PaxArcana

That would require forking the codebase, meaning there would be two entirely separate versions of the game to patch and maintain. Which makes it not worth the time and energy it would take to do it. Yup. While there are good and decent PvPers out there .... they seem, in my experience, to be in the minority in that community. The community as a whole is a cesspit, and as a whole always seems - in many games, not just CoX - to want to drag everyone else into PvP with them, to give themselves more people to "pwn". Not more actual competition, mind. Just victims. Example, somewhat: Auto Assault. There I am, a fresh 60 on a team, in Ground Zero (that game's entire Endgame was basically "constant PvP in the final zone"). I am literally the least-capable member of that team. So ... of course ... who does every non-allied PvPer make a beeline for, every time I respawn? YUP: me. Those guys didn't want a challenge, they didn't want combat with a peer. They just wanted easy victories. The easier, the better. (And I can't believe I stuck it out in that zone for nearly as long as I did ...)

Don't assume they are heroes only because they don't know they have options. Many - arguably, most - of those characters are heroes, because their players want them to be.

HOLY CRAP ... yeah, if that guy says "the sky is blue", I'm'a look out the gorram window before I believe him, after reading that shit ... just ... HOLY. FUCKING. SHIT. BATMAN ...!! O_O

Um. Since I left CoX when Issue 13 was still the current state of the game, I'm talking about a timeframe of 11 to 14 years ago, right? (And, tending closer to 14 than to 11.) So no, I don't remember any specific details from that far back. I just remember, at least once every other week, finding "yet another make people go to the PvP zone" thread in the Suggestions forums. In general, vague terms, things like "making at least one mission of every TF or SF happen in a PvP zone", so that anyone doing the TF would have to go into a PvP zone, even if they hated PvP. Or - very similar to this thread, I think you'll agree - changing some accolade's requirements, especially exploration badges, so you had to go into PvP zones to get them. Want the shiny accolade? Go PVP for it, or live without. Always, the goal claimed was "to increase the population in PvP zones, which is good, right?" The unstated reality, however, was that the majority of that "increased population" would have no interest in PvP at all, would not have a PvP build, and would have little or no PvP skill. They would essentially just be victims on a menu for the less-honorable in the PvP community. And when the people making or supporting the latest suggestion had that pointed out to them, you know what the most common term used by them, was? "Carebear". ... So, yeah. Big red flags. Sorry (not sorry).

The attempts weren't successful. But the Live PVP community, at least early after CoV's launch (issue 6), was constantly, regularly, like clockwork making suggestions that would have forced PvE players into the PvP zones. To the point where anything even edging slightly close to that sort of thing, starts waving great big red flags all over the place, for me.

What worries me is: First, it's "add these to PvP so we don't have to PvE". Then, it's "Take the PvE way to get these out of the game, so everyone has to PvP to get them because that means more people doing PvP." I've seen that attempt before in other games. Hell, I've seen similar done in this game, on Live, back around i8 or i10. The goal isn't really to get more people to enjoy PvP. The goal is to get more people to be victims in PvP.

... in that case, /JRanger.

Yellow card on the field; Tu Coque fallacy in play. 10-yard penalty. The (few) infringements I commit are still wrong. They are, IMO, slightly less wrong than stealing a current game, because they do significantly less harm to the rights holder. It's a difference in degree, not kind. And I have never suggested or implied otherwise. ... As a kid, I would cut through other peoples' yards to make "shortcuts" all the time. I was a kid, and saw no harm in doing so. I would not, however, have let myself into a stranger's house to use the bathroom, no matter how desperately I needed a toilet. My reasoning at the time, could be summed up as: trespassing on an unfenced yard < trespassing in someone's locked house. Both were still wrong, but one was much more wrong than the other. Similarly, pirating a thirty-year-old SNES title < pirating a current-release PC game. They're both wrong, but the former is below my threshold of "too wrong to do", while the latter is above it. Hence why, all along, I've cited my personal ethics, not any objective moral standard.

.... more gaming. Except, I don't mean video games. I mean, tabletop "pencil paper and dice" role-playing games. Shadowrun, Dungeons & Dragons, and more. Don't have a group to actually PLAY the games with right now, sadly. When I was a kid - 12, 14, all the way through about 22 really - it was easy to have a regular day or night each week, on which to game ... easy for the whole group, I mean. But, now that I'm an adult? And so are the people I'd be playing with? Jobs, kids, the house, the car, the in-laws ... so many other things (rightfully) taking precedence over game night, that it's insanely hard to find a group whose schedules consistently match up, anymore. 😢

It doesn't have to be a DC or Marvel game. CoX wasn't. I'm just saying, right now "superheroes are BIG" ... and if a game that's been dead and buried for almost a decade, a game that came out in 2004, can draw lots of gamers to it ... ... then maybe someone, somewhere, will decide to try making a modern superhero MMO, again. 🙂

... because some of us witnessed map-herding exploits first-hand, back in the day ... behaviors that were the foundational reason why the aggro cap was instituted in the first place.

No, not at all. But, hey, if you want to go feeling morally inferior over it? That's on you, not me. For my own self, IP infringement strikes too close to home to ever be entirely comfortable with it - I've known people on a first-name basis, who relied on IP protections to put food on their table, and a roof over their kids' heads. I'll occasionally make exceptions for stuff that's tremendously old, especially when the original hardware either doesn't exist, or is a 4-figure eBay find - SNES console emulation, for example - because, pretty much, all the money possible has been made on them (and most of the time, I actually owned the title(s) in question back in the day, anyway). But current titles? No. My personal sense of ethics doesn't allow me to act that way.

Oh sure, it wasn't required. But far, far too many PUGs _did_ do it that way. Especially the ones organized and led by a Fire Tank.

Then don't try to herd the entire room at once. Pull in what you can manage at once, and finish them = chew and swallow before taking the next bite. ... not all at once, no. But Fire/Fire tanks used to race around entire maps, taunting everything, and drawing them all back to a single room. While everyone else was required to stand by the mission door, and do nothing.

Stop trying to herd entire maps, then. That is the exact behavior the aggro cap was intended to curtail.

Maybe Chuckers is remembering from back on Live, before that change happened? Because what he says was true, back in issues 6, 7, and I think 8 at least ...

100% agreement with Redlynne on this. If CoX can succeed (again) where DCO and MUO both failed, it's possible that a developer and/or publisher out there - maybe even NCSoft - will realize that it's important for players to be able to make their OWN hero. (And perhaps they will also see what CO did wrong, and avoid repeating the error ... hey, a guy can dream, can't he?)

A server NCSoft is fully aware of, and has yet to issue a C&D letter against. Indeed, NCSoft is currently at the negotiating table in talks whose goal is to fully legitimize that very server. Not to mention, way back in the day, I actually bought the game. More than once (standard COH, standard COV, then CE of each). And, IIRC, the game went free-to-play at some point, so I'm not even "stealing" subscription time. No, I won't forgive you for that .... because it's not true. Two wrongs do not make a right; a thing either is ethical, or it is not - the unwillingness of some other party to behave ethically, does not change what is or isn't ethical to begin with.

The Homecoming team, and NCSoft, have been in talks for weeks now, maybe a couple months, about legitimizing the servers.

Two wrongs do not make a right. I choose to take the higher road, as a matter of personal ethics. 🙂

Oh, how I wish that could happen. But I'm not going to spend any energy actively hoping for it - because, as Redlynne and Abraxas have already pointed out, there are some serious hurdles to overcome for it to even be a possibility. If a miracle occurs, I will rejoice. If it doesn't ... eh, I'll just do what I always do ... and roll another alt. 😄

Because everyone deserves to have fun, not just the select few.

A large influx of players here, could also convince a publisher or developer that there's room for a modern Superhero MMO to succeed, even if only modestly. Especially with the advent of the MCU and MCEU (and to a lesser extent, even the DCCU) making superheroes "mainstream popular" nowadays.

Or, you know, just living without. It's not like food, water, medicine, or shelter (which are absolutely required for survival). It's games, which are just entertainment ... and there are plenty of other options out there for that, without having to resort to thievery. 🙂

Yes, it absolutely does. A Mastermind running Leadership, gives those bonusses to not just themselves, but every pet they have out too. Indeed, one of the Mastermind Primaries - Thugs - has two pets (the Tier 2 "Enforcers") who have their OWN Leadership powers (that only affect MM pets, not players, including their own MM). Leadership is one of the "must have" pools for most MM builds, for that very reason.