Where's the Villiany?

[Typhon]

There is a conversation in another thread that started to touch on whether the person felt like a villain or not in CoV.

I have to agree with the sentiment that there isn't really a villainous feel - yeah, there are plenty of stories of villiany, but no really player actions/choices.  That there is no violence to the innocent was a conscious decision on the part of the devs, so not a surprise.  Still, there are often times were I feel the PC villians lack teeth, which ends up making me have less desire to read the stories (where some other character ends up being a bad guy).

I think what it comes down to are that there are no choices.  I'm just a emotionless contractor taking missions where someone else is a bad guy at the end.  And I really have little choice on whether to take the mission or not (chose to take the mission cause it's the next in the series... your alternative is to not take the mission and outlevel the contact - not much of a choice).

The mission where you corrupt the hero is a good example.  You beat up good guys and "plant evidence" that the good guys were involved in her past (in a not good way), but you are just going through the motions.

 I was hoping that the villain experience would be less linear.  It's ok to be reactive as the hero, but being the villain seems to require choice - I wonder if the devs feel good about the way the missions currently run?

Still mindless good fun, but... how long are we going to be mindless?  How long are we do little more then read stories written by other people?  Hopefully they have plans to change this at some point.

[Glazius]

How long are we do little more then read stories written by other people?  Hopefully they have plans to change this at some point.

What constitutes not "reading stories written by other people"?

To some extent every possible interaction you could have with the world has to be accounted for by the game engine, which, last I checked, was a product of other people.

--GF

[eldaec]

Isn't this exactly the same as every rpg ever?

How the hero side any different?

For that matter how is this any different to something like Kotor? The only difference I can see is that in a single player rpg you get less clues about where to put/find the items and a bit more dialog, the only reason this sort of candy doesn't go into mmogs is that you have a gang of 8 people standing there waiting for you to click though all that shiny.

I guess you could argue the pvp zones are more freeform?

[pxib]

How [is] the hero side any different?

It's ok to be reactive as the hero, but being the villain seems to require choice...

Bingo. It's not just "ok", reactive is what heroes do.

A few years back I ran a homebrew pen-and-paper roleplaying game with some friend in which they played a ragtag bunch of supervillains (think: Legion of Doom from Superfriends meets The Tick) plotting nefarious deeds against the people and institutions of a little municipality within a larger metropolis. They were absolutely, hilariously ineffective and pathetic. The heroes always won in the end, but the villains always tricked them and escaped (unless we wanted to try a "Let's break Dr. Impossible out of the asylum!" session for kicks, I'll get back to that).

In a conventional game, heroes are essentially reactive. They fix problems. Thus, the referee invents all sorts of problems for them to discover and conquer. In this game the players would huddle together and say things like "Let's rob the bank!" or "Let's ransom the mayor's kids!" or "The Comet has humiliated us one too many times! Let's lure him to Evilpotomus's hideout and trap him in the alligator tank." and I, the game, would have to figure out what bank security involved, and where the mayor's kids went to school, and who would come to rescue The Comet.

Turned the whole GM/player mechanic on its head. I had to think and plot on my feet in a way my for which my previous experience had not prepared me. I ended up running reactive session (like the doctor's asylum visit) just to give myself a break.

Expert systems and instancing just wouldn't cut that mustard. Players are too creative. Instead of having a bunch of functionally identical (and crowded) "rob the bank" and "kidnap somebody" instances, they chose to put the game on rails and have unique storylines...

...but City of Thugs and Pawns of More Powerful Malevolent Forces wasn't a particularly attractive title.

[Typhon]

I see that this conversation proceeded a bit in the Llava's ED thread, sorry to have caused confusion, created this one cause I felt bad about how much we'd already derailed that thread.

It's not just "ok", reactive is what heroes do.

Agree, the hero choice is made early on, to fight eeevil whenever and whereever it arises.  Being handed missions that pop up out of no where is what I expected for a hero.

As far as what would have been an acceptable level of choice, my sights weren't very high.  I had hoped for stories with a choice of end (both evil, but at least you'd have a choice).  Example: When you got to the end of a story arch, you have two mission choices instead of one, each with slightly different flavor.  Just enough to show that they were attempting to give the illusion of choice, hopefully I'd be able to pick a choice that fit the flavor of my villain.

I realize that this ends up with missions that the player doesn't see (which can be viewed as wasted effort).  I also realize that freeform isn't for everyone (players talk about not knowing what to do).  Maybe they talked about it and decided it was just too much work without sure payoff.

[Lantyssa]

Giving two (or more) choices at the end of an arc is a very good idea.   It still limits us to the content created, however we at least feel we have some say in our nefarious plots.

This could also heighten the suspense on the hero side.  Imagine having to choose between saving another hero who may be vital to stopping the archvillain or saving a group of school kids.  Things can be written to either show dire consequences should the story want to be about how heroes cannot always win, or maybe it is written such that everything works out because we made the choice we thought was best.  (Always having a no-win situation is not good, and there does not have to be a 'wrong' choice.)

Statesman is the main person preventing the flashback system being implemented because he believes that no hero should get all the story arcs.  He wants every hero's path to be a little different, so from the developers' point of view not seeing all the content the first go-through is not an issue.  In his mind this might even be a positive aspect because it has to happen with this concept.

[Llava]

Well, all the points I was going to mention have already been discussed (mostly, the "Do this... or not" choice which was not previously present), but I just thought I'd mention in regards to the "No violence towards innocents" points... I just recently did a mission where I kidnapped people off the streets of Paragon City to become "raw material" for the Vahzilok.  I'd say that's pretty damn evil, and those guys are pretty much innocents.

[jpark]

/fanboi On.

A good example of an RPG which provided ample moral choices in completing quests that impacted the characters subsequent missions in numerous was was Fallout. 

Too bad more games, save Kotr, have not followed Fallout's masterful flexible storytelling.

/fanboi Off.

[eldaec]

Multiple paths within an arc would be cool I guess (that could be implemented for heroes too).

A faction system would also be cool in CoV. ie. If I've just done a tonne of goldbricker missions they should quit hassling me out in the city zones.

[Valmorian]

CoV needs "Street Crimes" that you can commit.  Like security guards unloading a brinks truck, or a smashable window on a store front.  These should involve police and/or security guards in the same way stopping street crimes in CoH involved gang members.

[pxib]

CoV needs "Street Crimes" that you can commit.

When I first heard about the game, that's what I assumed would occur. Villains go out and commit crimes. Low level villains would be harassing the public, defacing property, and breaking into stores, higher level villains would attack police forces, destroy property and rob banks. This would give them some experience points.. but it would also attract the attention of law enforcement and  NPC superheroes from various "superhero gangs" who would arrive on the scene and be worth the -real- experience points.

In retrospect that seems rather pie-in-the-sky optimistic, but CoV's failure to differentiate itself from CoH's gameplay is what kept me from giving it a try.

[Alkiera]

CoV's failure to differentiate itself from CoH's gameplay is what kept me from giving it a try.

Exactly why I didn't buy it, too.  Sure, the ATs are a little different, and play a little different... but the things you're doing are exactly the same as in CoH. 

Alkiera

[Typhon]

CoV's failure to differentiate itself from CoH's gameplay is what kept me from giving it a try.

Exactly why I didn't buy it, too.  Sure, the ATs are a little different, and play a little different... but the things you're doing are exactly the same as in CoH. 

Alkiera

This is very true, the actions you take within a mission feel identical to the actions you take as a hero.  I guess the reason I'm playing and having fun are 1) The new ATs are fun.  I'm playing Brutes and Corrupters and I must admit that they are more fun then their Hero counterparts.  2) Zone builders seem to have gotten better at their jobs, which makes the world a good deal more immersive.  3) newspaper and same-zone missions means I can log in for a half an hour and kick out 2 or 3 missions to blow off steam without going on an annoying world tour.

If base building wasn't so god awful expensive I'd be playing with that and probably liking it, but being in an SG of two means you can't afford much.

One thing that they haven't seem to improve at all is the risk/reward differential between villain groups that you fight (currently all reward seem the same, if some villians are giving more xp, I'm certainly not noticing it).

For a melee AT, the Lost and CoH (in the 20s) are considerably harder then, say, Longbow (a good deeds doing group), for zero additional benefit.  The Lost have many Leuts/Boss's with many forms of sleep/hold, etc.  The CoH seem to spawn massive amounts of spirits and very few guards/archers/thorn wielders.  Why this is a bad thing is because all the spirits do dark attack, 3 or 4 spirits on you and you aren't hitting shit.  A brute that doesn't hit, is a dead brute.

[eldaec]

I don't disagree with the point about risk/reward being inconsistent. But I'd much rather they continue to err on the side of making villain groups as varied as possible rather than keeping the xp curve perfect.


CoV is probably the first time in a MMOG I've seen the majority of people actually playing to experience content, rather than just to level. Variation in the way the opposing groups are designed is probably one of the principal reasons for this.

If you just want to level fast, the quickest way will probably always be to get super speed + stealth, and rattle through bomb missions in a pvp zone. Best estimate would be that this gives you a mission completion bonus (which is bigger than usual in a pvp zone) every 4-5 minutes, and with SS + stealth there is no practical risk of getting caught up in any actual pvp. Everyone knows this, but few bother.

[ClydeJr]

For a melee AT, the Lost and CoH (in the 20s) are considerably harder then, say, Longbow (a good deeds doing group), for zero additional benefit.  The Lost have many Leuts/Boss's with many forms of sleep/hold, etc.

As the other melee AT (stalker), the Lost are actually my preferred opponent. That's because if you are solo, normal sized groups are often a leut/minion pair. Use assassin strike on the leut which will either take him out or just need one more hit to defeat, then placate the minion and finish him off with 1-2 shots. I usually finish the fight with barely a scratch and I'm ready to go after hide, AS, and placate are recharged. If I go against 3 minions, it means a longer fight which means more downtime afterwards.

Of course, if I miss that Assassin Strike, things get interesting since the Lost leuts hit like a Mack Truck.

[Typhon]

I don't disagree with the point about risk/reward being inconsistent. But I'd much rather they continue to err on the side of making villain groups as varied as possible rather than keeping the xp curve perfect.

I'd rather them not waste time screwing with xp, because I'd rather not have pickup groups waste time trying to figure out which villian group is the best xp.

I'd just like to see the tougher mobs have a chance to give odd enhancements, odd inspirations, temporary powers (even if the temp powers are mostly/entirely cosmetic) or some other reward.  Fun stuff is reward also.  Please don't make it rare/odd salvage because housing is so expensive I've pretty much given up on it, I'd rather not focus on what I'll never be able to afford.

Just give me a shred of a decent reason for taking on the tough guys.

I did think about how different ATs have different experiences with the different mobs - MMs breeze through a lot without much effort, and after the Brute's get their status resistence the Lost get easier.  I just used those two at the 10-16 level as an example (another example - the malta really suck at the high end).  Could be that I'm in the minority that get bugged by this, I just hope they put looking at it on a roadmap at some point.

[eldaec]

Could be that I'm in the minority that get bugged by this, I just hope they put looking at it on a roadmap at some point.

Btw, you do realise that villain groups do give different amounts of xp for the same level mobs? Ever since I3 xp variation has been in, I vaguely remember it works out at around +/- 25% depending on the group. I seem to remember Rikti and Devouring Earth were the first to get the bonus.

[Typhon]

Could be that I'm in the minority that get bugged by this, I just hope they put looking at it on a roadmap at some point.

Btw, you do realise that villain groups do give different amounts of xp for the same level mobs? Ever since I3 xp variation has been in, I vaguely remember it works out at around +/- 25% depending on the group. I seem to remember Rikti and Devouring Earth were the first to get the bonus.

I wasn't aware.  I guess I don't think of xp as a reward, because I'm not finding it that satisfying of an answer.  See?  I am broken.  I still want the hard boys to have a chance to deliver the goods.

I guess I like WoW's method to some extent - face a hard boss at a lower level and get more reward (although that reward is often purely xp).  Additionally , the equipment you get is better at a lower level.  Maybe they could do that, drop special enhancements that allowed you to use/combine even if they were above the +3 limit (and it's only a percent or two better, so it's not gonna break anything)