It wasn't good enough to keep CoV alive.
For that it took F2P
If CoV had been developed by a different company or as a truly stand alone product it wouldn't of even made it to F2P.
The sales of CoV weren't bad, but I'd say half or more of them were by CoH players who wanted superbases, because back then buying CoV was the only way to get access to them. I have no doubt that if they had put SG bases in CoH without a cost or at least without a requirement to buy CoV, the sales of CoV would of been horrible.
Honestly? I'd appreciate some solid anti-hero content to start. See how that flies.
I notice i've been quoting the Chalupa a lot lately. Not sure If I should be worried about that or not. :biggrin:
But this!!!
It wont divide the community into separate sides so much as same side, separate goals.
So both groups can effectively run the same content, team up on missions without looking odd, and work together, even if its a strained relationship.
This to me, is much better then simply setting up direct adversarial sides.
While I wouldnt mind a villain side, and in COX it worked well...in the short run. In the long run, it was empty and lonely on that side because not many played on the COV often even on the two most populated servers. Which became a PITA on a team based MMO. At least since Jan time period, I could be COV side and not run into a single person then switch to blue side and everyone and their momma is there.
At the same time, I never hope people want villain side just to gank. That can kill a peaceful game's PVP in a matter of months, like COX, which put the nail in the coffin with i13 changes, which was meant to level the playing field but ran away the gankers, hard core pvpers and new pvpers never went back from the bad taste prior to those changes.
I would argue that villainy as an actual mode is kinda... pointless.
You CAN be a villain. Just don't think of the missions as they are. Think of them as you taking out the competition in the field of villainy if you must pick the ones that do good deeds!
Roleplaying is key. No, let's simplify it. IMAGINATION is key. If you can think up of a reason to be doing the thing you're doing it, you're fine. And just about every heroic action can be rethought to have a villanious counterside to it.
Saving kittens from a tree?
What are you saving them for, hmm? Obviously, it's going to be your supper.
Obviously. You're not saving them to save them, you're saving them to EAT them.
Little girl lost from her family?
Take her to her family so that they are increasingly devoted to you and you can bring them into your league of henchmen later.
Dr Destroyer taking down Detroit (again)?
Well, there's got to be a city if you want to rule it! Fight that guy, if you want to still be in business!
Think of alerts in the same way!
Villain robbing a bank?
That fiend! I was scheduled for to go first in today's bank robbery! He's not following the plan we set out! Munition bots! Attack the traitor!
Hi Pan summoning some other kind of Dragon thing?
NO! I WANT THE POWER FOR MYSELF! RARR!
Hostages being taken in City Center?
Oh, seriously? Hostages? Listen, you're an idiot. I'm going to kill you, then kill all these guys who have hostage just to make people remember that I am evil and I do evil things, okay?
It's all attitude.
Why do you need an actual villain mode?
Villainy is only as evil as you make it!
Champions is all about making your character the way you see them being, and that doesn't actually necessarily mean you are a hero!
The NPCs might assume you're a hero because you're basically wearing a low budget Broadway musical costume designed by a half drunk monkey with no hands, but you know what?
You're still a villain.
Inside your heart, where the darkness lurks.
So go out there and do evil, and make us all sorry for ever thinking you could be good!
[this post was much longer than it was going to be, then I went all rantyspeechy blarrrgggh
side note: I wouldn't mind some antihero or just some neutral morality alignment missions from time to time though, things that are ambiguous whether they're good or bad perhaps, like saving a villain who then goes on to cause chaos later which you have to stop, or having to choose between hurting someone and letting them go when you catch them BEFORE they perpetrate their crime, meaning that no crime has yet taken place, but it will do if you let them go, but they haven't actually done it yet.
I always hate posting on a dead thread, but I find this interesting thought. A villain side entirely new would be a big leap, and who could guess the return you would have. I do sometimes wish for certain moral ambiguity, yes you can imagine your character as a villain and it can be fun, but in the end of the day you are still doing missions for a superhero based side. I think it would be nice to add like a morality mission system that presents some choices at the end, like perhaps to the nemesis system, where you have the option to actually like kill your nemesis, and face some form of consequence, like the police are disappointed in you. It would be fun to add, and may be even more conducive to imagination. An entirely new game linked to the current one would be a risky venture, and it would have to be molded differently than CoV. You would have to put an extreme amount of thought into it, to better suit the idea of the villain, where you launch an attack on the hero, and they have to stop you. I believe it could be done, but in the end you have to look at expense in design and have to integrate this into the current system. Moral ambiguity would be nice though, mainly moral missions, although I do take offense to the RP comment the first replies to breathe of a smart **** nature, to someone who probably is very new to the game. I say we just put it as it is "We have talked about it, but still not leaning towards it" and leave it at that. Then again though as human nature to be the reactionary which often leads to some form of conflict, it is a sad world we live in. Again sorry for bringing back the old thread, just on a hyped up state and can't sleep.
It simply doesn't seem to matter how many dark costumes you have. How many horns, wings, sinister auras, black leather, and other signs of villainy provided. Some folks need a blinking sign over there head flashing "BAD GUY" to be happy.
You know guys I must say one thing you guys are rather rude aren't you, are you guys those hard core role players, last group of people I saw like this where the virtue server for n CoH
I wonder if he is aware that CoV was actually made by Cryptic and if they decided that making a villain side was not profitable, there must be a reason behind it.
Also, if he wants to be a villain so much, I suggest him to try "APB, All Points Bulletin: Reloaded", is just another shooting game, but this time you get to play a cop or a bad guy! FUN! 9__9
Reactionary behavior, insulting each other and their ideas of fun, when only a single sentence would suffice to end it all.
The problem with CoV and DCUO is that your "villain" is merely a henchman of an even more powerful villain. Heck, you aren't even a trusted lieutenant. You're sent on the jobs that they can't bother with personally, and that IMO makes you nothing but a pawn.
On the hero side, you are entrusted with tasks the big guys *can't* handle, and that gives the impression of what you're doing being meaningful.
Here's how I would handle villain content:
1. After designing your character, you go on to design your second in command. This character isn't played by you, but they serve as a "launching pad" for your machinations. They can be a willing toady that tips you off to new plots to enact, some "other" power that sets a path ahead of you, or even an equal that fights beside you and aids you every step of the way.
2. Next you would need to select your style of leadership - do you command from the shadows and amass a loyal army, do you lead your troops into battle personally, or do you go it alone, being a force of destruction in your own right?
3. Early on, you would work to establish a foothold in the world - you'd select a base of operations, the style and function of your evil empire, and populate said organization as you see fit. You'd follow leads to hire/persuade/extort/construct/conjure your minions. You'd establish dummy corporations and fronts for your empire, or you'd directly rob/pillage/demand tribute to fund your operations.
4. Once you've gotten your foundation established, *then* the real fun begins. Are death rays and holding the world hostage your thing, or are you about setting plots in motion and getting the heroes to unwittingly do what you want? Perhaps you hire some low-level villain to pull a heist, then only once the hero arrives to thwart it, do you spring your trap.
And this is where the interaction of different players comes into play - some highly rewarding missions would be designed in such a way that higher level villains would *need* to employ lower level ones, in order to succeed. And if you, as a lower level player, choose to accept another player's mission, you start to form a relationship. But even then, maybe you'll try to double-cross your "boss" at some point. Again, things would be arranged in such a way that even "losing" to your usurper has its rewards. Now you learn about this betrayer, and can begin your own efforts at revenge.
On the other hand, you may choose to play the loyal lieutenant, or honorable merc - fulfilling your contracts and receiving a reward commensurate with your abilities and successes. Eventually, you may choose to start up your own empire, but instead of pursuing your own agendas, you hire your organization out.
This would be a self-perpetuating game, where player plots and schemes aid others'.
The only issue where I get stuck is how to handle players having contradictory goals, or ones who simply want to wipe others out. I suppose this could just be PvP instances, but that just seems to bland.
I suppose you'd also need an element of traditional MMO content - where you could simply take missions from NPC organizations, if you simply wanted to fight good guys in a more direct fashion, as well...
TL:DR - Villains are too proactive to work properly as a carbon-copy of the hero side, where you just rob/attack instead of protect/defend.
<::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::)xxxxxxxx(:::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> "Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
Comments
For that it took F2P
| ME | A "Guide" Book" | | I, have a "DREAM! | ( Member since Feb 2008 ) ... ?
[SIGPIC]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b132/AngelOfCaine/STILLS/Misc/CO-Sig_01e.png[/SIGPIC]
If CoV had been developed by a different company or as a truly stand alone product it wouldn't of even made it to F2P.
The sales of CoV weren't bad, but I'd say half or more of them were by CoH players who wanted superbases, because back then buying CoV was the only way to get access to them. I have no doubt that if they had put SG bases in CoH without a cost or at least without a requirement to buy CoV, the sales of CoV would of been horrible.
RIP Caine
I notice i've been quoting the Chalupa a lot lately. Not sure If I should be worried about that or not. :biggrin:
But this!!!
It wont divide the community into separate sides so much as same side, separate goals.
So both groups can effectively run the same content, team up on missions without looking odd, and work together, even if its a strained relationship.
This to me, is much better then simply setting up direct adversarial sides.
=^ _ ^= Kitty Lives!
At the same time, I never hope people want villain side just to gank. That can kill a peaceful game's PVP in a matter of months, like COX, which put the nail in the coffin with i13 changes, which was meant to level the playing field but ran away the gankers, hard core pvpers and new pvpers never went back from the bad taste prior to those changes.
You CAN be a villain. Just don't think of the missions as they are. Think of them as you taking out the competition in the field of villainy if you must pick the ones that do good deeds!
Roleplaying is key. No, let's simplify it. IMAGINATION is key. If you can think up of a reason to be doing the thing you're doing it, you're fine. And just about every heroic action can be rethought to have a villanious counterside to it.
Saving kittens from a tree?
What are you saving them for, hmm? Obviously, it's going to be your supper.
Obviously. You're not saving them to save them, you're saving them to EAT them.
Little girl lost from her family?
Take her to her family so that they are increasingly devoted to you and you can bring them into your league of henchmen later.
Dr Destroyer taking down Detroit (again)?
Well, there's got to be a city if you want to rule it! Fight that guy, if you want to still be in business!
Think of alerts in the same way!
Villain robbing a bank?
That fiend! I was scheduled for to go first in today's bank robbery! He's not following the plan we set out! Munition bots! Attack the traitor!
Hi Pan summoning some other kind of Dragon thing?
NO! I WANT THE POWER FOR MYSELF! RARR!
Hostages being taken in City Center?
Oh, seriously? Hostages? Listen, you're an idiot. I'm going to kill you, then kill all these guys who have hostage just to make people remember that I am evil and I do evil things, okay?
It's all attitude.
Why do you need an actual villain mode?
Villainy is only as evil as you make it!
Champions is all about making your character the way you see them being, and that doesn't actually necessarily mean you are a hero!
The NPCs might assume you're a hero because you're basically wearing a low budget Broadway musical costume designed by a half drunk monkey with no hands, but you know what?
You're still a villain.
Inside your heart, where the darkness lurks.
So go out there and do evil, and make us all sorry for ever thinking you could be good!
[this post was much longer than it was going to be, then I went all rantyspeechy blarrrgggh
side note: I wouldn't mind some antihero or just some neutral morality alignment missions from time to time though, things that are ambiguous whether they're good or bad perhaps, like saving a villain who then goes on to cause chaos later which you have to stop, or having to choose between hurting someone and letting them go when you catch them BEFORE they perpetrate their crime, meaning that no crime has yet taken place, but it will do if you let them go, but they haven't actually done it yet.
Reactionary behavior, insulting each other and their ideas of fun, when only a single sentence would suffice to end it all.
Let's destroy Cosmos to ashes!! :biggrin:
On the hero side, you are entrusted with tasks the big guys *can't* handle, and that gives the impression of what you're doing being meaningful.
Here's how I would handle villain content:
1. After designing your character, you go on to design your second in command. This character isn't played by you, but they serve as a "launching pad" for your machinations. They can be a willing toady that tips you off to new plots to enact, some "other" power that sets a path ahead of you, or even an equal that fights beside you and aids you every step of the way.
2. Next you would need to select your style of leadership - do you command from the shadows and amass a loyal army, do you lead your troops into battle personally, or do you go it alone, being a force of destruction in your own right?
3. Early on, you would work to establish a foothold in the world - you'd select a base of operations, the style and function of your evil empire, and populate said organization as you see fit. You'd follow leads to hire/persuade/extort/construct/conjure your minions. You'd establish dummy corporations and fronts for your empire, or you'd directly rob/pillage/demand tribute to fund your operations.
4. Once you've gotten your foundation established, *then* the real fun begins. Are death rays and holding the world hostage your thing, or are you about setting plots in motion and getting the heroes to unwittingly do what you want? Perhaps you hire some low-level villain to pull a heist, then only once the hero arrives to thwart it, do you spring your trap.
And this is where the interaction of different players comes into play - some highly rewarding missions would be designed in such a way that higher level villains would *need* to employ lower level ones, in order to succeed. And if you, as a lower level player, choose to accept another player's mission, you start to form a relationship. But even then, maybe you'll try to double-cross your "boss" at some point. Again, things would be arranged in such a way that even "losing" to your usurper has its rewards. Now you learn about this betrayer, and can begin your own efforts at revenge.
On the other hand, you may choose to play the loyal lieutenant, or honorable merc - fulfilling your contracts and receiving a reward commensurate with your abilities and successes. Eventually, you may choose to start up your own empire, but instead of pursuing your own agendas, you hire your organization out.
This would be a self-perpetuating game, where player plots and schemes aid others'.
The only issue where I get stuck is how to handle players having contradictory goals, or ones who simply want to wipe others out. I suppose this could just be PvP instances, but that just seems to bland.
I suppose you'd also need an element of traditional MMO content - where you could simply take missions from NPC organizations, if you simply wanted to fight good guys in a more direct fashion, as well...
TL:DR - Villains are too proactive to work properly as a carbon-copy of the hero side, where you just rob/attack instead of protect/defend.
"Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark
Official NW_Legit_Community Forums