and a "new" faction, although he didn't actually say that) with Tyrant's reboot, so that makes it similar to his Recluse complaint.
|
I have to say, and maybe this is intentional, but I think it does a disservice to the whole "Loyalty" and "Resistance" thing and trying to portray the Praetorians as now a morally gray faction. It's hard to be open to the idea that the Praetorians are anything other than bad when that's how they've been portrayed in the game for the past 6 years.
Perhaps this is how it's intended. I don't know as I haven't played through any of the arcs or anything, but I'd think it would be much cooler if a morally gray faction wasn't colored by previous and obvious villainous actions. It'd be great to have some debates on the boards as to whether or not the Praetorians are villains, but any debate seems like it'd include, "Yeah, but Dominatrix drugs people." or "Yeah, but Siege has a torture chamber."
Quote:
Well, part of it is just that the original Preatoria was meant to be the "kick puppies" brand of villainy, but when Arachnos came about they got pushed out of that niche and all the Praet arcs became good for was to get the Portal Jockey padge.|
Originally Posted by Cantatus
Right. When the Praetorians were originally added, they were basically "Bizarro Freedom Phalanx". Now that Going Rogue has come out, they're getting a whole lot of paint and glitter.
I have to say, and maybe this is intentional, but I think it does a disservice to the whole "Loyalty" and "Resistance" thing and trying to portray the Praetorians as now a morally gray faction. It's hard to be open to the idea that the Praetorians are anything other than bad when that's how they've been portrayed in the game for the past 6 years. Perhaps this is how it's intended. I don't know as I haven't played through any of the arcs or anything, but I'd think it would be much cooler if a morally gray faction wasn't colored by previous and obvious villainous actions. It'd be great to have some debates on the boards as to whether or not the Praetorians are villains, but any debate seems like it'd include, "Yeah, but Dominatrix drugs people." or "Yeah, but Siege has a torture chamber." |
The story behind them was weak ("Statesman needs your help since he can't affect Preatorian technology!") and the missions were painfully bad poorly designed to fit Jack Emmert's old vision. (close these dimensional rifts that look NOTHING like some para-scientific phenomenon but rather like the Circle of Thorns has been setting up shop here in this recycled to ad infinitium map!)
The last nail in the coffin was Reichs TF/SF.
Suddenly, even the niche of an evil alternate universe counterpart got better filled and Tyrant and his Praetorians were left out in the cold with no over purpose than to be farmed for a badge.
Click here to find all the All Things Art Threads!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
City of Heroes is a game about freedom of expression and variety of experiences far more so than it is about representing any one theme, topic or genre.
|
Honestly, Arachnos and Recluse would be better (to me at least) if they showed that they basically were separated into the four factions and then the arbiter squads, I mean their idea was that each of the 4 Arachnos LT's would run a different set of mobs (Mu, Fortunas, robots... creatures of the deep? :P) and would constantly be at each others throats trying to undercut one another. But when we actually play, basically it's just one homogeneous organization that you slaughter like lambs.
Also I personally was kinda bugged when COV appeared and all of a sudden you get "Oh, Recluse was always states biggest mortal enemy!" and yet we as heroes knew nothing about them.
I would like more interaction with those who are technically supposed to be our role-models. Have a couple standard missions where all of a sudden wall explodes and there's the phalanx or something.
I haven't looked into the lore changes for the Going Rogue stuff, but I hope that the Jenkins arc that sends you after the Preatorians is changed to co-inside with the update but *meh*
By the catapillars hooka you WILL smile!
Quote:
Yes, it was time to move on from that about 3 years ago.
| Is it time to move on from Recluse and Statesman? |
Quote:
Of course, I haven't played through the arcs, either, but I suspect that the point of the Praetorian content will be, "If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem." I expect to have it hammered into my head that anyone who supports the Praetorians is either a stupid sheep or someone without a shred of compassion, and that the Resistance, while some of them might be a bit nutty, is the "heroic" way to go. That is, if you're a Loyalist, no matter how noble your ideals, you're still on the road to villany because you're supporting a group that's bad, deep down, even if they perform the occasional good and useful deed. The choice I expect to be presented with is "support the guy who made sure all the trash is picked up in the streets, even though he has a torture chamber, or rebel [psst, the right choice is 'rebel']," which is no choice at all for anyone outside a comic book, in my opinion.|
Originally Posted by Cantatus
Right. When the Praetorians were originally added, they were basically "Bizarro Freedom Phalanx". Now that Going Rogue has come out, they're getting a whole lot of paint and glitter.
I have to say, and maybe this is intentional, but I think it does a disservice to the whole "Loyalty" and "Resistance" thing and trying to portray the Praetorians as now a morally gray faction. It's hard to be open to the idea that the Praetorians are anything other than bad when that's how they've been portrayed in the game for the past 6 years. Perhaps this is how it's intended. I don't know as I haven't played through any of the arcs or anything, but I'd think it would be much cooler if a morally gray faction wasn't colored by previous and obvious villainous actions. It'd be great to have some debates on the boards as to whether or not the Praetorians are villains, but any debate seems like it'd include, "Yeah, but Dominatrix drugs people." or "Yeah, but Siege has a torture chamber." |
This makes things simpler from a mechanical point of view, too. If "ultimately support Tyrant" corresponds to Villain and "ultimately fight Tyrant" corresponds to Hero, then only two "morality" play paths need to be created, probably as arcs in the upper teens. (Note that such arcs could operate independently of whether a character starts off tagged "Loyalist" or "Resistance.") If both heroism and villany are open to all characters, regardless of their attitudes toward the Praetorians, then that's at least four paths: villanous Resistance, heroic Resistance, villanous Loyalist, and heroic Loyalist.
I suspect that the vaunted "moral ambiguity" of the Loyalists and Resistance the devs have mentioned is more along the lines of the way most players seem to view Longbow (i.e., they're supposed to be good, yet everyone treats them as a more colorful version of the Council or the Malta Group) than the lines of "the Praetorians are neither good nor evil."
My main concern is that the "right" and "wrong" choices remain clear. I don't want to have a character I see as heroic sent down the villanous path or vice versa because I disagree with or just plain don't understand the moral system the devs are pushing. For instance, one choice mentioned in an early Going Rogue interview was, "Do you let the despot who's killed hundreds of people and will do it some more go, since it might destabilize things, or do you kill him, to save the lives of some specific people you know?" I can't say which of those choices is the heroic one in the context of a computer game, since both are pretty awful. They could tell me upfront that we're using Batman Morality and Killing Is Always Wrong, No Matter The Circumstances, but that sort of defeats the significance of having a moral choice. It's a challenging design problem with no easy solution, unless you believe that the player base has a much more universal code of what's right and wrong than I think it does.
"Bombarding the CoH/V fora with verbosity since January, 2006"
Djinniman, level 50 inv/fire tanker, on Victory
-and 40 others on various servers
A CoH Comic: Kid Eros in "One Light"
Quote:
It would make for far more interesting arcs though. It would also make for a more pro-active feel; no longer are you doing what Arachnos says just because they say so. If the various Arachnos factions want you to work from them, they have to give you incentive. It would open up a lot more opportunity for profiteering, backstabbing, power-grabbing, working both sides against each other, and assorted other villainy.|
Originally Posted by Dr_Mechano
1) Major rewrite of quite a large number of arcs due to the fact that Arachnos is nolonger a single unified front (it's only the power of Recluse and the Arbiters that stop it tearing itself apart, this is said a LOT ingame) and would have splintered into individual factions behind each Patron.
|
Quote:
| 2) There's now no reason to stop any of the patrons (apart from Sircocoo who wants to make the world a cartoony shiney happy place with no evil whatsoever) from doing what they plan to do in their patron arcs since there would be no Arbiter Daos to tell you to go stop them 'or else'. All but one of the Patrons goals simply run against Arachnos and Lord Recluse, it's the only reason you stop them ESPECIALLY Ghost Widow. |
Quote:
| 3) With the factions splintered Grandville would have to be completely redone, that statue of Recluse wouldn't stay standing long and it would be turned into the main warzone between the four Arachnos factions. |
Quote:
| 4) In the confusion it's rather obvious the power structure of the Isles would shift, the Arachnos war would leave a massive power vacumn and villains like Nemesis or the Council or even good old Dr Aeon himself would try to grab a piece. I imagine Dr Aeon would set himself up as scientific ruler of Cap Au. |
Eva Destruction AR/Fire/Munitions Blaster
Darkfire Avenger DM/SD/Body Scrapper
Arc ID#161629 Freaks, Geeks, and Men in Black
Arc ID#431270 Until the End of the World
Quote:
Oh god, this is one of the biggest nightmares I have about Going Rogue. To some degree it might be nicer if there was no "realistic transition of alignment" and it was basically flipping a switch.|
Originally Posted by Olantern
Of course, I haven't played through the arcs, either, but I suspect that the point of the Praetorian content will be, "If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem." I expect to have it hammered into my head that anyone who supports the Praetorians is either a stupid sheep or someone without a shred of compassion, and that the Resistance, while some of them might be a bit nutty, is the "heroic" way to go. That is, if you're a Loyalist, no matter how noble your ideals, you're still on the road to villany because you're supporting a group that's bad, deep down, even if they perform the occasional good and useful deed. The choice I expect to be presented with is "support the guy who made sure all the trash is picked up in the streets, even though he has a torture chamber, or rebel [psst, the right choice is 'rebel']," which is no choice at all for anyone outside a comic book, in my opinion.
This makes things simpler from a mechanical point of view, too. If "ultimately support Tyrant" corresponds to Villain and "ultimately fight Tyrant" corresponds to Hero, then only two "morality" play paths need to be created, probably as arcs in the upper teens. (Note that such arcs could operate independently of whether a character starts off tagged "Loyalist" or "Resistance.") If both heroism and villany are open to all characters, regardless of their attitudes toward the Praetorians, then that's at least four paths: villanous Resistance, heroic Resistance, villanous Loyalist, and heroic Loyalist. I suspect that the vaunted "moral ambiguity" of the Loyalists and Resistance the devs have mentioned is more along the lines of the way most players seem to view Longbow (i.e., they're supposed to be good, yet everyone treats them as a more colorful version of the Council or the Malta Group) than the lines of "the Praetorians are neither good nor evil." My main concern is that the "right" and "wrong" choices remain clear. I don't want to have a character I see as heroic sent down the villanous path or vice versa because I disagree with or just plain don't understand the moral system the devs are pushing. For instance, one choice mentioned in an early Going Rogue interview was, "Do you let the despot who's killed hundreds of people and will do it some more go, since it might destabilize things, or do you kill him, to save the lives of some specific people you know?" I can't say which of those choices is the heroic one in the context of a computer game, since both are pretty awful. They could tell me upfront that we're using Batman Morality and Killing Is Always Wrong, No Matter The Circumstances, but that sort of defeats the significance of having a moral choice. It's a challenging design problem with no easy solution, unless you believe that the player base has a much more universal code of what's right and wrong than I think it does. |
This is partly because everyone in the world has their own moral alignment and their own sense of justice. Sure general points are made, but in the end, they are often irreconcilably different.
This means that we won't be doing things that count as moral from our standpoint, but from the DEVS' VIEWS OF MORALITY AND SLIDING ALONG IT ITS SCALE.
And this isn't just a possible problem with City of's upcoming installment but other games as well with morality...
Let's take Bioshock 2 for example...
(WARNING: HERE THERE BE SPOILERS AHEAD)
As subject Delta you're supposed to make moral choices which ultimately shape your daughter, one of them is the choice to spare or kill a man who had, when he was saner and foresaw his own insanity, ASKED TO BE PUT OUT OF HIS MISERY.
Guess what the "wrong" choice is? No, it's not fulfilling his final request, it's sparing him and leaving him to suffer his own insanity.
... only to likely be killed anyway later, but you would lack the foresight to see that so that's a moot point.
(SPOILERS END)
Click here to find all the All Things Art Threads!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
City of Heroes is a game about freedom of expression and variety of experiences far more so than it is about representing any one theme, topic or genre.
|
Quote:
I disagree that it'd be creating four paths. With the right writing, making things morally ambiguous enough would still allow for two paths, but it'd be up to the players to determine where those paths fall on the moral spectrum.|
Originally Posted by Olantern
This makes things simpler from a mechanical point of view, too. If "ultimately support Tyrant" corresponds to Villain and "ultimately fight Tyrant" corresponds to Hero, then only two "morality" play paths need to be created, probably as arcs in the upper teens. (Note that such arcs could operate independently of whether a character starts off tagged "Loyalist" or "Resistance.") If both heroism and villany are open to all characters, regardless of their attitudes toward the Praetorians, then that's at least four paths: villanous Resistance, heroic Resistance, villanous Loyalist, and heroic Loyalist.
|
Quote:
| My main concern is that the "right" and "wrong" choices remain clear. I don't want to have a character I see as heroic sent down the villanous path or vice versa because I disagree with or just plain don't understand the moral system the devs are pushing. For instance, one choice mentioned in an early Going Rogue interview was, "Do you let the despot who's killed hundreds of people and will do it some more go, since it might destabilize things, or do you kill him, to save the lives of some specific people you know?" I can't say which of those choices is the heroic one in the context of a computer game, since both are pretty awful. They could tell me upfront that we're using Batman Morality and Killing Is Always Wrong, No Matter The Circumstances, but that sort of defeats the significance of having a moral choice. It's a challenging design problem with no easy solution, unless you believe that the player base has a much more universal code of what's right and wrong than I think it does. |
That said, given your example, that's the sort of choices I wouldn't mind seeing in the game. They should be difficult choices where you can't exactly say, "Yes, that was what a hero would do." You can justify to yourself that your hero did what he believed to be the right thing (or conversely, that your villain did the wrong thing), but have someone look at it differently. Heroes should have to make choices that aren't so black and white. That is what makes them interesting, in my opinion.
Quote:
Oh agreed, I'm not actually against the idea myself just that you're probably looking at an entire expansions worth of work since it would require a major rewrite oh a lot of the games story arcs, they'd be more interesting and could use whoever wrote the new villain arcs to make you seem less lackeyish. |
Originally Posted by Eva Destruction
It would make for far more interesting arcs though. It would also make for a more pro-active feel; no longer are you doing what Arachnos says just because they say so. If the various Arachnos factions want you to work from them, they have to give you incentive. It would open up a lot more opportunity for profiteering, backstabbing, power-grabbing, working both sides against each other, and assorted other villainy.
|
Quote:
| I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable with letting Mako have the power of the Leviathan at his command. I should have it, not him. Scirocco's arc would have been far better without Arbiter Daos leaving the sour aftertaste of Arachnos lackey all over it. Black Scorpion's arc could be rewritten so that he fails, even without your interference, as could Ghost Widow's, thereby removing the overreaching hand of Recluse but still keeping all the patrons around...although Black Scorpion's arc is really just a hissy fit caused by the constant patron squabbling that Recluse encourages. |
Quote:
| And it would be awesome. The web too would have to come down. Who's to say what else they're building in the Fab...maybe it could be turned into a Crey area. |
Quote:
| Again, it would be awesome. There would be so much more variety to the missions in such a world than just Arachnos Arachnos Arachnos Longbow Arachnos Longbow Longbow. It would be everyone against everyone, and every man for himself. And there's you. You're an enterprising villain, out to further your own ends. You get to choose who would best help you, and ditch them when they're no longer useful, instead of running errands to pass the time while you become powerful enough to help some other guy take over the world. |
Like I said none of my ideas are anti-change, infact I'm all for it, it's just showing the massive amount of work required to actively strip out Lord Recluse and Arachnos as the main feature of villainside and open it up to more freelance villainy.
If Lord Recluse and Statesman get stripped out, everyone moves up a tier. The Freedom Phalanx minus Statesman become the 'powerful heroes' which moves us up a peg as well so we're nolonger the Stiltman of CoH but the Rhino or Shocker of the CoH world.
Quote:
Oh, Scirocco has to fail, obviously. I would just like his arc not to play me for an idiot, by having Daos spell out to me why he must be stopped. I know he must be stopped, I like being bad. Even villains who don't like being bad, or think they're not bad, could see that what he's planning is a bad idea.|
Originally Posted by Dr_Mechano
Once again I agree, it's a shame there's no option to let Ghost Widow succeed in her mission since all she wants is to be amongst the living but then it would be a debate as to which version of Ghost Widow you'd see in all the places she features. The other three would have to fail through other means or you engineering them to fail (Scirocoo's arc would need this, you don't want the world to be all shiney and happy and thus would covertly work against him yourself).
|
Ghost Widow and Black Scorpion only need to fail in order to maintain the persistent world. If this were a single-player game they would be allowed to succeed.
Quote:
| It would also open up to allow for a larger variety of patron pools, you could align yourself with Nemesis, the Freakshow, the Council/5th Column and so on. It would require some work so that your friendly status is applied to that particular faction only and not complete invisibility as it is now but it would definitely add something to villainside. |
Freakshow, Crey, Council, sure, I can see that. Having the faction con friendly to you while you're working for them would be a nice touch too.
Quote:
| Like I said none of my ideas are anti-change, infact I'm all for it, it's just showing the massive amount of work required to actively strip out Lord Recluse and Arachnos as the main feature of villainside and open it up to more freelance villainy. |
Eva Destruction AR/Fire/Munitions Blaster
Darkfire Avenger DM/SD/Body Scrapper
Arc ID#161629 Freaks, Geeks, and Men in Black
Arc ID#431270 Until the End of the World
Quote:
The fun thing is that, even though the writers are trying to retcon some kind of morality into Praetoria, they still call Tyrant "Praetoria Earths greatest villain" without a hint of irony. They may have shaved the goatee off, but Praetoria still wears a very obvious soul patch. |
Originally Posted by Cantatus
I have to say, and maybe this is intentional, but I think it does a disservice to the whole "Loyalty" and "Resistance" thing and trying to portray the Praetorians as now a morally gray faction. It's hard to be open to the idea that the Praetorians are anything other than bad when that's how they've been portrayed in the game for the past 6 years.
|
It's a retcon where ultimately a new creation would have worked better, given that the plan appears to rewrite Praetoria wholesale anyway. Given that it is an entirely separate dimension anyway, a new Earth would have fit in well and not been a "oh wait you mean there is an entire island of villains just off our coast and it has been there all this time?"-type introduction
Is anyone else thinking something along these lines...
It would essentially be City of Heroes 2.0 (not City of heroes 2 but a timeline upgrade).
The available to all part of the expansion would be moving the timeline forward.
1) Second Rikti war is essentially won, those who purchase the expansion can go help one of two factions on the Rikti homeworld (the heroic and villainous Rikti already exist so use those) in a civil war. The Rikti EAT is also introduced.
2) Lord Recluse and Statesman are MIA/KIA, the Statesman and Lord Recluse Task/Strike force are completely reworked (still aware the same badges). Villainside gets a massive content upgrade and major rewrites of a lot of stuff (which both myself and Eva have suggested).
The ITF gets a subtle rewrite (they nolonger need just Statesman and Recluse to power the Mecha but ANY incarnate...since there will be many now available). The Statesman's pal badge is reworked/renamed along with those arcs.
The RV hero/villain defeat badges required for the accolade are reworked (the Lord Recluse and Statesman badges are redone) and generally a lot of work goes into reworking or replacing stuff that requires those two.
Yes it's a hell of a lot of work but this is a paid for expansion we're talking about.
3) Ghost Widow gets her body back (finally) and thus anything involving her is dealt with and she is renamed to Belladonna (a good evil name in itself) but retained her dark/dark corruptor like powers.
4) Throw in some new powersets, new costumes and the like.
I'd throw £19.99 at that for sure.
Quote:
I find it hilarious that heroes still pretty much never fight Arachnos. Paragon City and the Rogue Isles are at war, and it's, like, a minor inconvenience for Paragon at best, judging by the heroside content.|
Originally Posted by Calaxprimal
Also I personally was kinda bugged when COV appeared and all of a sudden you get "Oh, Recluse was always states biggest mortal enemy!" and yet we as heroes knew nothing about them.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eva Destruction
It would make for far more interesting arcs though. It would also make for a more pro-active feel; no longer are you doing what Arachnos says just because they say so. If the various Arachnos factions want you to work from them, they have to give you incentive. It would open up a lot more opportunity for profiteering, backstabbing, power-grabbing, working both sides against each other, and assorted other villainy.
. . . Again, it would be awesome. There would be so much more variety to the missions in such a world than just Arachnos Arachnos Arachnos Longbow Arachnos Longbow Longbow. It would be everyone against everyone, and every man for himself. And there's you. You're an enterprising villain, out to further your own ends. You get to choose who would best help you, and ditch them when they're no longer useful, instead of running errands to pass the time while you become powerful enough to help some other guy take over the world. |
Having Vengeance and Fallout slotted for recharge means never having to say you're sorry.
I have to say I am also in the camp that finds Arachnos and Recluse terribly overused redside.
I don't see why we have to have such a huge Arachnos & Longbow presence. It would be like Paragon City having PPD everywhere and in such large numbers, controlling what your hero does.
Quote:
And you'd start off beholden to Longbow. And have several points where you only do things because Longbow threatens to beat you up otherwise. And many missions insinuate that your entire goal with her heroing career is to impress Longbow enough to work for them. And you get to level 40 to work for high-level members of Longbow. And... yeah. They could retcon Arachnos out of existence tomorrow and I'd have no issues.
|
Originally Posted by Peacemoon
I have to say I am also in the camp that finds Arachnos and Recluse terribly overused redside.
I don't see why we have to have such a huge Arachnos & Longbow presence. It would be like Paragon City having PPD everywhere and in such large numbers, controlling what your hero does. |
Having Vengeance and Fallout slotted for recharge means never having to say you're sorry.
It all started wrong with the tutorial. "You're only free because we freed you from prison, now you owe us." Not a great way to start a career, in debted to Arachnos for saving your ***.
Personally I tend to disregard that. It is a shame that CoV has always been much more restrictive in terms of creating a story for your villain. Even so much as forcing them to take an Arachnos patron to get your epic powers. Thats one of the reasons I prefer CoH, it assumes nothing and gives you freedom over your characters story.
I think it's worth noting that all we have seen of the Praetorians thus far is how they treat their sworn enemies, which is not necessarily indicative of how they treat their citizens. I see GR as less of a retcon and more of an increase in information, which places what we think we know in a different context.
But I'm an optimist.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
The old-school Praetorian AVs do hint that the way they treat their citizens is, well probably not great. The original portal missions really do basically portray them as the Evil Twin Dimension.
|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
I think it's worth noting that all we have seen of the Praetorians thus far is how they treat their sworn enemies, which is not necessarily indicative of how they treat their citizens. I see GR as less of a retcon and more of an increase in information, which places what we think we know in a different context.
But I'm an optimist. |
Having Vengeance and Fallout slotted for recharge means never having to say you're sorry.
Quote:
I personally think that Ghost Widow would be the one who could over throw Load Recluse. As she has stated before, her loyalty is to Arachnos and not necessarily to whoever leads it at the moment. Since she only exist as long as Arachnos exists, it is the best motivator for her to see that the organization remains strong. I don't think Recluse has placed his own interests over those of Arachnos and it is high time something was done about it.
|
Originally Posted by Dr_Mechano
Is anyone else thinking something along these lines...
It would essentially be City of Heroes 2.0 (not City of heroes 2 but a timeline upgrade). The available to all part of the expansion would be moving the timeline forward. 1) Second Rikti war is essentially won, those who purchase the expansion can go help one of two factions on the Rikti homeworld (the heroic and villainous Rikti already exist so use those) in a civil war. The Rikti EAT is also introduced. 2) Lord Recluse and Statesman are MIA/KIA, the Statesman and Lord Recluse Task/Strike force are completely reworked (still aware the same badges). Villainside gets a massive content upgrade and major rewrites of a lot of stuff (which both myself and Eva have suggested). The ITF gets a subtle rewrite (they nolonger need just Statesman and Recluse to power the Mecha but ANY incarnate...since there will be many now available). The Statesman's pal badge is reworked/renamed along with those arcs. The RV hero/villain defeat badges required for the accolade are reworked (the Lord Recluse and Statesman badges are redone) and generally a lot of work goes into reworking or replacing stuff that requires those two. Yes it's a hell of a lot of work but this is a paid for expansion we're talking about. 3) Ghost Widow gets her body back (finally) and thus anything involving her is dealt with and she is renamed to Belladonna (a good evil name in itself) but retained her dark/dark corruptor like powers. 4) Throw in some new powersets, new costumes and the like. I'd throw £19.99 at that for sure. |
"Samual_Tow - Be disappointed all you want, people. You just don't appreciate the miracles that are taking place here."
Quote:
As a fan of Ghost Widow, I have to point out that her archetype is Dominator. Scirocco is the Corruptor in Recluse's Five Bad Band.
|
Originally Posted by Dr_Mechano
3) Ghost Widow gets her body back (finally) and thus anything involving her is dealt with and she is renamed to Belladonna (a good evil name in itself) but retained her dark/dark corruptor like powers. |
Quote:
Yeah, I think that's one of the reasons I found Arachnos being shoehorned into the game so annoying. They were suddenly this huge threat, but unless you took your hero into the PvP zones, you never really even saw them. Even today, their presence is fairly limited. I think the only zones you can encounter them in on blueside is Faultline and RWZ.|
Originally Posted by Peacemoon
I have to say I am also in the camp that finds Arachnos and Recluse terribly overused redside.
I don't see why we have to have such a huge Arachnos & Longbow presence. It would be like Paragon City having PPD everywhere and in such large numbers, controlling what your hero does. |
As far as them being overused redside goes, one of the things I've always found a little amusing is if you look at the various enemy groups that were added with CoV, they really don't have much variety in models. The Snakes are basically 2 models colored differently. The Coralax are pretty much the same. The Arachnoids, I think, are just a single model. This makes sense based on the fact that they were populating a whole other game, but on a much more limited amount of time than what they had to do CoH in.
But then you look at Arachnos and all the variety they have. Between all the spiders, widows, robots, and Mu, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that if you added up all the Arachnos models that they'd outnumber every other new enemy group added during that time, probably by a wide margin.
Close. He's saying they essentially created a "new character" (and a "new" faction, although he didn't actually say that) with Tyrant's reboot, so that makes it similar to his Recluse complaint.
Dec out.
LEGION OF VALOR - Be a part of the Legend!