Announcements
Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2
To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.
Well now, see this one is easy to explain to even the simple minded!
The NPC is of course not an immortal god. He'll just won't die. It's the meta. Sorta like how I would hope the ability refinements would be meta and not "Oh hey! Look! I picked this up on a bad guy and attached it to myself! I'm so cool!"
Which, it sounds like, by your comment, exactly how you play. That makes me sad.
That is not griefing. Even if you believe it to be griefing and feel like such naming conventions are directly impinging your ability to enjoy the game, it’s still not griefing.
It seems a lack of understanding regarding this phenomenon is underpinning your persistence in this discussion. Unfortunately, that misunderstanding also undercuts the validity of your argument.
Perhaps one of the devs should chime in and inform us what their intentions are in this matter.
Immortal means you can't die. How is that immersive? Its contradictory.
And you quoted my whole post without speaking to my main point. How would fix that problem?
And I really could not care less if my style of gameplay makes you sad.
And as far as names go, you have to choose to be annoyed at someone's name that doesn't affect your gameplay. I can't grief you with a name because you don't need my characters name for *anything* in the game. NPC's you DO.
Compulsively clicking the refresh button until the next update.
Pretty sure the definition of grief is deep sorrow and I feel a deep sorrow every time I see a name like xXxCOTFEVERxXx for a character, especially if one can name the character anything. As for how it effects my gameplay, I still see it :p
Also, it's not that they're immortal. They're just not dying. Meaning, the enemy can't kill them, because the hero NPC happens to be to good for them. :p
You know, like how no one kills Batman.
Seriously, I have no idea how you don't comprehend that simple little point. Do you read a comic and expect the main character to die?
Having the hero npc contact join in on the fighting if enemy npcs get to close, will always be more fun.
I'm going to have to take it then, you consider all your characters immortal, as they never die.
They often die actually. Have you ever played an MMO? You get 'rezzed'...don't remember 'wakies' from CoH?
Compulsively clicking the refresh button until the next update.
Whats stopping the devs from putting important contacts or ability trainers behind NPCs like the security/arbiter drones like in CoH that would instantly kill/defeat/teleport you away.
Nothing. The devs will do what they will. And that is a better option than having the NPC contacts themselves do the dirty work. There are still [b]potential[/b] problems though. The biggest of which I stated above; if every NPC contact is surrounded by bodyguards that
then that NPC is basically a sanctuary of sorts. This wouldn't be a big deal for one or two really important NPCs that probably wouldn't be around bad guys anyway. But imagine dozens or hundreds of contacts surrounded by body guards all over the map. You would never be too far away from one no matter where you went so if you feel like you might not be able to beat a mob just hop on over to the nearest NPC and get a get out of jail free card. Every time. For those more risk averse, or those who hate dying...especially those who play ultra-safe for the immersion of RP'ing never dying because rezzing is cheating...these people would never stray far from those pin drop locations where they are guaranteed safety.
Compulsively clicking the refresh button until the next update.
Stop being obtuse. It is universally understood in MMO's that griefing is a player [b]impeding[/b] another player's ability to play the game. Someone's name -can't- do that. You may not like it, but it doesn't actually affect you at all. Someone camping an NPC so you can't talk to that NPC? Griefing. Not liking another player's name? Not griefing as it doesn't impede your gameplay in the least.
Compulsively clicking the refresh button until the next update.
Griefing can also be harassment.
So the only time someone's name can be griefing is if it's obviously inflammatory or a personal attack.
But usually, Brand, a bad name isn't griefing.
Also if I remember correctly most MMOs have a way to turn off names above heads, so you don't have to look at them.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Bad names (and awful costumes) are annoying but they are things that you can easily ignore (literally you can put them on an ignore list) and don’t hinder your ability to play the game. They’re also not targeting you. That kind of behavior doesn’t constitute griefing.
If anything they’re doing you a favor by letting you know in advance that they’re an idiot and should be avoided. Think of it like a warning sign. :D
Yes, which is a player causing deep sorrow in another player. How do you think that term got used in the first place? By it's definition.
The fact is, I think it would be a good idea and it's not as likely to be as bad as you think, you're just worried that you may lose a second of space baring your way through a dialogue box with an NPC. :p
Not to mention, it still doesn't stop the "We didn't have it in CoH, so we don't need it in CoT" from being the most retarded of replies. :p CoT already has plans for things that weren't in CoH and people love the idea of them.
Also, I hated the police drones. They were some of the stupidest lore objects in the game.
Why not build more of them? How exactly does it know a criminal from not a criminal when they just walked by and why did it not work on Rogues? Who are just as criminal as the NPCs.
I don’t think you know what the term means or where it came from. Griefing requires intent. Just because someone did something you don’t like, that’s not griefing. Doing something you don’t like specifically and intentionally to distress you is griefing.
Now if the name were generally offensive and was chosen intentionally to upset people, that could constitute griefing. But that’s not the kind of behavior you’re using as an example.
It comes from the word grief, yes, but not the usage you are thinking of.
Grief.
(Noun, informal)
trouble or annoyance.
"we were too tired to cause any grief"
Which then gets to Grief as a verb.
(online gaming) To deliberately harass and annoy or cause grief to other players of a game in order to interfere with their enjoyment of it; especially, to do this as one’s primary activity in the game. [from late 20th Century]
Or do you also think that internet trolls are all also monsters who live under bridges?
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
If you go back and read, I never made the argument that
And yes, I am worried about other player's ability to impede me from [b]playing the game[/b].
It is infinitely easier to ignore someone's name than ignore someone impeding you from actually playing the game. And, as mentioned above, most games allow you to get rid of seeing people's names above their character as well as the ability to /ignore a person and literally never have to hear from them.
By your own definition use of grief in this context, everyone who has ever beat me in pvp should be banned for causing me deep sorrow. Also anyone who has better gear than me in other games. Or other people that seem more popular in-game. Or anyone that plays better than me. Or anyone that beats me on a loot roll.
Honestly,
this is absurd. Sorrow, really? You're going to feel sorrow that someone used those names? There's not a dev in the world that would take your side that any of those names could be taken as 'griefing'.
Compulsively clicking the refresh button until the next update.
Hell yes I am! I deep sorrow that I even wonder why they're playing a superhero game with any option and they can't make a decent hero name? It annoys me.
As for the impeding of you playing the game. Sorry, you're wrong. It wouldn't impede you from playing the game at all.
Are you still logged in? Waiting? Playing! Standing there attacking the enemies so the contact will get back to place sooner? Playing and getting XP! Do you have the ability to do something else in game as you wait the few seconds it will take for the npc to return to standing position? Playing!
So please, tell me, how exactly is this impedeing your ability to play the game? Or is it really more of a whine about how "Waaaah I won't turn in this mission naow! So I have to throw a tantrum!" :p
The idea does not impede the playing the game at all. It just gives you something to whine about :)
You're immaturity is astounding. I'm done with this conversation.
Compulsively clicking the refresh button until the next update.
You're just upset that your "It impedes my gaming." was wrong.
Sorry if it was at that comment I realized it was all about the whining.
Go to NPC, NPC is dead. Have to wait for respawn. NPC respawns players with a faction rep low enough engage him straight away making it so you can't turn in/take missions, on a PvE server so you can't fight the players, they decline the option to duel or are too high a level that engaging them would be suicide, NPC dies, you wait for the NPC to respawn... Repeat as nauseum.
That's if the NPC is killable. You see how people could be waiting a while to continue doing the action they want to do within the game? That is impeding someone's gaming.
If the NPC is fightable but unkillable.
Opposing player fights NPC to edge of it's agro zone, once the NPC gets to the edge of the agro zone it walks back, another player hits it from inside the zone leads it to the edge, the two players tag team keeping the NPC unclickable while taking virtually no damage, the players trying to complete their missions have no sweet clue as to where the NPC is, or if they do can't do anything about it because they're on the PvE server.
Thus impeding the game play of several players.
Griefer can keep this up for hours. Because they find it fun and/or have no lives.
And if you think that waiting around in a game is the same as playing it you are just wrong. As you have been about many things. On this thread and others.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Why would the devs let the NPC be attackable by a player?
Why would the NPC be unclickable in combat?
It's been stated the NPC wouldn't die. It's been stated the NPC would only fight other NPCs (like in CO).
Seeing as how this happened in CO and never once felt impeded and only thought, "Okay, this is cool."
Never felt any grief from it.
So, the idea that it can be grieved is just wrong or those who feel grieved are just really sensitive and/or whiney about waiting a couple second to finish a fight they could help on.
Can you link to where a dev has stated that quest NPCs won't be able to be killed and also can only be fought by other NPCs?
Ah, the old "I haven't experienced it so no one else does either" argument. Good show.
Also even with those caveats there's a chance for griefing to happen. NPC gets bugged and doesn't return or refrain from combat mode. Players get NPCs to fight and constantly heal the opposing NPC to lock down another NPC.
All depends on how it's coded/implemented. If there's potential for griefing to happen griefers are gunna grief.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
I don't know, why does WoW allow the players to attack quest NPCs?
Most NPCs in most games are unclickable for missions during a fight to prevent players from accidentally opening up menus if they're trying to fight beside/near the NPC.
Same as most games won't let you interact with things while you're in combat. Which leads to some annoyance in games if you get bugged and stuck in combat mode.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
WoW allows players to attack quest NPCs from the [i]opposite faction[/i]. We don’t have a binary faction setup in CoT where you have two sides of players in opposition. There’s no “red side and blue side”. All characters exist among a spectrum on 3 axes and there’s a massive blur between “hero” and “villain”. WoW was originally based around that factional conflict; if you recall the MMO was a spin-off from the RTS game series Warcraft, which involves war between the Horde and Alliance. Allowing players to kill opposite faction NPCs is a way of contributing to that central concept. They even built achievements around killing opposite faction NPCs (even some that can give quests).
CoT is not WoW and has no reason to copy that system.
Not all games make NPCs unclickable when fighting. I’ve played games where the NPC is smashing enemies with the little exclamation mark or asterisk or whatever symbol is still over their head and I can still click and enter dialog with them without interrupting the combat. It’s a little odd but it can work.
Anyway, you post some problems that only exist if the developers choose to include those problems, without explaining why they’d include them except to say other games have done so. CoT can be better than those games (and we’ve seen innovative systems previewed already by the developers so I don’t doubt they’re capable of being better).
CoT will have factions, and faction rep. Some of those factions will, most likely, be opposed.
Why shouldn't someone from a faction be able to fight an NPC from an opposing faction?
And these are problems that have existed before and were likely implemented not knowing they would be problems. It's not unreasonable to think with the past problems in mind. It is unreasonable to think that CoT just won't have those problems, without offering a better alternative.
Having NPCs be able to be clickable while they're in combat and not being fully killable by players or NPCs would greatly reduce the possibility for griefing. As I had already mentioned long ago.
But my response originally in this was mainly to Brand, who didn't seem to think it was possible to impact another's gameplay. Hell, they didn't even seem to understand what griefing was and was reluctant to learn.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Okay, now you've shown you haven't been reading.
This was all a suggestion on what they should allow. Why would there be any dev confirmation on a suggestion?
As for bugs, that's an entirely different subject and not one, that should be the basis for anything.
What if there's a bug that makes a non attacking non attackable npc unable to be clicked on? That game can go on all day. :p
I know what griefing is. I just think this isn't a matter that will be griefed. Never saw it in CO. This is all whiney "What if" on posters parts, because they're afraid they might lose 10 seconds of getting a big chunk of XP turned in, when they could be fighting along side the npc getting xp.
That's all it was. Whining. The proof in that, is in the responses. "Impede my game playing." I proved it wasn't. "CoH didn't have it" CoH didn't have a lot of things that CoT plans to have and people are all YAY over it.
There is no impeding of one's game play with this suggestion. One can still play the game all day long with this suggestion.
If it's not put in, fine. However, the idea that it would impede one playing is just whiny nonsense.
"Because I didn't see it it doesn't exist" isn't a good argument.
Until we have something solid all we have are what ifs.
What you have are just What ifs. So to claim that someone can't use the same sort of argument against your what off is absurd. What if they did it like this? Well what if people found a way to grief using that?
10 seconds isn't much, but if that happens. Every. Time. You. Go. To. Turn. In. A. Mission. It starts to add up and can frustrate a player. Or if every time they try to talk to the NPC someone comes in to get it fighting again.
And if there was any whining on this thread it was you whining that bad names are griefing.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Great questions. All the more reason I think that NPCs should be targetable and defeatable.
But only if a few of conditions exist:
1) The NPCs don't disappear when defeated. Disappearing NPCs was always something I despised in games that had defeatable NPCs. Because I can remember being a player who couldn't find the quest giving NPC I was supposed to talk to because it was in its respawn cooldown. Rather, I recommend defeated NPCs should be found lying on the ground; not dead, but not attackable until their respawn cooldown expires.
2) Even when an NPC is defeated, it can still engage in conversations with friendly questing characters. Defeated NPCs should be found lying on the ground, ready to interact with characters who need to speak with them, and maybe even targetable for friendly powers such as heals and shields. Then when their respawn cooldown expires, they get back on their feet and become targetable to hostile powers again. It would be pretty simple to have a default talk bubble from the downed NPC saying something like "give me a minute, and I'll be okay" or "hoo, that hurt. Let me catch my breath" or words to that effect without having to change any quest dialogues due to up or downed state.
3) NPCs should be as powerful as appropriate to their environment and lore. One of the things I hate in most games with targetable NPCs is that nameless guards are more powerful than 99.9% of the player characters. In a superhero game, we should not have such a situation where a nameless police officer can kick the ass of a player character.
This way, the only time an NPC would not be interactable (for dialogue) would be when it is actually in a fight.
Of course, NPCs that can be attacked by player characters introduces exactly the same problem that we are trying to fix:
We are trying to fix a problem in which the [u]NPC[/u] can't attack other [u]NPC[/u] that are hostile to the [u]player character[/u].
We would create a problem in which the [u]player character[/u] can't attack other [u]player characters[/u] that are hostile to the [u]NPC[/u]. (except in the PvP instance in which case it would become supremely consistent)
Even with this, I still find it would be better than an NPC who does not attack other NPC.
Edit: Lets not also forget that we should expect many of the NPC in the world will be phased in and out depending on the status of the missions the PCs are on. So phased NPCs would probably not be interactable by the rest of the world in any case whether they are phased in or out. This is because roaming NPCs of the world are going to be persistent in the open world. It would look horrible for everyne to see a world NPC in combat with an invisible foe that exists in one character's personal phase.
[hr]I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Okay, let's go with that. Without evidence, all we have is what ifs.
So the argument against the idea is just a matter of what if.
What makes you think it'll happen at all?
What makes you think if it did happen, you'd see it?
What makes you think if it did happen, it'd happen at such a frequency?
I wasn't whining that names are griefing, I was making a point, that anything can be considered griefing if one wants to look at it as griefing. It impeded my gameplay by annoying me for 10 seconds every time I see it, and for that 10 seconds I'm so busy facepalming, I'm not playing my game.
There you go. Game impeded using the example above. At least with the NPC Hero attacking things (and I'm only think NPC Heroes/Cops/NPCs who'd actually fight basically, not the news reporter contact btw) you have you join in and get XP. No different than street sweeping, which if we go by "Well in CoH..." street sweeping was very popular.
It's still not griefing as the player didn't do that with the intent to interrupt your game play. You still clearly do not understand the definition of griefing.
And for your questions.
What makes you think it won't?
What makes you think I wouldn't?
What makes you think it wouldn't?
Mostly from my point of view of someone -can- grief by doing something, someone -will- grief by doing that thing. How much it how often that happens depends on how easy it is to achieve, but even -then- some people have gone to extraordinary means to grief people.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Of course they did. They know how annoying such names are. You hear it in game in chat and on the forums. :p
As for the rest. That's my point. We don't know any of the things that people are afraid of happening, will happen. It's conjecture based on their own mind set, possibly of what they think they'd do to others and don't want it done to them.
I know I wouldn't do it, so why assume others would do it? I guess that's the difference, I think better of people while others, think the worst.
I know plenty of people with whom I've gamed over the years that would happily grief you (or anyone else) using this feature, because that's the style of game they play. In my earlier years, I'd have happily done it myself if the circumstances warranted, for instance if you were a jerk during a task force, or you were attempting to grief friends/teammates. A friend of mine who's a life-long gamer and played CoH from beta to close replied in the affirmative when asked if he'd use this as a griefing mechanism.
So there are 2 confirmed and ~18 strongly suspected examples that invalidate your assertion.
This feature could be coded to allow for the 'realism' of the contact smacking around opposition groups without making it griefable. However, it's always best to proceed under the premise that if something CAN be made griefable it WILL be made griefable.
After reading things about the greatest griefings of video game history I don't doubt the lengths people will go to grief people.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
[youtube]JUPzN7tp7bQ[/youtube]
And it could be totally different in this game.
Especially since this game isn't likely to get the same audience as the others.
Which means if some people find an effective way of griefing people a large number of griefers may flock to the game to then be able to grief the entire population of the game.
Edit: Seriously, Brand. Your argument at this point seems to just be "But what if they some how made this really good that works for most everyone and is totally grief proof?" Or "But what if people just didn't grief, even though griefers exist on almost every online game since likely before online gaming was a thing?"
Which goes beyond hope for humanity and into delusional fantasy.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Yeah every game has at least a small population of subhuman players. Even if CoT has a niche following of more dedicated players, it’s still going to have that degenerate subset.
We shouldn't stop from doing something awesome because of a few wankers :p
We also shouldn't stop from doing something awesome because of whining.
Fighting along side named NPCs on the street for a few seconds, if a bad guy (NPC, not player) happens to go by, is fun!
Ways to curb any possible griefing is simple...
1) Don't put a lot of enemies near the NPC
2) Don't allow such herding as one did in CoH.
3) Put a range on the street npcs from their starting location. Sure, you can taunt them away, but after so long they just go back.
There you go. Griefing basically avoided.
I have never found fighting alongside named NPCs to be fun. At least not that I can recall.
At best they're useless and at worst they make you feel superfluous.
You either end up babysitting them or you feel like you're not even needed.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
It's fun in Neverwinter Online when you're doing a heroic encounter and you have someone like Minsc or Drizzt beside you. You neither have to babysit them nor do they overshadow you. It's kind of like having a pet that's not controllable for the duration of the encounter. That's a good way to do it.
But that's a pre-planned event, not the kind of thing we were talking about here with superhero quest NPCs attacking random enemies.
A highly violent and Highly lawful hero would be more like judge dread, and you would be able to work with the police, some of them will like and some of them would hate you but in the end you would still get to work with them, though if a lieutenant has to work with you, or you've been assigned to them and they don't like you're violent behaviour they'll defiantly complain about it.
not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM
[CENTER][URL=http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm][IMG]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/24.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/CENTER]
Pure speculation on my part, but if MwM Customer Service were shown an example of griefing behavior in the game, I feel that they would respond appropriately. Which kinda makes this whole griefing argument moot.
Now, the OP asked if their character's alignment or reputation Might interfere with gameplay and I'm thinking that it, reasonably, might do so. Make bad life choices and the powers that be might flag you as a bad person. So, you might look into a good disguise, or consider it an opportunity to repair your reputation.
Reputation will definitely influence what missions you can take and how NPC's react to you but not so sure about alignment. From what I remember MWM has said that alignment will be almost completely cosmetic in that it represents an overall "record" of your choices.
Better question: Will my [I]unlawful[/I] hero be able to get missions from the cops?
I'm going to go ahead and assume no.
Considering that they have hinted fairly strongly at crooked/corrupt police officers then I would guess, kinda yes. If we are talking about in an official capacity of the police department then it would most likely be a no, but if we are talking about getting missions from someone who is directly employed by the police department then I think yes.
I suppose having reputation be the only thing that "mattered" in these situations would be one way to handle this. But frankly it would seem weird to me for the game to bother accounting for character alignment without having that factor into how NPCs react to you.
I continue to suspect that the way NPCs will "react" to a PC is going to be a subtle combination of reputation AND alignment. Sure it's always possible that given the situation one of those two factors will be more significant than the other. But I simply find it hard to accept that alignment in this game is going to be "almost completely cosmetic".
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
This is a question that's left me confused, too. Why design a complex, novel, 3-axis alignment system and have it do....nothing. That's what I've taken away from the dev comments on alignment, though.
Possibly I'm underestimating the appeal of a sort of 'scoreboard' of how your character progressed through the story content. I can see too that there's inherent replay encouraged by getting characters to max level or whatever with various different alignment 'end scores'. Also there may well be badges for hitting certain extreme alignment combinations although they'd have to be account wide or they'd break the 'alignment is never visible to anyone else' rule that seems to be set in stone. Also I might have misunderstood how contacts work, and there may be some quest chains that are made accessible by having particular alignment scores, rather than having completed specific precursors in specific ways and or having certain reputations, but that's not what I've gleaned from the posts I've read.
Overall the alignment system has the feel of one of those features that was seen as essential early in the design process but didn't work well with, or was supplanted by, other systems (reputation most obviously). Now enough effort has gone into it that it seems a step backwards to take it out, and doing that would be particularly painful for the devs that built it, but it can't be allowed to do anything because it'll clash with other systems or design philosophies.
Either that or it's the result of a serious difference of opinion during the design process, and got left in as a sop to a section of the design team that didn't get their way on something else (hard-wired red side/blue side or the like) but has been quietly diluted into meaninglessness.
I'm waiting to see how it actually pans out, as I'm a bit baffled.
I can accept that a robust alignment system in a MMORPG is one of those things that's not easy to implement. I can even accept that it would be bad if the game made "alignment shifting" so hard to do that you could effectively lock a given character out of certain subsets of content (i.e. like how being a Magic Origin character in CoH might have prevented you from running the Science Origin missions). But on the other hand if alignment values in CoT are so "totally cosmetic" that they are borderline meaningless I would question if they're even worth having in the game.
I mean it might be nice to have something where I could get badges for being the "most lawful" or "most violent" based on alignment values and that's fine enough. But at best that ought to be a secondary use for an alignment system - the primary use ought to be to serve as a means to not only define your character but to establish how NPCs might react to you.
It's just not going to make much sense if the reputation system handles 100% of the burden of NPC interactions without any "input" from your current alignment values affecting that outcome. For instance let's say the game lets me have both a max unlawful alignment value AND a max positive reputation rating with the Titan City Cops. Does that mean the Cops are going to treat me like a honored VIP even though I'm super-unlawful?
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
It's possible that, if the actions/choices that increase your Titan City PD rep also increase your lawful rating, it is pretty much impossible to have max TCPD rep without having a very high lawful alignment score. Even so, alignment isn't actually doing anything in that situation, it just provides a summary snapshot of what your character has been up to.
The two factors could both interact. To stick with our TCPD example, cops with a credo of 'other cops come first no matter what' and cops with a more 'right or wrong depending on the situation' attitude are both staples of the cop genre, at least. The former's disposition would be only influenced by your rep with the faction, the second set might take your overall alignment more into account as well as faction rep.
I've seen no comments indicating this is the intended implementation though, quite the opposite. Maybe something like that was originally intended but the complexity became overwhelming.
Yes I could see where if alignment/reputation consequences are "linked together" (so that like in your example it would be impossible to be both super-unlawful and -also- maintain a high rep with the cops) then certain "weird" scenarios (like my example) would be unlikely/impossible. But as you say if these things are "linked together" like that then that makes alignment that much more useless.
I still feel if alignment ends up being the "cosmetic mirror image" of reputation than all the opportunities that having the two systems would be lost. For instance let's say I have a character with a perfect positive reputation with the Titan City Cops. Now let's consider the difference between whether that character had a max violent alignment value versus a max non-violent value. I still think that the Cops might treat you in different (and interesting ways) depending on if you were super-violent or not [i]regardless[/i] of your perfect reputation.
Again I wouldn't mind if alignment played a [b]limited[/b] role in this game but I probably would mind if it's purpose turns out to be 100% cosmetic. *shrugs*
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Pages