I don't think there was ever much Hero/Villain conflict.
Most of us play both sides, depending on the mood at the time.
Every time this comes up, I have the same thing to say: you can have hero vs. villain conflict without having player vs. player conflict. The last thing I want to see is incentive for people to go out of their way to ruin each other's gaming experience. I want to see villain players pitch in over Help chat to help a hero figure out his power trays. I want to see hero players offer to swap to a villain and help take that down that EB. I do not want the game to breed confrontation. I want it to breed more cooperation.
Quote:
And then there's this. You point to one of the DUMBEST storyline decisions in this game's entire history (and I'm counting the Origin of Powers, so that's saying something) and base a pretty significant conclusion on it. If you walk around and read people's bios in the Rogue Isles, you'll note that most of them don't paint themselves as Arachnos lackeys. In fact, a great many of us have typed our fingers to the bone complaining that City of Villains treats us like hired thugs. And the fact that newer story arcs seem to avoid that tells me the developers finally get it.|
Originally Posted by Cyberium_neo
Story wise it clearly stated that player Villains in most major missions under Arachnos banner and thus are natural rivals for player Heroes whom serve under regulation established in Paragon.
|
Neither heroes nor villains are easily classifiable in two monolithic factions that should be opposed to each other for no reason other than because heroes and villains fight. The fact that almost the entirety of the pre-existing CoH game got put under the banner of Longbow and "Longbow" became synonymous with "hero," as well as the fact that all villains were written to be Arachnos followers and "the Arachnos" became synonymous with "villain" is probably the biggest narrative fail of all. Not only does it completely ignore specific characters' backstories, likes and beliefs, it also imposes the next best thing to the typical WoW race warfare without any express need for it.
Villains and heroes are their won separate entities, and they do not need to be shoehorned into their roles, as both are self-defined. Not all heroes hate all villains, and not all villains attack all heroes on sight. Nor should they. "Us vs. them" is Cold War propaganda.
---
I'm reminded to praise City of Villains, actually, on how beautiful the latest few story arcs added to it have been. Sure, not all of them have great writing, and some of them make us look a bit sheepish, but by and large they treat us as legitimate, self-made villains, not as cronies who should be paid and berated for the lowlives they are. As villains, we work for ourselves, to forward our own goals, often over the dead bodies of people who get in the way. And I love it. That's what a villain should be.
This is actually where Tip missions fail, and for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the Villain missions are just absurd. Not only do villains seem to have an obsession for screwing over Longbow (Why? Because they're the only "heroes" in this game?), but their motivation, more often than not, my villain's Tip motivation seems to be as giant a dick as possible, for no reason other than because he prefers to be a giant phallus. "I do it all because I'm evil. And I do it all for free. Your tears are all the pay I'll ever need." Not cutting it.
Villains, as I see them, don't NEED to have crawled out a Saturday morning cartoon and then passed through the Jason Voorhees school of villainy on the way here. As was mentioned before - discounting the mentally ill, most actual villains don't wear clip-on cards declaring their evilness and don't set out to be the most evil jerk in the world for the bragging rights. "For the evilnessnessness!" is not a good motivation. Quite on the contrary, most villains are after something that they either shouldn't have, or that they are willing to hurt people to get.
To me, the difference between rogues and villains isn't the presence or lack of maniacal glee at the prospect of pain and suffering, but rather discretion vs. ambition. A rogue picks his battles and finds the most profitable one. A villain follows his agenda and stomps on anyone and anything that gets in the way.
Secondly, Tips fail, ironically enough, because they try too hard and attempt to give too many reasons why we're doing something, as though the writer was afraid we would be reluctant to take certain options unless we were reassured that there was ample reason to take them. It's like:
-Mr. Rogue, you will now go save a hero's life.
-But I don't wanna!
-It's the right thing to do.
-And I care about this why?
-It's, err... Bad for business if the hero dies and the PPD tighten things up.
-They have nothing on me. I'm good.
-But if you do, you'll get good press and probably a reward.
-Meh, I can get more from my old contracts.
-Well, um... Oh, the hero is rich! He'll PAY you when you save him?
-Hmm... I'm interested. Do go on.
-Well, he's also connected, so he can get you a pardon on some of your older crimes, too!
-OK, now we're talking! Gimme' the address!
I don't need to be told why I chose to do something. Give me the choice and let me fill in the details as to why this particular character took that particular course of action. City of Villains was unironically a lot better about it. Almost every choice was so crafted to give you no benefit and give you no omniscient narrator reason why you would pick either side. Do you shut down Amanda Vines or let her broadcast? Yes or no is irrelevant. The bigger question is WHY, and this question the game never answers for you. You write the answer for your own particular character.
---
To me, the cartoony faction warfare of generic heroes vs. generic villains is a drawback to the game's narrative more than it is a help. I don't want to see any more co-op missions, far from it. But at the same time, I don't want to see needless animosity that doesn't have a more specific reason. "Tunnel Snakes rule!" does not count.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
To answer your first question about 'damage', I think you could find the answer within my post. I suggested and aftermath event that Heroes have to mend, much like the fire in Steel Canyon. How it could be done as well as severity is up for discussion.|
Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
Cyberium_neo, I'm curious what you think "real damage" actually means. I suspect that what you mean is "take away from the Heroes' resources but not let them do the same back to me because they're good guys and shouldn't do that".
You are ignoring a few realities that maybe you are just wishing weren't true.
|
If you read my post, you'd know very well that I did not ignore the fact about Her/Villain ratio. If you read my post, I think you'd noticed that I also mention some suggestions (albeit not perfect) to them, such as limiting the max # of participants in PvP zones or smaller Hero v.s. Villains zones, so the ground is more even. If you read my post, you should also know that I mentioned zones for majority of leveling could 'forbid' the other side from entering, or simply limit open PvP to very few zones (with certain limit as well).
No, I did not forsake reality, nor did I comment solely on adding more PvP. I merely using PvP as an example of elevating the tension between Heroes and Villains, but there are other ways for it to be done, such as Villains' Mayhem missions leading to certain results that Heroes have to take care of after, so the threat is more evident.
You paid a lot of attention to my ideas about an 'open' PvP, but that wasn't the only thing I commented on.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
To me, the cartoony faction warfare of generic heroes vs. generic villains is a drawback to the game's narrative more than it is a help..
|
No, I don't enjoy black-and-white moral without the grey, but in reality (in game or outside of the game) extreme good and extreme evil DO exist and coexist, and are constantly in battle. There are people who strived towards protecting others as well as those who would go all out to harm others. It is good that the game allow the players to blur their factions but it also lost the flavor of two extremes fighting each other This is a game called City of Heroes, after all, and what is a Hero without truly menacing Villains?
You're right that characters aren't always in the extreme, but the fact is that extreme people do exist. Their conflicts are often more frequent within a story/game, such as Freedom Corps and Arachnos; they are there for a reason. I merely hope that after their success in blurring the line the developers could rekindle the conflict between good and evil. It was, after all, the backbone of the story to begin with.
Remember: Even if the game heightens the conflict between good and evil, such conflict does NOT limit a player's options to be in a grayer zone.
Cyberium_neo, I'm curious what you think "real damage" actually means. I suspect that what you mean is "take away from the Heroes' resources but not let them do the same back to me because they're good guys and shouldn't do that".
You are ignoring a few realities that maybe you are just wishing weren't true.
PvP isn't about Hero vs Villain. It's about one player dominating another player and that's all. It's not going to magically change into something more just because you get to do your fighting in Paragon City instead of in an instance.
Moreover, the door swings both ways. You can't say "I'm a villain, so I'm expected to be destructive. I get to destroy your town but you goody-two-shoes Heroes don't get to destroy my town." Game development doesn't work that way. If it's good for one side, it's good for the other side.
If it was your playground being leveled every day by the Heroes so that you were being "hurt", and your fellow villains were even defecting to Blueside just because there they would be winners instead of losers, would you really be happy with the fact that you were able to be "villainnous" by trying to damage City Hall in Paragon City?
I don't think you would. I don't feel like you really give a hang about what's good for the game as a whole. What I keep hearing from you is "I'll only feel villainous if I can do whatever I want to whoever I want whenever I want."
Basically, anarchy. Maybe that would work in some game, but not in this one and not in any game I've ever played. And, ultimately, it would still be meaningless. The only way you would ever truly feel "villainous" would be if you destroyed City Hall AND IT STAYED DESTROYED.
I don't need to explain why that is never going to happen.
No disrespect intended, but, well, get over it. What you want is not conducive to a fun game environment for most of the people paying to play the game. From a business standpoint, it would be a foolish thing to even admit contemplating. That's just how it is. PvP is a power trip anyway, but the kind of PvP you're envisioning is a power trip taken to the extreme, and its one that would backfire on you unless you made the provision that it was also completely unfair and only open to one faction instead of both of them.