It happened AGAIN.


Agent79

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Egos_Shadow View Post
You can roleplay whatever you want, but the point where you start expecting the game mechanics to support totally arbitrary characterization is the point where you become incorrect. You're not going to be allowed to press the button. If you feel that's out of character for you, don't play any arc where the button is within arm's reach. Thus is happiness maintained.

But expecting other people to respect your desire to destroy the world - with the expectation of actually getting to do it! - is incorrect, in the same way that showing up to a card game and demanding to burn the deck is invalid. You can't burn the deck. The rest of us are still playing with it. Complaining about this fact is incorrect.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Egos_Shadow View Post
Worked for Darth Vader, didn't it?
Touche.



http://www.virtueverse.net/wiki/Shadow_Mokadara

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Egos_Shadow View Post
You can roleplay whatever you want, but the point where you start expecting the game mechanics to support totally arbitrary characterization is the point where you become incorrect. You're not going to be allowed to press the button. If you feel that's out of character for you, don't play any arc where the button is within arm's reach. Thus is happiness maintained.

But expecting other people to respect your desire to destroy the world - with the expectation of actually getting to do it! - is incorrect, in the same way that showing up to a card game and demanding to burn the deck is invalid. You can't burn the deck. The rest of us are still playing with it. Complaining about this fact is incorrect.
I submit that your use of the word "incorrect" in this context is, well, incorrect.

Just because the current game system is inadequate to the task at hand does not make the desire to enjoy a system that -could- handle such a task "incorrect" in the least. Get over yourself with these illogical absolutisms.


Loth 50 Fire/Rad Controller [1392 Badges] [300 non-AE Souvenirs]
Ryver 50 Ele� Blaster [1392 Badges]
Silandra 50 Peacebringer [1138 Badges] [No Redside Badges]
--{=====> Virtue ♀

 

Posted

I think players who want to be more villainous are being poorly represented in this thread. Not every villain wants to rule the world or destroy it. Wanting more villainous content does not mean every arc has to have the possibility of devestating vast tracts of land or ruling a pile of rubble. Sometimes it's as simple as the way other villains address you or getting away with a big pile of cash.

Look at Dean McArthur and Leonard's arcs. In both of them you are the big shot, dangerous person who gets to be nice or nasty to them. They are your lackeys, doing what you tell them to do. Plus you get to finish Leonard's arc with a big sack of cash. Equally, as has been said earlier in the thread, after you finish a patron arc, the patron effectively concedes that you are their equal (most times) and decides not to cross you. Even Recluse agrees not to try and abuse your power after you prove how much of a badass you are to him.

Villains are about gaining power. But a lot of the time, the arcs we have simply cast us as lackeys and mercenaries, never wanting to gain much for ourselves other than getting paid. Things are improving though. Tips are an excellent source of villainy and thing such as making the Mortimer Kal introduction into a tip mission was a stroke of genius. So kudos for those, we need more of them please!

But co-op content is a nightmare. Co-op stuff always seems to be heroic in nature, mostly because there seems to be this fear that if there was a co-op task that required heroes to be less than whiter than white, no-one would play it. So it's always the villains that have to put their personal issues aside and play pretend hero. The opening to Redside New DA even makes a joke about it! Although I appreciate that co-op content is a cost saving measure, it's been used too often over the past ten issues to the point where if I see the term 'co-op', I immediately want to go and play something else.

The writers have proven that they're capable of better. So it frustrates me no end when I see the cheap and easy way being taken every single time and just expecting villains to like it or lump it. Blowing up the world is impossible to do in this game. But at least let us get away with some real evil.


@Dante EU - Union Roleplayer and Altisis Victim
The Militia: Union RP Supergroup - www.themilitia.org.uk

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante View Post
I think players who want to be more villainous are being poorly represented in this thread. Not every villain wants to rule the world or destroy it. Wanting more villainous content does not mean every arc has to have the possibility of devestating vast tracts of land or ruling a pile of rubble. Sometimes it's as simple as the way other villains address you or getting away with a big pile of cash.

Look at Dean McArthur and Leonard's arcs. In both of them you are the big shot, dangerous person who gets to be nice or nasty to them. They are your lackeys, doing what you tell them to do. Plus you get to finish Leonard's arc with a big sack of cash. Equally, as has been said earlier in the thread, after you finish a patron arc, the patron effectively concedes that you are their equal (most times) and decides not to cross you. Even Recluse agrees not to try and abuse your power after you prove how much of a badass you are to him.

Villains are about gaining power. But a lot of the time, the arcs we have simply cast us as lackeys and mercenaries, never wanting to gain much for ourselves other than getting paid. Things are improving though. Tips are an excellent source of villainy and thing such as making the Mortimer Kal introduction into a tip mission was a stroke of genius. So kudos for those, we need more of them please!

But co-op content is a nightmare. Co-op stuff always seems to be heroic in nature, mostly because there seems to be this fear that if there was a co-op task that required heroes to be less than whiter than white, no-one would play it. So it's always the villains that have to put their personal issues aside and play pretend hero. The opening to Redside New DA even makes a joke about it! Although I appreciate that co-op content is a cost saving measure, it's been used too often over the past ten issues to the point where if I see the term 'co-op', I immediately want to go and play something else.

The writers have proven that they're capable of this. So it frustrates me no end when I see the cheap and easy way being taken every single time and just expecting villains to like it or lump it.
^All of this

Also, I'd love more arcs like Dean Arthur. Row row kill the heroes.



http://www.virtueverse.net/wiki/Shadow_Mokadara

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothic View Post
I submit that your use of the word "incorrect" in this context is, well, incorrect.

Just because the current game system is inadequate to the task at hand does not make the desire to enjoy a system that -could- handle such a task "incorrect" in the least. Get over yourself with these illogical absolutisms.
Illogical?!

STOP! Hammerspace!

Doo doo doo doo, doo doo, doo doo


@Mindshadow

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalrok_AthZim View Post
-Heroes fight the Rikti to save the world. Villains can aid the heroes for the greater good.
-Heroes fight the Fifth Column and the Cimeroran Traitors to stop their meddling with power and save the world. Villains can aid the heroes for the greater good.
-Heroes can stop Snaptooth/Lady Winter from keeping the world in eternal frost and frozen time and save the world. Villains can aid the heroes for the greater good.
-Heroes can fight Praetoria to stop their invasion of Primal Earth and save the world. Villains... can... aid the heroes... for the greater.... ugh.
How about "these guys winning would #$%^ up my own plans". That's not really a "for the greater good" thing, it's a "for my own good" thing. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable hook to me.




Virtue Server
Avatar art by Daggerpoint

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante View Post
But co-op content is a nightmare. Co-op stuff always seems to be heroic in nature, mostly because there seems to be this fear that if there was a co-op task that required heroes to be less than whiter than white, no-one would play it. So it's always the villains that have to put their personal issues aside and play pretend hero. The opening to Redside New DA even makes a joke about it! Although I appreciate that co-op content is a cost saving measure, it's been used too often over the past ten issues to the point where if I see the term 'co-op', I immediately want to go and play something else.
I actually really enjoyed the DA arcs as my stalker. I felt it took a real effort towards making sure our reasons are villainous and we're were working towards a way to grab power for ourselves. Sometimes it's the little things, I mean after the end of the Destined One Arc, Recluse just saying that I am beyond his power to control was awesome to me. That one little line made all the difference. And I full agree we need more villain content along those lines. Dean, Ross, more arcs with us in charge and ultimately walking away a victor in some sense. We got money and screwed over Protean, or we took on an army of Legacy and a task force of heroes, that was awesome.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Girl View Post
That's because the default setting for the game world matches the major goals of the Heroes - if we log out with Paragon City in the same state as it was in when we logged in, then we've been successful.
Every single villain group in the game, from Tyrant and the loyalists down to the Skulls and the Hellions is trying to make the game world into a worse place - which would require some changes to the game on a small scale or a massive scale, depending on the size of the threat - which would also fragment the meta-storyline, adding even more work to the development process - so not only are we saving the world, we're also saving the devs a huge amount of unnecessary work
Whether or not something is 'necessary' is relative to someone's goals and standards, and the technology to change the game world based on a player's actions already exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowMoka View Post
Considering Wade has to sick Lanaruu on you and retreat, that's not an inaccurate belief.
He meant his character may share some of the same beliefs and opinions that Wade does.


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.)

 

Posted

Didn't read past the OP.

Wade made a power grab and played me for a chump - I'm willing to work with the heroes if it means I can get revenge.


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 View Post
Im very good at taking a problem and making it worse.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyger42 View Post
How about "these guys winning would #$%^ up my own plans". That's not really a "for the greater good" thing, it's a "for my own good" thing. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable hook to me.
Well, the best plans are flexible enough to use good distractions when they arise. The thing of it is, other villains get to use these events to their advantages. I mean look at the Rikti War Zone, is the only enemies there Rikti? No, We have Arachnos, Malta, Knives, DE, Nemesis, and even some CoT, what are they doing? It sure doesn't look like they're dropping everything to go rescue Fusionette.


 

Posted

You do realize that the badguys lose, right? I mean, the world never really gets taken over by evil, or destroyed by an evil plot.

It's just the way of the universe. There's always a quick witted ex-cop that walks across glass in his bare feet to save the chick. Frodo and Samwise manage to walk across middle earth barefoot past thousands of badguys to make it to Mt Doom and the ring gets destroyed. And after 5.9 movies of Anakin sliding toward evil and becoming Darth Vader, in the last 10 minutes of the final chapter he restores "balance" to the force, sacrifices himself to kill 1 badguy, and skippy-do-da he gets to hang out in the afterlife with his old buddies (i think he has his shoes on). There's always a happy ending. Get used to it.


I gotta make pain. I gotta make things right. I gotta stop what's comin'. 'Least I gotta try.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDeepBlue View Post
Whether or not something is 'necessary' is relative to someone's goals and standards, and the technology to change the game world based on a player's actions already exists.
It necessary for them to put out new content at a reasonable rate, and have a unified meta-story to guide the creation of that new content.


@Golden Girl

City of Heroes comics and artwork

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shred_Monkey View Post
You do realize that the goodguys never win, right? I mean, the world never really gets purged of evil, and there's always a new evil plot around the corner.

There's never a happy ending. Get used to it.
Fix't.


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 View Post
Im very good at taking a problem and making it worse.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shred_Monkey View Post
You do realize that the badguys lose, right? I mean, the world never really gets taken over by evil, or destroyed by an evil plot.

It's just the way of the universe. There's always a quick witted ex-cop that walks across glass in his bare feet to save the chick. Frodo and Samwise manage to walk across middle earth barefoot past thousands of badguys to make it to Mt Doom and the ring gets destroyed. And after 5.9 movies of Anakin sliding toward evil and becoming Darth Vader, in the last 10 minutes of the final chapter he restores "balance" to the force, sacrifices himself to kill 1 badguy, and skippy-do-da he gets to hang out in the afterlife with his old buddies (i think he still wears shoes). There's always a happy ending. Get used to it.
Gollum destroyed the ring, and the good guys would have lost if he hadn't slipped. After the Death Star blew up the waste from it would have destroyed all life on Endor, and there was still a giant army vs the rebels. Statesman is dead, so there's not always a happy ending.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante View Post
I think players who want to be more villainous are being poorly represented in this thread. Not every villain wants to rule the world or destroy it. Wanting more villainous content does not mean every arc has to have the possibility of devestating vast tracts of land or ruling a pile of rubble. Sometimes it's as simple as the way other villains address you or getting away with a big pile of cash.
I'm not trying to suggest that every supervillain's one and only goal should be to destroy the world. Villains, like heroes, come in all shapes and sizes. I'm simply suggesting that the perfect "superhero vs. supervillain" game would actually allow the POSSIBLITY for a supervillain to destroy the world in some form or fashion instead of being forced to serve The Greater Good every... single... time.

I'm dreaming of a game that would let any villain do anything - all anyone here can come up with is semi-lame excuses along the lines of "The Devs couldn't make a game work like that so you shouldn't want to play that way". Way to be stuck in the past guys.


Loth 50 Fire/Rad Controller [1392 Badges] [300 non-AE Souvenirs]
Ryver 50 Ele� Blaster [1392 Badges]
Silandra 50 Peacebringer [1138 Badges] [No Redside Badges]
--{=====> Virtue ♀

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shred_Monkey View Post
You do realize that the badguys lose, right? I mean, the world never really gets taken over by evil, or destroyed by an evil plot.

It's just the way of the universe. There's always a quick witted ex-cop that walks across glass in his bare feet to save the chick. Frodo and Samwise manage to walk across middle earth barefoot past thousands of badguys to make it to Mt Doom and the ring gets destroyed. And after 5.9 movies of Anakin sliding toward evil and becoming Darth Vader, in the last 10 minutes of the final chapter he restores "balance" to the force, sacrifices himself to kill 1 badguy, and skippy-do-da he gets to hang out in the afterlife with his old buddies (i think he has his shoes on). There's always a happy ending. Get used to it.
There's a difference between "good conquering evil" in generic literature and a HUMAN PLAYER playing a villain. What motivation does a person have to continue playing a character who's doomed by unalterable fate to lose? I'll admit playing a doomed character is appealing sometimes, but not all the time.

I submit that a human player playing a villain ought to be able to "win" at least once in a while, otherwise what's the point?


Loth 50 Fire/Rad Controller [1392 Badges] [300 non-AE Souvenirs]
Ryver 50 Ele� Blaster [1392 Badges]
Silandra 50 Peacebringer [1138 Badges] [No Redside Badges]
--{=====> Virtue ♀

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothic View Post
There's a difference between "good conquering evil" in generic literature and a HUMAN PLAYER playing a villain. What motivation does a person have to continue playing a character who is doomed by unalterable fate to lose?

I submit that a human player playing a villain ought to be able to "win" at least once in a while, otherwise what's the point?
They can - but not a world wide scale


@Golden Girl

City of Heroes comics and artwork

 

Posted

QR 'cause I only read the first few responses.

When rogues complete the Statesman Task Force, they get a badge called "Saved the World (For Later)". The implication is that, you're not about to let someone else take over the world, because that's what you're going to do!

I think that theme should be evident for villains in almost all co-op zones and missions. It could go even further sometimes maybe, where the villain players attempt to usurp control of the mega-ultra-whatsits, or steal some key component from it.

There's a cool example of this sort of thing from Stargate: Atlantis. While the Tau'ri were able to convince the Wraith to fight alongside them against the Asurans (who were the greater threat), the Wraith were still sneaky bastards and managed to steal several ZPMs from the Lantean replicators during the battle. That later turned them into a much bigger threat at the end of the series.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Girl View Post
They can - but not a world wide scale
And until you can give me the answer to WHY that must be so always and forever regardless of the mechanics used to design a game I guess I'll have to keep asking the question. Table top games don't suffer from that limitation - are we to assume that computer MMOs always will?


Loth 50 Fire/Rad Controller [1392 Badges] [300 non-AE Souvenirs]
Ryver 50 Ele� Blaster [1392 Badges]
Silandra 50 Peacebringer [1138 Badges] [No Redside Badges]
--{=====> Virtue ♀

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothic View Post
Somehow you keep trying to say that the inherent limitations of having to stick to a static model for a MMO is the only excuse necessary to justify hampering an entire concept of roleplay.
That's because, in and of itself, it would be. But sure, I'll address the second part.


Quote:
Games don't make arbitrary "rules" to limit player freedom on purpose. The only reason we can't play "world destroying" villains in this game is because the game system is inadequate to allow for it, not because the Devs would ever make an arbitrary "rule" against it.
It has nothing to do with the game system and everything to do with the Dev Intent for the game. The game is meant to be a multiplayer experience. The "system" for letting your villain "Destroy the world" would probably be fairly easy to put into place, but then what?

Do other players that might not want the world to be destroyed get a chance to stop you?
Nope, because PVP is consensual, and if you never consent to PVP, you're tossing out the wishes of other players and characters while you pursue your goal.

And if you're on a team with people, what happens if the people on your team don't agree with you pushing the button?

There's two possible answers. One: Non-consensual PVP, and the winner gets to do what they want. Two: Don't ever let the player push the button.

This isn't just an MMO thing, because it eventually happens in -all- multiplayer RP games, Pen and Paper or otherwise. And all of these games usually prohibit the use of said "monstrous" villains as player characters, because it puts the players into a competitive position and can potentially destroy the game environment.

The hero's can also gripe about this to a degree. IE, Why can't my hero ever just put a bullet in Countess Crey's head and expose the company to the world at large?

Because then other players lose that faction to play with/against and it's a permanent alteration to the sandbox not to be made lightly. It's why players in any ONGOING multiplayer RP game, MMO or otherwise, cannot make permanent change. The moment you start doing so, is the moment you start taking steps on a path to an inevitable end of the game.

Making characters where you want to enable permanent, worldshaping, change in a multiplayer RP game without a set ending is folly, and to rage when you're not allowed to do so is doubly so.

All games have rules, and in this case, you can't blame the mechanics, because it's not a mechanical decision/limitation. It's one placed by the GMs (Or in this case, the Devs) to enable the continued existence of the game for all players.

Now, if it was a console game or a game for like, 3-4 players with a finite end? Yes, what you want is possible. It's still tricky however, to pull off, without ending up being a negative play experience for at least some parts of the group, if the players in the group wind up on opposing sides.


 

Posted

Let me first say that I'm sympathetic to the OP, in principle.

However; Wade has script immunity and, moreover, he is the antagonist so he has to be the one to take down the protagonist. You can't give that "honor" to the PC and keep the game world consistent. If the PC got to assist, there'd be just as many people unhappy about playing lackey to Wade as there are currently unhappy about not pulling the trigger on Statesman.

We've already seen that the track record of the villains so far in this story arc up to this point is one success after another. Let's look at the hero side:

1) Fail to protect Eastgate from conversion into a pool of lava. (Though Synapse gets a somewhat amusing joke about it.)

2) Fail to protect the true MacGuffin of the arc.

3) Fail to protect one of the iconic characters, Miss Liberty.

4) Fail to protect one of the iconic characters, Sister Psyche, as well as fail to protect or even properly take vengeance upon the poster boy for reformed villainy, Malaise.

5) Fail to protect or warn Statesman.

Notice a pattern here? What do you suppose that chapters six and seven hold for the blue side? Do you also notice that all of those failures are OUT OF THE PLAYER'S CONTROL?

I'm afraid that while the stated frustrations with having to watch Wade succeed and then double-cross you are valid ones, I have to conclude that overall, red-side is the getting better shake out of this story so far.

As for Doctor Doom, now that he's eaten Galactus, he may well find that swallowing the Beyonder is a bigger task than he expected and it may bite him in the ***; especially if you villains get to help the Beyonder do the biting as retribution for Doom's betrayal. Likewise, if the Well finds a way to intercede and that intercession is greased on its skids by the PC's. Maybe you won't get to rule the world or the universe at the end, but maybe you'll get a taste of some cold, cold revenge and if it's served up just right,then you may find that it's delicious, indeed.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haetron View Post
That's because, in and of itself, it would be. But sure, I'll address the second part.




It has nothing to do with the game system and everything to do with the Dev Intent for the game. The game is meant to be a multiplayer experience. The "system" for letting your villain "Destroy the world" would probably be fairly easy to put into place, but then what?

Do other players that might not want the world to be destroyed get a chance to stop you?
Nope, because PVP is consensual, and if you never consent to PVP, you're tossing out the wishes of other players and characters while you pursue your goal.

And if you're on a team with people, what happens if the people on your team don't agree with you pushing the button?

There's two possible answers. One: Non-consensual PVP, and the winner gets to do what they want. Two: Don't ever let the player push the button.

This isn't just an MMO thing, because it eventually happens in -all- multiplayer RP games, Pen and Paper or otherwise. And all of these games usually prohibit the use of said "monstrous" villains as player characters, because it puts the players into a competitive position and can potentially destroy the game environment.

The hero's can also gripe about this to a degree. IE, Why can't my hero ever just put a bullet in Countess Crey's head and expose the company to the world at large?

Because then other players lose that faction to play with/against and it's a permanent alteration to the sandbox not to be made lightly. It's why players in any ONGOING multiplayer RP game, MMO or otherwise, cannot make permanent change. The moment you start doing so, is the moment you start taking steps on a path to an inevitable end of the game.

Making characters where you want to enable permanent, worldshaping, change in a multiplayer RP game without a set ending is folly, and to rage when you're not allowed to do so is doubly so.

All games have rules, and in this case, you can't blame the mechanics, because it's not a mechanical decision/limitation. It's one placed by the GMs (Or in this case, the Devs) to enable the continued existence of the game for all players.

Now, if it was a console game or a game for like, 3-4 players with a finite end? Yes, what you want is possible. It's still tricky however, to pull off, without ending up being a negative play experience for at least some parts of the group, if the players in the group wind up on opposing sides.
I prefer to see a future where multiplayer games are not confined to the limitations you wish to keep them shackled to. *shrugs*


Loth 50 Fire/Rad Controller [1392 Badges] [300 non-AE Souvenirs]
Ryver 50 Ele� Blaster [1392 Badges]
Silandra 50 Peacebringer [1138 Badges] [No Redside Badges]
--{=====> Virtue ♀

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante View Post
But co-op content is a nightmare. Co-op stuff always seems to be heroic in nature, mostly because there seems to be this fear that if there was a co-op task that required heroes to be less than whiter than white, no-one would play it. So it's always the villains that have to put their personal issues aside and play pretend hero.
I always thought it would be cool if co-op content had optional objectives that are villainous in nature and come with a nice reward, but completing these objectives would force your character's alignment to be villain. Maybe Malta has a bunch of meta humans captured in some kind of power draining machine, you can use the controls to kill them off and infuse yourself with their power granting you a 24 hour temp power similar to the mortimer kal one. But if you want this temp power you have to deal with becoming a villain.

So all those heroes who like to take the moral high ground, but still try to kill off Infernia and Glacia to make the Lady Grey Task Force go quicker, have to deal with the consequences of not sticking with their morals. I know there would be a whole mountain of problems with a system like this unfortunately, but it's still a cool idea.



 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaloopa View Post
I know there would be a whole mountain of problems with a system like this unfortunately, but it's still a cool idea.
Cool things usually take more effort than simple cliches.
Perhaps we'll get a game willing to delve into these depths someday.


Loth 50 Fire/Rad Controller [1392 Badges] [300 non-AE Souvenirs]
Ryver 50 Ele� Blaster [1392 Badges]
Silandra 50 Peacebringer [1138 Badges] [No Redside Badges]
--{=====> Virtue ♀