Quote:
Take another look at the newspaper missions - the Speakeasy and Bank Robbery missions are both available as regular missions (In St. Martial and Grandville, there are even Arachnos Guards posted).
|
Originally Posted by Shadow_Kitty
One is initiated by Mongoose, the others are initiated by the contacts that you just had to do five "someone else thought of it first" missions for.
|
Deamus the Fallen - 50 DM/EA Brute - Lib
Dragos Bahtiam - 50 Fire/Ice Blaster - Lib
/facepalm - Apply Directly to the Forehead!
Formally Dragos_Bahtiam - Abbreviate to DSL - Warning, may contain sarcasm
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shubbie
Im very good at taking a problem and making it worse.
|
Here's something else to think about: What does everyone think of a Red side arc where the player finds themselves having to fight both Hero and Villain NPCs who have teamed together to face the greater threat of the player? Whatever the story is, it has been deemed important enough that the Circle of Thorns have joined forces with the Legacy Chain, for example.
The Abrams is one of the most effective war machines on the planet. - R. Lee Ermy.
Q: How do you wreck an Abrams?
A: You crash into another one.
Quote:
You've got me there. Those missions actually do let you make the first move.|
Originally Posted by DarkSideLeague
Take another look at the newspaper missions - the Speakeasy and Bank Robbery missions are both available as regular missions (In St. Martial and Grandville, there are even Arachnos Guards posted).
|
They have downsides, however. They're EXTREMELY short compared to other paper missions, and they're one of the only examples of proactive villainy. They don't exactly make up for the lack of first-move-mentality content.
My guides:Dark Melee/Dark Armor/Soul Mastery, Illusion Control/Kinetics/Primal Forces Mastery, Electric Armor
"Dark Armor is a complete waste as a tanking set."
Quote:
Actually, while I've had a problem with villain content for as long as villain content has existed, the one area I cut the devs some slack on is co-op content. Co-op content by its very nature has to involve goals where the two factions' interests overlap, at least nominally. And that tends to be "common enemy" interests: they may not like each other, but they decide to hate someone else even more.|
Originally Posted by Nalrok_AthZim
Tell me honestly: did you come to this thread to argue?
Is it really that hard to read? It's NOT ABOUT THE PLAYERS. It's about THE WRITERS. Yes, we can twist the game world in our head in whatever way we want. That's called roleplaying. But it gets really, really repetitive when we have to keep doing that. All of the redside co-op content is written with heroic intent, and that's what I have a problem with. Some of our villains don't want the heroes to succeed. At anything. Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE FREAKING VILLAINS. |
The devs aren't going to make "co-op" missions where the villains have an option to defect or betray the hero side: that nullifies the co-op nature of the mission. Players who cannot conceive of villains ever working with heroes should simply avoid - voluntarily and of their own accord - co-op missions with heroes.
In this game, I think its a reasonable concession to state that villains can be villains except where the victims of their villainy are other players. Just like the heroes are not allowed at the end of co-op content to arrest and imprison their fellow red-side players against their will. Their desire to be heroes ends at the feet of villain players except in designated PvP zones.
Its specifically when other players are not involved on the opposite side that I think the devs should be far more expansive on writing for more generalized villainy. There's nothing wrong with roleplaying villainy when the victims are pixels. Only when those pixels are controlled by another player do I have concerns.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
From what I see this could be done with some minor radio mission changes.
Cryptic models a bunch of two objective radio missions. One objective benefits the villain. One objective hurts the public in some way.
Villain shakes down protected witness & trades information with (npc group)
Disable Hospital Alarms and rescue wounded (npc group) VIP
Buy doctored photos of (npc) buying Superadine and plant them at a crime scene
(NPC) is speaking to their fan club, Defeat them and threaten all their fan club members
The flip side of this would be two objective hero missions. One objective benefits the public. The other causes them some sacrifice on their part.
Disable (npc group) portal to bank . Stop (npc) before dinner gets cold. In this the hero would defeat the villain group portals but when they take more time to defeat another NPC boss they are later for dinner and get yelled at
Rescue stolen Hero tech. Escort Sidekick to safety. Some hero was defeated and robbed. You rescue their tech but then you find out the sidekick was kidnapped as well.
This could be some fun if done right.
Quote:
The "common enemy" gimmick is extremely broad. The "save the world together" gimmick is a subset of the "common enemy" gimmick, and hence is a much more narrow gimmick. |
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Actually, while I've had a problem with villain content for as long as villain content has existed, the one area I cut the devs some slack on is co-op content. Co-op content by its very nature has to involve goals where the two factions' interests overlap, at least nominally. And that tends to be "common enemy" interests: they may not like each other, but they decide to hate someone else even more.
|
And therein lies the problem: Lady Grey, Imperious, Tin Mage and Apex are all "save the world together" task forces. Although more proactive and a bit easier to shoe-horn into the "if I look at it this way and ignore the story it might be villainous" box, the Incarnate Trials also fall into this category as they are written (caveat: I couldn't be bothered about any Incarnate Trial after Underground, so I can't speak of those). The narrower gimmick is simply overused.
But you don't have to use the "save the world together" gimmick. If you have the villains and heroes infiltrate Crey Corporation to bring it down from the inside, it would still be a common enemy, it would certainly feel more villainous (at least kinda grey), and there wouldn't be another instance of "save the world together".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The devs aren't going to make "co-op" missions where the villains have an option to defect or betray the hero side: that nullifies the co-op nature of the mission.
|
That has another advantage as well: you don't have to up the ante each time the gimmick is used. Instead of having to save something bigger than the world next time (the OMNIVERSE!!!), you "just" use another angle of the wider gimmick. Add a twist to the story, and you get a task force that feels fresh compared to the others, and no upping the ante at all.
Still @Shadow Kitty
"I became Archvillain before Statesman nerfed himself!"
Quote:
You mean Paragon Studios.
|
Originally Posted by Saint Valencrime
Cryptic models a bunch of two objective radio missions.
|
61866 - A Series of Unfortunate Kidnappings - More than a coincidence?
2260 - The Burning of Hearts - A green-eyed monster holds the match.
379248 - The Spider Without Fangs - NEW - Some lessons learned (more or less.)
My villain wants to kill Wade because he was used by him, and is currently threatening his survival.
He couldn't give a crap less if that makes him a hero in the eyes of society, he just wants him dead.
If the goody two shoes heroes want to think that means there is something redeemable in me, fine. That will just make it easier to kill them later when they hesitate to kill me first.
I might save the world, but you better believe my reasons had nothing to do with "doing the right thing".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
Quote:
That's fine for your one villain. I have 30+. Do they all need to be morphed into thinking the same way to justify doing heroic deeds again and again?|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
My villain wants to kill Wade because he was used by him, and is currently threatening his survival.
|
As has been mentioned before. The "team up against a common enemy" is a fine gimmick, if not over used. The "save the world" gimmick is pretty narrow, and better not be used more than a few times before it lose all meaning.
However, both of these gimmicks have been used for absolutely everything (with a few exceptions, granted) lately. And the writing seems increasingly lazy when it comes to justifying why villains are even there.
As for the "well, just don't play any content made after I7 if you don't want to be a hero" crowd, I've tried that. I like alignment missions, but if you do nothing else it gets old. Fast.
Thought for the day:
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
=][=
Quote:
I'm glad some people are actually paying attention here. Everyone else seems to be looking for a new place to call home for petty arguments.
|
Originally Posted by Slaunyeh
That's fine for your one villain. I have 30+. Do they all need to be morphed into thinking the same way to justify doing heroic deeds again and again?
As has been mentioned before. The "team up against a common enemy" is a fine gimmick, if not over used. The "save the world" gimmick is pretty narrow, and better not be used more than a few times before it lose all meaning. |
My guides:Dark Melee/Dark Armor/Soul Mastery, Illusion Control/Kinetics/Primal Forces Mastery, Electric Armor
"Dark Armor is a complete waste as a tanking set."
Quote:
That's reasonable, but I was specifically responding to:|
Originally Posted by Shadow_Kitty
The "common enemy" gimmick is extremely broad. The "save the world together" gimmick is a subset of the "common enemy" gimmick, and hence is a much more narrow gimmick.
And therein lies the problem: Lady Grey, Imperious, Tin Mage and Apex are all "save the world together" task forces. Although more proactive and a bit easier to shoe-horn into the "if I look at it this way and ignore the story it might be villainous" box, the Incarnate Trials also fall into this category as they are written (caveat: I couldn't be bothered about any Incarnate Trial after Underground, so I can't speak of those). The narrower gimmick is simply overused. But you don't have to use the "save the world together" gimmick. If you have the villains and heroes infiltrate Crey Corporation to bring it down from the inside, it would still be a common enemy, it would certainly feel more villainous (at least kinda grey), and there wouldn't be another instance of "save the world together". |
Quote:
|
All of the redside co-op content is written with heroic intent, and that's what I have a problem with. Some of our villains don't want the heroes to succeed. At anything. Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE FREAKING VILLAINS. |
Except, given that the heroes are supposed to be law and order types for the most part, why would they proactively engage and try to bring down Crey through extralegal means unless it was, in effect, to save the world from them. From the heroic side, won't such missions always be portrayed by the heroes as saving the world from the enemy? If so, won't that automatically conflict with the notion of not overusing the metaphor on the villain side, even if the villain side has an alternative possible narrative.
Isn't the distinction between "bring down BAF" and "bring down Crey" too fine for the point you're trying to make?
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TheDeepBlue
You mean Paragon Studios.
|
had a beta moment there....The point is there is a simple solution that can be done that would also improve an existing system. Some new missions that are more RP and story friendly can't be a bad thing
Quote:
Not given the context. BAF is a part of the ongoing war between Primal Earth and Praetoria. In that context, BAF is essentially part of saving the world. Without someone to stop the Praetorians, the world will change and probably to the worse by being invaded by the evil things from beyond the world.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Except, given that the heroes are supposed to be law and order types for the most part, why would they proactively engage and try to bring down Crey through extralegal means unless it was, in effect, to save the world from them. From the heroic side, won't such missions always be portrayed by the heroes as saving the world from the enemy? If so, won't that automatically conflict with the notion of not overusing the metaphor on the villain side, even if the villain side has an alternative possible narrative.
Isn't the distinction between "bring down BAF" and "bring down Crey" too fine for the point you're trying to make? |
Crey on the other hand is already a part of this world. Unethical, powerful and downright unpleasant as it is, it already exists as a symbiotic part of this world. In the long run, the best you accomplish is cutting off another head of an all-too-familiar hydra. The world won't change that much, except that the newspapers get cool headlines for a few weeks. They get a new CEO, there are some unpleasant hearings, a charity ball, some token changes and a massive PR campaign. At worst, Crey collapses and files for bankruptcy and Arachnocorp takes the market shares.
It still may feel extremely necessary even for the most blue-tighted hero to take such action. Just add medical experiments on some unfortunate runaway white girls, and you have the moral implications for the heroes to act. Would Mr Superduperman just ignore that Crey is conducting painful cellular DNA X-factor essence extraction experiments on my pretty daughter?
There's another thing as well. What the heroes say is one thing; the difference is what the villains say. If the villains say, "we're saving the world too, cause otherwise we'll die too", you're doing it wrong. If the villains say "I want Countess Crey's head on a platter! NOBODY POACHES MY TERRITORY!" you're doing it... well, perhaps not right, but a lot better.
You can of course just not read the text in the trials and just imagine that "I want Countess Crey's head on a platter" was what the contact said, but I don't think it is particularly good design if I have to ignore "let's work together to save the world" and fill in the blanks with my own dark evil musings for it to fit the character. Especially not if I have to do it in every single co-op! (You can of course solve the problem by not doing the co-ops, but as solutions go, that's about as satisfying as decaf.)
As for the extra-legal matters, remember what Bats said in the Congressional hearings in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns:
"Of course we're criminals. We have no other choice."
Which brings me to a final thought: the blue-tights boyscout law and order all-American heroes have some four co-op trials and task forces plus the iTrials catering for their do-goody mom-and-applepie feelings, but nothing for Bats.
I think it's time to throw a bone to the dark and edgy knights and jokers, if nothing else than for change.
Still @Shadow Kitty
"I became Archvillain before Statesman nerfed himself!"
Quote:
...buh? No comprende.
|
Originally Posted by Shadow_Kitty
It still may feel extremely necessary even for the most blue-tighted hero to take such action. Just add medical experiments on some unfortunate runaway white girls, and you have the moral implications for the heroes to act. Would Mr Superduperman just ignore that Crey is conducting painful cellular DNA X-factor essence extraction experiments on my pretty daughter?
|
In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo.
Quote:
There's an old saying, "never play an ace when a two will do".|
Originally Posted by MisterMagpie
...buh? No comprende.
|
Take for instance our friend Spidey. Sometimes, he save the world. Sometimes he team up with unsavoury characters to do so.
Most of the time, he doesn't save the world. He stops kingpins, drug dealers, bank robbers, the occasional spy, Captain America and other non-world-destroying nasty things. And sometimes he teams up with unsavoury characters to do so.
But even if Spidey himself does what he does because with great powers come great responsibility, the unsavoury characters do what they do for their own reasons. Even when they team with Spidey.
Still @Shadow Kitty
"I became Archvillain before Statesman nerfed himself!"
Quote:
Better for villains perhaps, but you've only pushed the problem to the opposite side: there are at least as many players reticent to allow their heroes to cooperate with that as there are players chafing to allow their villains to cooperate with heroes to save the world or some subset thereof.
|
Originally Posted by Shadow_Kitty
There's another thing as well. What the heroes say is one thing; the difference is what the villains say. If the villains say, "we're saving the world too, cause otherwise we'll die too", you're doing it wrong. If the villains say "I want Countess Crey's head on a platter! NOBODY POACHES MY TERRITORY!" you're doing it... well, perhaps not right, but a lot better.
|
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
At least there will be some balance.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Better for villains perhaps, but you've only pushed the problem to the opposite side: there are at least as many players reticent to allow their heroes to cooperate with that as there are players chafing to allow their villains to cooperate with heroes to save the world or some subset thereof.
|
I could say "then don't play those", like so many bluesiders have said before in this thread, but that would be just plain evil, so I won't...
...who the Helsinki am I kidding? Then don't play those!
Still @Shadow Kitty
"I became Archvillain before Statesman nerfed himself!"
Quote:
I don't as a rule, recommend to the developers to address an error by asking them to increase the range of victims of that error, because I'm afraid they might do it.
|
Originally Posted by Shadow_Kitty
At least there will be some balance.
|
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
I see at is at decreasing the range of victims. Even if a co-op TF that jumps off with a more villainy starting point, there's still four plus iTrials that don't. I really can't see the heroes as "victims" in that position. |
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
I don't as a rule, recommend to the developers to address an error by asking them to increase the range of victims of that error, because I'm afraid they might do it.
|
That assumes that heroes suddenly get an allergy to villains that they somehow managed to ignore for the past years of existing heroic co-ops. If a hero player really can't team up with a villain, they have already either not played the co-ops or worked really hard to not be on a team with villains already. I don't expect their position to change overnight, so in that category, the number of affected players should be more or less constant.
And remember that those are pretty few. Most griping villain players going "here we go saving the world AGAIN!" actually go anyway. And they probably have pretty fun doing it, even if they're tired of the backstory.
At worst, there will be a small minority of heroes that never team with villains and that will continue to never will and thus aren't affected anyway, and a large majority of heroes that may go "here we go being villainy for the greater good AGAIN!" - but only after the devs have made something like half a dozen co-ops and iTrials straight using that angle.
At first, it may even be a welcome change even for the heroes.
Still @Shadow Kitty
"I became Archvillain before Statesman nerfed himself!"
Quote:
I think, for the most part, most of us are just tired of the increasingly weak explanations for what those villains are even doing there in the first place. "Someone's in trouble!" might be enough to motivate the archetypical hero, but it doesn't really work for most villains. (whereas, "Someone's in trouble, so they aren't watching their stuff!" totally could be |
Originally Posted by Shadow_Kitty
And remember that those are pretty few. Most griping villain players going "here we go saving the world AGAIN!" actually go anyway. And they probably have pretty fun doing it, even if they're tired of the backstory.
|
)As it is right now, "co-op" is really just shorthand for "hero content that villains are also allowed to play through."
I think my advice to the devs, would be that if they write some Co-op content, and can't come up with a plausible reason why or how to draw in redside players... then don't. Be honest, and accept that what you have, is blueside content. Release it as blueside content. Sure, that will suck for redside, but it will make the disparity all the more obvious (and perhaps even provoke a mission-writer or two to think a little harder about it).
Thought for the day:
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
=][=
Listen it is simple a Hero will save the earth and universe for the greater good
Villains (with a few exceptions) will save the earth/ dimension because of self preservation, even if you can slip in to other dimensions what is to stop the villain you are stopping from going to that dimension and doing the same thing?
Bottom line either the nut is stopped or every one suffers, even if you argue "Hey my Villain is immortal and wants to subjugate the universe" not worth ruling a universe when ever one in it is dead!
Sorry the game doesn't allow you to be the world destroyer your self, that story just doesn't work in an MMO unless you your self get thwarted. which come to think of it might be a fun angle to play.
Maybe what they need to do is offer some interesting options for co-op TFs and trials, like once you defeat the mutual enemy the Villains get to turn on the heroes starting a short PVP session at the end of the TF, make it a V vs. H Last man standing deal, who ever wins gets the prize. Villains win they are rewarded with a cut scene of strapping the British word for a undesirable person that beggins in W I can't believe they bleeped in to a device and siphoning his power and a reward is given. Heroes win they get a cut scene of the vagabond being hauled to a maximum security prison and then positron or some one awards them with special trinket and a reward is given.
thing is when it comes to "end of the world as we know it" scenarios you really have 2 choices of story line to write as writers of the game. First is Villains help heroes, Second is Villains assist Villain trying to end the world and fail (unless they are planning on ending the MMO or moving every one to a new parallel universe)
Quote:
That argument has been used repeatedly in this thread. It's still moot.|
Originally Posted by Xenophage
Listen it is simple a Hero will save the earth and universe for the greater good
Villains (with a few exceptions) will save the earth/ dimension because of self preservation, even if you can slip in to other dimensions what is to stop the villain you are stopping from going to that dimension and doing the same thing? |
If you didn't read the previous counter-argument, here it is in brief:
The problem is not the villain's lack of self-preservation. The problem is the writer's lack of imagination. Every single time there is a co-op, it is to stop the end of the world!
It would be nice, for a change, if another common cause was used. Those books with the sparkly vampires, for instance.
Still @Shadow Kitty
"I became Archvillain before Statesman nerfed himself!"
Quote:
Third: Villains gamble that the heroes will get off the couch and save the world themselves for a change, and gleefully run off to take advantage of the confusion.|
Originally Posted by Xenophage
thing is when it comes to "end of the world as we know it" scenarios you really have 2 choices of story line to write as writers of the game. First is Villains help heroes, Second is Villains assist Villain trying to end the world and fail (unless they are planning on ending the MMO or moving every one to a new parallel universe)
|
There's a Spanish Inquisition joke in here, somewhere.
Thought for the day:
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
=][=
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xenophage
Bottom line either the nut is stopped or every one suffers, even if you argue "Hey my Villain is immortal and wants to subjugate the universe" not worth ruling a universe when ever one in it is dead!
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xenophage
Sorry the game doesn't allow you to be the world destroyer
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xenophage
thing is when it comes to "end of the world as we know it" scenarios
|
I'm done. I'm just done with this. No one is going to read this thread anymore, they're just going to run in and either argue semantics or ***** and moan about people wanting to destroy the world.
I really, really, REALLY, REALLY wish people would READ THE THREAD before coming in and immediately beating the dead horse that everyone's already beaten two or three hundred times earlier in the discussion.
My guides:Dark Melee/Dark Armor/Soul Mastery, Illusion Control/Kinetics/Primal Forces Mastery, Electric Armor
"Dark Armor is a complete waste as a tanking set."
Why would you be taking credit for a hero's work? Uhm... to gain another hero's trust maybe? Needs more thought.