Announcements
Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2
Please read the current update for instructions on downloading the latest update. Players with Mac versions of the game will not be affected, but you will have a slightly longer wait for your version of the new maps. Please make a copy of your character folder before running the new update, just to make sure you don't lose any of your custom work.
It looks like we can give everyone a list of minimum specs for running City of Titans. Please keep in mind that this is 'for now' until we are able to add more graphics and other system refinements. Currently you will need :
Windows 10 or later required; no Intel integrated graphics like UHD, must have AMD or NVIDIA card or discrete chipset with 4Gb or more of VRAM
At least 16GB of main DRAM.
These stats may change as we continue to test.
To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.
Don't forget Upsi Dasi, Oki Doki, and Deja Fu.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Again it all boils down to how this thing is represented in the game. It could very well be that the "question" of whether or not you register has no direct effect on your character's alignment axes but instead only provides a positive/negative shift to your reputation score with the "Titan City Cop" faction.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Not just the police, but also cape-chasing reporters, bloggers, and fans and the like. Registration should definitely make a difference in dialogue and attitudes (at least until reputation is such that it overrides the registration status - and even then it should still influence things for NPCs that aren’t familiar with the character’s reputation/activities.)
Again it's going to be a question of if/how these things are directly represented in the game. We already know that NPC groups in this game will be organized into "factions" and that presumably every character is going to maintain a certain "reputation rating" with each of those factions. So if we can assume the game will organize "cape-chasing reporters, bloggers, and fans and the like" into a clearly unique NPC faction of their own (called "The Paparazzi" perhaps) then perhaps every character will indeed have a discreet rating with that faction.
Again since the actual "act of registration" is likely going to be represented in the game as a "shift" (in either reputation values and/or alignment axes) that specific degree of shift will obviously dictate exactly how NPCs react to the character at least until subsequent actions generate further positive/negative shifts.
Again the only "heads up" the game will have as far as knowing how NPCs ought to react to a character is going to be the alignment/reputation system. I continue to categorically reject the idea that something like a "registration" could be a thing that somehow stands independently of the alignment/reputation system. What's the point of having an alignment/reputation system in the game if something like a "registration" is not literally [b][i]represented in the game[/i][/b] as a positive/negative "shift" in such a system?
I still fear you believe this "registration choice" (the actual binary choice of whether a character chooses to register or not) is going to be something that permanently affects a character for the rest of its existence (just as a choice of Origin permanently pigeon-holed characters in CoH). I simply choose to believe the Devs of CoT will NOT make the same mistake the Devs of CoH regretted for years with such a scenario.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
You continue to “categorically” oversimplify what I’m saying. If you don’t have reputation/standing with a faction, whether or not you’re registered should function as an *initial* baseline for their initial reactions to you. How can reputation do that [b]when you don’t yet have reputation with that faction[/b]?
“Look, buddy, we don’t know you from Adam. All we know is, you’re a registered cape. If we’re seen associating with you, then any time you do something high profile, the cops will be sticking their noses into our perfectly legitimate business interests. And we don’t want that kind of scrutiny, capiche?”
“I don’t know anything about this guy, but at least he’s registered, so he *probably* won’t punch me through a wall if I ask an interview question he doesn’t like...”
Very simply: Reputation will very likely be maintained on something like a +100 to -100 scale for every faction in the game. With such a scheme all characters can start the game at "0" on that scale. This would represent the "pure neutral" position where you basically have no "reputation" (positive or negative) with the given faction.
Now the game is completely free to offer this initial "choice of registration" we've been talking about that would (at the very least) affect the reputation value the character has with he "Titan City Cop" faction. If the character chooses to register then the game could (for hypothetical purposes) give the character a +25 shift on the Titan City Cop faction scale. This would mean that NPCs related to that faction would now see the character in a "mildly positive light". On the other hand if the character chooses not to register they might get a -25 shift. At that point the cops basically "mildy distrust you" accordingly.
That's all this thing "needs" to accomplish the goal here. The game will simply give you a "mild push" in one direction or the other. After that the character is completely free to do other things that might push him/her further towards the extremes of the scale or you might decide to turn around and head back in the opposite direction. In any event the registration choice would never have a PERMANENT effect on your overall reputation with the Titan City Cops - it would simply give you a one-time shift a bit upward or downward as desired.
I'm really at a loss why anyone would want this to work any differently than this. *shrugs*
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Re-read my last post and also look at the examples I’ve added. I’m not saying it should work differently. But where was it said that the police are necessarily the only ones who’ll have access to *look* at the database? Organized crime certainly would, if only via bribing corrupt cops. Cape chasers also might, as would all forms of emergency responders (logically, the database probably includes vital medical data, such as allergies and so on). It should apply to every faction who would reasonably be able to get a look at the database.
Well, zero is a number. It would make sense if everyone started at a baseline of zero with most factions. Perhaps not all, perhaps there will be villain factions that you start angry with and you can work into their good graces, or "good guy" faction that are secretive and don't reveal themselves unless you do something to catch their eye.
There could be some interesting grey areas with organizations or characters that are doing something for a good reason but have dubious methods that they believe are justified by their goal. Or the reverse, such as organized criminal elements whose goals are hostile to everyone else but who know how to put on a robin hood show to the public, cast themselves in a positive light, and bribe some key influential people. Both of those scenarios could start with unusual baseline reputations.
You could have factions that everyone generally agrees with and starts out friendly. Maybe they really are saving the world from an overwhelming and obvious threat or providing a service that almost no one would want to disrupt. The moral equivalent of firefighters or EMTs. Give the player a convincing reason and an opportunity to working against them and you suddenly have an interesting choice to make with serious consequences for your story and reputation.
EFB
Why rely on factions being able to "access a database(?)" to know how to react to a character? Even seeing that idea typed out makes it seem that much more nonsensical to me.
By having every character maintain their own unique reputation value (presumably on a +100 to -100 scale) for EVERY faction in the game the game will know exactly how NPCs of each faction ought to "react" the character. All of these values will be affected by related/allied factions accordingly.
To reiterate, having various reputation values for certain factions will very likely [b]affect/bias[/b] other related factions. For example if you start increasing your positive reputation with the Titan City Cops then (by practical default) you'll probably also "increase" your negative reputation with the Mob faction. These "relationships" don't need to be defined and/or maintained by some kind of "magical third-party database" all of the factions would connect to. The very fact that you have a REPUTATION of being friendly with some factions will automatically make you less accepted by other factions. It's a zero-sum scenario - you can't possibly be +100 friendly with EVERY faction in the game at the same time.
All of these things will interrelate to each other naturally. They aren't going to be organized by some "database" sitting in the basement of city hall or some-such. Frankly that's why this whole notion of "having to register" in the first place is simplistically naive from the get-go. Let the alignment/reputation system do its job without any of these esoteric entanglements getting in the way.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
This would be the general idea.
Again with the presumed assumption that there's a -100 to +100 reputation scale with every faction in the game the "basic default" value with any faction would likely be "0" on that scale. That's the equivalent of a "pure neutral" relationship with a faction that (likely) represents a state where you've never, ever associated with the given faction at all.
Now having said that "0" is the basic default everyone starts with there could easily be specific factions where the "starting default" value is completely different. For instance let's say there's a faction of very secretive occult-style magic users who live on a secret island and they hate everyone who isn't part of their little cult. In that case everyone in the game might start off with say a -75 reputation with them as a default. Basically they automatically -hate- everyone regardless of who you are. Now that doesn't mean you could never become +100 friendly with those guys - it just means that if you want to get super-friendly with them you're likely going to have to work super-hard to make them eventually like you.
Conversely there might be factions out there that might (by default) start off being friendly to everyone. For example let's say the game organizes all the "firefighters and EMTs" into their own faction. It's quite possible that every virgin character might start off with say a +25 to that group (because by default they want to be helpful to everyone). But if you were dumb enough to kill a bunch of firefighters then your score with them could easily go negative regardless of that initial default value.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Lothic is pretty close, though we use numbers between 1 and -1 which can be extrapolated into 100 and -100.
Alignments worknthebsame way.
And it should be noted that Alignments and Factions Reps are exclusive from one another. There may be times where something is done to both affect one or more faction ratings and an alignment rating but that is a case of multiple occurrences linked into an action choice.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
Thanks for the clarifications on this. It just made sense that in order to represent both "positive" and "negative" alignment and reputation values that you would use some kind of spectrum centered around "0". After that the actual "scale" used could be whatever works the best.
I imagine that using a "1 to -1" scale would let you use those fractional values directly in formulas to calculate various results.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Registering also makes for some potentially fun RP'ing opportunities for those that RP to that degree in games they play. For example, you should be able to team up with _anyone_ since we are not separated by hero/villain titles like CoX. So, there could be the option of going to city hall, or wherever, to get a 'list' of registered hero's/villain's and maybe find them to team up with:
"Hey, I see you are a registered hero like me! We both like taking down villains, let's team up!"
Same for the 'villain' side.
There could also be something put in the game for unregistered users. For example, let's say you don't register after the tutorial, or whenever you are 'supposed' to. You do some missions, interact with some NPC's, get a little notoriety one way or the other (or somewhere in-between). There could be some group of NPC's dedicated to keeping a tally of 'titans not registered'. Now, this wouldn't have any affect in-game other than creating a reasonable reason as to why there is a list of non-registered players in-game when maybe they didn't register to stay 'off the radar' for their own RP reasons.
Compulsively clicking the refresh button until the next update.
Sure, whether or not you chose to register yourself could be used as a "data point" for RP purposes. It just shouldn't be a "binary fork in the road" that a character could never "completely undo" via future alignment/reputation shifting actions.
I'll once again use a simplistic analogy for why "registration" in this case should -never- be a permanent flag that affects the way a character "experiences" the game: If a given character registered with the Titan City Cops then subsequently killed half the people in the city the Cops probably [b]aren't going to care[/b] you were ever registered or not. Conversely if that same character never bothered to register but then somehow ends up saving half the people in the city from dying the Cops will probably [b]"overlook" the minor bureaucratic oversight[/b] of that character not being registered. It's just that simple.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
This brings up an interesting point. Since there are choices players make that shift them on these scales, and we can group with others, how are the actions of those others taken into account?
Is shifting our reputation and alignment limited to specific character interactions in dialogue, story, quests, etc, and only the leader makes those choices?
SWTOR did this and each player in a party could choose their own dialogue option and get the relevant reputation shift for it, but I think the story took the direction chosen by the leader? That is the only example I can think of that used that method.
The old school Everquest method of faction was heavily tied into what you murdered, and if you assisted in murdering something you got some reputation credit for it similar to exp. So you could potentially accidentally soak up reputation shifts.
Using an oldschool method of reputation and alignment directly linked to kills would be more of an issue for a superhero game where people throw out huge smashy blasty powers all the time and are expected to fight piles of goons while flying around at high speeds. You could slow the rate that players got reputation credit to compensate but that just increases the grind and doesn't really address the issue. It also brings up the potential issues like everyone being able to potentially attack any npc (since they are a hero or villain) either on purpose (screwing with other players trying to get quests) or accidentally (while trying to get a quest and leaving their fire aura on). I admit, way back in the everquest days it was a bit of a rite of passage for new players to try to talk to a guard and [hail] them to ask for directions, only to start typing and hit "A" which was...the default autoattack key... and quickly find out what death felt like. While an amusing memory, most game design has gotten a bit better since 1999.
Tying those alignment and reputation shifts to major decisions makes them feel more impactful imho.
I never said it should be a "binary fork in the road". I literally only mentioned the RP potential for registering/not registering. Your analogy is preaching to the choir.
Compulsively clicking the refresh button until the next update.
Just to be clear, tying those shifts to player choices and not to kills doesn't mean you wouldn't be able to switch around, you'd just pick up some different missions and make different choices if you wanted to shift. I'm sure CoT will have something similar to the newspaper randomized missions from CoX that would always give players options outside the usual story paths if they wanted to change their alignment and work with or against different factions.
It would also work more towards the goal of "reward players for accomplishing goals" instead of dictating how they accomplish them which I think I remember people discussing at length in other threads, though I don't remember what the devs had to say about it.
Yes it will be interesting to see how the "mechanics of alignment/reputation shifting" will be handled in this game, especially related to how it'll work when involved with a team. If the CoT Devs are not careful it might open up a brand new arena of griefing where (as you say) people might go off and kill some random NPC that might screw with another teammate's finely tuned alignment/reputation values.
One possibility that just came to mind is to allow players to "pre-screen" any pending alignment/reputation shifts and give players the option to "expunge" a given shift by paying INF to "make it go away". For instance let's say you're running around and you have a super high positive reputation with a given faction. Then (perhaps by accident or whatever) you end up killing a leader of this faction which would potentially royally screw your reputation with that faction. Instead of that reputation downgrade happening instantly and automatically maybe the game would "log" the incident and allow you the choice to pay an amount of INF to make that particular boo-boo disappear. The net effect is that you're having to use your "public INFluence" to cover up your screw-up and avoid the alignment/reputation "hit" by losing INF instead.
The beauty of this idea is that this suddenly becomes a very effective "money sink" for those people who actually care about their current alignment/reputation values. It's obviously just an idea I had, but it would provide a way for people to avoid suffering from dumb mistakes or idiots killing things they shouldn't be killing.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Just making sure to stress the point. Sometimes it's not exactly clear which "choir" each person in a thread like this is singing for. ;)
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
No, when a dialogue scene popped up and you were in a group, when it came to a decision the dialogue paused and gave everyone a chance to choose an option. Once everyone made a choice, or the timer expired, there was a random roll (think of the loot roll you see in many MMOs) and whoever rolled highest won.
The dialogue choice could change the direction of the mission the characters are on (do you run around saving people or killing them, for example), it could raise or lower the influence you have over whatever companion you have active, and some choices shifted your alignment toward light or dark side.
The change in mission affected everyone, of course. I believe the change in companion influence only affected the person who won the roll, and only if their companion cared about your choice (and if you had one active on the first place). Alignment shifts affect everyone based on what they picked, so if you say “murder the guy” while everyone else said “let him go”, and a person with “let him go” wins, you still get dark side points for wanting to murder him. But I think the winning option gives more points.
Also you get achievements/titles for choices. Something like “Executioner” for the murder and “Benevolent” for letting him go. Everyone is eligible for whatever title corresponds to the winning choice regardless of what option they picked.
This is how I best remember the system. I haven’t played ToR in years so I might have some details a bit off. It’s a pretty complex system but kind of cool. Oh and different classes get different options to pick; the soldier might get a dialogue option to blow things up while a sage might get the option to study something, and neither class has the other’s option.
Mission content that has alignment affecting choices will come up as a group vote. Group leader’s vote breaks ties. And there maybe an abstain option (so you don’t have to hop out of the group at the moment of a decision vote). So no worries about griefing.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
Does the choice taken by the group affect our personal alignment, regardless of how our character voted? Or does it just affect the direction the mission goes as per SWTOR?
[hr]I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
I don't know. From what I've seen of their animations so far, it looks more like bargain Chuck Norris.
It affects everyone participating - it is a concscious choice your character is a pert of.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
If the majority votes one way, and I vote the other, for purposes of my alignment it would be as if I voted the same way they did? Not going to encourage casual grouping, I think.
Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
[url=https://cityoftitans.com/forum/foradains-character-conclave]Foradain's Character Conclave[/url]
.
Avatar courtesy of [s]Satellite9[/s] [url=https://www.instagram.com/irezoomie/]Irezoomie[/url]
Foradain has a point, winner takes all means it is far from "a conscious choice you are a part of". If the vote goes 1-5 and you are the 1, you get a big middle finger.
I understand having the story choice work that way to decide how the mission develops but it would be needlessly punitive for the reputation shifts not to be based on your individual votes rather than the outcome.
Even that wouldn't address a related issue though, which is the ultimate result of having the story go in one direction or another. Those directions are pretty likely to have further consequences that may not be something you are interested in, even if you want to play with your friends.
So.....maybe allow players to abstain from such choices and results altogether? Either individually per choice or by turning on an incognito mode, or both?
That way you could play with your friends and do whatever content they are doing regardless of everyone's factions.
SWtOR had the useful feature of being able to see the Light/Dark results of a choice. With Tri-Axis alignment/reputation, such feedback might be more difficult to display...
Be Well!
Fireheart
To quote Tannim's earlier comment:
You don't have to worry about that scenario it would seem.
Compulsively clicking the refresh button until the next update.
Good grief. Are you being this obtuse on purpose? What I’m saying is that registration should have the affect of giving a nonzero starting point for faction standing, for factions that would realistically have a reason to have access to the registration database, before you ever encounter the faction. And yes, I understand that having good standing with some factions creates automatic bad standing with certain others. But what about factions whose standings *aren’t* linked to each other in that way?
“This schmuck’s registered. We don’t want nothin’ to do with him.” “She’s not registered, good. She’ll make a perfect patsy for our little operation.”
“That guy’s registered, maybe we should ask him for help?” “I just checked the database, she’s not registered. Are you sure you want to risk dealing with her?”
It makes sense that a group choice would make an impact on your alignment from an in universe stand point. Your goodie two shoes Superman teamed up with a bunch of ruthless Mercs and you were involved with the death of a captive? Even if you were against the choice in universe your character still let it happen.
The abstain option is essentially the ability to say "nope, my character wasn't there for that" or that it was a non-canon story.
Most likely means for me though if I'm PUGing it up I'll be abstaining from a lot of choices. Hopefully there'll be an option to have it be 'always abstain' when grouping. Possibly in the options menu or something.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
If one abstains from making a decision and contributing to the vote, does one still get credit for the mission?
[hr]I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
1. We are considering the abstein simply because a player can hop out of the group to avoid the decision change. If the decision change is part of an end point in content completion - hopping out of the group / abstaining will make you miss out on the completion bonuses.
2. If tou are on the minority of the group a single or even several decision selections hat affect alignment and / or rep won’t impact your alignment greatly unless you are on the very brink of a change over. Even then, getting back to where you were would be easy enough. It won’t have the severe impact that some think it will have.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
At a minimum, I expect undoing the damage done to my alignment by being on the wrong group to take at least as long as the mission did the first time around. Twice as long if you consider not just time to get back to where I was, but to get back to where I should have gotten to for the decision I made (as opposed to the decision that was made by the other members of the group). Longer still if the mission is more difficult for me to do alone.
And if abstaining will result in not getting credit for completing the mission, I consider that to be an entirely inadequate substitute for simply not counting the results of the choice of the majority against the minority who opposed that choice.
Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
[url=https://cityoftitans.com/forum/foradains-character-conclave]Foradain's Character Conclave[/url]
.
Avatar courtesy of [s]Satellite9[/s] [url=https://www.instagram.com/irezoomie/]Irezoomie[/url]
I have to say I understand and share the concerns here. It seems this system will discourage role-players from teaming.
Spurn all ye kindle.
I don't think it will. Cause RPers will either a) abstain from choices, or b) team only with those they believe will share their alignment. The latter they can find out by RPing.
Also people will probably advertise how the team is going to vote on choices. Especially if the goal is just to farm up rep, or alignment, or whatever.
Or you know, people could just ask when they join a team.
And it really depends on how minor the stuff is if you're on the losing choice, if it's super small then people have pretty much nothing to worry about. Especially if such an undesirable shift can be undone and then some in like, one mission. If it takes like, 5 or 10 losing choices to equal 1 winning one people will have absolutely nothing to worry about. It all depends on how small the losing choice's shift is.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Toggle alignment 'protection'? Stuff happens, but my reputation doesn't get changed.
Be Well!
Fireheart
Some kind of incognito mode that protects you from alignment/rep shifts that you can toggle seems like the best bet, yeah.
If abstaining from votes works that way then you're fine and you can party with anyone at any time to do any content.
Just make sure that the result of your dialogue choice is obvious *before* you select it. "Yes I will save the kitten from the burning building" (+5 heroic alignment +5 faction with kitties).
It really seems like a non-issue. Tannim said the moves would likely be so small that it either a.) wouldn't reallly effect you in the long run or b.)you can abstain from the vote.
RP'ers seem to maybe have the biggest complaints here. But if you are rp'ing, you shouldn't stick with a team that is against your RP moral choice code. In the immortal words of the kermit the frog meme "but that's none of my business"
Compulsively clicking the refresh button until the next update.
It seems many of you are concerned about choices affecting your alignment if you are “in the sign group”.
Alignments are a spectrum and the result of multiple choices over many, many levels. In other words, you have a lot of grace when it comes to when you alignment is truly affected. As I said earlier, it would only affect your character if you were on the verge of a shift.
As for role players - you mean to tell me that no one has ever been in role play groups where different players had different agendas?
If anything it can open up role play opportunities.
At worse - chalk it up to haivng played /ooc
Going into a random PUG as a role plyer presents problems of its own and often doesn’t really work out since no one else is “playing along” and the role player has to either ignore all the “ooc” chat going in in the group and also ignore or come up with their own “to” reasoning for why characters are saying and doing what they are doing.
Role players will tend to, over time, congregate and familiarize themselves with one another and form likely groups.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
It isn't just roleplaying that would be affected if we assume shifts in alignment and reputation affect your choice of stories and allegiance with certain factions that would potentially come with gameplay or cosmetic perks. This isn't a stretch. This is how almost all mmorpgs handle faction reputation. It gives players something to do and a reason to do it. If you're trying to get a special title, costume piece, unlock a feature for your base, etc, and after grouping with your friends for a night you are farther away from that goal, people are going to be sad.
Saying that the choices made in stories would have a small effect is just weird. It would mean story choices have little impact on your alignment/reputation which makes them empty and fairly meaningless. It also means there must be other ways to shift your axis (otherwise you can't say it has a small impact since it is the only thing that has an impact) and in mmorpgs this usually translates to "kill seven thousand goblins" which is farther down the road to removing any feeling of impact from your writing.
I know Tannim said individual choices won't have a big impact on your axis but as someone already pointed out it would have to have at least as much impact as doing the choice yourself would. So you'd have to do that content again, possibly twice or more, to reverse the effect. You are effectively working backwards if you play with your friends that want to have a different story.
Just stop and think about it for a second. Replace the word "reputation" with "exp". Generally mmos use faction reputation as a secondary grind similar to exp already. Imagine you grouped with your friends and you started losing exp and levels. Players would riot. Saying "but it is only a little loss" isn't going to win over any crowds there.
E: If alignment and reputation are purely roleplaying things and have zero effect on what content you can access and no game features or cosmetics are gated behind them, then yes, only roleplayers will care and it could potentially not be much of an issue.
But if you start having access achievements, capes, base decorations, missions, access to enhancement shops, access to transportation....really *anything* attached to that axis? Then yes, people are absolutely going to notice.
I'm posting this on my phone during a quick break, so I won't be doing my usual thorough research and citations; but we have discussed this very issue at length in the past year or so. It might be worth digging it up.
I know we even discussed it in the Group-finder discussion.
[hr]I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
I ran an RP PUG once or twice on CoX. Just did radio missions with some banter back and forth. It was a lot of fun, takes longer than it would have normally. It was pretty good for figuring out how a new character acts though.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Did you miss the part where you can abstain from the choice...or not team with a group for A WHOLE NIGHT if you know it's going to swing your rep the wrong way? Are you assuming that every choice in every group on every mission is going to go the opposite direction you want?
? Inidividual, single choices shouldn't have a bigger effect on rep than a small one. You're going to have hundreds, potentially thousands of choices over the course of your character....
Again, if RP'ing is that important to you, abstain from the vote or don't team up with non RP'ers that aren't going to vote like you. Isn't that the whole point of RP'ing in a game?
Compulsively clicking the refresh button until the next update.
The Alignment system has not been fully explained. We don't know what effect on gameplay (if any) a characters alignment rating will have.
From all previous discussions, alignment has been described as a numerical representation of a characters actions up to that point and it does not offer alignment specific dialogue choices, alignment mission sets or unique alignment branching options. It appears to be a stat tracking system and little else.
The voting mechanic's impact on alignment seems secondary to it's impact on the normal branching options of mission progress resulting in a more protracted team formation process.
Voting mechanics work best with groups of people who are like minded seeking similar goals but become a dividing factor when dealing with a range of players seeking a variety of goals. Most likely this will act as a disincentive towards teaming.
Why not base the alignment on the vote like SWTOR (not because it's made somewhere else, but because it works imho)? That makes your vote based on roleplay and not on convenience.
Let's make an example, I'm righteous but my team is taking the decision to kill an innocent.
What I would do: vote against it (but I'll get punished anyway by losing alignment)
What I fear CoT will make me do: abstain and change team, only way to keep my character completely in role.
Well I don't feel like my character would "abstain" in a situation were the life of an innocent is in jeopardy, I'd do everything in my power to oppose it and I would like this effort to be recognized, not punished.
BUT I also recognize a positive thing in your actual system, it makes the players team-up with "closer minds", therefore it should make the villains/heroes team-ups less frequent (as it should be), heroes will naturally party with other heroes or grey-middle-vigilantes at best more common than the strange mix-up. CoT may need this since it's full of grey areas and not a finite distinction between heroes and villains.
Tannim already stated that the abstain option is included just so you don't have to quit the team if they make a different choice than the one you want.
Compulsively clicking the refresh button until the next update.
Changes that affect alignment or faction rep to be significant in actually setting people back significantly would require many, many steps in the same direction.
The choices made affecting story flow only affect the mission holder.
If a player finds themselves in a group they aren’t happy with - the option to leave that group always exists - this is nothing new.
If you are happy enough with your group but fear the group vote could not go “your way”, abstain.
The system doesn’t swing in extremes. The system itself is simple indicudalky, But when it comes to multiple people it encourages emergent gameplay. In other words the design is intentional on our part that we don’t force a single person’s narrative on all others, we don’t directly box players into groups with a group finder by alignment or faction rep. Which isnalso in part why alignments aren’t visible to others.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
What I am assuming is that, from the dev quotes we have in the thread right now, it sounds like there is a possibility for grouping to negatively impact reputation. An abstain option and "each player gets credit for your individual vote and not the group result" system would largely solve the issue, as long as choices were clearly marked.
You mean each individual choice should have a small impact? Yes, Tannim said that. That doesn't change the fact that you have the potential to work against your own interest if you choose to play with a variety of friends. The speed at which you do this is going to be equal to the speed you would do it by yourself (per decision).
It doesn't matter in this case if it takes two choices or fifty thousand to move your axis. If you are working in one direction against your goal you'll need to make at least that many decisions again to move it back. Sure, it means one decision might not make you go from loved to hated. It also means it will take you many more decisions to move from hated to loved if that is your goal. The amount you move is going to be the same, just in the wrong direction.
This isn't what I wrote at all. Not only did I never say RPing was important to me, I specifically said in the text you quoted that the main problem occurs not from rp concerns. It comes from game benefits. The main reasons mmos have factions and reputations in them mechanically is so players can work towards those benefits. If the reputation system is not linked to anything then you're right, it becomes purely rp flavor and most players won't really care. I would bet money this is not the case though, and that it is at the very least linked to what stories and missions you have access to. It is also very likely that it is linked to faction hostility, access to shops from that faction, access to unique cosmetics or items or base decorations from that faction, achievements, and countless other things. I'm not pulling this out of nowhere. This is how just about every single game uses reputation systems. It gives them a purpose for existing.
So there are a couple points here I want to talk about. The first is repeated many times in this thread, that of "the speed at which the axis moves is slow".
The logical assumption here is that it is equally slow if players get the choices they desire. This means every change forced on a player is working in the opposite direction at the same rate. Is that not the case? Do you get a 50x multiplier on your rep when solo or do players get an option to bypass the rep system and just pick what they want their factions to be? I would assume not since that would render reputation a bit meaningless.
As long as the impact of unwanted vs wanted choices is identical, speed is only meaningful to the discussion if you assume people are only going to play with other human beings on an extremely rare basis. this seems very odd in a game that is by nature very social.
The second is a dev encouraging players not to play with their friends based on the rep system, which is the major concern that many people are raising because it is, frankly, terrible. I'm talking about "If a player finds themselves in a group they aren’t happy with - the option to leave that group always exists - this is nothing new." Players can be unhappy not because they are playing with their friends, but because of what the game forces on them for choosing to play with them.
On the plus side, Tannim ends by saying it is intentional design not to force a single narrative on others and not to box players in by alignment or faction. This perfectly describes the "make each player's vote affect their axis" approach. It is interesting that that design choice is actually the opposite of what we would get with a winner take all vote impact. Abstaining is not an ideal solution either since it means potentially giving up rep points from an available choice out of fear that you would lose even more rep if another option is selected as the team favorite. It is only ideal if *none* of the dialogue choices are something you'd want. That doesn't make it a bad idea to have as an option, but you would want more than that. Having each player's vote affect them (while the story direction is determind by the leader whose story it is) makes sense.
I do find it interesting that alignments aren't visible to others. I'm not sure why that is and would like to hear more about that. Is it because devs fear players won't want to group with people of other alignments? If they have a gameplay impact such as friendlies attacking your teammate you are going to find that out real fast and obfuscating that will not stop players from discriminating based on alignment if the impact is enough for them to care about. If it doesn't, and is purely there as an RP cosmetic, then why hide it?
An attempt to avoid the situation that DCUO has in putting together groups courtesy of wavedox? LFG chat there: “need healer for TTBE Cr 238 350sp pst”
Or perhaps the intent is to get people to focus on the story rather than the mechanics/meta?
I know, that simply makes you stay for that quest and leave the team immediately after, looking for close-minds with choices. In fact...
This quote from me is the reason this "abstain" doesn't work in my opinion for role-play and would simply be better to make the alignment change based on the vote of the single person, like in SWTOR.
I understand and I like this. What I don't understand is how the "decision based on the vote of the single person" would affect negatively your purpose in the quote.
By making a "team decision" to kill an innocent you're forcing me to change my alignment based on the decision of the majority of my party/team, while the SWTOR route makes it so with my vote I express my self entirely and therefore my true alignment, not the alignment "infected" by the team.
It's no big deal imho, just trying to understand further. If you're sure of what you're doing and the reasons behind it I'll be fine too probably once the game is out, it's better a game with a single soul behind it than a game built on different and unrelated pieces and a thing I like of this project is the fact that you have a plan where all pieces get togheter.
I am thinking that any group voting will be rather thoroughly discussed prior to the vote possibly even the arc.
While it is usually a goal to increase ones status toward a preferred alignment there are those times where we must make compromises. (Any who think otherwise are greatly inexperienced.) This is outstandingly common in comics and makes perfect sense to apply in the game.
I am viewing the alignment values as a cumulative value in that the more decisions you make in one direction the more it takes to change direction. In the short of it for a veteran character a few compromises does little to affect alignment as your character continues on, while a new character will be much more strongly influenced by those choices. This also mimics an inexperienced hero versus and aged veteran. One recognizes the compromises more than the other. It gives depth to our characters.
Personally I’m not overly fond of the absolute do-gooder. I prefer the reluctant hero or villain they are more interesting. This system seems to have this sort of depth built in by design.
Honestly, I think people like to hear freedom of choice but don’t like the responsibility that comes with freedom.
Abstaining to vote is about as good as your actions can be viewed by your peers, good or bad when you participate against a common cause. Everyone has read a comic where a character as lost face with peers, law enforcement, the community at large, etc for doing something they had to do regardless of the fallout.
If friends are aligned differently all the better, now it’s a richer experience.
"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle
No I'm not being obtuse here - stop saying offhandedly non-sequitur things like that.
What I find curious though is why you think a character cannot exist with a "pure neutral" reputation rating with a faction. Why do you seem to think that a character can ONLY have either a net positive or net negative reputation with any given faction?
A character could easily exist with a "0" reputation rating with ANY faction. That simply represents that either the faction has no significant opinion about the character one way or the other or the faction has never encountered the character before. It's really just that simple.
Here, I'll try to use your own examples to explain this idea:
A) “This schmuck’s registered. We don’t want nothin’ to do with him.”
This would be the likely reactions towards characters who have a POSITIVE reputation with the Titan City Cops. Registration does not matter.
B) “She’s not registered, good. She’ll make a perfect patsy for our little operation.”
This would be the likely reactions towards characters who have a NEGATIVE reputation with the Titan City Cops. Registration does not matter.
C) “That guy’s registered, maybe we should ask him for help?”
This would be the likely reactions towards characters who have a POSITIVE reputation with the Titan City Cops. Registration does not matter.
D) “I just checked the database, she’s not registered. Are you sure you want to risk dealing with her?"
This would be the likely reactions towards characters who have a NEGATIVE reputation with the Titan City Cops. Registration does not matter.
Now here's the kicker...
E) "So you say your name is So-n-so? Welcome to Titan City. We have a system of registration for superpower users. We recommend you sign up with us if you intend to stay in town for a while."
This would be the likely reactions towards characters who have a [b]"0" (pure neutral) reputation[/b] with the Titan City Cops. Registration does not matter.
Do you understand now? Characters do not NEED to have a NON-ZERO reputation with a faction. Period.
You continue to seem to think that something like "registration" is a required binary choice all characters MUST make and you still seem to maintain this unfathomable notion that the entire alignment/reputation system is going to be based off of some kind of esoteric "database" that everyone is going to be referring to. Why are you stuck on these severely myopic and/or unfeasible ideas? Have you never played any kind of RPG with an independent alignment/reputation system?
As one last ditch effort maybe try seeing how the concept of "reputation" affects you IRL. For example I assume you have friends and family IRL - these people (hopefully) like you so you would have a positive valued reputation with them. Then let's say you have a co-worker who happens to be a real asshat to you - you'd likely have a negative valued reputation with this guy. Then let's say you have a US post-person who delivers your mail but let's say for whatever reason you've never met/talked to this person. More than likely you have a pure neutral "0" rating with that person. Now after all this you can see that you can very easily have positive, neutral and negative reputation ratings with all sorts of people [b]without registering with anyone and without having to look up a database to figure any of this out[/b]. Please tell me you understand how this works now...
I really don't know what more to say about this. I'm seriously trying to explain these things to you in a calm, clear manner but you're doing everything to make this thing so much harder than it has to be.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I'm sure there'll be missions that don't do anything to your alignment. Anyone worried about having to group with friends and get undesirable alignment shifts (why you can't just co-ordinate with said friends to make complementary heroes/villains I'll never know) can just do missions that don't affect your alignment.
As far as I know it's mostly/only path missions that'll deal with alignment changes. If it's only path missions that do that then team with people on the same path, if it's not just path missions then I'm sure there'll be some equivalent to radio missions (the leads system if I'm not mistaken, though that might not be at launch) that you can just do for funsies.
Until we know exactly how the system works and how prevalent it is in missions as a whole peeps are just making a mountain out of a possible mole hill. Just chill. Relax.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Your point of contention vented on “being forced”
To have your alignment changed. Your alignment eon’t Change based on a single action unless you are already at the exact tipping point. If your are Peaceful and the Violent action is voted and you lose Peaceful points, you are most likely to still be in the Peaceful range. It isn’t like the old game where 6 missions and you’re switching sides.
The reason the vote system isn’t by individual choice is because it affects dialogue, branching, and so on. It allows a group of people to decide as a majority how they desire to proceed together.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
As long as you avoid the trap of one option always being more efficient or more rewarding than another option. An example of this occurred in the Gold run for the Veteran Malgrave Trail Adventure in WildStar. There was a clear optimal choice for completion times and that resulted in most groups choosing that option.
I gather that this is not something we should see in CoT since you say it will be more story driven, i.e. the outcomes are 'cosmetic' in effect, rather than meaningfully changing the actual content.
Or to put it another way... A mission happens, and there's an encounter at the end of the mission, which is resolved in some manner. The manner of resolution may vary based on alignment and choices, but the encounter is always there, and always at the same point in the mission, with equivalent (or the same) rewards, regardless of which choice you make.
EDIT: It seems like choices may have more impact than I originally inferred, so then I guess vigilance with regards an 'optimal' choice needs to be constant.
of Phoenix Rising
Am I
I was going to [b]bold[/b] certain parts of what you said to indicate what I thought was especially good, but I realised this entire passage is excellently written.
Spurn all ye kindle.
That's why the [i]story[/i] goes by the majority vote. That's what SW:TOR does, as has been mentioned. But there is no reason why we can't have the reputation/alignment shifts applied to our characters be based on our own choices, again, as SW:TOR does.
Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
[url=https://cityoftitans.com/forum/foradains-character-conclave]Foradain's Character Conclave[/url]
.
Avatar courtesy of [s]Satellite9[/s] [url=https://www.instagram.com/irezoomie/]Irezoomie[/url]
Thanks, I'm just passionate about the project and want to see it shine in every possible way. Lots of people are excited about CoT and it is going to need to really stand out, both to meet the hopes of the eager fans and also to impress people that have never heard about it before. Small details and cracks in game systems are less immediately obvious in a bad or mediocre game but are magnified the better a game is since it gets more attention and scrutiny. MWM is aiming for something to compete in a market full of AAA titles and so any chance to improve little low cost stuff should be taken advantage of. Quite often the big complaints of AAA titles are not about the expensive stuff like flashy graphics but the basic design decisions and philosophies. A really good example of this is something like Diablo 3's development cycle which resulted in the replacement of much of the dev team.
Speaking of which,
This seems like clearly a great solution, as long as every dialogue has at least one neutral option that doesn't involve rep/ali hits and the consequences of your choices are clearly labeled. I am pretty sure SWTOR does these things for exactly these reasons.
From a role-playing/immersion standpoint, I really like what Tannim222 is proposing. If I’m in a group of super-powered individuals, and they decide to start committing crimes and I go along with it then I’m as guilty as they are. You see this all the time in comics, where you have one member of a group who doesn’t get along with the others. You might also have the hero who wants to “work alone” because he or she has a philosophy that doesn’t match most of the other crime-fighters they interact with. Wolverine wanting to slit someone’s throat while the other X-Men hold him back, etc.
That will also lead you to being reluctant to group with people you’ve never met, or don’t know anything about. I just really like the whole concept because it feels more like an immersive comic book you’re living through and less like a standard MMO.
Now from a mechanics/gamplay perspective... That I’m not sure about. I’d have to actually do it to have a real opinion. It might be something that’s good, or bad, or really doesn’t make a big difference as far as advancement or achievement goes. It’s hard to prejudge that until you see it in action. But I’m definitely willing to give it a chance.
Over time this Ivan be detrimental for a group to continue together if they keep deciding different options at the end of s mission (again over time).
He just dividual choices would work if we didn’t have to worry about faction rep with doezens of factions when it came to navigating as a sibgke group.
This is why, over time, the emergent gameplay comes into effect.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
I doubt there will be discussions. It'll likely be "Pick one and hurry up" :p
I can see that. I can remember PUGs being annoyed when I wanted to actually read the mission text.
Spurn all ye kindle.
Someone in he last request an auto-vote option so you automatically vote a certain way. It is rather uncertain if that can be set per character at this time.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
Yeah, when I first started in missions I set up the “Always punch them in the face!” option, but I can’t remember how to turn it off and it’s making my “rescue the orphans” mission really awkward...
The following excerpt is taken from a post from over [url=https://cityoftitans.com/comment/83410#comment-83410]two years ago[/url]:
The only difference is at that time it was still 'intended'. Today it is stated as the way it will be.
I'd like to bring up the fact that the way MWM intends to do this is probably the [u]most empowering[/u] of any of the options available. I also don't think it will be nearly as derailing as some fear. And here's why:
First, let's make sure we are discriminating between what affects the [i]Character[/i] and what affects the [i]Player[/i]. I hope to be able to show that it makes a difference.
The [i]Player[/i] does not want to have to run the same content more than once to make up alignment losses. Actually, as [url=https://cityoftitans.com/comment/148862#comment-148862]TheInternetJanitor stated[/url], players actually have to run the content 2x more: Once to get back to where they were before the fateful decision, and once more to get the alignment they would have gotten if the decision had gone their way.
The [i]Characters[/i] would realistically either leave or fight against the party if they felt strongly about the alignment-affecting decision. And if they don't feel strongly, then what does it matter? Maybe they would just stay in the group and complain feebly about the hit they just took on their alignment, and how the world will have the wrong opinion about them, and then maybe gripe at the party leader for a bit before slogging along.
Second, we need to realize that the players who want to role-play seriously and the players who don't want to role-play seriously will have different outlooks.
The [i]Player[/i] who just wants to get to the next mission and who is willing to take a small alignment detour will not care too greatly about the decision the group leader makes. In fact, the [i]Player[/i] may want certain decisions to be made just because they are the most entertaining of the options presented.
In fact, if we were to make a Venn Diagram of the population, we will find the population of players who take playing "in character" seriously and for whom a single alignment choice is significant will not have any intersection with the population of players who view streamlining the content to be more important than any single alignment decision. Since the players who take the decision seriously will leave the party and the players who don't won't. In other words, there really won't be a dilemma here for the individual players. Either they will be happy to make a moral stand or they will be happy not to. And for those who want to make a stand but don't really feel strongly enough about it to make a stand, welcome to the human race where making moral compromises to get along with others is something we do on a daily basis.
HOWEVER...
I predict we will see two problems arise when a group contains players from both populations.[list=1][*]When a group of players contains at least one player who is opposed to an alignment decision and wants to leave the party, that is a SEVERE inconvenience to the remaining party members. (or could be). Therefore we should give the alignment-conscious player an option to put their foot down and not suffer the alignment hit, while at the same time remaining with the rest of the group to complete the content. Thus: the ability to ABSTAIN is born. This is a good game system compromise that allows role[i]Players[/i] to coexist with others.[*]The other problem is when a [i]Player[/i] is trying to farm alignment. In other words, the [i]Player[/i] cares more about the alignment score than their [i]Character[/i] cares about the actual moral decision. This will come about in reaching for achievements, reaching for titles, or because they are in the process of shifting alignments from one extreme to another and want to do so as efficiently as possible. The incentive to farm for alignment will depend on how much a single decision affects the alignment score. If a single decision affects it so little that it takes a character hundreds and hundreds of missions to reach +1 on the alignment axis, then characters will actually not want to waste any opportunities. (on this I think TANNIM222 could be wrong. He states that small alignment shifts means that no single decision should matter much. However, if my goal is to max out my Honor alignment, and the only way to do so is to choose the honorable thing to do every time I am given the option until I reach level 50, then I will not be willing to suffer any setbacks whatsoever. If, however, I can reach max honor alignment after 25 missions worth of content, than I would be more willing to suffer a temporary setback for the good of the team because I know I can make it back quickly and/or with room to spare for other sidesteps)[/list]
And I think this is more empowering than SWTOR because in SWTOR we had the cognitive disconnect of getting the benefit of saving the engineers while actually jettisoning them into outer space. While I like how SWTOR did this, I do so from the [i]Player's[/i] perspective and not from the [i]character's[/i] who was rudely booted from all semblance of immersion.
[hr]I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Lol true! Except maybe the rp groups.
"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle
We don't have to go any farther than the Deadpool movies, to see friends and partners on opposite sides of the alignment curve :) Deadpool and Colossus!
What’s happening here is you’re taking what I’m saying should apply in *some* situations and treating it as if I’m saying it should apply to *every* situation, when in fact I’m *explicitly* saying that’s not the case.
Not every faction will have your standing with them affected by every other faction. Some factions probably care about registration one way or the other. Some probably don’t. Some will be influenced by police standing, some won’t. Some will be affected by faction A, some by faction B, some by both.
Here’s a question: in cases where faction standing is influenced by standing with a different faction, will the propagation use diminishing returns? (For example, faction A is influenced by your reputation with the police: police rep changes, faction A changes a reduced amount in the appropriate direction) if so, what’s the ratio for that diminishing?
That’s a perfect example.
Colossus teams up with Deadpool. Says there’s no killing. Deadpool reluctantly agrees. They get into an intense situation, Deadpool tries to reason with people, gets frustrated and starts executing people.
From the game perspective, that’s Colossus teamed with DP, who gets hit by the “violent” outcome consequences despite his best efforts because he grouped with an insane psychopath. Now Colossus gets the reputation/alignment hit even though it’s not what he wanted to do.
I like this, it feels very comicbooky. (Patent pending on that word.)
This is an example of an individual overriding a group decision. It's the opposite of what will happen in a game where votes determine outcome.
It really just comes down to "what is fun", "what makes for ease of use", and "what encourages grouping".
All of these are answered by the SWTOR system of "you get rewarded for your own choices".
You could keep the voting as the means to direct what path the story takes and still have player choices affect themselves.
This system has zero downsides. I've seen more than one person I think throw out the idea that "but you would still be guilty by association because reasons". Why? This is a video game about comic book characters where all your actions are magically known by every character in the universe the second you perform them. I'm not unhappy with the idea of having a reputation system, I'm just pointing out that "realism" isn't applicable here as more than a handwave.
Any approach that involves ideas like "you could just not group with others because we want our mechanics to inherently provoke irritation in our players that engage socially in an inherently social environment" has problems. Also, anyone that really wants their rep hits forced on them and to force them on others would equally have the same "don't play with your friends" option in a system that allowed individual rewards. I would like people to take a moment and think about how much fun that choice would add to your experience when forced on you.
The role-play of a paladin for some of you would be to abstain and see the innocent killed in front of his eyes?
Also Colossus knows Deadpool, therefore he may be "guilty" (as some of you thought) for selecting him as a team-member, but in CoT we may not know the majority of our party members, therefore the following possibility becomes very real:
A: Why your alignment says you're violent?
B: Oh, my char was born pacifist but the alignment represent the average choices of my teams, and the community is mostly violent.
So the role-player becomes guilty of "not abstaining" when an innocent is getting slaughtered by the rest of the team and guilty for playing the game with unknown peoples. You see that something is wrong?
Still I know very well that my opinion is not perfect:
1) We don't fully know the game and Tannim has his good reasons, that he also explained (like the number of factions and other systems that would get more complicated if things worked like SW:TOR, which is a far simpler "LIGHTvsDARK" environment). So it's okay and I believe in their choices, but I completely disagree with some posts here players-side.
2) The true role-players are a minority. I'd say that a game like City of Titans (which permits incredible amount of role play with its customization and stories and factions etc.) should give role-players a place even if it is a pathetic minority, but still the game systems shouldn't be put in jeopardy for a minority.
The concerns for role players are - in the large scheme of things actually very minor. Typically. Role players will play with like-minded people.
What many seem to not understand is the nature of the emergent gameplay and how, over time, players will - through playing he game, end up with similar factions, in similar areas, running similar content.
And even if not - the fear of he negative impact of a group choice is minimal in the large view of impact to the character. And then as a player you chance choose a to look for a new group of players. If not, and you like the players you are with, most likely you will like the choices as a group.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
Upvoted.
Compulsively clicking the refresh button until the next update.
What definition are you using for 'emergent gameplay'?
Emergent gameplay, as I understand it, is using simple game mechanics to come up with complex, unique or unintended situations.
Nothing about this seems to be emergent gameplay and expecting players will end up similar seems to be the opposite of what emergent gameplay results in.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean a bit better?
For those who are not playing with existing friends/family for the purpose of playing with existing friends/family, this might be the case. For myself, I would be more likely to run through a given piece of content twice more on my own later (assuming that this is possible) than to leave the group my brother was in because he wanted to vote the other way on a key decision. Not that I would like having to run through the content twice more, but I would if the only alternative way to make progress towards my alignment/reputation goal was dumping my friends/family for another group.
Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
[url=https://cityoftitans.com/forum/foradains-character-conclave]Foradain's Character Conclave[/url]
.
Avatar courtesy of [s]Satellite9[/s] [url=https://www.instagram.com/irezoomie/]Irezoomie[/url]
That is the basic definition There are different forms of emergent gameplay, like having multiple players make decisions which determine an evolving narrative. The system is simple, have multiple people involved in the decision process multiple times and...
Or you could make characters that have similar goals. Just like other games that have specific factions for players.
Or you could play out the repercussions - have your characters argue about it - maybe duel - and say whoever wins gets to call how we go about things in the future.
Instead of the game forcing you to choose one single way to handle how to play. And again it would take multiple attempts to actually cause a shift in alignment. And not something like 6. You’re talking about dealing in fractions at each decision.
You could between 1 and 0 through lots of play and still be in the same alignment range not being negatively impacted in any way.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
This works only if PUGs are the minority of teaming situations, and the majority of teaming occurs with friends or long-term groups. In the old game, it seemed to me that PUGs were the majority -- and the main goal of a PUG was to complete the content quickly, get the rewards, and move on. As I mentioned above, even just reading the mish text was seen as an unacceptable delay.
I think MWM is expecting more interesting emergent behaviour than the behaviour that will actually occur. I expect the primary emergent behaviour to be the min-maxers arguing with the speed-runners over which choice is the one they must force the role-players to pick. And in turn it will result in a lot more solo play.
I expect the makers of MMOs with competition for loot had much the same expectation of cool emergent behaviour, and instead it just produced bad blood between players.
Spurn all ye kindle.
How often to min-makers, speed runnners, and role players all end up i a pug all at once and during the first piece of content they complete which won’t significantly impact the character at that instance whi they all continue to decide to stick together?
How often in other games will they do th is to stick together?
I k is it is difficult to grasp the whole out of a few statements - these are not new arguments by far. And considering the systems involved and the game as a whole, the solution is one of the sanest ways to implement. It is one of the chief reasons we deal in fractional increments for alignments - to give plenty of leeway that won’t immediately result in a negative impact to the character.
And again, for role players. That take the risk of jumping into a pug, the player should be fairly aware that the rest of the pug may not care at all about their character in role play and it “views the world” yadda yadda...
Even then, there are plenty of opproruties opened up for role playing groups. What do you do if your Peaseful, Lawful, Honorable character ends up with people who decide to do something Violent, Unmawdul, and Dishonorable?
Do you decide to “fight it out”? Stand aside saddens and dismayed by their horrible actions? Give them a stern talking to and decide they are lost causes and move on?
And in any case you as a player decide to stay, and receive the negative result - most likely your character will still be Peaceful, Lawful, and Honorable.
Over time as that character is played, the types of stories it is involved in, the factions it deals with, and so on will being the player (and thus character) into contact with others who are moving along similar branches in their story. Reducing the selection pool of possible pugs. Barring of course iwhen intersections occur - in which case the pool size increases and the probability of emergence can occur for new grouping to form.
Or you could be playing along your Path. In which case, you be dealing gnwith specific contacts, and specific factionsX and most likely again come across people on a similar path...
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
I don't think adding a voting mechanic will turn branching mechanics into emergent gameplay. But, instead of arguing the semantics of the terminology which gets us nowhere is it possible to get you to delve deeper into what comes after the 'and...' of your reply?
What I mean is we all understand how branching mechanics work. Making choices that lead to differing results.
How is the voting mechanic going to result in an emergent experience that you cannot get from making the same choices while playing solo? Will the game take all the different choices that each player makes to provide a branching result that solo players can't get?
For example a team of 4 face a 'kill or release foe' choice. Voting to kill means you are hunted by the foes allies and voting to release means you have earned a reprieve from that groups retribution for a period of time. If 3 vote to kill and 1 votes to release the result is the allies are now hunting you. But would that group hunting you go easier on the one who voted for release? Would there be a unique conversation where those enemies offer the one who voted for release a chance to not participate in the pursuant combat, even if only in an inconsequential dialogue pop up? Would there be any impact to voting against the group at all?
Will one players reputation with npc groups result in options that can now be shared among the entire group?
For example a quest requires characters to gain the help of a particular foe group. If you have not dealt with the group previously they require the characters to perform a variety of tasks but if you have already raised your reputation with the group they will easily agree to help. Would you be given the option to skip the tasks if only one character has a prior relationship with that group? What if you have one character who has a very negative relationship and one who has a very positive relation ship with the group the players need help from? Would that result in a unique branching option that only appears if those criteria are met? Would reputation differences in a group have any impact on the resulting branching mechanics?
What I am basically asking is for a more specific explanation (possibly with examples) of how the voting mechanic adds to team play beyond simply taking a portion of agency away from individuals?
It's not an issue of continuing with the same PUG over time; it's an issue of the percentage of time players play with a variety of PUGs who will, in this system, have influence over a character's alignment*. This is also why it doesn't matter that each decision is a small increment. The 'over time' issue is not the solution; it's the problem. The idea that we'll eventually end up playing most of the time with like-minded teammates doesn't fit my experience with MMOs at all.
I guess the important question here is whether this design decision is already set in stone. If so, those of us who think it's a bad idea should probably just chalk it up to one of the decisions by MWM that we really don't agree with and move on. As long as there aren't many of these, we should still be able to enjoy the game. For me personally, it's not a game-breaker like eliminating tab-targeting would be (only for example -- no MWM has not said they are planning this). It will most likely make me team less, but I'm primarily a solo-er anyway. Funny: people have often mentioned in the forums how certain design decisions in MMOs can cause teams not to want to let certain individuals join them; in this case I think the effect will be flipped, causing individuals to decline invitations to teams.
*EDIT: Or at least stagnate progress, if the player chooses to abstain.
Spurn all ye kindle.
If an animation plays because of a choice I hope that it won't show the players who chose against that choice.
So like, if it's a vote to kill or not and as my Superman I voted to not I then shouldn't see an animation of my hero doing the thing.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
I’m not going to get into specifics. In the past it has only led to more arguments and additional request for more
And more info and discussions on that info and so on.
What ai can say is that the emergence is a result of how the character’s sorry looks as multiple people play together randomly.
You will mostt likely have a very difficult time trying to play with characters of opposing factions to your own or if you negative faction ratings with their positive faction ratings.
The voting mechic exists because it will determine the flow the narrative, dictate a direction the group as a whole moves, particularly if they are grouping for long periods of time. It helps conk tuebto frame which factions they are dealing with (when faction reps are involved).
If the choices were all individualized, the group will end up not being able to play together over a longer period of time because players in the group will have choices that affect the story differently, which can result in a change in factions ratings as we as personal alignment. Again this is not an immediate change, but one that can occur over time. If when it does happen, the result is forcing groups of players apart directly because the game has forced them apart instead of the player choosing to move on they have to.
If we could phase ever single character and then let everyone exist in the mission owner’s phase as a side-character not having their own past choices affect them in the mission owner’s phase tbenissuenwouldnbe moot. And this was what was originally desired - but we currently can’t do individual phase her character so we had to develop an alternative.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
Tannim, are you saying this has already been decided for certain? If so we objectors should probably just accept it as something we don't like and let it rest.
Having said that...
...this idea has [i]huge[/i] implications for teaming. While on the one hand I like the idea that it might help avoid the 'heroes and villains do all the same content because we can't be bothered to come up with villainous stories' paradigm that the old game had in the final years, on the other hand this sounds like it will be as much of a barrier to teaming as differing levels was before sidekicking was invented.
Spurn all ye kindle.
Two things to address here: Firstly, it's not "emergent" if all our alignments are going in the same direction, to the same degree, and we all get the same path options/missions. Emergent gameplay is gameplay that arises over time that would otherwise not occur. If everyone chooses the same path, that's predictable and linear, not emergent at all. It would be emergent if the path could branch differently based on who's leading, which brings me on to...
Secondly, if the pathing and mission options are based on the party leader's choices, then it won't matter how individual players vote. Everyone could be doing their own thing and the game would still know which direction to take the story. There are some assumptions (about how I would expect this to be designed) in this statement which I'm sure you'll notice right away.
However, I get where you're coming from. You're trying to work around the fact that the system is not going to be as diverse/flexible as you'd like it to be. You're trying to do something quite hard, with limited resources, and you're going to have to make compromises. I'm fine with that. Word to the wise, though, you're going to experience backlash if you're not open about it, especially with something many will see as central to the game.
I am personally intrigued by how this will be implemented, and I think it should be one of your earlier test waves. Not the first, but early nevertheless, because if we hate it, and you decide to change it, that's no small task.
of Phoenix Rising
Am I
Maybe they can add something that allows you to mission "in disguise" so then you are considered neutral to all factions, the flip side would be that you wouldn't be able to gain any kind of faction rep or alignment stuff while missioning in this way.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
So it's not emergent if there's different directions that people can go but people pick one of those directions? What?
Like, you get choice A or B both lead to different missions, both of those have additional options, for additional branches... It's not emergent if people pick one though?
And it would be different based on who's leading. Some leaders might pick always A, some always B, some might do a mix of A and B.
That's like saying Skyrim isn't an open world game if you just follow the main quest.
Like, duh, if you through multiple characters pick only the same options you're not going to experience the emergent gameplay. But here's the thing... Uh... You can pick different paths, and choices within those paths.
Everyone on the hero north path will probably be picking the goody two shoes options... Unless they make a character like Hancock, or Captain Hammer, or Booster Gold. They'll trend towards good but they might do something to make a quick buck, or anything really.
There's really no telling what choice a character will make in any given situation.
Same as the villain paths, get the option to kill someone, maybe you have a code against killing. Others don't. Kill or not kill can have differing missions, branching paths and all sorts.
Just because you all have the same destination doesn't mean everyone is going to get there the same way. Your on this mission cause you always picked option A, a nother is on that same mission because they picked option A this one time, otherwise they tend towards option B.
I'm super interested to see how this all plays out.
I just hope we can chat to others while making choices, maybe only getting a time limit to decide when the leader/majority of the group have already picked.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Still not emergent.
This only adds to confusion. Difficult how? Increased power level for foes? Limiting or eliminating branching options? Completion requirements being more difficult or unobtainable?
I have no idea what this means, the bold part in particular.
Others are concerned with alignment and reputation changes, I am not. I was intrigued by your use of 'emergent gameplay' and wanted more information on how the voting mechanic might lead to unforeseen/unique situations.
I assume there is a reason why you can't just set up flagging options for teaming as in giving players the option to turn off something like reputation for example (both it's impact on gameplay and possible changes) while teaming. Similar to how we will be able to turn off xp gain.
Regardless, I knew about the voting system for about a year now and while it's not my preference, I am not set against it.
When you provided updates on paths, aesthetic decoupling, body physics, PvP and powersets most confusion based discussion ended.
Perhaps my use of the term 'more specific' did not convey my actual desires. I wasn't after [i] specifics[/i] in the mechanics.
I wanted more information about the games team voting system in relation to story progression and if there was the possibility for unique situations to arise. Particularly how the voting mechanic will respond to/interact with individual votes, choices individuals made before joining the team or reputation differences among the team.
I assume Tannim meant it'll be difficult teaming with someone of an opposing faction because having a member of your team attacked by your quest NPCs will make it harder to team with them.
Harder, but not impossible. "Go wait over there while I talk to the police."
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Pages