Cute Kitsune wrote:

I have question that I feel has not been answered.
I the Anti Villain group with TheMightyPaladin. He wants to "Disable to nuke and dispose of the core." Lawful NonViolent I want to "Disable the Nuke and Keep the Core for later use." Unlawful NonViolent. How does the story play out if we are the only 2 on the mission and we disagree?

PvP match!

The specifics that pertain to the questions are not approved for release to the public. Instead I'll try to address what I perceive to be the core concern:
What happens when someone else's decisions can change my alignment?

The simple solution here is the provide an option for the group to decide a course of action. And since the group leader is the owner they have a deciding factor in how things can turn out. However, the option to opt out of being affected should also be possible. Sorry if this is vague.

As for having a disagreement based on the actions taken within the mission, well there are some options her too. Stop grouping with the person / people. Argue about in or out of character (though if you opted out, then out of character shouldn't be a big deal here). In character is another story as your character may have parotuclar views in which they have a serious issue with what just went down and want to take the other character to task. For this there is the option to head over to a pvp location (and risk pvp with others) or have a duel. After all, it's a common trope where the good guys have a misunderstanding / disagreement and come to blows over it.

Now if there is any concern that somehow a good guy can end up with an out right bad guy's mission as part of a random pick up group - don't worry. There will be clear distinctions on who can group with who and ways to prevent the large schisms from crossing paths. Of course there is always the possibility of those situations where everyone ends up working with everyone (if only going by other occurrences within comic book-dom), but that's comp's end of the pool to swim.

I'd like to mention that, in SWTOR, the 'winning' dialogue choice only affects the Story/Mission. Your personal, character choices are what affects your character's 'alignment', so you cannot be 'forced' to the 'wrong' alignment. If you choose 'light', you get 'light', even if the cut-scene itself takes a 'dark' turn.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Radiac wrote:

I think "honor" means something more than "honesty". If a dastardly villain says "I'm going to kill you for no good reason." then kills you, that isn't an honorable act, no matter how honest he was about it. The honorable thing would have been not to kill someone if you have no particularly great reason to do so.
Just my two cents, but I have a real problem with calling unabashed villainy "honorable" simply because nobody's being duplicitous or ambiguous about it. So if that's the way that axis is going to work, you should call it the "honesty" axis, not "honor", I think.

Tannim222 wrote:

Quite right, Radiac. Though keeping your word can be an honorable act in of itself. It was only a quick write up to provide an example.

Hmmm...obviously MWM can define the axes as they wish, but if this is the case then so much for my theory of genius, because it means one of the axes is back into that subjective area (not all that different from the subjectivity of good/evil) with all the concomitant ambiguities or even outright disagreements. Well, ok, the theory isn't entirely out the window, because a system that is 2/3 objective is still a clearer, less ambiguous system than a binary good/evil one.

Tannim222 wrote:

The specifics that pertain to the questions are not approved for release to the public. Instead I'll try to address what I perceive to be the core concern:
What happens when someone else's decisions can change my alignment?
The simple solution here is the provide an option for the group to decide a course of action. And since the group leader is the owner they have a deciding factor in how things can turn out. However, the option to opt out of being affected should also be possible. Sorry if this is vague.

It's ok; we understand you can't discuss everything right now. What I take from this is MWM is thinking about the questions raised here and making plans to deal with them.

Tannim222 wrote:

There will be clear distinctions on who can group with who and ways to prevent the large schisms from crossing paths. Of course there is always the possibility of those situations where everyone ends up working with everyone (if only going by other occurrences within comic book-dom), but that's comp's end of the pool to swim.

Please, please, Comp Team, don't make every new major expansion be one of those "All the heroes and villains have to team up to fight this new threat" stories like most of the later issues in CoX.

I suspect the reasons you list are accurate, Plexius. I also suspect that preponderance of players on blue side had something to do with it. But I still found it disappointing and suspension-of-disbelief-straining. It seemed disingenuous to offer two main alignment paths and then have most of the following issues shoehorn the red side into a blue plot. I would have preferred differing arcs, but I wouldn't have really minded even doing the same missions if they had just changed the text to afford a more villainous motivation for my more evil villains. Or maybe added a final (optional) Epilogue mission that differed based on whether you were blue or red. I think there were compromises that could have landed somewhere between the double work of having to create two separate arcs and having everyone do the same thing because reasons. I hope MWM can be a little more creative with the way they handle this sort of thing. As you say, the 3-axis alignment system may necessitate dealing with this sort of thing in almost every mission, so it could be something they prepare as part of the foundation.

Cinnder wrote:

Hmmm...obviously MWM can define the axes as they wish, but if this is the case then so much for my theory of genius, because it means one of the axes is back into that subjective area (not all that different from the subjectivity of good/evil) with all the concomitant ambiguities or even outright disagreements. Well, ok, the theory isn't entirely out the window, because a system that is 2/3 objective is still a clearer, less ambiguous system than a binary good/evil one.

Anything is subjective based on the filter through which the viewer discerns what they're observing. I specifically stated that I'm not on the comp team and that the write up was done quickly to provide a basic example of the concept of how the alignment system can work. Please don't use this as an exact example of context for the game.
I'm sure the comp team has a list of guidelines for each axis of alignment in order to apply writing toward so that there is consistancy.

And from the update on alignment:

Honor is a measure of your character’s trustworthiness. An Honest character keeps his or her promises, and tends to avoid deception. A Dishonorable character is willing to betray supposed allies to get ahead, and thrives on lies and falsehoods.

So I feel the example I gave where the character could keep his word or betray the person he just made a deal with is apt within the context I gave it and within the basic definition of Honor in the alignment.

Cinnder wrote:

Please, please, Comp Team, don't make every new major expansion be one of those "All the heroes and villains have to team up to fight this new threat" stories like most of the later issues in CoX.

One of the main things the alignment system allows for is the creation of content being agnostic toward specific "types of alignment" (hero, villain, etc...) and the content instead is woven around the possible decisions and branches of change made from that point onward.

I only brought up the example of both sides playing together because the opposing sides "blue" and "red" won't normally ever need to come into contact with one another (outside of PvP). But that there may be certain types of content designed where they do end up siding with one another - so far as I'm aware, this isn't anything planned at this time - I only mentioned it as a possibility because it is a theme common enough in comic-book (and other mediums).

sev171 wrote:

man, I'd so rather disagreements to affect the mission in some way. But it's understandable if it's not possible because it seems difficult to do. But if there was a mechanic where you go into pvp when it comes to big decisions or go with higher stats like reflexes or intelligence for the smaller decisions would be cool.

The reason are multiple reasons there isn't a direct mechanic to enter into pvp over disagreements over choices within a mission. Most important is our stance that PvP must always be optional.

Characters do not carry stats such as intelligence or reflexes that can be utilized for the game.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Just curious, will it be possible to include alignment effecting choices in player made missions?
Will it be possible to repeat alignment effecting missions to increase the effect, OR to reverse the effect by making a different choice?

I feel like being more unlawful. I make a mission with 100 people lined up with a choice Free them or Shoot them in the head. I make a lootable as the objective next to the row of hostages. I loot when I've adjusted my alignment enough.

This is what I see. I've played on test servers and beta servers. This is effectively what your asking if you can do.

so for Heroes, we show a small icon like this?
[img]http://i.imgur.com/5F3sjP9.png[/img]
;)

Use the Halo as a Bar to represent how Good you've gotten? ;D

Not mandatory display? You just mean the display of how many times you've made choices? The idea of having a new system and then just making it optional seems like a waste of a system. :/

Here's an odd notion that might be worth considering.

When [b]Alignment Decisions[/b] happen in a Team Context, the Team Leader makes the choice for the Team (ie. they go first). The rest of the Team is then given the OPTION to support/agree with the Team Leader's choice ... or not. Members of the Team who opt to take the same choice as the Leader have their alignment adjusted accordingly, while Members of the Team who "opt out" of the Leader's choice receive no adjustment whatsoever.

The only one who Has To make a choice that affects their Alignment is the Team Leader. Everyone else can either Follow The Leader (and be adjusted accordingly) or Decline and receive no adjustment whatsoever. This would then prevent situations in which someone has the VALUE of their Alignment changed against their will.

In the event of a Branching Story situation, the choice that the Team Leader makes determines which branch of the story/content gets played, but Team Members who "disagree" with the Leader's choice are not automatically "penalized" on their Alignment for a choice made which they themselves did not control.

Net result? Team Leaders are "held responsible" for their choices, but Team Members are not "bound" by the choices the Leader makes, with respect to Alignment adjustments. This would mean that there would be a sort of "built in" way to "bypass" (or at least, get through) content which forces a choice that a Player would rather not have their character make (for whatever reason). If you Team with another Player(s) and are Not The Leader you can complete the content (and thus advance the story arc) without being required to Make The Choice that you don't want to make. In effect, there is an "out" clause of letting someone else being responsible for making the choice, and then your character becomes a sort of an Objector Of Conscience [b]as a Follower of the Team Leader[/b] and participating in group play of that specific content, rather than just Soloing it yourself.

Note that in this context, Solo Play is effectively considered a Team Of One with the Soloist as the "Team" Leader (with no Followers or other Team Members).

It may have been a limit then but we have a lot more options available to us now. As Dr. Tyche has previously stated we aren't joking that you're villain can take over the world as much as your hero can be its savior. None of us are overtly fond of forcing any character type (hero, villain, or in between) to be anyone's lackey. Unless of course your concept is a lackey to another pc but that's on you.

Also to be fair, there was something of a payoff in cov where your character can come into power - At least in a story line. It just had no real impact in how the world viewed your character which is why it felt a little hollow. One could say the same for hero side where an enemy is defeated but still persists as if nothing changed. Defeat and dismantle an organization and yet they would still spawn for you that sort of stuff. We plan on (hope to) things much further than that.

Tannim222 wrote:

It may have been a limit then but we have a lot more options available to us now. As Dr. Tyche has previously stated we aren't joking that you're villain can take over the world as much as your hero can be its savior. None of us are overtly fond of forcing any character type (hero, villain, or in between) to be anyone's lackey. Unless of course your concept is a lackey to another pc but that's on you.
Also to be fair, there was something of a payoff in cov where your character can come into power - At least in a story line. It just had no real impact in how the world viewed your character which is why it felt a little hollow. One could say the same for hero side where an enemy is defeated but still persists as if nothing changed. Defeat and dismantle an organization and yet they would still spawn for you that sort of stuff. We plan on (hope to) things much further than that.

Isn't that typically the state of usual MMOs though, and something that is usually expected in their creation?

If CoT really does permit a character to take over the world, and that take over to be significant in a way so that it has lasting effects on the game's setting, then more power to you guys, but I just feel like it might be a bit of a double edged sword, and could potentially be far more complicated than first envisioned.

The core reason, I believe, that MMO settings are typically unchanged in the long run is that to make them as malleable as possible would require far more coding and modelling to maintain; it might be hollow and meaningless to provide players with the status of 'Next Greatest Villain' or 'Chosen One' as everyone else in the game will have those titles to boot, but to give those titles more weight than they had would mean building enemies, changing the overworld and at worst re-building the whole game based on the choices one player among thousands.

Let's take City of Villains, for example. As the core storyline for any character when being broken out of jail, they would be enlisted into 'Project DESTINY', a program by which Lord Recluse would find the person who would be strong enough to take his place. Sadly, the future is malleable, and therefore there were thousands of candidates that could take up the task, and they even explained as such when you get enlisted, preventing the overbearing titles from being too meaningless. By story's end, you aren't Recluse's lackey any more, you're his equal.

Of course, as a villain you don't get the opportunity to take over the world, but like I said before, if a villain does so, and succeeds, then there would be a significant change to the maps, NPCs and missions at the very least on hero side.

Heroes aren't that complicated, and your efforts never really felt hollow, but that depends on how much attention you would pay to NPC chatter. As they walk by, some would look and say "Hey, it's _____! He stopped the Lost from kidnapping those people! Man, what a guy!" and, later, if you were doing alignment missions, they would be wary of your choices. Hell, even if you did the defacto hero choices, some would question if it was the right thing to do.

Champions, I think, went one further by having random NPCs run up to you, asking for an autograph.

For heroes, the reason to not have such a big world change is that, typically, they're fighting for the status quo. If the world hasn't significantly changed, at least for the worse, then they're doing their job.

As for enemy groups still spawning, that falls within the previous problem, but for a hero MMO, it makes some sense; bad guys come back all the time. Even when a slew of their forces are killed, they have some way to come back. It needs to happen in MMOs because taking them away entirely would mean less enemies to take care of, which in turn would mean the other players would have fewer things to do, slowing down gameplay and lowering the opinion of the game, all because one dude is doing his job too well. Then, if that enemy group is gone altogether, the devs then have to come up with a new villain group to fill the gap, or expand the influence of the groups that remain.

Finally, if all of this has been taken care of, in a sense, then there's one last problem that will occur, and that is contextual consistency.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, a Villain takes with him a group of comrades and goes forth to slay Anthem. The hero is overwhelmed and is taken down after a long and gruelling fight, and the villain takes her life cruelly and without mercy. Now, as you have said, the game will do its best to not attach you to the NPCs as much as other MMOs do, so for the most part, this might not be as big a deal, but the problem lies in that not many people will care.

I think the reason why Statesman's death was such a big deal was that he was a constant for the majority of CoH's life. He might not have had the biggest influence on your character, since it wasn't until CoV high level content that he was a contact or a regular enemy, but for the face of the game he did his job admirably. Then, out of nowhere, he just up and dies (Well, i say out of nowhere, I think we saw it coming).

I use Anthem as an example because she seems to have the same effective position of Statesman, and will provide a big target for Villains to go and take down. If the game were to reflect that choice enough as to remove Anthem, then the game loses a significant aspect of its lore before most players can become familiar enough with her to care, and the same applies to any NPC. Eventually, Villains will run out of targets to take out, and people will die so often that the Hero players will refuse to get attached to characters because they never stick around. The game world will no longer be memorable, because it changes so often.

I could be misinterpreting this entirely, and I don't mean to go on a tirade. As far as I am aware, in regards to the Alignment System, coupled with the mission system, I am still giddy to play this game, but I feel that an MMO world that changes as quickly as that will be rife with problems: we might have a huge impact on the world, but the world will have very little impact on us.

I swear I'll lose it if they have civilians constantly running up to me and shoving me from wherever I stand like they do in CO. The fact they do it so much and can move you from it was annoying enough but the fact I wasn't supposed to be the good guy made it even worst.

Brand X wrote:

Speaking of Statesman, can we not have dev NPCs? If any of the known NPCs are created by one dev and not multiple, can we get rid of them now?
Statesman's death always felt like a jab at Jack more than a good idea, so it would be a good idea to avoid something like that, by not having one dev make a NPC.

Oh, no doubt. Many saw the death of Statesman and Sister Psyche as removing major aspect of Jack Emmert from the game, but I felt that jab was at Jack mainly because he didn't leave CoH on good terms with the remainder of the dev team.

That, and the death of the character was still somewhat significant, at least in my eyes. It was the game's allegory for Superman who had been around for a very long time. It wouldn't have mattered nearly as much if Statesman was to have keeled over maybe three days after launch, because no one would have been familiar with the guy enough to build that connection.

Radiac wrote:

Could some of this "You're now The Guy" stuff be accomplished using phases, I wonder? Like there's a statue of Rocky in front of the Titan City Museum,but when you achieve "The Guy" status, it turns into a statue of YOUR toon, BUT only YOU see it that way, as other toons will still see Rocky or themselves, etc.

Now you're on to something...

Alignment and faction rep work together to create a larger picture. The example you gave of the end of TDK is closest to providing an example where batman's alignment hasn't changed but his faction reputations have. Now he is wanted by police, but he still has a contact in the police dept that with him.

I'll try to frame it another way. The foundation of alignment is the tri-axis which provides the frame for the player's perception of their character's moral compass. The next layer are the labels of hero, villain, etc...are part of, but in addition to, the tri-axis alignment. The character's alignment is the initial setting for a faction's reaction to the character. Reputation with each faction uses the initial point and is adjusted from there.

If you are more of a visual thinker: tri-axis is the root, labels the trunk, reputation the branches. Some of those branches will be all but withered, some short' others long, some with leaves.

Radiac wrote:

Could some of this "You're now The Guy" stuff be accomplished using phases, I wonder? Like there's a statue of Rocky in front of the Titan City Museum,but when you achieve "The Guy" status, it turns into a statue of YOUR toon, BUT only YOU see it that way, as other toons will still see Rocky or themselves, etc.

I am in full support of this idea

It may be too late to hope against dev NPC's. Doctor Tyche is the forum identity of Nate Downes and is also a prominent supervillain according to [url=http://cityoftitans.com/content/4k-reveal-capechaser-10-most-wanted-thread]the CapeChaser update[/url]. Does that count as the kind of thing that's being referred to here?

Not for brownie points, but I sure hope they don't off Doctor Tyche---he's one of my favorite villains!

Brand X wrote:

I was never against the idea, until devs decided to kill off NPCs who belonged to devs they had a problem with. I'd rather not wind up liking a dev NPC, only to see them leave on bad terms and then have their NPC killed as some sort of hoorah!

Agreed!

I wouldn't have minded if they made Statesman turn to the Dark Side. Not as gratifying as Killing him off, but eehhh! :p
Even if its just Mind Control, we are yet to find out about. ;D

I always assumed the death of Statesman was more an allusion to the death of Superman that was going down at DC comics than an allusion to Jack Emmert's sudden, possibly bitter withdrawal from the title. I'm not "in the know" about how and why Jack Emmert left. I do know many of the changes to the game that resulted from Matt Miller taking over were changes that I enjoyed, even though many players were opposed to them.

But, hey, my favorite signature NPC from CoX is still Ghost Widow. Her story, with its elements of betrayal, romance, power-brokering, assassination, and finally rebirth even more powerful than before, were all the kind of thing I really enjoy in a good narrative. The drop-dead sexy aspect was just a bonus. I always felt somewhere along the line there should have been a coup d'etat with Ghost Widow and her followers destroying Lord Recluse and locking him away in a closed time loop. To my mind, that would have been the perfect ending to the story of Arachnos.

But Statesman? Meh. To me he was always just a cheap copy of Superman. His passing really didn't affect me much.

syntaxerror37 wrote:

Brand X wrote:
I was never against the idea, until devs decided to kill off NPCs who belonged to devs they had a problem with. I'd rather not wind up liking a dev NPC, only to see them leave on bad terms and then have their NPC killed as some sort of hoorah!

To be fair, there was quite a bit of time between Jack leaving CoH and Statesman's death. If it was just out of petty vengeance they sure held onto it for quite a while.

If it was just Statesman, I could believe it. They took out Sister Psyche too, killed them both off in poorly thought out storylines that screamed "Let's kill em off!", then brought up Positron.

Brand X wrote:

Revolution wrote:
Technically American Star is our big name hero. He is dead from the start of the game, however. Anthem is his protégé and is shown trying to live up to his mark while being the "go-to" hero like her mentor was. Anthem and American Star are not devs, BTW. Other than Tyche, there are no "major" dev NPCs. Besides, the NPCs belong to MWM no matter what. Spite should not enter into anything about them.

That's said, but then remember what was said about Statesman's death...Jack left, many wanted to kill off Statesman, then finally they came and said "Who thinks it's time to kill off Statesman" and they cheered and said "About time"
Look at comics "Why'd you kill that character off" "Because I didn't like them"

I suppose it can be said that City of Heroes, remarkably, was one of the few Hero Settings where, if memory serves me correctly, Death was kinda permanent. War Witch and Numina were ghosts, Statesman, Sister Psyche, a large number of the Praetorian counter parts, a sizable number of major NPCs in the War Zone, all of them were killed and there were no indications of them being brought back by any means. With comics, no hero could stay dead for long (in DC, this was actually a plot point for Blackest Night)

Brand X wrote:

, but then it requires writers who are good and patience that it may catch on. Something they tend to lack.

So how do good writers dangle you along till it gets Good? ;)

Izzy wrote:

Brand X wrote:
, but then it requires writers who are good and patience that it may catch on. Something they tend to lack.
So how do good writers dangle you along till it gets Good? ;)

Good art! :)

Redlynne wrote:

The death of Sister Psyche was just ... Women In Refrigerators terrible.
What made it worse was that at the Player Summit, after Who Will Die episode 3 had been released, some women stood up and publicly denounced the writing of Dr. Aeon in which Alexis Cole-Duncan got the Women In Refrigerators treatment and gratuitously "offed" simply to motivate a male hero. They demanded (as did most of the audience in the room) that this kind of thing *NOT* be repeated!
So when Who Will Die episode 6 came out and Sister Psyche got gratuitously and stupidly "offed" (by her HUSBAND no less!) it was just one of those "I Have Lost All Respect For The Writers" moments. I mean ... seriously ... Manticore didn't even PLAN for anything to go wrong! No backups, no alternatives, no thinking ahead ... just use the pointy stick instead of one of the myriad other non-lethal options at your disposal (including demolition charges on the altar, you worthless playboy!).
So who dies? Two women ... oh and Statesman.
Who kills them? A two-bit nobody with SCRIPT IMMUNITY™ granted to him by the writer.
Talk about a major disappointment.

I always thought women in refrigerator was over hyped by fans myself, but wasn't Alexis dead before the start of the game? So that's like 8 years of writing.

If we say dead character to motivate character is bad, then Bruce Wayne's mother fits the bill (or had parents in refrigerator), and secondary characters shouldn't be immune to death (they should be the ones being killed instead of the heroes people are reading...for a typical comic book anyways).

And I don't expect always having the best stories in MMOs (or comics or even entertaining book series) I just found the deaths there lacking, because they really were just to kill off Jack's characters.

Greyhawk wrote:

Brand X wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
The death of Sister Psyche was just ... Women In Refrigerators terrible.
What made it worse was that at the Player Summit, after Who Will Die episode 3 had been released, some women stood up and publicly denounced the writing of Dr. Aeon in which Alexis Cole-Duncan got the Women In Refrigerators treatment and gratuitously "offed" simply to motivate a male hero. They demanded (as did most of the audience in the room) that this kind of thing *NOT* be repeated!
So when Who Will Die episode 6 came out and Sister Psyche got gratuitously and stupidly "offed" (by her HUSBAND no less!) it was just one of those "I Have Lost All Respect For The Writers" moments. I mean ... seriously ... Manticore didn't even PLAN for anything to go wrong! No backups, no alternatives, no thinking ahead ... just use the pointy stick instead of one of the myriad other non-lethal options at your disposal (including demolition charges on the altar, you worthless playboy!).
So who dies? Two women ... oh and Statesman.
Who kills them? A two-bit nobody with SCRIPT IMMUNITY™ granted to him by the writer.
Talk about a major disappointment.

I always thought women in refrigerator was over hyped by fans myself, but wasn't Alexis dead before the start of the game? So that's like 8 years of writing.
If we say dead character to motivate character is bad, then Bruce Wayne's mother fits the bill (or had parents in refrigerator), and secondary characters shouldn't be immune to death (they should be the ones being killed instead of the heroes people are reading...for a typical comic book anyways).
And I don't expect always having the best stories in MMOs (or comics or even entertaining book series) I just found the deaths there lacking, because they really were just to kill off Jack's characters.

Blame Edgar Allan Poe. He invented the trope. Mostly because so much tragedy in his own life was related to the premature deaths of women he loved.
The heroside suffered from bad writing for many reasons, but the key reason (it seems to me) is that it locked itself into a single definition of "heroism". On the villainside there were fewer limits placed on the material and although some of it was not good at all, overall I enjoyed the writing on the villainside.
Unfortunately, most people never bothered reading the narrative material on the villainside. Powerleveling a villain to whatever level was suitable for the PvP zone a player preferred was much more common. But that is not the fault of the game's writers.
Those who did take the time to read the narrative generally wound up with several story arcs they would go out of their way to repeat because they enjoyed the story so much. Being able to repeat missions from Ouroboros was a great convenience for these players.

I often wondered if people didn't read it much because they either wanted their own lore which wouldnt fit into the games lore, didn't agree with the lore (while I read it, I thought some of it was dumb and chose to ignore some of it myself), or just one of the players who wanted to just play the game and kill things. :p

Empyrean wrote:

Greyhawk wrote:

But Statesman? Meh. To me he was always just a cheap copy of Superman. His passing really didn't affect me much.

Huh.
I always thought he was a rather nice pastiche homage to Captain America and Captain Marvel (SHAZAM), though of course filling a Superman-like role in the lore.
Patriotic soldier with magical power from the Greek gods? Really not much of a copy of the farm-raised alien last son of Krypton.

Weren't they all homages to established comic book characters?

I never had a problem with a NPC filling the Superman role. Yes, I want players to be able to reach A class super hero status (if they want) but the superman level hero...that should be NPC...and it's not a bad character to have around.

Brand X wrote:

Redlynne wrote:
The death of Sister Psyche was just ... Women In Refrigerators terrible.
What made it worse was that at the Player Summit, after Who Will Die episode 3 had been released, some women stood up and publicly denounced the writing of Dr. Aeon in which Alexis Cole-Duncan got the Women In Refrigerators treatment and gratuitously "offed" simply to motivate a male hero. They demanded (as did most of the audience in the room) that this kind of thing *NOT* be repeated!
So when Who Will Die episode 6 came out and Sister Psyche got gratuitously and stupidly "offed" (by her HUSBAND no less!) it was just one of those "I Have Lost All Respect For The Writers" moments. I mean ... seriously ... Manticore didn't even PLAN for anything to go wrong! No backups, no alternatives, no thinking ahead ... just use the pointy stick instead of one of the myriad other non-lethal options at your disposal (including demolition charges on the altar, you worthless playboy!).
So who dies? Two women ... oh and Statesman.
Who kills them? A two-bit nobody with SCRIPT IMMUNITY™ granted to him by the writer.
Talk about a major disappointment.

I always thought women in refrigerator was over hyped by fans myself, but wasn't Alexis dead before the start of the game? So that's like 8 years of writing.
If we say dead character to motivate character is bad, then Bruce Wayne's mother fits the bill (or had parents in refrigerator), and secondary characters shouldn't be immune to death (they should be the ones being killed instead of the heroes people are reading...for a typical comic book anyways).
And I don't expect always having the best stories in MMOs (or comics or even entertaining book series) I just found the deaths there lacking, because they really were just to kill off Jack's characters.

Alexis Cole effectively dies in Who Will Die Episode 3, as she is kidnapped and killed by Darrin Wade so that he can incur the wrath of Statesman, to lure him into a trap to kill him in Episode 5. Episode 6 had Sister Psyche die out of nowhere, in all honesty and then episode 7 has you fight Rulawade alongside Lord Recluse while orbiting Earth.

To be honest, it occurred to me during these missions that the Mediporter system wasn't working for them. It was an active plot point in one of the later missions where you, as a hero, have to stop agitated and armed civilians who wanted access to the mediporter system, since only heroes could use it. It even functioned as a plot device in the City of Heroes comic to boot. It wasn't like they made the system as a respawn mechanic and then actively ignored it.

I guess they might have done for the deaths of these two since, when you think about it, death really held no consequence.

I will admit I never paid much heed to Villain stories, but that's because I don't like playing villain most days, and when it came to hero stories, only a few shone for me, and most of those were the Morality missions. In fact, I think the most involved I got into a hero storyline was way back when I was still on Union, and I had a fondness for the Faultline series of missions.

SuperStatesman
BatManticore

There were plenty of others to go around ...

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

I thought Manticore was green arrow.

He was Batman with a Bow. Though Green Arrow was just Batman with a bow at first. :p Positron was CoH's Ironman :p

Brighellac, I could take what you just said and apply it to the Holy Trinity ... Protection, Healing, Damage.

TheMightyPaladin was simply shorthanding links between characters and (known) popularized concepts, not a litany of outright rip-offs.

Doctor Strange = Doctor Fate
Superman = Captain Marvel
Red Tornado = The Vision
Professor X and the X-Men = Niles Caulder and the Doom Patrol

In one interview, I think, Justice League creative guy Keith Giffen came out and SAID that his badguy team The Extremists were "inspired by" the famous Marvel villains Dr. Doom, Dormammu, Dr. Octopus, and Magneto.

I'm pretty sure in order to win a law suit about copyright infringement you have to show that the character in question LOOKS similar tot he original, has similar powers, and has a similar name.

I had a Kinetic/Electric defender toon generic-ed once because his name was Arc Angel, he had white feathery wings, and he wore a blue costume. I can accept THAT as crossing the line (unintentionally on my part, but still), but just because your toon was based on some known commodity, in your own mind, that fact alone doesn't make it a copyright violation per se.

immortalfrieza wrote:

Now that I have read this entire thread, I have a few ideas. Sorry, prepare for a wall of text.
First, I think however they fit on the Honor/Violence/Lawful axises the choices presented whenever possible should conform to a basic hero/villain archetype for simplicity's sake, of which I have 4 examples. I realize this would be a bit much to apply to every possible situation, but I think some of the more broad choices could fit this.
For instance, say your character needs to get information from a stoolie for whatever reason. Each archetype would acquire that information in a different manner:
Caped Crusader [think "what would Superman do?"]: This hero would attempt to reason with the character, and use force and threats as an absolute last resort.
Dark-Hero/Anti-Hero [think what would Batman do?]: This hero would attempt threats, violence, and general intimation tactics to get the stoolie to reveal what they know.
Manipulative Bastard/Pragmatic Villain [think what would Lex Luthor do?]: This villain will prefer use manipulation and trickery to achieve their ends.
Ax-Crazy/Omnicidal Maniac [think what would the Joker do?]: This villain will torture the stoolie or kidnap someone the stoolie cares about, then kill them afterwards anyway.
I'd like to go further with Nominal Heroes and Noble Demons, but those a bit more nuanced than I think I can provide effective examples for.
This covers the gauntlet of heroism to villainy from the Paragon of Light and Justice to the complete puppy killing sociopath.
Second, I was noticing the group dynamic discussed here and I thought up and idea for it. I don't know if there is going to be a sidekick system done, but I'd love to see one of some sort, one that made teaming up in such a manner worth often for all 3 parties (I'm thinking a maximum of 2 sidekicks to one mentor). Mostly what I'd like to mention regarding the topic of this thread is, I think that for story purposes the sidekick and mentor should converse with each other at certain points while on missions that will affect their alignment a bit, but for the sake of ensuring that the sidekick can still enjoy the mission themselves once they get to it they will not take part in any choices or even view any cutscenes for it unless they are already qualified for that mission on their own.
Third, I saw the complaint that for most MMOs the player would be able to wipe out criminal organizations, only for members of that same organization to still be trash mobs standing around despite their organization going kaput. My solution would be that for this game, outside of missions the player would partake in there would be no trash mobs that are wearing overt colors or attire of any organization of any sort that aren't supposed to be permanent, and only are revealed to be members via drops acquired during missions and taking them out could be one way the player can locate the presence of these organizations to begin with. These mobs would just be seemingly random thugs, cops, wizards, robots, whatever, and only during indoor missions or enemies that otherwise only spawn in that particular player's presence would the player see any mobs that obviously wear colors and uniforms that obviously identified them as members of that organization. On a side note, I would also like the trash mobs that aren't part of an organization to have a wide variety of randomly generated attire appropriate to their supposed enemy type, to keep them from all looking "hey, I beat this guy up 50 times already" samey. In fact, if the devs could make the layouts of indoor areas and even some of the outdoor areas somewhat randomized it would help with replay value a lot.
Last, I saw a post about the player in CoV being able to conquer the world but it seemingly not affecting anything. My solution for this is making keeping that a hard won and even harder kept battle that would subtly effect the world around the player only if they manage to stay the ruler of the world for a while, sort of part of a passive PvP aspect. I doubt I can think of a really good system for this in it's entirety but I'll give it a shot.
Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of a sort of player ranking system that the player becomes eligible for for after a certain point that would be equal game for both solo, group, and PvP players, whoever is at the top, hero or villain is the ruler of the world. As to how this would work I'm thinking maybe a point system that assigns a point value to every mission, and the more missions that player does and the better they are at it the more points they get for it, going up the rankings until they hit number one and are declared leader of the free world or absolute tyrant, depending on alignment. Regardless of how this would be implemented, if the player manages to hold their position for longer than 24 hours it would effect the entire city on that server, for example, the city looking darker, dirtier, more destitute, and overall worse off with slightly less law enforcement, more thugs and other such things, and less citizens on the streets if the ruler is a villainous character, and a brighter, cleaner city with slightly more law enforcement, less thugs and such, and more citizens milling about.
This is just the first idea I came up with on these. That's all, hope I didn't ramble on too much.

i think of Noble Demons is Nel Tu here link read http://bleach.wikia.com/wiki/Nel_Tu

As long as I get to be in different shades of gray I will be fine. I don't like pure white and black factions.....

Izzy wrote:

Bleddyn wrote:
As long as I get to be in different shades of gray I will be fine. I don't like pure white and black factions.....

50 Shades? ;D

I knew someone was going to make that joke after I realized how I worded that post. I would go on a rant about how bad that book is for butchering the English language to the level of a 11 year old's piece of fanfiction, how it romanticizes abusive asshole boyfriends, and Mary Sues but I rather not detract from the topic of this thread.

But seriously that book is a bundle of idiotic schlock....

Brand X wrote:

To be fair, it's level of literature is equal to pretty much every MMO!

[b][i]EXCEPT THIS ONE.[/i][/b]

I mean ... really ...

I am aspiring to possibly be an author one of these days so I find that ''best-selling book'' an travesty of the english language and a slap in the face to good writers with it's popularity.

I really do hope that this game has at least adequate writing all around. I will admit the writing of any MMO but SWTOR has always bothered me. I think the only exception was Wildstar only because I had my eyes glued to the Scientist note sections which were essentially a in-game built lore book for me (And I LOVE reading lore)

immortalfrieza wrote:

Bleddyn wrote:
I really do hope that this game has at least adequate writing all around. I will admit the writing of any MMO but SWTOR has always bothered me.
SWTOR... now THAT is a well written MMO. Perhaps too well written, I sometimes felt like the typical MMO busywork got in the way of experiencing that writing as well as I otherwise could have, and the need to stick standard MMO mechanics and pacing didn't do the story any favors. SWTOR could have been an absolutely amazing single player game, but as an MMO it seemed to fall flat.

It only really falls flat after you finish chapter three. After that, they pretty much have to keep everyone going the same direction. Either they didn't plan ahead or they can't go with their original plan. Or the plan was to say "Haha...no continuing class storylines after 50!"