masterghostartist wrote:

power to make people beg for mercy, or cower? bow and scrape?

npcs only? civies only?

you hate this idea? why?

This kind of thing might work as a limited "group emote" power that you can unlock as a special achievement or maybe as a special benefit for reaching max level or some-such.

It should only affect neutral NPCs and even then it probably shouldn't be allowed to affect special NPCs like contacts or unique personalities. In no way should it be useable as some kind of combat-affecting soft crowd control or the like.

Venture wrote:

"Kneel before Zod"
could be interesting, maybe as an unlock when reaching a certain achievement - TOR has a disco unlock iirc that makes everyone withing a certain distance dance..

I'm aware there are at least several games which can force player characters to do involuntary emotes like this. I'm totally against this idea in CoT unless we have the option to auto-decline all such emotes.

It'd be way too easy to grief people who otherwise don't want their characters doing anything they don't want to be doing, especially if they're big into roleplaying. Even the option to manually-decline an emote like this (via a pop-up) might eventually get annoying if someone on your team kept trying to fire these off during combat. Ideally there should be three standard options for group emotes: auto-decline, manually-decline (via pop-up) and auto-accept.

Izzy wrote:

Doomguide wrote:
... It would be nice if the chat from an NPC (especially contact types) varied a bit by taking into account the character (and their 'rep' for lack of a better word) when interacting with them.
Hmm.. how many variations? 2? 4?
2: Bad / Good
...or 4 different npc text outputs?
4: Bad (-51% to -100%) / Rouge (-1% to -50%) / Vigilante (1% to 50%) / Hero (51% to 100%)

If "group emotes" like this are going to exist there needs to be at least two versions to start: a generically heroic one and a generically villainous one. If they work out and are popular enough then I could see getting more variations that might cover other shades of rogueishness and/or vigilantism.

Lothic wrote:

I'm aware there are at least several games which can force player characters to do involuntary emotes like this. I'm totally against this idea in CoT unless we have the option to auto-decline all such emotes.

Definitely +1.

Lothic wrote:

Hmm.. how many variations? 2? 4?
2: Bad / Good
...or 4 different npc text outputs?
4: Bad (-51% to -100%) / Rouge (-1% to -50%) / Vigilante (1% to 50%) / Hero (51% to 100%)

If "group emotes" like this are going to exist there needs to be at least two versions to start: a generically heroic one and a generically villainous one. If they work out and are popular enough then I could see getting more variations that might cover other shades of rogueishness and/or vigilantism.

Agreed. Besides, given that the alignment system in CoT will have 3 axes, it would seem that the area between pure hero and pure villain will be more faceted than just Vigilante* and Rogue.

*Can anyone who played CoX see this word without hearing Posi's ...unique pronunciation? I can't. Not anymore.

Sorry, folks, I just don't want this. My ego is secure, without abasing others - even NPC citizens.

Be Well!
Fireheart

The problem with a level 50 walking around and scaring away greyed out enemies is griefing. There were several "Arrest X" missions that would have been impossible to complete with a bunch of level 50's running all over Atlas Park scaring away all the mobs.

I'm another person that really doesn't like this idea at all. I see no need for it. This sounds too much like vanity appeasement to me. I hope this doesn't get implemented in CoT.

Actually..

Doom wants to control the world not because he's an evil genius and he wants total fear.. but because he is, in his own mind, the only one fit to rule it. He actually wants to make it a better place BUT control everything with an iron fist and dispose of those who dare threaten his "perfect world."

AND he succeeded one time.. but got bored of ruling after like 2 weeks.

oOStaticOo wrote:

The problem with a level 50 walking around and scaring away greyed out enemies is griefing. There were several "Arrest X" missions that would have been impossible to complete with a bunch of level 50's running all over Atlas Park scaring away all the mobs.
I'm another person that really doesn't like this idea at all. I see no need for it. This sounds too much like vanity appeasement to me. I hope this doesn't get implemented in CoT.

For what it's worth I already suggested that something like this should not affect any "combat targetable" NPCs (pretty much regardless of level) back in [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/69359#comment-69359]Post Number 5[/url] of this thread. I would consider that in addition to what I also followed up with in [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/69428#comment-69428]Post Number 10[/url] of this thread.

Ironically as far as the question of "vanity appeasement" goes that part of it wouldn't actually bother me. It's the potential for griefing and roleplay interference that I'd worry about more than caring whether or not this would stroke any player's egos or not. That'd be a far distant third issue for me priority-wise. *shrugs*

Doomguide wrote:

Beyond the mechanical problems such as griefing that Static mentions there is the not so simple variation of the desired reactions potentially even to a single character if trying to keep immersive and in character never mind for every character in the game. We had several sets of costumes available for each character. For a given character I might expect little to no reaction if in costume A, another reaction to costume B, a third reaction to costume C and so on and so on. Is my level 50 Incarnate in his cape and big S outfit or is he currently wearing his glasses and pocket protector with 'harmless Geek' stenciled across his forehead? Really would make no sense to have Clark Kent scatter those Hellions while their reaction to Superman dropping in nearby ought to be ... something more than ignoring him. The program has to figure this out to make such a system work (Unless I've totally missed the meaning behind the OP).
And then there is the Numina TF (or anything dreamed up remotely like it) Already plenty of fun if a Rikti raid occurred and the mobs went bye bye and now all those mobs, when they are present go screaming for the hills at your appearance.
And very much this
Quote:
It's the potential for griefing and roleplay interference that I'd worry about more than caring whether or not this would stroke any player's egos or not.
My ego if and when it gets stroked certainly isn't stroked by pummel greys to smitherines or seeing them scatter screaming, up level baddies maybe ...
So ultimately it goes in my relatively unimportant but not necessarily against category if issues such as griefing etc. were taken care of.

I'm just a little baffled at why personal ego/vanity/self esteem keeps coming up.

It's a known fact that some people use gaming to shore up a fragile ego (hence the whole Big Bang Theory Age of Conan episode), but that's a separate issue. The OP's proposal either supports immersion without problem or it potentially breaks immersion and/or causes problems in game.

People have successfully argued that it is more likely to break than support immersion and that it could create more problems than it's worth. So be it. Anyone's individual ego seems irrelevant to me.

I mean, you could just as easily say "he's just stroking his ego by playing a strong, handsome, powerful hero", or "she's just stroking her ego playing a strong powerful, beautiful woman."

Because having somebody worship the very ground you walk on in awe or cower in complete and utter fear is very egocentric and vain. Playing a beautiful person would be narcissistic.

The general notion of having NPCs react to a PC's presence has been discussed a few times. The short summary, at least of the discussions I've been a party to, is "would be nice, but there are a bunch of pieces to be addressed before it could happen, and that's just the ones we can think of right now."

That said, the three-axis alignment is not actually the likely source of most of the reaction data, if it does happen. Your reputation (as established by your in-game actions) would be far more likely to carry the most weight. So if you're known for being a Boy Scout type who will only look sternly at someone if you didn't *clearly see* them doing whatever they did, then an NPC might well attempt to "cover up" something like a mugging by returning the purse/wallet/whatever. Whereas if you're know for being extremely violent and prone to expressing that upon the bodies of miscreants (whether hero or villain), miscreants recognizing you would be more inclined to scatter and try to hide / run (within limits, given the gameplay issues of griefing, especially unintentional griefing).

An interesting tidbit about the engine: NPCs are the same as players except with an AI control rig rather than something that links to a client. That means that they have a direction they face, finite line-of-sight, can hear sounds based on volume and distance… and can tell what direction someone appears to be looking. So there is a very real possibility that they might react differently to someone walking by and otherwise ignoring them than to someone pausing and turning to look their direction. Not even remotely a guarantee, and even if it happens *what* those reactions are is still very up in the air, but a very real possibility.

However, gameplay trumps realism more or less universally; while we try to simulate various things, the simulations exist to serve the entertainment (there are lots of things where the opposite is true, but we're not aiming to be one of them; there are far more efficient ways to do AI experiments).

AmbiDreamer wrote:

Lothic wrote:
In no way should it be useable as some kind of combat-affecting soft crowd control or the like.
Although an actual "Stroke my Ego" crowd control powerset sounds like it might be quite fun to play.
Possibly awesome. Or just weird.

Sure if they managed to create some kind of game balanced version of a hyper-charisma cult-of-personality control type powerset that was based off of getting NPCs "pets" to follow you around and do your bidding out of love/fear then that would obviously be fine and probably interesting. In fact there have already been tons of suggestions for having a mastermind-type powerset along these lines. Poison Ivy anyone? ;)

I think to be clear what would make this kind of thing overpowered/problematic would be if ANY character (regardless of class/powersets) could force NPCs to do things for combat purposes just because they happen to be much higher leveled than the NPCs. This kind of thing could effectively make EVERYONE a pseudo-controller in additional to any other powers they might officially have.

oOStaticOo wrote:

Because having somebody worship the very ground you walk on in awe or cower in complete and utter fear is very egocentric and vain. Playing a beautiful person would be narcissistic.

I simply think are fundamental differences between "roleplaying" very egocentric, vain and/or narcissistic characters with other human players and having those kinds of qualities automatically provide some kind of in-game bonus versus NPCs for every maxed-level or Incarnate kind of character. Again I'm mainly against the idea of letting ALL high-level characters gain additional pseudo-controller like abilities over low level NPCs in potential combat situations just because it might make some kind of "sense" for some character concepts.

Emma Frost rules Marvel Heroes.. mostly because she's a boss

Empyrean wrote:

Ok, IF I remember correctly (and my early onset Alzheimer's is acting up lately, so...), at some point in the game it became the case that very low con mobs ignored you UNTIL you attacked, and then they attacked back sporadically while scattering and running (basically the OLD fear mechanic).
That seemed to work without causing any kind of a problem as a pseudo-controller soft control and without robbing people of the option of being ignored if they wanted to be.
Maybe that could work?

That is my preference. I interpret it as, "Oh crap, it's Empyrean. Look inconspicuous and maybe he'll ignore us." For me it's the best compromise between everything attacking PCs, no matter the level difference, and everything scattering (with all its potential problems).

Fireheart wrote:

Empyrean wrote:
Ok, IF I remember correctly (and my early onset Alzheimer's is acting up lately, so...), at some point in the game it became the case that very low con mobs ignored you UNTIL you attacked, and then they attacked back sporadically while scattering and running (basically the OLD fear mechanic).

So, Aggro meets overwhelming domination and converts to fear? That might function, as long as the runners return to 'base' fairly regularly.
Be Well!
Fireheart

Oddly enough, that sounds a great deal like "if you try to drag them all over the map, eventually they should give up and go home… depending on just how much they hate you and what their behavior is generally like."

Interesting, innit?

Point 1: [b][i][size=24][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGF0MYORADE]DANCE GUN[/url][/size][/i][/b]

To this day, I am still supremely disappointed that the Devs never made a Dance Gun available in City of Heroes as a Temp Power option. Even if it was 10 charges that lasted for 30 seconds each, thereby limiting the griefing potential, it would have been awesome.

Point 2: Sound Annoyances

Most of the griefing potential of the Do X Emote AoEs in a game like World of Warcraft was that they would make PCs do emotes with annoying audio associated with them. The train toy at the mailbox was an especially egregious example of this, which made everyone gathered around the mailbox do their "Woo woo!" noises constantly for endless minutes. Again, short durations and limited charges on Temp Powers can take care of that problem to limit the griefing potential.

DeathSheepFromHell wrote:

An interesting tidbit about the engine: NPCs are the same as players except with an AI control rig rather than something that links to a client. That means that they have a direction they face, finite line-of-sight, can hear sounds based on volume and distance… and can tell what direction someone appears to be looking. So there is a very real possibility that they might react differently to someone walking by and otherwise ignoring them than to someone pausing and turning to look their direction. Not even remotely a guarantee, and even if it happens *what* those reactions are is still very up in the air, but a very real possibility.

Here's an interesting notion for you. Weapons. Are they holstered/sheathed/slung ... or are they readied?

Star Trek Online and Elder Scrolls Online both have "weapon holstering" as a controllable feature of your character. They don't really "do" anything ... aside from make your first attack take longer if you have to unholster your weapon in a fight ... but I really wish they did.

Specifically what I'm talking about is that you have an opportunity to have NPCs react differently to PCs depending on whether or not the PC has a "weapon" readied for use or not. This could potentially involve even setting up some NPCs such that they won't even "deal" with a PC who has their weapon out and readied for action ... so you get an extra dialogue screen asking you to "put the heater away" or whatever. It wouldn't necessarily be a Gated Decision such that the storyline of your interaction/mission diverges based on whether you have a weapon out or not, but there are ways you could play around with it.

For example ... in some parts of the city, moving around with a weapon "out" and visible would frighten the locals or "summon" a particular type of NPC to come deal with you (whether they be gang bangers or cops). In a different part of town, the reverse could be true, where if you don't have a readied weapon out you could get made as an easy mark and have to deal with increased aggro radius from NPCs. What I'm really angling at here is a sort of [i]When In Rome[/i] kind of attempt to encourage PCs to "fit in" with the environment of different neighborhoods, such that the game isn't One Size Fits All in all locations with respect to this very simple choice.

Do you follow me, DSFH?

Starhammer wrote:

While I don't care that much about making NPCs bow and worship me (it's neat, but not necessary), I would really appreciate if they didn't shove me away from the contact I'm trying to talk to to when they walk past.

Easiest way to solve that problem is ... placement and pathing. Don't stick the NPC contact next to foot/vehicle traffic routes and you're fine.