New zone?!

Story or thematically, you might be correct. But co-op just means cooperative, and in any zone in this game you can have Villain ATs and Heroic ATs working together with side switching, and so every zone IS a co-op zone. It doesn't matter that a Rogue Stalker can't start missions in Founders, he can still team with a blaster and the content can still be run with ALL ATs now. So yeah, it's all co-op. Maybe certain people can't initiate some missions, maybe the missions aren't written with a great co-op story, but when you can run a team of Mixed Villain and Hero ATs in any zone, it's for all game play purposes, co-op.

And that in itself is a problem IMO. It means there's no difference. It's just a marginally different shade of grey. The only difference now is where you start and your AT, which means the impact of the story is significantly reduced.

"You got to dig it to dig it, you dig?"
Thelonious Monk

Your definition of co-op is so broad that any MMO would be considered co-op because you can cooperate with other people.

This game's definition of a co-op zone is a zone which presents an event that heroes and villains must put their differences aside and team up to combat. Co-op scenarios represent a "greater threat," "common enemy" or "non-conflicting goals" scenarios. The reason we don't want such zones isn't because there's a stigma against cross-faction teaming - such doesn't exist. The reason we don't want these is because they both fail to provide villains with a justifiable reason to participate and furthermore water down the faction divide in ways that should not be compromised.

Yes, it's true that a Rogue can travel to Paragon City and team with heroes, but a VILLAIN cannot. Yet not only can a villain join in to save Paragon City, but he more or less HAS to, because that's the only content for Incarnate power, all the while never having been given a decent reason why a villain shouldn't be looking for a more self-serving path to it, or indeed why a villain should care about the Praetorian war in general.

Arguing that "the whole game is co-op now" is as relevant to the discussion on co-op zones as bringing up the fact that there are other TFs in the 20-40 range is to a discussion of the balance and story of the Admiral Stutter TF. Yes, it's true, and yes, it's completely irrelevant.

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.

Tyrant plans to wipe out every single superpowered person on Primal Earth.

Heh, my main villian would find that to be to its advantage, hoping Tyrant suceeded while also hoping it would expend a great deal of Tyrants power in doing so leaving my villian in a position to destroy Tyrant leaving itself as the most powerful living primal.

So you think it's be easier solo against the forces that just wiped out every signle superpowered person on the planet?

He didn't say it was a GOOD idea. You need to remember: some villains are just THAT damn arrogant. Hell, if you're biblically savvy, I think you might recall a certain angel who's pride told him he could beat God.
And really, this is a sensible (but at the same time insane) thing for any villain to try, it's lack of a route in the story does highlight how it can feel like paths are limited.

For an alternate hero path, I would bring to mind a hero who would prefer to slip into Praetoria and attempt to turn the populous against the Cole Regime, staying longer than just a few minutes for a trial. Think Assassin's Creed II: Brotherhood.

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.

I have numerous characters (heroes, granted, but they're the only ones who've had the opportunity so far) who took on the entire Praetorian army solo, and won. Plus, villains have learned their lessons well in the Time After Time arc...a victorious Arch-Villain...is a tired Arch-Villain.

Right strategy, wrong tactic.

If you just sit back and let two foes duke it out, hoping that the victor will be so beat up that you'll easily beat them, history is well stacked against you. Battles rarely go that way and the victor's forces are likely to now be seasoned veterans that are tougher to take down.

If you back the more powerful side, he'll just win sooner with your support and be better off when it happens. You might get a "thank you" prize-- the Prefectureship of New Zealand, if you're lucky (New Jersey if you're not) or he might just decide you're irrelevant and take you out.

If you back the LESS powerful side, you're more likely "tips the battle" in their favor. As such, you can withhold that power to assure that your greatest threats in that organization get the most bloodied, and apply it strategically so you curry favor with the best assets. With a little luck many of the veteran soldiers will see you as their champion-leader and rally TO your call when you eventually turn on the others. Heck, you might even be able to play forces against one another and play on their fears until they eventually turn to you to assume the mantle of leadership....

-------------------------------

Or, at the very least, while all the heroes jump through the portal to "take the fight to Praetoria," they see you as an ally... not watching when you adjust the Portal Corps parameter to dump the heroes directly into the heart of Praetorian Hamidon before shutting the door back to Primal Earth behind them....

I'd love to see a cite for that, since I can't think of a single one myself and it never works that way in games.

World War 2. Hitler marches on Russia. Russia outnumbers them 1000:1 and stomps them flat. The Allies now have a weakened Germany before them. I got that off the top of my head, man. It HAS always been that way; you would be a foolish commander to not strike when an enemy's been weakened by battle.

Just about every world domination strategy game ever. If you let the enemy conquer too much territory, you're dead.

IMO the reason to have co-op content is so that the human players can play together. There really isn't more justification than that, just like there isn't one for why you can't bring 9 people into a mission, or why player-controlled Villains can't enter Paragon City even though millions (trillions?) of NPC villains apparantly make a living there.

Anyway, IMO it actually makes less sense for groups of random villains to team up together than a mixed group of heroes and villains because villains are in the business of actively screwing each other over. Some of them might have loyalty to specific organizations or causes, or even some warped code of honor, but if there is any four word phrase that should be a synonym for "murderously dysfunctional" it's "supervillain pick-up group."

Keep it in the context of "what's best for a villain-- to do nothing and pick a fight with the victor or to help the underdog" (helping the big aggressor isn't really an option here).

Sure, if you think of this as a "man vs man boxing match" you'll inaccurately think that "sitting it out and beating up the worn-out victor" might be the way to go. The problem is that armies vs armies works very differently.

1) Seasoned troops have always been highly valued by military commanders over green soldiers. It doesn't take much to look at the difference in battlefield numbers to see green forces breaking more rapidly, taking more casualties, and generally executing orders less effectively, even if well-drilled.

2) Engaged armies are supported by a support structure that is very different from peacetime armies. The transition between the two is slow and very challenging, putting the "mobilizing" force at a disadvantage over the "already-mobilized."


So these mean that your untested and unmobilized force is going against a seasoned force with a mobilized support structure that has learned to operate in battle.

You could argue that you could somehow overcome these challenges and not have them as disadvantages, but the most effective method of this would be to learn off the other's lessons and begin mobilization by acting as an ally... at least temporarily.


---

So, look at the allies at the end of WWII- seasoned troops, well-mobilized support structure, much better equipped than prior to the war... many economically bankrupt but using economics that made it easy to shrug off the cost until after the fighting ended. They were a very potent force-- much more dangerous than the forces available prior to the fight.

Look at the US before the war, with barely a standing army. Pretend that it was truly neutral and not favorably supplying to either side, like it did. Is it hard to imagine that the US was in a better position for world domination by taking a side in WWII than it would have been by had it actually been a true neutral bystander?

I think he was citing my example of it being better to fight on the underdog's side than wait to see how things pan out, but your example fits that too.


What would have been better for Russia?
- Waiting for Germany to finish the battles in the west, regroup, and turn its attention eastward
OR
- Fight Germany while its attention was still divided, while its resources were still tied up on the western coast, and while the allies could still help it.

Of course,
Knowing that Russia could be a threat after the war, Great Britain and the US could see a real advantage in letting them bear the brunt of the German war machine. Maybe delay opening a western front (which would have drawn resources off the eastern battles) as much as possible to let them get bloodied....

That's the advantage of being a participant-villain, though.

I wouldn't say it went quite that way. The allies didn't sit back and wait - they DID try to get Russia involved, but thanks to the "We won't stab you in the back right this moment" treaty they and Germany made (when they split Poland,) Russia wasn't interested.

It was more a case of Germany overreaching AND having REALLY bad timing (due, as I recall, to having the offensive delayed thanks to having to save Italy's bacon either in the balkans or N. Africa.) The fight with the USSR was coming - but had Germany waited and finished with England first, we'd have a much different world.

(Also, don't sweat those odds - Finland did amazingly against Russia in the Winter and Continuation wars at much longer odds.)

See my Guides and Tutorials

Human players can play together in faction-limited content too. All it takes is a "brb, switching characters." Or you can play Vigilantes and Rogues.

Villains team up all the time, with the understanding that they're out to accomplish a specific task, and won't stab each other in the back until the task is complete. Of course half the time they do stab each other in the back anyway, but that's neither here nor there.

And incidentally, they often team up specifically to defeat a hero or group of heroes that no one of them can defeat alone.

Player villains don't have, nor necessarily want armies. Player villains are often on no one's side but their own. You only think of armies vs armies if you're going into a war looking to win. Villains may be going into it looking to profit. Or they might just be looking to save their own skins. Or, if you go by the definition of villainy many of the tip missions present, they might just take the opportunity to blow a bunch of stuff up then cackle about how evil they are while the heroes are distracted with fighting off some extra-dimensional invasion or some such hero crap.

i
That's the thing here though...In this hypothetical situation it'd be the "I'll take out Tyrant after he's all tired from beating the heroes" villain against Tyrant....and his army. Who has the stated goal of "Kill all Primal supers"

Thinking as a sociopathic evil mastermind, there are many rational factors that encourage various bad guys to take up the fight against Tyrant.

• If Tyrant wants to destroy all primal earth supers, and I'm a primal earth super, I'm a potential target. That's risk to me with little gain.
• I know what I have from the local good guys- I've faced off on them before. That's no additional risk, no additional gain.
• If I do nothing and Tyrant wins, and he truly plans to kill all supers, I'll be standing alone while fighting him. He may or may not be weaker than the total might of all my former foes from the war. That's an all-or-nothing risk, but I'm betting a LOT on the actions of others (whether my now-defeated foes actually weaken him) rather than on my own... taking my destiny out of my hands. Loss of control = bad.
• If I help the heroes drive off Tyrant, and the heroes win, at the very least the status quo is returned. At best, I turn a tidy profit, earn a few favors, and see a few of my foes die.
• If I HELP Tyrant win, he could decide to pay off his loyal helpers with something like a nice little land grant, but he could also turn on me to finish his goal. He, after all, has no need for me and no reason to believe I'll be any more loyal than I was to my own dimension-denziens. That's uncertain reward and possible/probable risk.
• War brings chaos. Chaos spawns opportunity. Opportunity leads to profit. The best way to sustain the war, be closest to the chaos, and be prepared take advantage of the opportunity, is to be directly involved in it. Being directly involved with allies means there are others to distribute the risk onto, also. Downside: if I'm not careful, they can distribute the risk onto me.
• I might just get lucky and help some of my known foes fall as they rely on me guarding their flank. I mean, I can't be expected to be *everywhere* at once... and people do die in war...
• Double agency is very profitable, and can be used to sustain the fight and guarantee that each side is worn out against the other. Downside is the risk of being on the wrong side when things finally break. Other downside is ending up on Tyrant's side (see above)... thus, the best double-agent side profits against the primal allies, but never jeopardizes their likelihood of winning.

So, still... regardless of the bad guy's motives, he'll likely find several reasons to justify involvement over doing nothing or pledging allegiance to Tyrant. Of course, he doesn't HAVE TO be rational....

That's missing the point. You add a villain game, and then proceed to come up with newer and newer justifications for why your villain players should play the hero. You can explain everything away with sufficient amounts RP, that's not the point. The point here is that I don't want to have to explain this, because I don't want to have to do this. It's not a question of villains having no reason to team-up with heroes. You can always make one up. It's a question of villains having no GOOD reason to team-up with heroes, where "good" is something that actually forwards them as villains, rather than requiring them to suspend their villainy.

That's really the clincher: Heroes get to engage in co-op content by continuing to do what they were doing anyway - being heroes. Villains don't. On the contrary, villains need to stop doing what they were doing and be heroes, and we're just thinking up excuses for why they're justified in doing that, all the while ignoring the fact that, in a well-written story, they shouldn't be doing that in the first place. Yes, maybe once or twice, but we already have "once or twice." We have the Rikti War Zone, which is "once," and we have Cimerora, which is "twice." Three times is too many, and we're already looking at more than that.

Every time concept-related arguments come up, the pattern repeats itself. We look at a given bad storyline and try to justify why it's OK for it to be bad, when all along the point is that it's bad in the first place and it shouldn't have been written like that. We can't really hope to change existing plots, but the least we can do is ask that new plots aren't written the same way.

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.

Or, all it takes is having co-op zones so people can use the characters they actually want to play. It's not like people in real life have titles like "Villain" and "Hero" and are physically unable to be in each other's pressence. Co-op content is more realistic than non co-op in that sense. If you feel strongly that your character wouldn't do it, then don't do it.


What is different about this and doing the same thing with a group of heroes? Or, if the character is just crazy, doing co-op content in a group of only villains, or even only-tech characters or whatever?

Anyway, the idea of villains PUGs just randomly coming together and fighting stuff in an organized and respectful way is preposterous. You might get a group that is loyal to its own faction, but a team of 8 random villains, especially the megalomaniacal type, would have more drama than an MTV reality show.

The problem is, it's not just a story, it's a game. There's limited development time.

I'm all for them adding villain only content for these events/zones/arcs. There's definitely room for assorted villain type shenanigans for villain types to get up to take advantage of some, if not most, of the situations they put us in. Who knows, hopefully the devs will add it at some point.