I think I have a solution to Tannim's "objection" point here:

Tannim222 wrote:

As a true blue hero (the opposite end of the total spectrum here):
a player should not have to experience a PC villain attacking NPCs and be helpless to do anything about it.

As a true red ciminal (the opposite end of the toal spectrum here):
a player should not have to experience a PC hero attacking NPCs and be helpless to do anything about it.

This is basically one of "I shouldn't have to watch the Enemy Team get away with stuff in MY area!" with a side helping of "It offends me!" layered on top.

It also, weirdly, comes down to being Red doesn't see Blue, while White sees both (and for some reason has no problem with either Red or Blue).

The first thought that comes to mind is the way that World of Warcraft handles capital cities as well as non-city locations.

First of all, there are GUARDS.
That means that even though "enemy" PCs can "go where they shouldn't be" there are at least NPCs "guarding" those areas so the PCs can't "get away with murder" at no cost or penalty without breaking a sweat.

In Paragon City, the POLICE were usually civilians. I don't know how many officers in blues with a badge would be casually walking the streets with the other civies, see a spawn group of For NPCs, then turn around and run away screaming (with hands in the air no less). Sure, later on, you'd actually start seeing Police done up as combat NPCs, and Praetoria completely turned this on its head by making the PPD an actual force to be reckoned with.

The only other "guards" in the game were Police Drones that could 1 shot defeat ANY NPC. In other words, plot holes.

So the first problem I have with the assumption behind what you're saying Tannim is that there wouldn't be any kind of NPC "guards" around that might gang up on or otherwise intervene. To be honest, a "better option" would be to allow the "home fielder" PCs to call in Guard NPCs on "away teams" in foreign territory. Or is the "call it in" option just too realistic for a game with cloaks and masks?

The other example I would take from World of Warcraft is that entering a hostile capital city [b]automatically flags the PC for PvP[/b]. This is one of those cases of "what, you expected something different to happen?"

So you could have a "Red" side of Titan City and a "Blue" side of Titan City that are effectively "safe" areas for the respective sides, because anyone entering from the "opposing team" gets automatically flagged for PvP [i]because they entered diametrically opposed ENEMY territory[/i]. This means that even a Level 1 PC nooblar can do a Villain Broadcast to alert a high level villain to come by and ROFLstomp this Spandex Twit who has wandered into the heart of Villain Territory. Being able to communicate "I found an intruder on our turf" to the PvPers on your side of the map is [b]Not Nothing[/b] for being able to make another PC think twice about being a jerk in your area of the game.

Mainly, I think the objection is to having Deep Blue messing with NPCs in Deep Red territory, and vice versa, at little to no risk. Auto-flagging those PCs for PvP upon entering the area would be one way to "enforce" the Keep Away factor. But anywhere else ought to be Fair Game for villains and heroes to pass each other on the streets without being "forced" into PvP.

And really ... would it be that horrible to create a spectrum of "Alignment Enforcer NPCs" for the game that are [i]supposed to[/i] clobber PCs that can't stay in their lane? I mean ... why can't we have Guard NPCs for ALL sides?

Tannim222 wrote:

Again, this leads down the slippery slope of multiple player's decisions can have a negative impact on the world for players that don't want to deal with any form of pvp even if it is "social pvp", "market pvp", "battle grounds", or "player vs. evironment vs. player".

Guess you're planning on making a Massively [b]*Singleplayer*[/b] Online Roleplaying Game then.

Because, guess what ... that's the only way to prevent letting how other people play the game having any affect whatsoever on how I play the game.

And [b]TheMightyPaladin[/b] wins again ... by default.

Wow the sense of entitlement in this thread is rather strong - and it's getting rather personal now, so why don't [I]some[/I] people calm the **** down.

I shouldn't be surprised I suppose, I've seen similar blow ups in MMO beta boards before, but I think it would be best to tone down the rhetoric [I]please[/I].

This is a true point of concern for me as a future player. I'm not trying to be offensive, or sound entitled but this is against one of my major beliefs of MMO gaming.

Player segregation never leads anywhere good.

This is a bad idea, and I'm not being entitled when i say it needs to change. If not "for the PvPers" or "for the PvEers" then for the game's health and population. This decision isn't just affecting PvP.. it affects the entire premise of the activities available/visible in-game.

Redlynne wrote:

Guess you're planning on making a Massively *Singleplayer* Online Roleplaying Game then.
Because, guess what ... that's the only way to prevent letting how other people play the game having any affect whatsoever on how I play the game.
And TheMightyPaladin wins again ... by default.

First, leave the man out of this. Using his name in some form of passive-aggressive form of insult is uncalled for.

Right or wrong you both are entitled to your opinions and should be free from being used in any derogatory sense.

Second, you're stating things in extremes while ignoring much else of what I said.

A true hero player should not need to see a true villain player attacking an NPC without having to resort to any form of PvP or be helpless to do anything about it.

A true villain player should not need to see a true hero player attacking an NPC without having to resort to any form of PvP or be helpless to do anything about it.

A player with a character's morality anywhere else in the alignment spectrum can decide for themselves what kind of world they want their character to live in.

A scoundrel with a heart of gold can go blue side

A vigilante struggling to pursue their own form of extreme justice within a world going down the tubes can go red.

Anyone wanting to be in a place where they can run the risk of being stopped from doing what they want to do, or go about stopping other players can go PvP.

Everyone should have the option of talking to who they want to talk to. Everyone should have places where they can meet regardless of world view.

Understand that the faction reputation system does not always support always in opposition. And due to the alignments having a part to play in faction reputation (to a degree), can make coexistence of everyone in one PvE setting prohititive unless there were constants of social pvp and pvevp present.

Hmmm...I'm not so sure it's that bad of thing that is planned.

I did think there'd just be a PvE Instance and a PvP Instance or Flags one could set to be free to attack or not, with some sort of timer (I'd put a five minute timer on for flagging yourself for PvP or unflagging yourself, that way you can't just switch it on and gank someone or gank someone then switch it off).

Though, there is something to give a bit of plausibility that a hero would only work around those who at least skirt the hero line, so you outright don't see the villains while in PvE, but you're still stuck with seeing that rogue committing crimes but unable to stop them :p

Or all PvE with certain parts of the city being PvP areas that 100% PvErs can just avoid.

Brand X wrote:

Izzy wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:
Anyone wanting to be in a place where they can run the risk of being stopped from doing what they want to do, or go about stopping other players can go PvP.

Ummmm... wont this promote greater hostility between players?
And possibly drive away friendly players, many of the existing CoH lovers?
Maybe I'm not getting it. :P

I don't think you're getting it. Sounds like Tannim is saying if you want to be able to stop other players from doing good/bad then you have to go to a PvP zone. Which, you're just going to get typical PvP behavior mindset. So, only ones it'll drive away are those who think it's best to play PvP but can't stand being beaten :p

if its like a Global Chat Log Alert that someone tripped the Banks Silent Alarm and is Getting Robbed.. Heros and/or Villains can look at the Map to see which bank it is (big red color) and they can both rush to it... to join the event. Doesnt matter how many Heroes or Villains, the NPCs will balance it out on both sides.

And to get more players wanting to participate.. make it more like American Gladiator, where contestants compete, to get to the vault 1st, to take strategic positions. NPC's will say stuff in the chat log to inform everyone through Lore how far each side has gotten. Most of the time will be fighting NPC's, end BOSS is a PvP PC! ;)

This is one of those times when I can read the rules just fine, but they're just not "clicking" in my head. An example seems to be in order.

Tannim222 wrote:

A true hero player should not need to see a true villain player attacking an NPC without having to resort to any form of PvP or be helpless to do anything about it.

The solution to this being that the true hero player and true villain player are in different "phases", let's call them BLU and RED.

Tannim222 wrote:

A true villain player should not need to see a true hero player attacking an NPC without having to resort to any form of PvP or be helpless to do anything about it.

Same as above with the phases reversed. Check.

Tannim222 wrote:

A player with a character's morality anywhere else in the alignment spectrum can decide for themselves what kind of world they want their character to live in.

So somewhere there's a switch that lets them choose between BLU and RED.

Tannim222 wrote:

A scoundrel with a heart of gold can go blue side
A vigilante struggling to pursue their own form of extreme justice within a world going down the tubes can go red.

This would be the switch again, check.

Tannim222 wrote:

Anyone wanting to be in a place where they can run the risk of being stopped from doing what they want to do, or go about stopping other players can go PvP.

Meaning there's a third phase, let's designate it PVP. This means everyone gets a switch, it's just that for the "True" folks either BLU or RED is grayed out.

How far off am I?

Tannim222 wrote:

Everyone should have the option of talking to who they want to talk to. Everyone should have places where they can meet regardless of world view.
Understand that the faction reputation system does not always support always in opposition. And due to the alignments having a part to play in faction reputation (to a degree), can make coexistence of everyone in one PvE setting prohititive unless there were constants of social pvp and pvevp present.

Okay, I think I get it. Just making sure there isn't a set of phases for [i]every[/i] alignment axis, independent of each other, which would lead to what, nine phases?

Tannim222 wrote:

A true hero player should not need to see a true villain player attacking an NPC without having to resort to any form of PvP or be helpless to do anything about it.
A true villain player should not need to see a true hero player attacking an NPC without having to resort to any form of PvP or be helpless to do anything about it.

You really cannot imagine how absolutely maddening it is that you're clinging to these whimsical absolutes when you have a perfectly reasonable multi-axis alignment system waiting in the wings ready to completely do way with need to worry about any of these so called "problems". There are so many things wrong with these statements it just boggles my mind that you've apparently based the entire game around them.

Here's a short list of the major issues here:

1) What is a "true hero" or a "true villain" in a system based on Law, Honor and Violence?
2) How does a player running a "hero" know that he's looking at a "villain" in this system?
3) Is a hero somehow more or less obligated to attack villains based on their degrees of Law, Honor and Violence?
4) Why does a hero have to resort to PvP when he sees a random player attacking another NPC? How does he know that response is justified?
5) Why does a hero have to "feel helpless" to do anything in any situation much less one where he's facing a player who does not want to PvP?

And for the record all of these can be reversed for villains facing heroes...

You've made so many loaded assumptions and false equivalencies here it's almost making my skin crawl. Once again I really cannot for the life of me imagine how these things actually became things that you even worried about in the first place much less structured the entire player interaction mechanics on.

Tannim222 wrote:

Understand that the faction reputation system does not always support always in opposition. And due to the alignments having a part to play in faction reputation (to a degree), can make coexistence of everyone in one PvE setting prohititive unless there were constants of social pvp and pvevp present.

I really don't even know what you're talking about here. Once again I think you've taken a scenario and overthought it about 10 times more than you needed to. You seem to think that PvP would have to be unavoidable in certain situations. On the contrary PvP is ALWAYS 100% avoidable - try to see past your self imposed mental roadblocks and realize that you've totally misjudged the dynamics of this. I can only conclude that this nonsense of "players feeling helpless because they can't PvP" is some kind of devious Jedi mind trick played on you because in the "real world of real players" that kind of thing is totally meaningless drivel.

You will never be able to convince me that there's no way players of any/all alignments can't co-exist together in the same instances - by the end of CoH there were multiple zones (RWZ, Dark Astoria, Cimerora, Going Rogue anyone?) where "heroes" and "villains" existed quite easily side-by-side. Your insistence that this kind of thing would be "prohibitive" in CoT is quite frankly laughable in the extreme.

Redlynne wrote:

To further back up Lothic here, I encountered something akin to these conditions multiple times playing World of Warcraft.
I'd be in some zone playing Alliance and I'd see a Horde Player nearby. Even if I was in a "hey, YOU'RE not supposed to be here!" place, I'd usually just steer clear of the opposing faction Player and keep doing my thing while they did theirs, even if their thing was going around killing NPCs on my side.
However, sometimes, you'd see impromtu alliances form between Players of opposing factions who couldn't deal with the (mutual) Foe NPCs in a particular area ... but if you teamed up and worked together you could get through them. More than once I've met a cooperative Player from an enemy faction and worked with them to clear particular objectives, up to and including what amounts to Street Sweeping in WoW. It didn't matter what faction they belonged to ... if they were competent I was glad to have their help.
The fact that the formulation you've described Tannim ... where Heroes and Villains aren't allowed to interact on the same plane of existence because somebody, somewhere, might get offended by what the opposing faction does to some NPCs ... precludes even such cross-faction temporary co-operations, even without the benefit of Local chat or Tells to coordinate (meaning that emotes are useful!), tells me that you've gone too far. It's ludicrous to think that a Hero PC will never even "see" a Villain PC because ... well ... just because (oh and PvP!).

The sad irony of your point about seeing "impromptu alliances form between players of opposing factions who couldn't deal with the (mutual) Foe NPCs in a particular area" is that these kinds of scenarios form the basis of maybe half of all the comic book stories that have ever been written.

I know I keep saying this but this revelation about how the Devs of CoT plan to do things just keeps boggling my mind...

There is no white neutral being done.

The alignment matrix is not just Law, Honor, and Violence, but will also consist of Hero, Villain, Vigilante, and so on.
Those playing in the more "shades of grey" alignments can decide for themselves where they belong based on how they want to play that character.

And Lothic I appreciate your passion but please don't play with the veiled insults of my intelligence. I am in no way trying to be offensive toward anyone.

I sympathize with your concerns. I. Really. Do.

As to the "how does a player know" scenarios, what if what a player does affects the world in a particular way which indicates a truly heroic or villainous actions occurring?
What if by taking certain actions in the open world can impact a way a player character of a diametrically opposed world views needs to do?

This also does not limit players from entering into scenarios where it is possible to be side by side to either see one another and wither indirectly oppose a common foe or team up to oppose a common foe.

The exact details of explaining this lies not with me but with the Comp team. I'm just on the team that helps make happen what comp wants to put into the game.

This is a mistake. This is also one of those times where what's designed and what works in application are not aligning for the players.

If MWM is willing to listen for only a moment this is where you, as a studio, prove it.

Having 3 types of instances segregates the playerbase. When the least served instance type has a lower population the entire player base suffers. It prevents friends from engaging in teaming as well as oppositional content. It does not give ANY option to the players who want to engage in PvP only sometimes.. requiring an instant switch every time I flash for PvP is horrible design. All my content I see changes, my progress erased, and friends can't even be spectators. Most

This. Is. A. BAD. Design.

I'm still understating The shard/instance generation problems that arise when you need 3 maps generated for any 1 playerbase.

Also the rules of each instance row will come into quick scrutiny when certain types perform better than others or when bug fixes happen only for one instance type but remain on the others.

- -
No. There is no occasion where this system is better than a non-segregated system with personal character flagging.

The argument that you can't stop an enemy is moot, because if it matters that much to you to be able to simply go out of combat and flag for PvP or ignore it. Who is protected by the separation? Not the PvP player. Not the PvE player. Not even the NPCs. The whole argument that you should see nothing "you don't like" is not what MMO social games are about. If it's offensive then report it. If you don't want to see it, place the character on ignore.

This idea that the openworld must be seperate is based on a really flimsy premise. I don't say that to be offensive but the argument doesn't hold logic.

Redlynne wrote:

To further back up Lothic here, I encountered something akin to these conditions multiple times playing World of Warcraft.
I'd be in some zone playing Alliance and I'd see a Horde Player nearby. Even if I was in a "hey, YOU'RE not supposed to be here!" place, I'd usually just steer clear of the opposing faction Player and keep doing my thing while they did theirs, even if their thing was going around killing NPCs on my side.
However, sometimes, you'd see impromtu alliances form between Players of opposing factions who couldn't deal with the (mutual) Foe NPCs in a particular area ... but if you teamed up and worked together you could get through them. More than once I've met a cooperative Player from an enemy faction and worked with them to clear particular objectives, up to and including what amounts to Street Sweeping in WoW. It didn't matter what faction they belonged to ... if they were competent I was glad to have their help.
The fact that the formulation you've described Tannim ... where Heroes and Villains aren't allowed to interact on the same plane of existence because somebody, somewhere, might get offended by what the opposing faction does to some NPCs ... precludes even such cross-faction temporary co-operations, even without the benefit of Local chat or Tells to coordinate (meaning that emotes are useful!), tells me that you've gone too far. It's ludicrous to think that a Hero PC will never even "see" a Villain PC because ... well ... just because (oh and PvP!).

Done the same in WS and I think TOR, but TOR has been awhile.

I do not feel like I am viewing the full picture. There were obviously reasons for them to decide this was neccessary. And I like to know them before I judge.

Until now it does not seem too bad. It is not like 50% of the playerbase will not be able to see the other half. There are four categories now, and to me it sounds like a fourth axis to the alignment system. You are seperated from people at the other end of that and only if you go all the way to one side. So even if you do play a fully comitted hero, you can interact with about 75% or more of the community. And if you yourself play not a fully commited hero or villain, but a vigilante or scoundrel, something in between, you can interact with 100%. It is still a divide, but it is a less harsh one.

And what if there are some big world changing events involved. Some things that will greatly benefit one side and not the other. Would you still like to stand idly by while someone storms a player nexus and turns it around, so you can not use it anymore? It is not that easy to ignore and handwave away when it hurts you.

And maybe this is a misunderstanding. Maybe this was all about the paths- system. The personal story we all get to choose to follow, that is supposed to provide us a unique story for the first 20 or so levels. If you play your path of the conqueror and take over the city, it would not fit into the experience if other players could meddle with that. So heroes get phased out while you follow that path. This would explain a lot...

This turned into a hot topic.

I agree with the rest the idea even lightly of separating Heroes and Villains...*Shakes head* I'm a believer in there no such thing as good segregation (the action or state of setting someone or something apart from other people or things or being set apart.) even if it's logical. Having Goodie Goodie Heroes and Bad True Villains in different Instances is still separating them.

What happens if Super Good Guy sees a bad guy doing bad things. Well okay PC Hero can't target PC Villain because they are in PvE instant. That don't mean the PC Villain can get away with it. Like someone else said "Send in the Guards" If a zone more on the good side there be cops. Heck the Cops be more numbered in a boarder line location trying to bring order to the chaos. Same with the Red Areas would have higher Thugs and Enforcers fighting to bring the hood to it's knees.

So the Hero PC can't save the day, forget the persh snatchers, muggers NPC he flew over. That don't mean PC Villain would get away, more trouble he causes the more Cops/Guards/NPC heroes would respond.

Hell that be fun sit back and watch Mega Evil Dude get whipped because he triggered to many spawn Reaction. The Rate of Spawn would be different depending on location, so the Villain sneaks his way to the heart of the Good location and then starts trouble. Given this bound to be the nerve center of the Good guys, he be taken down fast. On one of the in between locations, well he could do more damage before the cops could get there. IN a bad zone, the cops might say "For get this I'm out of here" when they appear.

Like I said I am with the others I was thinking we get one Instant for PVE one for PVP. Heroes and Villains would have key locations that are solid and others are In dispute.

What I would like to see is a Meta game system with zones.

1.) Safe Zones where Hero's or Villain's actions can't affect them.
2.) In dispute Zones were the heroes can fight the NPC crimes going on in the hood cleaning the streets and it goes from white to Blue. (this would cause increase in NPC cops and other defenses.
3.) The reverse is true as well, Villains can cause disruption and take over a disputed zone flagging it Red.
4.) Even if a disputed zone is flagged for the other side lets say Heroes got a blue flagged location. You can still cause enough trouble to flag it back to White then Red (or Blue).

When a disputed location is flagged it causes more faction related spawns, maybe some graphics change, and heck could even provide some kind of benefit for the controlling side.

Stopping one crook mugging someone (PC or NPC) won't change a location. Doing that mission that takes out the local crime boss would have more impact. So yeah you can't stop PC Villain but you can do something to make it harder for him. By finishing the mission while he's street sweeping you could tip the scale and flag the location Blue and cause more spawns of NPC heroes.

That what I wanted at least.

Lutan wrote:

I do not feel like I am viewing the full picture. There were obviously reasons for them to decide this was neccessary. And I like to know them before I judge.
Until now it does not seem too bad. It is not like 50% of the playerbase will not be able to see the other half. There are four categories now, and to me it sounds like a fourth axis to the alignment system. You are seperated from people at the other end of that and only if you go all the way to one side. So even if you do play a fully comitted hero, you can interact with about 75% or more of the community. And if you yourself play not a fully commited hero or villain, but a vigilante or scoundrel, something in between, you can interact with 100%. It is still a divide, but it is a less harsh one.
And what if there are some big world changing events involved. Some things that will greatly benefit one side and not the other. Would you still like to stand idly by while someone storms a player nexus and turns it around, so you can not use it anymore? It is not that easy to ignore and handwave away when it hurts you.
And maybe this is a misunderstanding. Maybe this was all about the paths- system. The personal story we all get to choose to follow, that is supposed to provide us a unique story for the first 20 or so levels. If you play your path of the conqueror and take over the city, it would not fit into the experience if other players could meddle with that. So heroes get phased out while you follow that path. This would explain a lot...

I tend to agree - I am waiting until I get more info before I judge whether this is a net positive or negative.

Ultimately - I kind of look at it like this - while I would [I]prefer[/I] to have everyone on the same "plane of existence", I played and had fun with CoX for years even though red and blue were separated for the most part. Who knows - this could be a non-issue for me.

Foradain wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:
The exact details of explaining this lies not with me but with the Comp team. I'm just on the team that helps make happen what comp wants to put into the game.

Tannim, I am seriously hoping that you have misunderstood what the comp team have been telling you.

Not to be excessively dramatic or anything, but this sounds like we need to have the [i]current Comp team[/i] come here to the forums and explain this post haste. This is most definitely a case where "fighting with the messenger" (ie. Tannim222) is definitely counterproductive.

I've had this kind of ... discussion ... with Developers before, and it goes back to the classic phrase "Working As Intended" and all the nuances that can be hidden therein.

There's essentially two ways to interpret "Working As Intended" ...

[b]WORKING[/b] As Intended

Working As [b]INTENDED[/b]

... notice the difference in stress. Say it out loud if it helps, because this is a distinction that can make all the difference in the world.

Just because something "works" (as in, doesn't cause the game to crash and server rooms to go up in smoke) doesn't mean that the [b][i]INTENT[/i][/b] behind that functioning state wasn't a LOUSY DECISION to have made in the first place.

My most recent experience of this phenomenon involves starship cloaking in Star Trek Online, and is literally a problem that an entire faction (Klingon Defense Force) has been complaining about since game launch. The problem is that just about ANY INTERACTION ... including having your own Bridge Officers pop up a window on your screen to talk to YOU ... will cause the Cloaking Device on your ship to detoggle and reveal you. [b]THIS IS MADDENING IN ACTUAL GAMEPLAY[/b] and the Players quite rightly look upon it as Cloaks being "broken" by loudmouthed Bridge Officers who are too INCOMPETENT to maintain "radio silence" while Cloaked.

The game mechanic "works" ... because the game doesn't crash and the Player is merely (*cough*) inconvenienced ... but the INTENT behind it is foolish and stupid. It presupposes the opposite of what you'd expect. The default assumption is that pretty much anything will break Cloak, and the only way to prevent that from happening is to code a workaround into each and every single instanced mission in the game!

Needless to say, Players with ships that had Cloaking Devices were NOT pleased to learn that Cryptic had made this foolish decision and were not going to "fix it" in a more permanent fashion by "flipping the script" on the basic assumption that created the problem in the first place. It was one of those decisions where Cryptic took a hit for being stupid and deciding they're never going to fix something that was obviously "broken" in the gamePLAY sense of its observed and emergent behaviors in entirely predictable situations.

When [b]Working As Intended[/b] produces undesirable behavior(s), you need to stop looking at the "working" part of the equation and start looking at the INTENT side of things.

This segregation of Heroes from Villains is one of those cases where even if you can get the separation to "work" game mechanically, the INTENT of what you're doing is fundamentally and foundationally flawed in a way that you will NOT be able to paper over. Instead, you are painting yourselves into a corner and designing your way towards failure.

[youtube]W9ZD3_ppcPE[/youtube]

At this point, we're pretty much telling Missing World Media "Stop. Don't. Come back." on this rather important design point decision concerning faction segregation.

The unanswered question is ... will you?

I would point out that Enhancement Dysfunction harmed the reputation of the Dev team at Cryptic for a LONG time after it was implemented. When people first encountered it on the Test Server, the response to it was so overwhelmingly negative [b]it crashed the forums for three days straight[/b]. Did Cryptic "listen" to their Players? [b]No, they didn't.[/b] A week later, Enhancement Dysfunction got pushed to the Live servers, and the Damage Was Done™.

City of Heroes spent the rest of the game's existence trying to live down that failure to LISTEN to their Players, especially when they were screaming. A LOT of people stopped playing, including me, after that. The covenant of Faith between Players and Developers had been broken, and the damage was MASSIVE and enduring.

So the request (*cough* [i]polite demand[/i] *cough*) to talk to the person(s) responsible for [i]maintaining the decision[/i] to keep a fourth Hero vs Villain Alignment Axis in City of Heroes is pretty much going to be Non-Negotiable. I'm not all that concerned with who made the decision in the first place, since they may have already left the company ... but I *DO* want to have a conversation with the person (or people) who are responsible for standing in the way of NOT CHANGING that decision.

Lothic may have beaten me to the punch on this one, but I wholeheartedly agree. In a three axis Alignment system, distinctions such as "Hero" or "Villain" ought to be something relegated to an entry in the PC's Bio Text ... not a game mechanic that literally affects THE ENTIRE GAME WORLD.

Or to misquote something moderately famous said during the 80s ...

[b]Doctor Tyche ... [i]TEAR DOWN THIS WALL[/i] between Red and Blue![/b]

Redlynne wrote:

I would point out that Enhancement Dysfunction harmed the reputation of the Dev team at Cryptic for a LONG time after it was implemented.

PR-wise Cryptic could definitely have handled ED and the GDN much better, but ultimately they were needed for the game. So that's not quite the best analogy - though I understand what you are trying to say.

Quote:

In a three axis Alignment system, distinctions such as "Hero" or "Villain" ought to be something relegated to an entry in the PC's Bio Text ... not a game mechanic that literally affects THE ENTIRE GAME WORLD.

Hmmm - I don't know - I think the character's alignment should have more influence than that - for instance access to different contacts and mission chains - so there should be segregation on [I]some[/I] level.

Redlynne wrote:

Right. My expectation is that while any PC can GO to any part of town ... depending on your Alignments (Honor, Law, Peace), different parts of town will be hostile/safe for you to move around in (ie. aggro on sight).
My default assumption is that the Alignments of your PC will be "checked" against the Alignments of the NPCs in the area on a 1-5 scale.
1 = Low
2 = Mid-low
3 = Middle
4 = Mid-high
5 = High
So take your PC's Alignments, "rate" them on the 1-5 scale, and then cross check against the environment NPCs. If the differential is 0 then the NPCs are Allies (and therefore, Friendly). If the differential is 1, then the NPCs are Neutral (can be attacked, but won't attack you first and will become hostile if attacked by you). If the differential is 2-4, then the NPCs are hostile and will attack you on sight.
Run this Alignment cross-check against all three Alignment axes (Honor, Law, Peace) to get 3 "social" responses by NPCs to PCs ... Allied, Neutral or Hostile. If 2 of the responses are the same, use that response. So if 2 of the Alignment Axes result in a Neutral reaction, then that gets a "majority vote" in how the NPCs respond to the PC's presence (note that matching 3 Alignment Axes is merely a subset of this condition). If there's a 3-way split (ie. Friendly, Neutral and Hostile) then the NPCs are Hostile. Such a design layout makes it possible to create "safe" areas for Heroes and Villains with "neutral ground" in between, but then leaves "most" of the city's NPCs as being hostile to the presence of your PC (thus making Street Sweeping possible).
Now, obviously, I'm probably being too simplistic with the 1-5 scale (could easily be a 1-10 scale for a more nuanced mix), but the important thing is to illustrate the principles involved and the "shape" of the idea so it can be played with.
At least, this is how *I* would want to handle making a city in which there are no barriers to entry, yet you want to have "welcoming" as well as "hostile" parts of town be different for different PCs. It starts putting things onto the path of being a continuum in shades of grey instead of being purely black vs white.

Let me add some Additional Information™ to the above original posting.

My default assumption is that the Alignments of your PC will be "checked" against the Alignments of the NPCs in the area on a 1-5 scale.

1 = Low
2 = Mid-low
3 = Middle
4 = Mid-high
5 = High

So take your PC's Alignments, "rate" them on the 1-5 scale, and then cross check against the environment NPCs. If the differential is:
[list][*]0 ... then the NPCs are Allies (and therefore, Friendly).
[*]1 ... then the NPCs are Neutral (can be attacked, but won't attack you first and will become hostile if attacked by you).
[*]2 ... then the NPCs are hostile and will attack you on sight.
[*]3 ... then the NPCs are not only hostile and attack you on sight, but ALSO will not require an unblocked line of sight(!) to detect you. This will mean that hostile NPCs on the far side of buildings can be "tipped off" to your presence and move to engage you, even though they had no way to "see you" directly. Thus, there is "no hiding place" from the NPCs in territory that is this hostile to your PC aside from "empty" areas devoid of hostile NPCs.
[*]4 ... then the NPCs are not only hostile and will attack you on sight and do not require an unblocked line of sight to detect you, but when they aggro onto you will also [b]broadcast[/b] your presence to a large volume of effect, drawing additional hostile NPCs within the area to your location. In other words, the NPCs will actively attempt to bumrush and "gang up" on your PC when you're in such deeply hostile territory.[/list]
In other words, the onus isn't necessarily on the Players to fight back against such "incursions" by maximally opposing Alignments ... the NPCs ought to be able to [i]coordinate and attack too[/i].

And this still leaves open the very simple/simplistic possibility that attacking an NPC who has a 4 point differential from your PC on ONE Alignment Axis will automatically flag your PC as being PvP enabled ... meaning ... that if you're Law 5 and you go to a Law 1 area of Titan City, you really are Asking For Trouble™. If you stay there, you are pretty much literally Begging For Trouble™. Whose fault is that? I would have to say it's the Player's fault for moving their PC into such hostile territory, and that Players ought to be expected to know better (and no, we shouldn't need to have signs posted at the perimeter).

Note that such a system would essentially necessitate the creation of (at least) 6 "maximalist" enclaves/neighborhoods scattered around Titan City.
Law 1
Law 5
Honor 1
Honor 5
Peace 1
Peace 5
As far as the maximally opposed Alignments are concerned, if I'm Law 5 then the Law 1 places of the city for all intents and purposes ought to function as No Go Zones™ ... not because I [b][i]CAN'T[/i][/b] go there, but because I [b][i]SHOULDN'T[/i][/b] go there. Instead of there being a Force Field barrier keeping you out, there's a WISDOM Check barrier telling you it's a Bad Idea™ to go in there! If you're *careful* you can do it, but you'd better be on your toes while moving around on the "wrong side of town" (for your PC) lest you find yourself in for a world of hurt (and a trip to the Hospital!). [b]Go Darwin Go[/b].

Speaking just for myself, I find the notion that "going into the enemy camp" of the maximally opposed ought to be a nerve wracking and stressful experience that a sense of self preservation will rightly tell you to AVOID doing. In other words, align the incentives with the desired behavior of the PCs.

Also note that with a 3 axis Alignment System, it would potentially be possible for a PC to have either 0, 1, 2 or 3 of these No Go Zones apply TO THEM specifically, depending on where their own standing on the 3 Alignment axes are.

Also note that the distinctions of "Hero" and "Villain" are [b][i]completely superfluous[/i][/b] and an unneeded and unwelcome distraction to this system of matching up various Alignments to different areas and neighborhoods of the City of Titans. Add in Control Points which can [i]change their Alignment settings[/i] depending on which NPC faction controls them at any given time ... and I'd say that you've got a [b][i]GAME ON!![/i][/b] situation on your hand that is much more complicated than an overly simplistic Good vs Evil or even just Order vs Chaos split.

Your system creates Player segregation.

My system creates ... POLITICS ... and an ever changing world.

Your move, Missing Worlds Media.

I'm also going to say that I like seeing the diversity of opinion in this thread, and I hope you're looking at each other's arguments, and realizing there is no obvious way for all of you to be happy at once.

All I can tell you all is that we've had all of your arguments, internally, we've made decisions, and we've done our best to improve things over the old game. It's not perfect yet, but we have some ideas we just can't implement till we're sure they work, and until we're sure, we're certainly not talking about them.

Making promises your ass can't keep is a good way to get kicked there.

I will say that I think you'll like the improvements in, to use the generic term, 'guilds' and 'alliances'.

PS: Redlynne, your specific request is something we just can't do at launch. We don't think. I know DAOC and GW2 have similar behavior, but I can't think of a MMO offhand that actually has implemented behavior the way you want in a game like ours. TSW might be sort of close but not really.

We've discussed it at length over the last few years, and it would be fun for some, and others would hate it, and we just can't spare the manpower at start for something that complicated.

However, nobody knows what the future may bring, and part of the reasoning behind the choices we made now are to allow for the possibility of something similar to that in the future.

It's a matter of getting a game working first, before breaking new ground in player and NPC interaction. We are still a bit new at this, and if Bioware and Blizzard and SOE couldn't do it, I'm a little nervous about us risking the entire game on it.

warcabbit wrote:

We're really not ready to discuss these things because we don't have the specific technology functioning yet.

given the specific technology isn't in place isn't now the perfect time to talk about this? it would seem counter productive to put everything in place tech-wise and then start the talks...where the end result will more than likely be:
[I] "sorry guys...we have already spent X amount of time and resources on getting this up and running so your kinda stuck with it."[/I]

if the discussion happens now...then we can ensure that whatever decision occurs will be prior to any resources being used (manpower/money). seems like the smart thing to do.

If MWM is intent on following this path then, I would assume they could still give a better explanation on the current goals of this system and how it would work in regards to all the players, both PVP and PVE...

there is A LOT of concern rolling around on this subject and I would suggest not just sweepin it under the rug until a later date.

warcabbit wrote:

I'm also going to say that I like seeing the diversity of opinion in this thread, and I hope you're looking at each other's arguments, and realizing there is no obvious way for all of you to be happy at once.
All I can tell you all is that we've had all of your arguments, internally, we've made decisions, and we've done our best to improve things over the old game. It's not perfect yet, but we have some ideas we just can't implement till we're sure they work, and until we're sure, we're certainly not talking about them.
Making promises your ass can't keep is a good way to get kicked there.
I will say that I think you'll like the improvements in, to use the generic term, 'guilds' and 'alliances'.
PS: Redlynne, your specific request is something we just can't do at launch. We don't think. I know DAOC and GW2 have similar behavior, but I can't think of a MMO offhand that actually has implemented behavior the way you want in a game like ours. TSW might be sort of close but not really.
We've discussed it at length over the last few years, and it would be fun for some, and others would hate it, and we just can't spare the manpower at start for something that complicated.
However, nobody knows what the future may bring, and part of the reasoning behind the choices we made now are to allow for the possibility of something similar to that in the future.
It's a matter of getting a game working first, before breaking new ground in player and NPC interaction. We are still a bit new at this, and if Bioware and Blizzard and SOE couldn't do it, I'm a little nervous about us risking the entire game on it.

Understandable. It will be interesting to see how this eventually shapes up and I look forward to more info. And it is good to hear that you have made provisions for possible changes in the game post-launch. Thanks for the info.

As everyone can probably surmise, simply by knowing me as well as you do, I have a LOT more to say on this subject ... particularly in response to warcabbit's openness and, dare I say it out loud, honorable and dignified answer. Indeed, I'd like to spend the next few HOURS composing posts in reply addressing aspects and facets of this issue. Perhaps not [b]WALL OF TEXT CRITS YOU!!![/b]™ level of posting, but still probably somewhere in that neighborhood, simply because there's a lot to discuss.

Unfortunately ... I can't ... right now. I'm about to spend most of the rest of today in a perpetual state of Away From Keyboard.

Yesterday I left the forums for a few hours and came back to over 45 new posts in this thread alone. I dread to think of how much of the conversation I'm going to miss today before I can get back into the scrum.

And warcabbit, for your peace of mind (and that of the Comp Team) ... I have no problem with a "we can't do that YET for game launch" answer. What I fear, and what many others do as well I suspect, is that whatever you do for game launch will be de facto "locked in" and very difficult to get out of. So what worries us the most is that City of Titans might get "stuck" in a Red vs Blue divide that we [i]neither want nor support[/i], with insufficient desire/will/resources on MWM's end of things to ever do something about it so as to get rid of that dividing line.

The antidote to Fear Of The Unknown is ... [b]knowledge[/b] and understanding.

I therefore submit to you that in this case, keeping everything under wraps may not be in your best interest. It's alright to not tell us EVERYTHING ... but you ought to seriously consider telling us more, because what we do know at this point does not look to be either stable or robust, let alone a foundation you'd want to build upwards and outwards from.

There's a reason why it's conventional wisdom that building on sand is an unwise decision.

Tannim222 wrote:

As a true blue hero (the opposite end of the total spectrum here), a player should not have to experience a PC villain attacking NPCs and be helpless to do anything about it.

Why not?

PCs and NPCs are not the same. It is foolish and immature to see them in the same moral light. I'm a very big believer in immersive play. I roleplay every character all the time because to my way of thinking my character is NOT me. The character I create is a fictional character in a fictional world.

If MWM only wants to create a hero game for emotionally immature players that cannot grasp the necessity of sharing their virtual environment with different playstyles then they should not make a MMORPG. The only way to insure such players are content is to either create a straight-forward single-player RPG or create an open world PvP battle arena where they can run around beating up everyone they disagree with.

MWM is seeking a compromise where no compromise is possible.

The phasing idea as described in this thread (ignoring mentions that occurred before this thread) is too extreme. MWM is going to wind up with an overloaded server running hundreds of different instances of zone maps each with a mere handful of players. Is this really the direction the design team has taken? Has no one foreseen how badly this is going to overload server hardware? Phasing technology is an interesting concept, but stretched out like this it becomes extremely demanding. It seems terribly impractical.

Two conceptual failures are at work here.
1. MWM has overlooked the natural inclination of human communities to sub-divide along lines of common interest
2. MWM has assumed players will be too immature to recognize a clear distinction between characters backed by human actors and characters backed by the game AI.

This hypothetical problem of a player hero witnessing a player villain attacking an NPC faction the player hero shares an alignment with and feeling a compelling need to enter into PvP in defense of the NPC faction does not seem realistic to me. This looks like a straw man argument for creating an open-world PvP instance and compelling players into that instance every time there is a dispute or disagreement. This might work well in a novel about virtual worlds, but in a real world setting it increases the power of the thugs and bullies rather than sidelining them into a separate instance. It would be simpler and more straight-forward to separate PvP and non-PvP communities on two separate and distinct shards with no phasing back and forth between them.

This idea that the game must have two distinct factions at war with one another is archaic and unreasonable. There are already thousands of EMPTY PvP games out there. The reason those games remain empty is not because PvE players are too stupid to understand how much fun they are missing out on. Those games remain empty because the vast majority of players look at a MMORPG as more of a 3D chatroom than a 3D battleground. Most people do not want to deal with thugs and bullies and do not want to be a thug or a bully. Most players are happy to slaughter masses of NPCs and never engage in PvP because they KNOW there is a moral distinction between the two actions.

If I sit down next to someone on a bus and that person starts talking to me I have no way to know if they are good or bad, friendly or dangerous. I can choose to interact with them until they make their moral compass clear or I can choose to ignore them. There is no reason two player characters must know immediately where they each fall in the alignment spectrum. It is far better if they don't know anything about one another's alignment until they start interacting with one another. There is no need for the game to tell Player A where Player B is on the alignment spectrum. Player B will reveal that through their words and actions. The ONLY reason to tell Player A where Player B falls on the alignment spectrum is to provide Player A with a built-in excuse for declaring Player B is an enemy who must be challenged to a duel. While it harms no one for Player A to recognize an NPC's faction, the only purpose for revealing player factions through the interface is to encourage PvP.

I think it would be better to keep everyone who favors PvP on a distinct PvP shard while allowing non-PvP players to play on a shard where there is no PvP allowed. No duels, no arenas, nothing. The game interface on the non-PvP server should never reveal the alignment of an individual player. It would be far better for two players to team up without knowing one another's alignment.

Player A forms a team and starts running missions assisting the TCPD in capturing Aether Pirates. Player B has spent weeks building alignment and favor with the Aether Pirates, so Player B now faces several choices: leave the team, use their faction favor to provide an inside line on the Aether Pirates, use their faction favor to betray Player A to the Aether Pirates (perhaps by providing advance notice of what missions are being run), or try to convince Player A to run different missions. Player choices have been expanded by not revealing the alignment of Player B to Player A.

Conversely, Player A forms a team and starts running missions assisting the TCPD in capturing Aether Pirates. This time Player A notices that for some reason they are encountering much stronger NPC enemies than they usually do. Player A also notices that for some reason the Aethir Pirates actively avoid attacking Player B. Player A now has several choices: choose a different enemy NPC faction to attack, ask Player B if they've noticed the same thing, disband the team and seek different team members, confront Player B about the possibility they are secretly aligned with the Aether Pirates and have been providing them advance notification of the team's missions.

Either way, Player A eventually figures out that Player B is aligned with their "enemy". This does not have to result in a PvP brawl. Player A and Player B can disband the team, negotiate a compromise, look for a different NPC faction to focus on, or any of a number of different options. The key point being, as long as Player A and Player B exist in the same shard/instance/phase they have the freedom to team together, team separately, betray one another to different NPC factions, choose to betray their NPC allies, or just continue hunting Aether Pirates until the alignment system shifts Player B closer to Player A, breaking the existing alliance and forming a new one. Player interaction is greatly encouraged provided one simple thing remains true: both players are mature enough to realize they are sharing a virtual world someone else created for them to enjoy.

In short, do not reveal through the interface where other players fall on the alignment spectrum. The only alignment that should concern me is my own. At least until it becomes apparent through another player's words or actions. At that point, instead of making PvP the most attractive option, allow me to choose how I will handle the situation based on my own value system and my own priorities within the game. (Or, more accurately, based on my character's value system and priorities.)

Outside of PvP, I cannot imagine a single situation where knowing another player's alignment ahead of time will expand my choices in the game. The less I know about other player's alignments the more interesting and exciting the game becomes. I certainly would not favor being separated from other players simply because my own alignment makes me more or less villainous/heroic than they are. Even worse, I would hate to have every third player in the game challenging me to a duel just because my name is red and theirs is blue (or a different shade of gray, or whatever).

Greyhawk wrote:

MWM is going to wind up with an overloaded server running hundreds of different instances of zone maps each with a mere handful of players. Is this really the direction the design team has taken? Has no one foreseen how badly this is going to overload server hardware? Phasing technology is an interesting concept, but stretched out like this it becomes extremely demanding. It seems terribly impractical.

+1

Not to mention the issues of bugs, updates, and resources fixing two (or 3 .. or more) types of instances. Eventually bugs will be reported much higher on one type.. and the other gets non-purposely neglected.

Lothic wrote:

... I think you've taken a scenario and overthought it about 10 times more than you needed to. You seem to think that PvP would have to be unavoidable in certain situations. On the contrary PvP is ALWAYS 100% avoidable - try to see past your self imposed mental roadblocks and realize that you've totally misjudged the dynamics of this. I can only conclude that this nonsense of "players feeling helpless because they can't PvP" is some kind of devious Jedi mind trick played on you because in the "real world of real players" that kind of thing is totally meaningless drivel.

I agree with this sentiment 100%.

PvP will have its very own phase, right? So if someone is so immature they cannot grasp that other players play the game differently they will have the option of always playing in the PvP phase. Not being able to see or communicate with PvP shard/phase/instance is fine by me. Not being able to communicate with someone because my character is 10% Law, 90% Honor, 60% violence while theirs is 90% Law, 10% Honor, 40% Violence is just silly. Alignment along the three axis and alliances with NPC factions should both be irrelevant and invisible between us. Let us reveal it ourselves through our interactions and choices.

I wouldn't make that assumption from it, Kiyori. If we were to do that, it would involve phasing technology on a level far beyond anything I've ever seen implemented, and I'm not willing to say we can do that at launch.

However, something similar (but not identical) to that is one of about five options that we have open in a year or two after launch. We need to build systems to support other systems, first.

Remember, folks, we want everyone to be playing with each other as much as you do.

Tannim222 wrote:

Again I am truly sorry and now my next training session is about to begin I will bow out from the forums for a while as I think some distance will help my nerves.

Fell better soon. Sorry about jumping all over this. ;)

warcabbit wrote:

I wouldn't make that assumption from it, Kiyori. If we were to do that, it would involve phasing technology on a level far beyond anything I've ever seen implemented, and I'm not willing to say we can do that at launch.
However, something similar (but not identical) to that is one of about five options that we have open in a year or two after launch. We need to build systems to support other systems, first.
Remember, folks, we want everyone to be playing with each other as much as you do.

My, my but this thread is jumping and hopscotching like crazy!

It might be helpful, Warcabbit, if a broad, abstract outline of these options could be written up for public consumption. Perhaps the next update could provide this? And then in the discussion thread in response to the update forum participants could debate what they perceive as the strengths and weaknesses of each option.

I'm also for the ambiguous style, but if they say it will be better and improved over CoX I will have faith that it will be great!

Tannim: I for one don't think you did anything wrong here. You've just been trying to explain something on behalf of MWM and the messenger got attacked from multiple angles. I think everyone sees that now.

I'm not sure how I feel about this new information on phasing based on alignment, or whatever it will be. Part of me thinks it's not such a good idea, while part of me thinks it could work. I'm happy to wait and see.

What does surprise me is how many folks didn't realise that the red/blue decision has always been planned on top of (or maybe alongside) the 3-axis alignment matrix, given that on at least 2 occasions Doc Tyche has mentioned it, and folks like Darth Fez and I have questioned him, just to be sure we were understanding him correctly. Then again, it's a big forum; I suppose no one can keep track of it all. Personally, I'd prefer the one big matrix that others are suggesting, without a red/blue side-selection, but I resigned myself to the plans for the binary classification back when Doc first mentioned it.

The tech isn't made yet. Functionality has been planned. Announcing what "will be" is not an option at this time. It has to be materialized and executed before they can truly announce anything.

My hopes is that the story and content being used can all be used on one simultaneous map. If this means "villains" are on one side of a district and "heroes" objectives are on the other side of the district, then so be it. It seems most concern by devs are "what happens in the middle". I say keep the objectives separate and have "mission designated area" one for heroes and one for villains. where those objectives are completed, then taken back to the NPC in the respective camp.

This is how it's handled in certain districts in WIldstar. For instance "Whitevale" is a vast area (much like a district will be in CoT I assume). Most villain objectives are in the west and hero objectives in the east. In the middle of the map are basically shared objectives (things both the heros and villains want to do ). If you're flagged for PvP the middle zone is where you're most likely to meet that opposition. If you're not flagged for PvP its basically as though you're just in a new portion of the map, enemy factions can't fight you and that's all there is to it.

Heroes CAN travel even as far as getting into enemy outposts if you're skilled, but they still cannot attack or affect players not marked for PvP.

This is what I want.. only without inflexible faction choice. I want to be able to change my ideal choice as I go. I suggested

Law - Areas where cops, government rule and are NPCs with missions to further their goals.
Chaos - Areas with NPCs like anarchists, people opposing the government, and freedom fighters go
Soverign - Areas where people who want independence from the official government but have their own rules go (characters like the X-Men, the Morelocks, the Inhumans, Runaways, and other independent groups )

This is not in the current writing plans it sounds like, but damn if I didn't wish it were. Its an easy way to give every player access to 3 types of content (if you never change your alignment you'd still get 2/3 if the content instead of only 1/2) and it provides enough conflict for where/how the story intersects. How sometimes your character will feel the need to fight for/with someone of a different alignment if only for a moment. As any story arc begins the first mission should give you the option of which path to take (Law, Chaos, or Sovereign) and that then sets the content you'll see until the story arc ends. (Law will be told to spy on Sovereign and Capture chaos for example.. while Sovereign spies on Law and Stops Chaos.. ) Its the same content but its story is based on the alignment you use.

*sigh*

This is a case where I, the consumer, made assumptions about the goals of the design from MWM for CoT based on the information available instead of speaking up. But I don't think it's too late to adjust your system to have one shared map instead of 2-3+ different maps for openworld content. Just add space to the maps and keep the mission area selective and only allow PvP if you're elected (flagged) to be in it.

- -

Finally, I'm not expecting any of this games design to be "my way", but the current choice to "phase" content and have two people view different content is a step in a direction I cannot be cautious enough about. IT lacks the elasticity to make changes to the open worlds maps in the future.

Greyhawk wrote:

warcabbit wrote:
I wouldn't make that assumption from it, Kiyori. If we were to do that, it would involve phasing technology on a level far beyond anything I've ever seen implemented, and I'm not willing to say we can do that at launch.
However, something similar (but not identical) to that is one of about five options that we have open in a year or two after launch. We need to build systems to support other systems, first.
Remember, folks, we want everyone to be playing with each other as much as you do.

My, my but this thread is jumping and hopscotching like crazy!
It might be helpful, Warcabbit, if a broad, abstract outline of these options could be written up for public consumption. Perhaps the next update could provide this? And then in the discussion thread in response to the update forum participants could debate what they perceive as the strengths and weaknesses of each option.

+1
agreed.

again I would say that this really needs to be clarified as I am even more confused on how they "plan" to make this alignment system work regarding who see's who and can act/react to their actions. answering with generics is just making things cloudier versus clearer.

I would also stress that NOW is the time to hash such things out prior to spending the various resources to putting something in place versus talking about it AFTER everything has been spent and put into place. what happens if you all go this route that your on...get everything done...reveal to the public and the public goes [I]"WTF!?!"[/I] (which it should be noted is actually happening right now) you have effectively painted yourself into a corner when you could have avoided it all if it had been hashed out prior to spending any resources at all... again...just my opinion.

regarding the ambiguity....I am a Blueside Hero. if I am in the minority, so be it. greyshades can be fun for oneshots...but on the whole...I am a good guy at heart and as such I play super [u]heroes[/u].

In the interests of not clogging up this thread even more with my ideas for how The World Should Work in relation to this topic, I'll be posting my thoughts in a different thread over in the suggestion forum. I have no idea when I'll be able to find the time for that effort, since I'm busy with other matters this weekend that are a touch more pressing, but I should be able to start posting on monday. Hopefully I'll be able to build up a sufficiently detailed structure of "layers" outlining a path from Here To There which could be used as a map for what might be done pre-launch and what will almost certainly have to wait for post-launch which could potentially be used for resource allocation and building a Schedule should MWM be interested.

OK, I'm relaxing now. ^_^

BTW, I looked back at the [url=http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/missingworldsmedia/the-phoenix-project-city-of-titans/posts/629385]KickStarter Update "Beyond Good and Evil[/url] (thanks, Winter!) and found towards the end :

Austin "Cube" Lang wrote:

Of course, there is a fourth component to this 3-axis alignment system as well; one that you choose. What is the correct term for your character, in your eyes or their own? Do you consider them a hero? A villain? Somewhere in between? We will be using the labels you’re familiar with of course; the classic four point system of Hero, Villain, Scoundrel, and Vigilante. But we’ll also poll the community for new labels to live up (or down) to. Of course, if you’d rather begin your story as a Complete Unknown, that’s an option too. These labels color the city’s initial opinion of you, but your conception of your label might not mesh with everyone else.

This was the part I'd forgotten about, and which I think is the "player controlled switch" Warcabbit referred to, [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/90306#comment-90306]above[/url].

Tannim, thanks for trying to explain it, and I hope we didn't add too much stress on you.

It is a difficult situation. We are tense, for many of us City of Heroes was more important than one might expect from a simple game, because it was more than a simple game. And that is why there is so much passion. 'Disasters' like this will happen, but not out of malicious intent, but because people care. And that is why I am confident these conflicts will be resolved every time. Everyone is on the same side, after all.

if extreme alignments cannot see one another what's the functional difference between that...and just having a dedicated zone or two for said alignments? why even introduce the mechanic of phasing just so players cannot see one another? I also have a bunch of other concerns regarding the indirect promotion of pvp that alignments is introducing, to the point that everything is having to be designed around pvp.

I know I know...I'm being glass half empty (not the first nor will it likely be the last) but I am seeing a lot that is starting to concern me on the whole and not a lot of info to assuage said concerns.

Brand X wrote:

whiteperegrine wrote:
if extreme alignments cannot see one another what's the functional difference between that...and just having a dedicated zone or two for said alignments? why even introduce the mechanic of phasing just so players cannot see one another? I also have a bunch of other concerns regarding the indirect promotion of pvp that alignments is introducing, to the point that everything is having to be designed around pvp.
I know I know...I'm being glass half empty (not the first nor will it likely be the last) but I am seeing a lot that is starting to concern me on the whole and not a lot of info to assuage said concerns.

Worries me too. Admittedly, it's a bit of a immersion breaker to have a villain commiting a crime around you and unable to do anything about it (which will happen to all PvErs) but that's no difference than any other PvE Server in other MMOs.
Overcame it there, no reason not to beable to here.
It may be for people reasons. Only so many people in an instance so likely want all the PvPers on one instance.

I'd agree that immersion breaking is completely unavoidable in any MMO. It's especially prevalent if the story your character follows through the general quests is apparently the ''Chosen One''.

I'd more concerned with glitches, proper gameplay, and good consistent backstory in the case for this game. The graphics and art style is looking really good so there is no reason to have an issue with that. Even despite my love for the stories in general I will say that taking care of the glitches and polishing the gameplay is especially prevalent as improper handling of that is what get's people to leave. The other issue (although it might not be an issue for this MMO spcifically considering the crowd is a lot more diverse) would be endgame content but that is a whole different monster entirely and is merely just a possible problem in the long run.

This discussion is seriously hurting my ability to give a crap about the game.
I believe you have stepped into a quagmire.
You're only possible options are
1) worldwide pvp
2) segregating heroes and villains.
you're committed to rejecting both of these possibilities and are left with nothing that can work for very long.

Unless you abandon that stupid alignment system
and segregate heros from villains the game can not ever work.
there is no hope.

I read what Red posted above and she is dead wrong.
Heroes and villains are the driving force behind this genre.
without them there is no reason to play a game like this.
It's supposed to be about Good vs Evil
everything else is just window dressing

I will continue to look in on these forums from time to time
but until a solution to this problem is found I won't post again
and if I don't think the solution you adopt can work,
I won't be back.

This time even the hope that you might have nunchaku won't get me back
(that's what's done it every time before)
this one issue is central to the game
and there is no point spending any time or money on a game that can't work.
no matter how cool my character might have been

I'd give a lot to see Paladin brought to life in a game
but what's the point if the world he has to interact with is no good.
especially if the system is so flawed
that I have no faith that the game can last.

If 5 years from now the game is going strong without me, all it will mean is that there are a lot of people with a totally different vision of superheroes than I have and I don't want to play with them anyway.

I would like to be part of the game.
I want desperately for it to work.
please give me a reason to come back.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

I read what Red posted above and she is dead wrong.
Heroes and villains are the driving force behind this genre.
without them there is no reason to play a game like this.
It's supposed to be about Good vs Evil
everything else is just window dressing

Correction. [b]City of Heroes[/b] was all about Hero vs Villain ... with the Heroes as the Good Guys and the Villains as the pale shadow Bad Guys (who never actually do anything truly, meaningfully or epically BAD).

Then along came Issue 18: Going Rogue, which brought us Praetoria ... and suddenly, the conflict wasn't JUST about Good vs Evil anymore. Instead, both sides were Good AND Evil at the same time ... and the real conflict in Praetoria was Order (Loyalists) vs Chaos (Resistance). It became very very VERY hard to keep the rose colored glasses on when the supposed "good guys" were very deliberately conspiring to murder lots and lots and lots of people in order to advance their goals and protect their ideals. It wasn't a conflict between Good vs Evil ... it was a conflict of Order vs Chaos ... between those who would uphold and those who would tear down. What made Praetoria even more complex was that it was a Police State run by superpowers, up to and including explicit mind control and manipulation of the mass media in support of the regime, resulting in a tyranny ruled by a Tyrant (Marcus Cole) who only had the Best Of Intentions™ which paved the road to Hell.

In other words, if you want to believe that Black vs White in the form of Good vs Evil is the ONLY way a superpowered game setting can be written, we've already seen that such an assumption is FALSE.

Try to see the world a little more broadly than from within the tightly confining prison of your own personal morality, TheMightyPaladin.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

This discussion is seriously hurting my ability to give a crap about the game.
I believe you have stepped into a quagmire.
You're only possible options are
1) worldwide pvp
2) segregating heroes and villains.
you're committed to rejecting both of these possibilities and are left with nothing that can work for very long.
Unless you abandon that stupid alignment system

So you've remained here for two years in the understanding that the purported alignment system plan for shades of grey/purple that eveyrone else seems to love is "stupid"? Dude, why?

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

and segregate heros from villains the game can not ever work.
there is no hope.

No hope for who?

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

I read what Red posted above and she is dead wrong.
Heroes and villains are the driving force behind this genre.

Most comic writers and readers would disagree with you.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

without them there is no reason to play a game like this.

Again, for who?

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

It's supposed to be about Good vs Evil
everything else is just window dressing

Tell me, would you describe psychology and philosophy as "window dressing"? Since that is the inspiration behind most modern fictional (and otherwise) reassesments of the notions of "Good" and "Evil", from cinema to comicbooks to this game. And if people didn't like it, it wouldn't sell.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

I will continue to look in on these forums from time to time
but until a solution to this problem is found I won't post again

The problem is yours, my friend. The devs have no obligation to you, unless you've pledged money in the KS, and then the obligation is to deliver a superhero MMORPG, not to reflect your personal philosophy with it.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

and if I don't think the solution you adopt can work,
I won't be back.
This time even the hope that you might have nunchaku won't get me back
(that's what's done it every time before)
this one issue is central to the game
and there is no point spending any time or money on a game that can't work.
no matter how cool my character might have been
I'd give a lot to see Paladin brought to life in a game
but what's the point if the world he has to interact with is no good.

Does this imply you think the real-world has no good in it?

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

especially if the system is so flawed

A single player not liking it does not constitute a system design flaw, in my laymans' estimation.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

that I have no faith that the game can last.

Really? Take a leap, brother.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

If 5 years from now the game is going strong without me, all it will mean is that there are a lot of people with a totally different vision of superheroes than I have and I don't want to play with them anyway.

Do you really have trouble relating to people? I'm serious.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

I would like to be part of the game.
I want desperately for it to work.

I'm sure it will, but maybe not in the way you wish.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

please give me a reason to come back.

Don't know what to say to that, but tell me: who is your favourite superhero and villain? And comics writer? What/who do you read most? Because most modern comics don't seem to reflect what you claim they do, from what I've seen.

Rotten Luck
Thank you,
That really helps put it into perspective.
I can go on.

Red
No you're still wrong. Going Rogue sucked and Pretoria sucked
everything about issue 18 sucked something awful.
I can't imagine what kind of person would ever think it was a good idea.
It was the second worst mistake COH ever made
On the scale of badness, It ranks above Incarnates
Above those giant teams (can't remember what they were called)
and even above the fact that for the last year I was playing, all special events pretty much required you to team.
The only mistake worse than issue 18 was ending the game.

Gluke
You keep asking "for who" when it's obvious the answer is for me.
so obvious that I can't see any reason for asking the question.
As I've said before, everything I say on these forums is my opinion.
Also Yes I have a really hard time relating to other people, especially online
I'd have thought that would be obvious by now.

White Peregrin
I hope they can fix this but if they can't read what Rotten Luck wrote.
It helped me.

Bleddyn
It's simple
Bad guys do bad things
Heroes beat them up
Vigilantes try to kill the bad guys instead
so heroes beat them up too.
By the way, I like your new avatar

Redlynne wrote:

TheMightyPaladin wrote:
I read what Red posted above and she is dead wrong.
Heroes and villains are the driving force behind this genre.
without them there is no reason to play a game like this.
It's supposed to be about Good vs Evil
everything else is just window dressing
Correction. City of Heroes was all about Hero vs Villain ... with the Heroes as the Good Guys and the Villains as the pale shadow Bad Guys (who never actually do anything truly, meaningfully or epically BAD).
Then along came Issue 18: Going Rogue, which brought us Praetoria ... and suddenly, the conflict wasn't JUST about Good vs Evil anymore. Instead, both sides were Good AND Evil at the same time ... and the real conflict in Praetoria was Order (Loyalists) vs Chaos (Resistance). It became very very VERY hard to keep the rose colored glasses on when the supposed "good guys" were very deliberately conspiring to murder lots and lots and lots of people in order to advance their goals and protect their ideals. It wasn't a conflict between Good vs Evil ... it was a conflict of Order vs Chaos ... between those who would uphold and those who would tear down. What made Praetoria even more complex was that it was a Police State run by superpowers, up to and including explicit mind control and manipulation of the mass media in support of the regime, resulting in a tyranny ruled by a Tyrant (Marcus Cole) who only had the Best Of Intentions™ which paved the road to Hell.
In other words, if you want to believe that Black vs White in the form of Good vs Evil is the ONLY way a superpowered game setting can be written, we've already seen that such an assumption is FALSE.
Try to see the world a little more broadly than from within the tightly confining prison of your own personal morality, TheMightyPaladin.

I don't know if I'd say Praetoria was about Order vs Chaos. Both sides did bad things. Praetoria had evil leaders who did evil things, but were covered by being the leaders of the government that was setup to allow them to do almost anything they wanted versus leaders with objectionable motives/beliefs who were looking to get out from the tyranny of oppressive leaders.

Back Alley Brawler ran a drug gang. They kept people locked down by force. They were an oppressive government.

I'd say it was Freedom versus Oppression, with the saviors of humanity growing to be corrupt powermongers.