Promotiong Interfaction Strife: A think tank.

I'll give you the one, irrefutable reason right here and now;

BECAUSE PVP IS A LOAD OF KVETCHING, FRAGGED UP AND BROKEN GOBSHITE.

That, right there, is why I have no wish to encounter PvP in PvE missions. Also, because I wouldn't encounter someone who wants to RP, or someone who gives a damn about character. What would I get in a PvP instance? A PvPer who's only intention is to beat me down with an uber build and then laugh at me, quoting such tripe as "lolzor you SUCK n00b lolol g0 RP in n00b D, lolol"

Ok, so thats a slightly generalising and unfair sweeping statement, but do you see my point? That, for me, is not fun.

Oh, and the co-op stuff?
Vanguard - Alien Invasion intent on wiping out all human life. Kind of a big deal
Cimerora - 5th Column threat to time, space and the world as we know it. Kind of a big deal.

You cant be a Villain if theres no damn world left to terrorise.

Originally Posted by Zwillinger GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.

Originally Posted by Captain_Photon NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.

The game has plenty of PVP opportunties: four PVP zones, arenas, Pocket D. These are largely ignored by the majority of players.

Co-op content, on the other hand, is pretty widely popular. Even before GR, the co-op TFs were amongst the most frequently run, and mixed teams were popular in the RWZ. GR acknowledges and builds on this by making cross-faction teaming possible for all content, and when I look at the makeup of teams these days, it's clearly being used by a lot of players.

Judging by past performance, attempts to 'enforce' PVP in the way you suggest will likely lead to content that is unpopular and underused. I'm not sure that's a good use of resources.

I think we'll just have to agree to see things differently. I try to look at everything to do with the from an in-game, storyline perspective without breaking the fourth wall. I try to look at players in completely the opposite way, in a meta-game, out-of-character way, approaching them as people, not as players. As such, I want my CHARACTERS to feel animosity for their CHARACTERS, but I don't want to be their enemy, and I don't want them to be my enemy.

What the game tells me happened is what happened. What a player wrote in his bio happened is what happened. What level a character is or what badges that character has... That's meta-game. It doesn't mean anything to MY CHARACTER. It only means something to me as a person, to know what that other person has achieved with this character. I will never, ever RP with another person, simply because I don't want that. Regardless of the channel, chat with other people is just that - chat with other people. Not RP, not character-to-character. Just chat with other people the same as if I called them up on the phone.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. Others have already made arguments why going F2P doesn't mean you've "failed." But even if I were to assume that they did, you can't really make an argument that they failed because of that.

To summon Goodwin's law somewhat, WW2 Germany failed in the war, but WW2 Germany developed jet aircraft. That didn't mean jet aircraft sucked, and in fact the US syphoned off a great many German aeronautics engineers and developed their own jet engines, greatly benefiting aviation for the entire world.

You CAN take a good idea from a bad project, because it's unreasonable to assert that ALL parts of a bad project are themselves bad. The reality of the situation is that a lot of failed games actually have almost entirely GOOD ideas that then get recycled in far more successful games.

Yeah, that's the big thing for me: I'm really anal about my characters and how they're written. If it's a generic system that gives me a selection from one of three personalities, like "playful villain," "serious villain," "sinister villain" and just had a few generic lines upon showing up, like "This time I will eat the marrow from your bones!" vs. "So we meet again, kid. Ah, I so enjoy our little meetings." then I can probably take it, as a sort of acceptable break from reality in the same way as I accept that we can't open doors with our hands or pick things up from the ground. It won't be ideal, but it will be excusable. However, when I give this to a PLAYER, then I will judge it by the same standard as I'd judge my own work, and other people just can't read my mind.

But again - the idea actually really does have merit. I'd actually suggest taking this to the Architect forum and starting a trend there. I'm sure people will pick up on it and run with the thing. Post a screenshot of said character and a bio up to a certain limit and then have someone else write a mission or an arc with that.

Here's he thing - I believe all players should be friends and want nothing more than to either make each other happy, or at least keep out of each other's way. I actually hold the same belief even in competitive games, which is why I don't tend to compete with people I don't know and trust to not be cheap bastards. I want to encourage players to play together even when their objectives compete. I do not want to encourage one person to want to screw another because that's what the game is about. I wouldn't play such a game.

I've played competitive games. Believe me, I have. When you have decent players who are all there to have fun, it's the best time in the world. And when you have cheap bastards who exploit the system just to piss you off, it's one of the worst frustrations you're likely to meet on a daily basis. I don't want the game to encourage players to be enemies. Their characters on a storyline level, yes, but the players themselves? I don't want that. I don't want to see missions that instruct one player to screw over another. Just not something I want to play.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

The game has one PvP zone that is appropriate for your level and doesn't do weird exemplaring on top of the already weird and utterly different PvP rules.
Aside from that the only PvP is beating up someone else for no reason but to beat someone up. That is like PvE would only consist of one mission each for level 20, 30, 40 and 50 and street swiping.

Unless your villain is not a human or wants all humans to die or is a Rikti or from another dimension or wants to destroy earth for whatever religious, demonic, revengeful or insane reason or as part of his plan.
But that is another discussion somewhere. As long as such content doesn't take over, it doesn't do much harm. But now Heroes and Rogues(still counting as villains) and Vigilantes(still counting as heroes) and Villains can team for every kind of content. They are becoming one big hugging mass. Villains teaming with Heroes is fine and exciting as an exception, but it is becoming the norm.

I understand your concern about PvP though and agree that PvP should not be forced upon those who do not want it. Just like PvP and teaming isn't forced upon you now. It's part of the content and you'll miss out on some things, but there is tons of great stuff to do if you don't like those.


What about some content like this one though:

-Villain will threaten to blow up some plant.*
-Villain does long row of preparing missions.
-Villain gets to chose a lackey faction**, that he will get a few spawns of to send around.
-Villain can pick a team, and puts up a message that heroes will see once they get notified.
-Villains submits, and Heroes get a notification with a timer. They can click to see the message (e.g. long villainy rant he'll blow up the thing unless get tons of money.), the name and picture of the Villain (and maybe the team?) and how many villains there are.
-Villains have to do one last mission while the counter already runs. (So they dont get bored)
-Heroes can then decide to sign up, up to the number of Villains.
-When the timer is up, the mission starts. The Villains and Heroes that signed up can click to enter.
-Each Hero gets a single spawn of Longbow to send around. Both Heroes and Villains must now reach and activate some glowies that have a long interaction time. (e.g. Villains try to set to overload and then wreck the controls, Heroes try to shut the facility down and lock the console) When team A gets half of the glowies clicked, a timer starts. If team B doesn't get all the remaining glowies before it ends, team A wins. (The very last glowie remaining might get an extra long interaction time)
-Heroes win: Villain gets big reward***, Villain team mates get nothing, Heroes get reward.
-Villain wins: Villain gets twice the big reward, Villain team mates get reward, Heroes get nothing.

As further incentive for Heroes, the reward for defeating a villain at such a thing might rise each time that Villain succeeded in a row, showing there's an extra bounty, and maybe even allow more Heroes to join than there are Villains. (they'd have to share the bounty then, of course)

If no Heroes want to fight a random Freedom Phalanx as Elite Boss might come with a load of Longbow, and for those that don't want to PvP there may be an option to take that right away (or even challenge a certain canon Hero) but rewards for winning would be less than for winning against an unpredictable (set of) player(s).


*maybe the can decide on when to start that and what to do, or they get tip drops that allow it.

**maybe they choose that during the preparing missions and have to 'convince' said faction to lend him some guys in those missions, or maybe the Villain needs to find a "Masterplan" tip from the right faction and pick that, or maybe it's a random faction.

***for the threat alone makes him/her INFamous, and it took lots of missions to prepare it so they deserved it

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

True, but the Devs can't cover every single one of a hundred thousand different potential villains.
Also, while I would be objecting to Co-op becoming the norm, I really don't see Vigilantes and Rogues as 'getting all huggy'. They are either on their way to the other side anyway, and so count as Villains or Heroes respectively, or are simply working for their own ends. Vigilantes working with Villains long enough to kill a rogue Longbow agent, Rogues working with Heroes in exchange for a fat pay cheque.

Nothing 'huggy' in there, at least for me. It also allows for more teaming and RP choices, which is only a good thing in my books.

Originally Posted by Zwillinger GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.

Originally Posted by Captain_Photon NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.