A lot of people try to take the alignment system that way,
but in a world where good and evil et. al. (even neutrality) are actual mystic forces,
that can be detected by spells it's hard to let it be a vague suggestion.

As for how Pretoria worked out
it totally sucked,
It was completely out of step with what a superhero game should be.
I repeat alignment systems are poison

Frankly if it were up to me there wouldn't even be any player villains.

Just as a small footnote:

I loved Praetoria the minute I logged in and saw it for the first time. To my way of thinking, Going Rogue was the best expansion the game ever delivered. Praetoria became my standard starting city and First Ward my primary leveling zone. To me, Going Rogue is the epitome of modern gaming.

So I love the 3-Axis alignment system. My only hesitation is that I don't want to see another player's alignment floating over their head like some kind of billboard. I want everyone on the same map and I don't want to know where they fall on the alignment axis. I want them to show me through their words and actions. I would prefer for the alignment system to only have an impact on PC-NPC relations, with the PC's alignment determining which NPC factions look favorable on the PC and which ones "attack on sight".

"Heroes" and "Villains" are, to my way of thinking, old-fashioned, archaic, and unnecessary labels. Let my character demonstrate through their choices what kind of morality they are aligned with. Let that alignment then determine which NPC faction sees the character as a friend and who sees the character as an enemy. Instead of phasing people off into separate instances, let's keep everyone together and see what happens. Just don't let it devolve into PvP thuggery and bullying. There is already too much of that going on in cyberspace. I see no need to incorporate it into the game mechanics.

Nina Guardian wrote:

Grey, I agree with pretty much everything you said. The only thing I would change is that we should be able to see each other's alignment. I think of it as your reputation. If you do a lot of Honorable actions, you get a reputation for being Honorable, and other players should know that.

Maybe only when they Join your SG, or even your team.

Izzy wrote:

Nina Guardian wrote:
Grey, I agree with pretty much everything you said. The only thing I would change is that we should be able to see each other's alignment. I think of it as your reputation. If you do a lot of Honorable actions, you get a reputation for being Honorable, and other players should know that.

Maybe only when they Join your SG, or even your team.

Or showing up on the Bio window, perhaps?

BTW, I'm still hoping that the switch mentioned above will allow for a neutral setting, under the player's direct control, so folks who want to see everybody can see everybody.

Greyhawk wrote:

Just as a small footnote:
I loved Praetoria the minute I logged in and saw it for the first time. To my way of thinking, Going Rogue was the best expansion the game ever delivered. Praetoria became my standard starting city and First Ward my primary leveling zone. To me, Going Rogue is the epitome of modern gaming.
So I love the 3-Axis alignment system. My only hesitation is that I don't want to see another player's alignment floating over their head like some kind of billboard. I want everyone on the same map and I don't want to know where they fall on the alignment axis. I want them to show me through their words and actions. I would prefer for the alignment system to only have an impact on PC-NPC relations, with the PC's alignment determining which NPC factions look favorable on the PC and which ones "attack on sight".
"Heroes" and "Villains" are, to my way of thinking, old-fashioned, archaic, and unnecessary labels. Let my character demonstrate through their choices what kind of morality they are aligned with. Let that alignment then determine which NPC faction sees the character as a friend and who sees the character as an enemy. Instead of phasing people off into separate instances, let's keep everyone together and see what happens. Just don't let it devolve into PvP thuggery and bullying. There is already too much of that going on in cyberspace. I see no need to incorporate it into the game mechanics.

I agree with not wanting to see their alignment, disagree with the notion that heroes and villains are outdated notions.

Darth Fez wrote:

I realized that the "but a hero / villain might be offended if...!" argument has a major flaw. If I'm a low violence hero and see a high violence hero mowing down a gang with his assault rifle, how do I stop that? What if I see a PC doing something of questionable legality? Am I allowed to be offended only when the other player is playing a character in the other faction?

That's a really good set of questions. It seems a bit arbitrary to say we need a separation mechanic for some aspects of alignment difference while ignoring others.

On top of that the three alignment system in other games are geared for factions or groups, not the person. This is a personal alignment you aren't playing a race or trooper that working for this or that side.

And that where this comes to a point. We are talking about a game where we want the choice to go bad or good and everything in between instead of slapped with a label at the beginning. Yes there will be EVIL vs Good, but should it be right out of the starting gate?

Boiling down all the talk it is that argument other games you are on a side, in a game where you are not the "Divine one" or chosen one, or a trooper. Your actions should guide things not alignment.

Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. We want to rise from the ashes or fall into the pit without having a limitation affect them. A wall between Very Good and Very Evil is such a limit.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Funny Greyhawk
You want alignment to affect your interactions with NPCs
even to the point where some (a lot actually) will attack on sight.
But you want players to be left clueless.
There are going to be thousands of players we can't be expected to keep up with them all.
Every normal cop on the beat can recognize any wanted criminal,
but the superheroes would forever be new in town.
Having your reputation visible helps us pretend
that there aren't as many costumed characters as there really are
and I'm definitely in favor of that.

The truth is cops do know if your a (past)criminal or if your record is clean. So just like cops in the real world use background checks, scanners, and all the other devices that tell who you are and what you've done. It could be the case where they could have "scanners/background checkers" as a in game item that you can equip to then be able to see what other players alignment stats are.

You don't know anything about the person driving by you in the road, but a cop sure does.

Players would not be forever unknowing and clueless, if you saw the Joker for the first time, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't go up to him and ask for directions. Not that bad people are so obvious but for those ambiguous characters it's up to them to, like Greyhawk said, to announce it with their words and actions

The alignment system has two layers. The first will be the destinction between hero and villain. And this will not be one or the other, the devs have already stated that we have alignments in between those two, like the scoundrel and the vigilante.

This we will defining ourselves. We have full control over what our character is in our own viewpoint. Good, evil, neutral, it is up to us. And if we want to interact with the full spectrum, we just need to pick something that is in the middle of the spectrum. That was also said in this thread right here, only pure heros can not see and interact with pure villains and vice versa.

To me this makes sense. A law abiding, peaceful and honest person is not nessecary a good guy. He can twist the law but never break it, use loopholes and turn the law itself against others. Or he could live by his own law, like a mobster following the rules of his family. He can stand true to his word, but he just does not disguise his malevolent intentions. And he might be against unessecary violence, since he wants to have subjects once he rules the world.
The same can apply to an unlawful, overly violent and dishonest hero. He might think the laws are corrupt and prefer to do things his own way. And villains are not worth honesty and mercy, so he lies and kills in the name of good.
I feel that this gives us even more options, not less. We can have all the complexity of the three axis alignment system from multiple viewpoints. essentially we get a four axis system this way.

Then we have been told, by the project lead, that the ultimate goal is to have no separation at all. It is something they now need to get the game and the storys working, but will strive to remove. They might even be able to avoid it alltogether, if they can figure out a way around it.

Lastly there was the example of a hero having to stand idly by while a villain beats up the cops. This can be ignored, sure. But they hinted at something greater, at world changing events. I do not know what that will be, but I think those things could be the reason why they feel there is a need to separate at first.

Separation is not a good thing, I do not want it either. However, if it is needed, will only be temporary and something the developers are willing to fix, I can live with it for now. When the reasons are more clear, then I can decide if it is worth it or not.

And by the way, Preatoria worked because it was a secret agent scenario. Rebels and Loyalists both claimed to work for the same side, hiding their true intentions. And every NPC was against the player characters, because you were always undercover. This will likely not be the case in City of Titans.

Nina Guardian wrote:

Lutan, either you or I are misinterpreting what has been said regarding neutral characters. I really hope you are right about them being able to interact with everyone, but when Tannim writes:
"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."
That implies to me that 'Vigilantes' will have to choose (just like all of us) whether they see red or blue side. They don't get both at the same time.

All I meant was that not everything is binary.

Check the KS update again, those labels affect how many NPC factions view your character. The three-axis alignment allows for ranges of different moralities within each label. At certain points if your character makes enough choices that changes their moralities enough the label can end up changed, affecting the way your character is perceived.

I hope we have some clarity now.

what MMO has a good system that accurately depicts evil alignments that the players are actually satisfied with? does this MMO have other alignments? how do these alignments interact, if at all, outside of PVP?

Brand X wrote:

On SWTOR, the Empire is the bad guys! There's no going around that :p SW is a very good vs evil concept. It's what made SW so good to begin with.
WS I felt half assed it. It very much felt like Dominion are evil, when their side consists of psychopathic hamsters. Homicidal psychopaths equal evil, there's just no getting around it. Dominion went about conquering worlds to force them to their way. That's generally considered evil. This doesn't mean the Exiles were very bright, but then it felt a bit cartoony in it's story anyways, so I think it was kinda the point. It was a fun story for me anyways.
WoW I'm a bit more unsure of. I hear the story pretty much says Horde is evil, but then many a Horde player says they're not. Been to long since I played to really decide on it. I only picked a side on that game based on "Which race do I like the looks of most" :p

The reason why SWTOR received some of that is because the existence of Smugglers and Bounty Hunters. Some people felt that those classes should of been part of a neutral faction because realistically they probably wouldn't choose sides, being mercenaries and all.

Wildstar was indeed half-assing grey morality in the case of the Dominion. As you said the Chua is a perfect example of what is wrong with the Dominion (the other parts of it being the bloodthirsty Draken and the ''holier-then thou'' High-born Cassians). That's not even getting into the butchering of Arboria or how the Exile faction started because the aforementioned High-born Cassians were using the very poor Low-Born Cassians for labor and cannon fodder. The worst the Exiles did during the game does not even compare to the worst the Dominion did in the lore or in-game. That's was pretty much the common reason as to why people wanted a 3rd faction that was more grey.

WoW is an interesting case. Both factions commit atrocities on each other throughout the entirety of the game and the lore. The reason why the Horde is commonly mistaken to be the villain/bad faction is simply....there races are not necessarily pretty to look at (that was before Blood Elves appeared and the models for the races were updated). I think some people in that game just want to not be associated with the idiotic faction rivalry or something....

It is a rather common suggestion though in most of the MMOs I have played. The other common suggestion I see is to have no factions at all (that does not necessarily mean no PvP though or character concepts that are more leaning towards villain). The only people who seem to argue against both suggestions are the people who want player faction rivalry (which I cannot wrap my head around and I think it's toxic too a community) or World PvP (and you know how well that goes....).

Bleddyn wrote:

Brand X wrote:
On SWTOR, the Empire is the bad guys! There's no going around that :p SW is a very good vs evil concept. It's what made SW so good to begin with.
WS I felt half assed it. It very much felt like Dominion are evil, when their side consists of psychopathic hamsters. Homicidal psychopaths equal evil, there's just no getting around it. Dominion went about conquering worlds to force them to their way. That's generally considered evil. This doesn't mean the Exiles were very bright, but then it felt a bit cartoony in it's story anyways, so I think it was kinda the point. It was a fun story for me anyways.
WoW I'm a bit more unsure of. I hear the story pretty much says Horde is evil, but then many a Horde player says they're not. Been to long since I played to really decide on it. I only picked a side on that game based on "Which race do I like the looks of most" :p

The reason why SWTOR received some of that is because the existence of Smugglers and Bounty Hunters. Some people felt that those classes should of been part of a neutral faction because realistically they probably wouldn't choose sides, being mercenaries and all.
Wildstar was indeed half-assing grey morality in the case of the Dominion. As you said the Chua is a perfect example of what is wrong with the Dominion (the other parts of it being the bloodthirsty Draken and the ''holier-then thou'' High-born Cassians). That's not even getting into the butchering of Arboria or how the Exile faction started because the aforementioned High-born Cassians were using the very poor Low-Born Cassians for labor and cannon fodder. The worst the Exiles did during the game does not even compare to the worst the Dominion did in the lore or in-game. That's was pretty much the common reason as to why people wanted a 3rd faction that was more grey.
WoW is an interesting case. Both factions commit atrocities on each other throughout the entirety of the game and the lore. The reason why the Horde is commonly mistaken to be the villain/bad faction is simply....there races are not necessarily pretty to look at (that was before Blood Elves appeared and the models for the races were updated). I think some people in that game just want to not be associated with the idiotic faction rivalry or something....
It is a rather common suggestion though in most of the MMOs I have played. The other common suggestion I see is to have no factions at all (that does not necessarily mean no PvP though or character concepts that are more leaning towards villain). The only people who seem to argue against both suggestions are the people who want player faction rivalry (which I cannot wrap my head around and I think it's toxic too a community) or World PvP (and you know how well that goes....).

I think it should depend a bit on the setting of the game. However, you can have them all work together and have a bit of rivalry, I think.

I'm not sure of FFXIV's rivalry, but they have 3 groups but players are all on the same side, with the idea being that PvP is just training.

Here's what I've been able to comprehend so far:

The [i]world[/i] you're in is one axis, consisting of "Heroic", "Villainous", and "Open PvP", and you have a means to change it. This is accomplished through phasing tech, so you only see other players and NPCs in that phase. NPCs can spawn in the same place in different phases, and they are independent of each other.

So say a certain street corner spawns a gang of Skulls in the Heroic phase. There could be a spawn of these in the Open PvP phase as well, but they're not literally the same characters. Defeat one set and the other is unaffected. A player only sees one phase at a time. Same with the Villainous phase.

On the other hand, [i]alignment[/i] is another set of three axes, [i]independent of phase setting,[/i] is set by the decisions you make throughout the game (do you beat up the Skulls, or help them break into the car for a cut of the loot?) and affects how NPCs react to you. For example, if you help the Skulls, they will be unlikely to attack you on sight. But if you bust them, they'll come after you immediately; no hesitation. There may even be a point where you're prevented from attacking them (you took them over, for example, or you're working for them on a story arc). This is determined by a mapping of how Skulls react to the various alignments.

The exceptions would be that some NPC groups attack everyone or run away from everyone or similar, alignment ignored.

Oh, and I forgot to mention: there seems to be [b]no[/b] enforced mapping from certain alignment combinations to the different phases. You could be full-on evil and sauntering through the Heroic phase, probably with jack squat to do, but you could still go there. Maybe as a team-up against a greater foe? (Read: the blue-side SG folks want to run a TF and you want to bring your bad-ass red-side character along.) That said, what you do during the TF may bump your alignment levels a bit away from the extremes...

Reminds me of a line from [url=http://www.amazon.com/Divided-Allegiance-Deed-Paksenarrion-Book/dp/B0069X3LHG/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1429794845&sr=8-5&keywords=divided+allegiance]Divided Allegiance by Elizabeth Moon[/url] where the Paladin candidates are receiving instructions from the paladins in residence, and it has to do with the power of paladins to discern Good and Evil directly, which everyone "knows about" but don't quite understand what it means. One of the paladins teaching the class sums it up this way ...

"Over there are the bad people, and you kill them. And over here are the good people, and they cheer for you."

... which of course gets laughs out of everyone. But the thing is, a lot of people (including the students in that fictional class) sort of reverted to that kind of lazy thinking. After all, bad is bad, right? And paladins are supposed to fight evil and destroy it, aren't they?

The lesson being taught in that particular (fictional) class was that being able to discern Good and Evil directly is no substitute for Being Smart and thinking for yourself. After all, an Evil person might lie to you, since they're Evil ... but they could also tell you the truth, because the truth better serves their purposes and goals, so you can't just assume that evil people lie all the time. Likewise, it's perfectly possible for a Good person to be stubborn and wrong about something, and believe with all that they are that they're right about what they know.

The difficult thing that paladins (and paladin candidates) need to learn, as illustrated in this fictional class, is that Paladins need to be both Good AND Smart ... and that the ability to detect Good and Evil is a TOOL much like any other, which if not used carefully can warp your perceptions of the world around you and the people in it, especially since "real" people are rarely only Good or only Evil, but usually a complex mixture of the two that isn't actually all that easy to untangle into merely This Or That.

Needless to say, ever since reading The Deed of Paksenarrion by Elizabeth Moon I've looked towards that fictional example of how paladins "ought to be" as an excellent guide since it doesn't approach the problem of what paladins ARE from a standpoint of absolutes, which I found both compelling and refreshing.

Rotten Luck is a zombie?
Looking at your picture I always thought you were made of metal.

but no I've never heard of Journey or No Mam's Sky.

All 4 Mutants wrote:

Kiyori Anoyui wrote:
One thing I didn't like about the co-inhabited DCUO was that it was clear who was on the red-side(because they had a red name) and who was on the blue-side(because they had a blue name) So you could just be going along doing your daily routine and then someone comes up and kills you for no reason. snip
(If this has been addressed please disregard)
This is the one concern that has kept me away from games like Eve Online and DCUO, I do not like open PvP. In the days of yore in the "City of" days I enjoyed flying alone and no one to bother me while I did missions. Some days I would log out and log back in after a few hours and it's rinse, lather and repeat all day long to give myself a break from repeat missions with my alts. To me this was fun, I also had a choice if I wanted to team or not, which I loved having. Now I avoided certain zones because I did not want the stress of worrying about some shmuck deciding to show how cool his build is on me. I spent most days(for example) in Eve Online running from one place, Station to another worrying if someone was going to blow up my ship in high sec which is suppose to be a non pvp area, Yeah right. Some corp decides to declare war on your corp and it is campers who will blow you up when you leave the station. No thank you.
I was told of a spiritual successor, if your going to be something like that, please keep PvP separate from PvE for those of us who are mild isolationists.
All 4 Mutants

It seems there will be a separate PvP Phase(s) of the map alongside the PvE.

I wonder, has testing indicated what the maximum capacity of a phase will be before a new one is created?

IIRC GW2 is about the same...with the lower threshold being a soft cap. meaning, you can't get to the map without being on a team with some one that is...but once the hard cap is hit, yer butt outta luck chuck.

@TheMightyPaladin Yeah the avatar not as clear miniaturized. The name Rotten Luck takes on a whole different meaning when it's a Zombie "ROTTEN Luck" his background is such where he was a guy down on his LUCK and had one very bad day. The tag line I thought up is "One bad day, can change everything."

No Man's Sky I'm hyped for it's a space exploration game MEGA exploration. The Universe you explore is generated by an algorithm so it's infinite that includes every planet, landmass, plant, and animal. Coming out for the PS4 then later PC. Really got me thinking it's time to get a PS4. [Youtube]nLtmEjqzg7M[/youtube]

Journey already out and you play a figure crossing a desert. Very striking visual style a real form of Game Art. [Youtube]_mF8KkDiIdk[/youtube]

@Everyone

I refuse to pass judgement on any game until I play a month and or get to level 20. Enough time and content by then I would make my judgement on understanding of the game. Not just what I think I am reading. That said I want to RP and Interact with my friends no matter what alignment of Good or Evil, and other they are. We have made our views known now and have to trust Wobbercat and the other Devs will at least consider ouf views. Then make the best game they can. Even if there is a wall up it be paper thin with side switching possible.

Well, sadly I only needed to read 1 thing to know that I won't be playing Journey or No Man's Sky: Playstation
I don't have anything against the system
I just don't have the system and don't plan to get one.

I used to play a lot of Console games until the Wii made me hate them.
and now they all require an internet connection.
My cable company will charge me extra money for an extra connection,
not just to hook it up but every month forever
so the only internet in my house is going to be on my computer.

maybe one day they'll be on Steam.

I recommend a Wireless WIFI network. That way all your devices including smart phones, tablets, and other such hand held gagets can use the same single connection. That's what I have in my house.

My cable company doesn't offer wifi
also I know my neighbors.
If I had wifi, they'd cancel their internet and leach off mine so I my speed would suck.

But most of all I'm just not interested in buying a console game system.
They're too expensive.
and I wouldn't use it much because I've gotten used to doing all of my gaming on the computer.

That doesn't sound easy peasy to me it sounds super complicated.
But it might be worth it, because if I get it set up my son could get on the other computer and we could play Dungeons & Dragons online together. We could set up a FTP account in addition to the pay account I have. Then we could take turns using the pay account and we'd be awesome.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

That doesn't sound easy peasy to me it sounds super complicated.

It's less complicated than setting up a prebuilt computer with Windows preinstalled.

[list=1][*]Take router out of box.
[*]Plug in power.
[*]Plug cable modem's Ethernet cable into WAN port.
[*]Plug existing computer's Ethernet into one of the LAN ports.
[*]Turn it on.
[*]On the computer, go to the URL the instructions give you. Give it a name (I recommend "GTFO" because neighbors) and password for your WiFi, making sure to select "WPA2 personal" for security.
[*]Change any other settings you want, but the defaults are probably fine.
[*]Profit!
[/list]

We'll be happy to assist you in choosing an appropriate router, Paladin. And, might I suggest that your son may have lots of fun setting up the router for you? It's amazing what youngsters know how to do, these days.

Be Well!
Fireheart

If you want a fairly cheap model that will have all the easy to setup benefits, I would suggest this:

Netgear(What I use)
24.99
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=&cs=04&sku=A2866576&ST=pla&dgc=ST&cid=262075&lid=4742361&acd=1230980794501410

It comes with easy to use parental controls as well if you wanted to block access to different sites

But wifi routers are a no brainer must have for any household. At my house we have 2 chromecasts, ipads, iphones, wifi desktop and 2 laptops connected to the router!

The **** really hit the fan on this thread, especially when you note most of the replies were posted over the course of hours rather than days. Judging from the responses given:

Tannim222 wrote:

Lutan wrote:
I try to put this into CoH terms, to get a better grasp at it.
If I play a Hero, I can see Vigilantes and Scoundrels, but no Villains.
If I play a Vigilante or Scoundrel, I can see everyone.
And if I play a Villain, I can see Vigilantes and Scoundrels, but no Heros.
Except of course in social hubs like our equivalent of the Pocket D.
Correct?
This is the main gist of things as it has been explained to me for pve.
Except for the addition of if you want to deal with the entire spectrum, that is what pvp is for.

warcabbit wrote:

I will say the following.
1: We are not separating heroes and villians like Paragon and the Rogue Isles.
2: Hero to Villain and back is a player controlled switch.
3: Dueling is intended to be possible, even in a PvE zone.
4: Outside spawns get _interesting_ when you start combining the two sides in the same location.
5: People do get upset when someone starts shooting cops and they can't do anything about it.
And, of course, seeing the Joker lounging about on the steps of City Hall is a bit of an immersion breaker for Superman.

If this is the final case, it's not so bad, I guess. I would just know that my toons would spend the vast majority of their time in PVP. I don't care if I got ganked (tho hopefully there would be some measures or mechanism in place to help with that), it would be worth it to see the most inclusive phase possible. The rest of the time, I guess they'd be in the opposing sides' phase, trying to stop said-side in a PVE capacity. I am guessing the faction phases would be used as social hubs for those factions.

I wonder if the reactions in this thread were in any way related to the beta-launch pushback? Did the devs decide to re-evaluate based on the negative response?