Since there are hero/ vill merits... Why not..

Have rogue and vigilante merits? And have something like crucible or fort trident for only rogues and vigilante alignments to go to? And have all people you fight like the rogues you ally with and for vigilante have them them another place.
I know you get like 30 merits the first time you re enforce your rogue/ vigilante alignment and 60 merits for re enforcing your vigilante/rogue alignment afterwards. But to have a choice if you want 60 merits or rogue/vigilante merits would be kinda cool.

~~V~~

This was discussed in another thread recently as well. Vigilantes and Rogues receive a stack of normal reward merits instead. The Hero/Villain merits are essentially a reward for remaining loyal to one side, which Vigilantes and Rogues are not. It is the trade off they make for being able to travel freely between red and blue zones. If they have an evenly comparable reward, there would be little or no reason for anyone to remain a pure hero or pure villain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosty_Femme I said "ur" which is not a word. It's a sound dumb people make when you ask them to spell out "you are".

See this thread further down the page:

http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=268643

It comes down to the trade off of having acess to running taskforces and missions with whoever you want on both sides, and locking yourself into 1 side for a better reward.

I usually choose the reward, but if I could do both, then of course I would.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoodooGirl [*]Watching out for the Spinning Disco Portal of D00M!*

All of the above. The devs want there to be consequences that players must live with when we decide to switch sides. We give up one thing for something else. That's the whole point behind the morality feature.

I agree with them on the concepts of the reward balancing. Though I do wish the ease of earning each sides rewards was equivalent (but that's a dead end street atm).

Nonetheless, as I said there will be many threads like this created. No matter if the trade-offs are even or not, as long as the system stays as it is there will always be "percieved" unfairness. Be prepared to rally to the call again, and again, and again...etc. Of course there will be an especially high volume of these kind of remarks once Freedom is actually launched.

BUT if in freedom some one DOESN'T have going rogue your stuck as a hero / villain anyways it would be a minor maybe no 60 merits but like 20-30 ish? Or the choice of rogue / vigilante merit? So it would be slightly fair?

I just love your revisionist version of CoH history.

Personally I think that stating the devs have never ever reversed a decision, outside of a few things you basically then laid out as not really reversing, is kind of a silly thing to say in the long time frame of goodness knows how many changes. Besides even in the highly dismissive way of acknowledging it, one which essentially categorized everything as something else, you still acknowledge it. Saying that it's rare and saying that it doesn't happen are two different things, so original point stand right?

Though honestly I'd bet money that we missed some reversal decisions and that we never even knew about many more.


Really though, isn't it kinda silly to take a hard definitive stance on right/wrong on this to start with? As if we are even informed enough to say definitively in the first place. I seem to remember some devs being highly surprised and confused when testing a new TF when the team wiped, tp'd their dead to one spot, threw out an oil slick arrow, and then used howling twilight on it to rez everyone at once. If dev's can be surprised and missing knowledge of the game, with a much higher threshold than us, then what makes us think we are so right anyhow?

Plus, I'm not even touching the cottage rule lol.