It happened AGAIN.

I'm guessing the foes in that mission would be Longbow, who are there to protect the ambassador. Maybe even a hero that's standing next to him.

The ambushes though should totally be Malta. This time, it's them reacting to your proactive machinations.

Redside: Waah! We don't want to save the world!

Summary of most posts in this thread.

Easy solution, don't run those missions. Willfully not taking the easy solution leaves taking the co-op missions away so you can't be "forced" to save the world anymore.

I think you've been arguing on the Internet for too long. Perhaps you require a break!

Which is the equivalent of killing a fly with a handgun. If I wanted to skip the missions I would. I don't. Content is content. However, the content has become so homogeneous for Villains that it's boring to see the same old thing over and over again. I'm not going to repeat myself any more because it's right here in big, bold text. If you can't read that, if you can't understand the point of this thread and if you can't give me an argument other than "don't play the content", then adapt your own advice to this thread and don't get involved.

Even if this were true, this contradicts your statement that "Praetoria is pretty close to that." You're now explaining why Praetoria couldn't be close to that.


I don't quite see it that way. From the very beginning and all the way up to launch the devs described Praetoria as a morally grey world. However, I don't think it ever really fulfilled that description. In fact, I believe the developers got cold feet when they realized the implications of a morally grey world would have consequences both within Praetoria and for the larger game. I don't think the writers *want* to do anything but good is good, evil is bad stories.

You see that most dramatically in the writing for the side switching morality missions. The writing is actually pretty good in them, but it portrays switching to the villain side as being hollow, empty, and ultimately meaningless. It doesn't just say that other people see it that way, the missions are scripted for the character themselves to feel that way, which in my opinion is abrogating their responsibility as writers to make a valid player gameplay choice entertaining. If you are going to allow players to switch sides, you should write that choice as being a good one, at least from the player's point of view if no other. If you can't bring yourself to do that, don't offer the choice.

It was obvious to me from day one that Praetoria was not going to be a morally grey place. They dipped their toes into the morally grey arena by making the good guys not so good, but the bad guys are still extremely obviously bad. And not just because I say so, but because the writing itself says so. The writing doesn't ask you if you want to be part of the glorious rebuilding and greatness of Praetoria or a part of the valiant heroic struggle for freedom. Instead it asks you if you want to be a terrorist or a scumbag, and oh yeah by the way the terrorists are the good guys.

I'm not as violently opposed to Praetoria being the setting for the incarnate trials as some other players are, but I will say this: the moment I found out that was going to happen, I knew the devs had either written off Praetoria's potential for being a grey morality area, or they had painted themselves into a corner and would be forced to abandon it. Because if Tyrant aka Cole was going to be the ultimate incarnate threat, the game has declared a winner in Praetoria. The Praetorians lose, the Resistance wins. It declares who the bad guys are: the ones opposed to Cole are ultimately the good guys. That's unavoidable. And because we know there's going to be a winner and a loser, and a good guy and a bad guy, Praetoria cannot be the setting for a morally grey area of the game.


Praetoria wasn't really originally a place, or a setting. It was a street address where the Legion of Doom came from, that's all. City of Villains didn't supercede it, because I don't think there was a Praetoria to supercede back then. City of Villains was supposed to allow us to play as villains. But I don't think the writers had the guts to pull the trigger on that all the way. They did not want to allow villains to win, even in all the ways villains can win in an MMO setting. Granted this is not as easy as writing for heroes, but that's not the point: I don't think they really tried. They tried to shoehorn villains into hero mission templates. That's not me talking today: that's what I said during the beta, using those exact words (I specifically remember the phrase "hero mission templates.")


If I could give a command to the writers that write villain content, it would be this: stop trying to write what you think is the best villain *story*. Stop thinking about drama, or the struggle between good and evil, or the nature of evil, or the proactive nature of evil, or the characterization of villainy. Stop thinking about what you think villainy is for a second.

Now write a red side mission in which your one and only goal is to make the player feel good about being a villain. Really, really good. Lick your lips good. Whatever you're going to write, whether its kicking puppies or destroying cities, only do it if you can make the player feel good about it. You don't have to feel good about it, your feelings are not relevant here. Make the player feel good about it, unequivocally, with no hedge, no oh yeah but, no lingering remorse, no subtle regret. Just yehaw, I'm evil, AMF.

If you can't do that, if its not in you to do that, don't write for the red side. Trade with someone who can.

Yeah the Vigilante and the Vigilante->Villain tips basically rarely stray from the idea that you're a terrible person. And, I mean, you are, but it's clear from almost all of them that the narrator does not approve of you. There's less "I had to do this because it was necessary" and more "lolololol for teh evulz!"

Contrast with the Rogue and Rogue->Hero tips where the narrator is very much on board with your choices, and when stupid things happen, the world is almost always laughing with you, rather than at you.

Well said and I agree.

If your tired of the discussion (and it finally is becoming a discussion again Yay!) then you do not have to participate. Really what it sounds like is you want your forum access removed, if it would stop the whining, it'd get my vote.

This is progress. Now we are dealing in solutions.

This is the icing on the cake. So we have our cake, but the trick is eating it too. Now we've just got to convince Paragon Studios to start adding content like this.

I'd pay a ridiculous sum of Paragon Points to unlock a system like the one described by myself and Coyote_Seven. I really would. I'd pay 2500+ PP for it. Let US call the shots and let the enemy groups of the game try to ride OUR coat tails, not the other way around.

The final ambush should include a boss. When you get close to defeating him, he suddenly cons friendly and begs you to stand down, so you can click on him and start a conversation. The boss explains how they got wind of your little kidnapping plot and decided to steal the ambassador from you after you had finished off all the Longbow for them. But you've bested them, and so now the boss is offering to BUY your newly acquired victim from you.

So then you can decide to hand off the ambassador to Kool Aid Man 0-1-0, and get an extra reward or something. Or, you can tell him to stick it and then continue to beat the stuffing out of him, and ransom the ambassador yourself.

Mission complete!

EDIT: I almost forgot. This is the City of Villains, right? There's always the third option of taking the Malta's money anyway, and then beating the stuffing out of Mr. Stay Puft 0-5-1, and then ransoming the ambassador. Win!

Or even better, an option to slap the ambusher's head around until he spills the location of his informant. Then, after delivering the informant a very threatening message ("Fiction White 4-9-5 told me about your little plan to stop me. I know right where you are, punk. Get every bodyguard at your disposal ready, because you're going to need about twice that if you want a chance at slowing me down"), you go after him.

I like the cut of your jib.

Actually, I don't care if the narrator disapproves, if the narrator isn't a proxy for *me*. If the story is written so that the narrative voice says "and this is how Arcana became the most hated villain in the Rogue Isles" and my character's inner voice said "yehaw, AMF" then that would be fine. The problem is that the narrative voice is me, saying "and now I'm a villain. I no longer have a soul, but I guess I won't be needing that anymore anyway."

They remind me of the pyrrhic victory song of Dr. Horrible. I actually find myself hating myself for running the mission. Excellent job writing if that was the goal. Was that the goal?

You know, it would make for a nice surprise newspaper mission inside Ouroboros. You've actually managed to track down the game's narrator, and so you decide to go in and let him know what you think of his overwhelming bias against anything that isn't purely hero related.

The mission pop-up could be something like, "Please don't go after me! I'm just the narrator! [OK]"...

Like sniping the chorus in There's Something About Mary? Sounds like an interesting AE exercise.





This will be the six thousandth time I have destroyed a villain's self-worth, and I have become exceedingly efficient at it.

Any claim that posits something, even a null claim, requires the burden of proof. Contrast:

"I believe God does not exist"
"I do not believe that god exists"

The former has the burden of proof. The latter doesn't. You can say that you lack the belief that the devs planned PVP prior to the game, but you cannot say that you believe the devs did not plan PVP prior to the game. Sadly if you're going to assert the latter, then you have to prove a negative, which is impossible. The only alternative is to have a dev back you up. Which isn't going to happen. For this reason, you should stop making the claim that you believe the devs did not intend to put / plan to put PVP in CoH.

My original statement, the one you're contesting, said this:

"PVP was always intended for CoH. It was planned since pre-beta. As early as 2002."

Let me change it slightly:

"PVE was always intended for CoH. It was planned since pre-beta. As early as 2002."

Do you disagree with this too? Does the fact that many PVE systems were badly implemented make the above statement false? Do design changes, or system changes prior to the game being released make the above statement false? Do any of your arguments outlined against PVP apply here also against PVE?

No. They don't.

You're confusing poor planning and poor implementation with zero intention and zero planning. Hence your completely irrelevant rant against my very simple point.

Contrary to my best efforts, I do not live on the forums.

I love Mythbusters.

That would be a pretty great way to retire a character permanently, the option of death without revival. Your character is then locked at character select, and can only be deleted. XD

Shouldn't that be, "Wording the second statement as a negative about what you don't believe still puts the burden of proof on you."?

Follow your own rules, man!

Good point! I blame the two beers going on three...

"This sentence is not written in Vorlon."

Thank you, come again!

I think if there was a system where every new villain story would be approved by you before being made, you would no longer be paying Paragon, they would be paying you. Because you would be working for them.