Grimfox wrote:

The problem is with the crazy ones. The ones that want to blow up the world. By definition you can not let them 'win' otherwise game over. Similarly if they set out on a quest to destroy Anthem and her bunch of henchmen you can't let them win because that would ruin the story line for everyone who has not yet reached that spot in the mission chain. It's fine to do that in a single player game where your success means you've won the game and you alone are done. Even heroes have a similar problem they can't ever truly defeat a prominent villain because then they would destroy that story line.

This is why I almost never play an evil character. I'm usually smarter than the story...and more ruthless. The story doesn't let me take the action I feel is correct so I end up feeling dumb and impotent. With heroes the story is usually written with an unavoidable outcome right as you are about to deliver the final blow. So that feeling doesn't come up as often.

I do think there will be an aspect of villainy as far as gaining influence with the criminal underworld. You probably wont ever be in a total position of power within a given gang. You wont be able to oust the head of the Triad, but you might make it to the top circle or a place of special status outside the standard power structure. So in that regard I expect COT to be better than COH. Time will tell.

As far as rewards go, you'll be rewarded for successfully breaking into a bank but you get a similar cut to the heroes that stopped the robbery at the bank across the street. I highly doubt you'll get a reward of millions of IGC for knocking over a downtown bank. Otherwise inflation on the black market for villains would be insane.

You make some fair points here: Playing a "villain" in a computer game is hard mostly because what you're allowed to do as a villain is limited by the medium itself. Being an "evil" character is far more viable in a pen-n-paper RPG setting because you aren't restricted to keeping the world's "status quo" intact like you are in a MMORPG.

This kind of "being stuck inside the box" limitation has always been the fundamental weakness of MMORPGs. As time goes on the technology will allow for more and more sandbox-style freedoms and hopefully like you say CoT will push the boundaries even further.

Fireheart wrote:

Hey, it's hard as a Hero, too, because the Villain always gets away! (So they can pester the next hero.)
Be Well!
Fireheart

For what it's worth there could be more events/activities provided in a game like CoT that could give heroes alternative things to do as well. For instance one of the few special things CoH offered were the semi-random building fires. They could maybe come up with other "natural disaster" type things that could gain positive "brownie points" for heroic characters. Maybe saving people from storms or a dam that breaks. Heck they might even put proverbial "cats stuck in trees" that you can save for a few points here or there.

The point is there are a lot of possibilities for activities that could used to help shift or reinforce player alignments one way or the other.

HornetsNest wrote:

Villainy is always riskier the heroism. I'd like to see jailbreak scenarios, if they ever catch me and throw me into a dark pit. I'd like to see NPCs that are coercible. They need to know that I'm the scariest monster in the alley. Gaining influence with the local criminal element is nice, but I want to feel like I'm a power in my own right. Above and beyond their petty ambitions. I'd love to see villainous gathering spots like large dimly lit basement clubs decorated with garish neon art and flooded with loud music and drug fueled rave dancing NPCs. Putting my boot heel on the neck of a few NPC heroes. Feed my lust. Feed my ego. Let me bathe in the glorious carnage until my inevitable fall. Then let me start it all over again

I think you have to take for granted that as a level-based game certain "options" for villainy are always going to have to be level-dependent. Starting out as a low level character "petty" things like robbing convenience stores or turf wars with street gangs are likely the main things you're going to get involved with. It's only once you become a higher level villain will you be able to build doomsday devices and/or threaten the entire city itself.

Also no matter how many opportunities for different kinds of villainy we ever get in CoT they're always still going to be limited by whatever the Devs consider to be within the bounds of their "Teen" rating for the game. Being able to go to "drug-fueled raves" while torturing captured heroes might be things the game's software could eventually allow for but I doubt the Devs would enable/encourage those kinds of things based purely on the arbitrary restrictions placed on them to maintain their game rating.

Sadly as I implied in earlier posts MMORPGs will likely always be limited in the degree of villainy they will allow if for no other reason than for the sake of the game's rating. We can only hope that games like CoT can first push the boundaries of what the game's software will allow for and then see what they can do to push the artificial restrictions of the self-imposed ratings system. I suppose you could just blame all those silly parents out there who don't want 8 year old Johnny/Jane seeing hyper-naughty things...

Grimfox wrote:

So what villainous things does that leave a villain to do?

Well I think we've already mentioned several ideas for "criminal activity" in the last few posts that are probably acceptable for a MMORPG. The real key is to realize there plenty of types of "crime" (implied or otherwise) that could still be carried out despite living under the dictates of a Teen rating.

The main things the Teen rating would probably prevent (crime-wise) are things like the graphical depiction of drug use and nastiness like overt sadism or torture. Standard gun-fights are fine but being able to pull a victim's fingernails off as a "fun" little mini-game probably wouldn't be kosher. It's really the same kind of "common sense" stuff we've come to know from what they can and can't get away with on standard network television. Sadly the harsher stuff you can see on HBO might be a bit too much for CoT.

That still leaves plenty of "bad stuff" on the table. For instance there might be a mission where a villainous character could "poison the water supply" of a neighborhood. Succeeding in that mission might earn you the approval of a villainous faction and get you hated by the normal civilians but there's no real need to graphically show a bunch of dead bodies or people puking up their guts or whatever. The "nastiness" happens without having to have it be overt or gratuitous.

HornetsNest wrote:

You know that I wasn't speaking literally. Just being in a dark club with shadowy dancing NPCs was the atmosphere I was going for, No drugs need to be seen at all. That was just a turn of phrase meant in villainous flare. Gloating over defeated heroes has nothing to do with torture either. The whole point of what I was saying is that you rise in power, stop being treated like a punk by the NPCs, and after you level up enough then the heavy hitter heroes show up to knock you down a peg. I'm flattered that you took my little piece of prose as seriously as you did though

I only took it "seriously" enough to point out the practicality that villains would need to rise through the ranks before they'd get to do the types of things you were describing. Getting to "bathe in the glorious carnage until your inevitable fall" and "boot-heeling fallen heroes" were flowery enough dramatic images but no matter how well CoT feeds your villain's lust/ego it's still (sadly perhaps) going to have to conform to its default Teen rating. Save the well written yet vaguely imprecise RP prose for the game.

P.S. Don't worry, I didn't take you "literally" on any of this... *shrugs*

You know what I think would make villain mission interesting? Inter villain politics... can my Head scientist in charge of making my army of robots be trusted? Or is he going to take control of the whole shebang and try to kill me... can I trust Lady Poison to keep her end of the bargain? Or should I try to kill her early just incase... building a ray gun is all well and good, but we are going to need more than heroes trying to stop us to keep interested, lucky there's no honour among thieves :]

Redlynne wrote:

If MWM ever picks up on the whole Control Points thing I've been going on about for a couple of years, you'd have the opportunity for Turf Battles to "control the soul of the city" ...

The idea actually existed in the first game design docs put together by the first team. So going back to over 3 years ago. Things changed over time with company splits, teams changing, and the iterative process of design.

If anything like this were to exist it would most likely be on the pvp side, as the guideline is that all forms of pvp even pvevp must be entirely optional.
Which is another way of saying, the idea is not within the current scope of the game for launch or even quite some time post launch. I do like the idea as it could lead to some interesting gameplay elements, but It will have to be reintroduced at a more appropriate time if it will ever have a shot of implementation.

Now as to villains gaining control of organizations, this would be, in a sense, a type of RTS game play. Where the player now has to manage resources (which includes their npcs) to maintain and even attempt to grow their organization. It would also require a possible diplomacy system for negotiating with other underworld organizations (be it with other PCs or even NPCs). This is a much larger impact on the game world over the Path system. Unfortunately, this level of design also doesn't fit within the current scope of the game. And would be more difficult to implement after the game is live.

However, starting, and maintaining a super group even as a villain does offer a few similar elements. This, of course, would rely heavily on interaction with other players, and could afford said group of players plenty of role-play opportunities. And there is a possibility we could implement a tag to super groups hooking into the faction rep system so that there is at last recognition for "flying your colors" within the game world.

Also, we do have plans to introduce a system for "crafting missions" called Schemes and Investigations. Where villains hatch plans and heroes investigate crimes. They are separate so player heroes won't be investigating a player villain's scheme (but that isn't to say that npcs won't show up to attempt at foiling the scheme).

What i would like is the option to choose if my Villain is lethal or non lethal. If they are recognized as a Professional or Maniac, Monster or Man.

Getting slightly different options/reactions from people is the most I'd expect though. If I'm recognized as a Maniac who murders people for fun and profit (Sometimes not the profit) I'd expect a reaction along the lines of Cops running away (Beat cops that is) or at best trying to get Civilians to safety and confronting me if I'm attacking them/the Civvies. They would call in the Bigger guns to deal with the situation. If i on the other hand have a reputation for not causing casualties and leaving once I've done the task... then the Cop might rush in more brazenly and attack me as they know I won't Kill them, in an effort to push me into leaving sooner, rather then risking violence that is unneeded.

I'd Also love to be able to Play a crook who never has a "Presence" that is a mystery with their crimes. Never spotted and rarely harmful, but steals alot of stuff on Contract for other groups.

Huckleberry wrote:

We have colloquially called some hero missions "street sweeping" and as I understand it we are talking about open world procedurally-generated content like purse-snatchings and such.
On the villian side I would like to see the same thing. I would like it if every procedurally generated Tom or Jane walking along is a potential candidate for mugging, likewise with any storefront, office or bank in the world. Then you could also have a chance of being stopped by a NPC hero who would be conducting the AI version of a street sweeping mission. I would expect that banks and other high-reward encounters would have SWAT team response and higher level villians might warrant a SWAT team equipped with equipment and tactics to address a superpowered criminal. This would be in addition to the chance of the NPC hero showing up.
In fact, one could go so far as to make all open-world villianous acts a PvP flagging event. I think that a player villian SHOULD be wary of any heroes flying over the city if they are thinking about snatching a purse or robbing a convenience store or bank. That would make the lvl 50 player heroes a real potential threat. It would also mean that street sweeping could actually have real meaning for even a lvl 50 hero. But with the prevelence of low level villians all snatching purses and robbing stores around town, the lvl 50 heroes will probably decide that they have bigger things to worry about. I see this being a self-governing predator-prey ecosystem that could be a real blast to play in. And if a low level villian has to snatch 10 purses to impress the mob boss, but a group of player heroes has taken it upon themselves to keep their portion of the city safe, then the low level villian will either have to snatch purses in another part of town or obtain the help of higher level villians. This could be as fun as it could be frustrating.
HornetsNest's response was the most awesome because I think it really captures the essence of what it is to be a villian:
"Villainy is always riskier than heroism. I'd like to see jailbreak scenarios, if they ever catch me and throw me into a dark pit. I'd like to see NPCs that are coercible. They need to know that I'm the scariest monster in the alley. Gaining influence with the local criminal element is nice, but I want to feel like I'm a power in my own right. Above and beyond their petty ambitions. I'd love to see villainous gathering spots like large dimly lit basement clubs decorated with garish neon art and flooded with loud music and drug fueled rave dancing NPCs. Putting my boot heel on the neck of a few NPC heroes. Feed my lust. Feed my ego. Let me bathe in the glorious carnage until my inevitable fall. Then let me start it all over again"
I can't add to what he said. Who could. But I do like the concept of being locked up if you get defeated. So defeated villians really should be put into prison. That should definitely be part of the game. At first you are in the local precinct holding cell. You have one escape attempt there. If you succeed you are out and literally back into the real world at the local precinct. But if you fail, you go to the actual prison and there you need to team with other villians to break out. This could be a party instance or it could just be a hollywood style flash forward to a prison riot in progress (that in game-system terms would be perpetually persistant but in-character you would get the notion that it is an opportunity not to miss event) and you and any or all the other villians that happen to be there take advantage of it to fight your way out. You might even have a third event in which your character is in transit between the precinct and the prison and this could be a mission for high level villians to break you out. Your transit ride could only be a minute or two to you, but I see a high level villian mission something like "There is a villian out there who shows some potential but who got captured. There is a convoy transporting the villian to the hooskow. Find the convoy and free the villian" In this case there could be any number of actual villians being transported at any time, each lasting the minute or two for that specific captured player, so the mission would include a successful breakout of any one of them.
Of course, a captured villian could always pay off a guard at any step in the captured process to get out immediately. (except during the transit convoy mission because that would potentially derail the mission of the villian attempting to break you out and that would not be good for the game) This would be a monetary (in-game currency or cash-shop get out of jail free card) penalty for the convenience of getting back into the game without having to attempt any breakout content.

The problem with that as far as I know from the lore we have so far is that it's very likely villains would end up in Hardlock which for all we know the superhuman part of that prison could have no guards at all or have very heavily armored and trusted ones. Either that or the cells are made with power inhibitors.....

Considering how normal mooks can end up in Hardlock I doubt supervillains won't end up there as conventional prison can't hold them. Unless you have the options of inciting a prison riot or something.....

Tannim222 wrote:

Now as to villains gaining control of organizations, this would be, in a sense, a type of RTS game play. Where the player now has to manage resources (which includes their npcs) to maintain and even attempt to grow their organization. It would also require a possible diplomacy system for negotiating with other underworld organizations (be it with other PCs or even NPCs). This is a much larger impact on the game world over the Path system. Unfortunately, this level of design also doesn't fit within the current scope of the game. And would be more difficult to implement after the game is live.

Such a shame, because I would really love to have some RTS elements in my MMO. I like RTS. I like RPG. I usually don't like FPS, but there are occasional exceptions. I just wish I didn't have to get my varied gaming interest fixes from different sources all the time. Even if such sources aren't always directly combined. For instance, one thing I would love to have seen/played back in the glory days of CoH would have been a CoH RTS, similar to games like Command & Conquer or Starcraft, but based on organizing troops/assets of various CoH factions like Longbow, The Family, Arachnos, and so on. But rather than merely a C&C clone with a CoH skin, also have each game affect the other. The RTS letting you utilize your RPG characters as summonable heroes, or gaining resources for accomplishing various quests in the RPG, and RPG elements being modified by RTS events, such as altering dynamic spawn points or ambushes based on how the RTS plays out. I also remember way back when SWG was announced it occurred to me that they had an opportunity to create a hybrid game, allowing not only RPG elements, but shooters, vehicle combat (which we partially got in JTL, eventually... They toyed around with it in land based, but it never really panned out completely imo), and again, RTS elements. I loved it, but I always wished it could have been more. The more varied gameplay elements I can get from a single game or collection of connected games, the happier I will be.

I know I have my head in the clouds about this stuff, but I'd always rather see development leaning towards "What new heights can we achieve?" rather than "How much can we cut away from our goals, how much less can we settle for?" Don't mind me, I don't mean to be critical, just to express ideals so that people can't say "Well, nobody really wants anyway, so why bother?"

What a villain wants?

One thing I would love to see is a system where a higher level villain or villain group could offer jobs to low level villains. If you need 100 Uranium Rods to power your doomsday device do you really want to rob endless labs to hope to find them? Or do you want to generate lab robbery missions that pay out the lowbies in cash but you get the rods? Even more generally I would love to see a system where actions taken could generate missions or pvp content. If a villain is robbing the bank in broad daylight a hero might have the chance to hurry over and stop them. If a hero is cracking down on gang members on the street, maybe a villain could take the opportunity and foil their plans. Mostly I hope that CoT doesn't follow too closely on the City of Villains method where villain missions were just slightly altered hero missions. Give both hero and villain sides some unique experiences and it should really encourage people to try both.

Lothic wrote:

Sometimes there are so-called "villains" out there who have a far more developed sense of honor and morality than any of the supposed "heroes" they may be opposed to at the time. The only reason they are labelled as "villains" is because they happen to defy the majority and/or the status quo of the society they exist in.

Isn't the difference between a flower and a weed all about whether it is trying to grow where you want it to?

What I would suggest is that both for heros/villains is hiding of the identity and being defeated can lead to your identity being revealed and thus you not being able to walk to streets incognito, being able to blend in with the common crowd to ambush your super hero enemy etc.

But my primary aim if i was to play as a villain would be to be an anti-villain, one with some sort of moral compass, I may not dispatch my enemies, I may turn of my "allies" depending on the actions they perform tec.

I agree with Emp. I liked the Hero-Vigilante-Rogue-Villain thing they had in CoX. I think the hard part of that is the fact that reproducing it that way necessitates having a divided player base vis a vis the hero zones and villain zones. I think it would be best to avoid that for a number of reasons. As the CoX devs used to complain, they had to write content for basically two separate games, but they could only call it one game and were not paid double and didn't get double staffing to help do it all. Also, the players at largest played WAY more blueside than redside. I myself never got a villain to level 50, but had like 6 heroes at 50 and a few others that I either deleted or hadn't gotten fully leveled yet by the time it was all over.

Planet10 wrote:

It felt like I was playing a reskinned hero.

Well ... you were ...