Make Red Side Great Again

[tjknight]

I played Red Side almost exclusively, once COV launched. My toons backstories had a more Magneto or Catwoman vibe than "OMIGERD I'm EBILLLLL".  Which I think is actually fits the majority of villain side story-lines.  My take is that hero side content is just way too easy, especially with Incarnates and IO's. If you want a challenge after 50, it's always been my suggestion to go over to the Rogue Isles and do some of 50+ plus arcs there. But people rarely do.... with the exception of the Patron arc.  And the Patron arc is done because it gives a desirable reward. 

 

So I guess what I'm saying is it's not the villain content or the story lines that are the issue.  It's the fact that hero content is probably too easy. So easy in fact, that the only reason to do villain content is get something valuable for the extra effort.  And that one reason for most people is the Villain Patron Epic pools. 

 

In short, red side being sparsely occupied comes down to the fact, there are very few compelling reasons to play as villain.  

Edited April 27, 2020 by tjknight

[Chris24601]

The key thing for me in improving Red-side is understanding the appeal of a villain protagonist and, further, the tropes you need to employ when said stories about a villain protagonist end with their victory (versus one that ends in failure or a pyrrhic victory).

 

As someone who actually took classes on screenwriting, the most important thing you’re ever taught is that stories which don’t employ classical plot structure appeal to less than 10% of the population.

 

This is important because one of the most critical elements of classical plot structure is that the protagonist must get their just deserts. That means if your story protagonist is a straight up villain (ex. MacBeth) they need to be defeated in the end.

 

Darth Vader is cool and people may fantasize about being him, but most who do are NOT fantasizing about when he murdered the younglings. They’re mostly fantasizing about having the power to do whatever they want to people they feel have wronged them. He also gets bonus points for his ultimate heroic sacrifice proving that he wasn’t actually “all bad.”

 

The way you write around this issue and allow the villain to win in fiction is right there in the fantasy... the audience needs to feel that the villain’s victim(s) deserve what comes to them.

 

That’s why heist films often revolve around stealing from a corrupt or evil target (or is being done under duress and a critical part of the story is how the protagonist(s) ultimately reverse the situation to deal with the villain who put them under duress).

 

It’s also why many villain solo titles end up pitting them against a bigger bad (including hypocritical heroes; one reason why the “Longbow is mind controlling villains” arc works because their righteous comeuppance feeling earned).

 

The number of potential players who will enjoy arcs where you get away with harming the innocent is, if the numbers the professors of screenwriting provided hold true in this medium, about 10% of the audience of a heroic one (including one where a villain targets someone deserving).

 

Basically, if you want to grow the Red-side population you need more content that is less Westin Phelps crushing the hopes of the innocent (appeals to maybe 10% of general audiences) and more like the Rogue alignment and morality missions where the plucky protagonist outplays the bigger bads and/or hypocritical heroes and walks away with whatever they were after in the process (appeals to 90% of general audiences).

 

Or to be even more succinct; write mainly for the rogues with an option for being a complete monster instead of writing arcs for complete monsters as the default (that may or may not have an option to fail a final timed mission to feel a bit less like a heel).

 

The biggest problem vanilla Red-side had, from my experience was that while there were a fair number of more rogue-ish missions in the lower levels... those really started to peter out in favor of “be a complete monster” missions the higher in level you get.

 

In lieu of new content (which will take time), one way to help make Red-side more appealing would be to clearly label the existing contacts/arcs as either “Rogue” (primary targets of the arc ‘deserve’ it) or “Villain” (primary targets don’t deserve it) AND adjust contact introductions so that you don’t need to finish a villain arc to be introduced to a new rogue contact or visa versa.

 

This will create a cleaner path for those who want to experience Red-side without playing as a complete monster (and make it easier for those who do want to be complete monsters to pick the right contacts as well).

[MTeague]

7 hours ago, Chris24601 said:

In lieu of new content (which will take time), one way to help make Red-side more appealing would be to clearly label the existing contacts/arcs as either “Rogue” (primary targets of the arc ‘deserve’ it) or “Villain” (primary targets don’t deserve it) AND adjust contact introductions so that you don’t need to finish a villain arc to be introduced to a new rogue contact or visa versa.

I can definitely get on board with giving people a better feel for what their getting into before they're committed to a story arc.

 

That said, there are actually fairly few Westin Phipps worthy villainous arcs out there.

 

There are a lot of villain arcs where... quite frankly... I think the writers forgot one key step.  "What is my villain's motivation to do this contact's bidding?"]

 

Sure, at low level, when my character is a relative nobody, maybe I'll help out Billie Heck because building some street cred with the Family sounds good.  Or help out Mr. Bocor to have a voodoo master owe me a favor.  

 

But at high level?  Sure.  I could help Victor Von Grun do his Mad Science research.  .... but why?  Why am I helping HIM unlock some way to bring a portion of the devouring earth under HIS control?  In what possible way does this further MY villian's machinations?  Or if we want to go with the classic themes as you say, how does it help me get payback on people who have wronged me?  Similarly, even for Westin Phipps.  Okay.  Dude's a monster.  Kicks puppies for the lulz.  Why does my villain care?  What do I get out of helping him?  Am I at least getting some components for my Moonbase Laser to ransom the world for One Meeeeelion Dollars?

 

That would of course, take a good bit of reworking existing story arcs to feed that. 

 

But it is an angle I'd like considered for future redside stories.

[Rathulfr]

11 minutes ago, MTeague said:

I can definitely get on board with giving people a better feel for what their getting into before they're committed to a story arc.

 

That said, there are actually fairly few Westin Phipps worthy villainous arcs out there.

 

There are a lot of villain arcs where... quite frankly... I think the writers forgot one key step.  "What is my villain's motivation to do this contact's bidding?"]

 

Sure, at low level, when my character is a relative nobody, maybe I'll help out Billie Heck because building some street cred with the Family sounds good.  Or help out Mr. Bocor to have a voodoo master owe me a favor.  

 

But at high level?  Sure.  I could help Victor Von Grun do his Mad Science research.  .... but why?  Why am I helping HIM unlock some way to bring a portion of the devouring earth under HIS control?  In what possible way does this further MY villian's machinations?  Or if we want to go with the classic themes as you say, how does it help me get payback on people who have wronged me?  Similarly, even for Westin Phipps.  Okay.  Dude's a monster.  Kicks puppies for the lulz.  Why does my villain care?  What do I get out of helping him?  Am I at least getting some components for my Moonbase Laser to ransom the world for One Meeeeelion Dollars?

 

That would of course, take a good bit of reworking existing story arcs to feed that. 

 

But it is an angle I'd like considered for future redside stories.

Coincidentally, I just ran the entire set of Westin Phipps missions for the lulz, on my villain named Wrongbow.  And I did my find myself asking myself, "What's in this for me?"  The answer was: "Not much."

Edited April 28, 2020 by Rathulfr

[Rathulfr]

10 hours ago, tjknight said:

I played Red Side almost exclusively, once COV launched. My toons backstories had a more Magneto or Catwoman vibe than "OMIGERD I'm EBILLLLL".  Which I think is actually fits the majority of villain side story-lines.  My take is that hero side content is just way too easy, especially with Incarnates and IO's. If you want a challenge after 50, it's always been my suggestion to go over to the Rogue Isles and do some of 50+ plus arcs there. But people rarely do.... with the exception of the Patron arc.  And the Patron arc is done because it gives a desirable reward. 

 

So I guess what I'm saying is it's not the villain content or the story lines that are the issue.  It's the fact that hero content is probably too easy. So easy in fact, that the only reason to do villain content is get something valuable for the extra effort.  And that one reason for most people is the Villain Patron Epic pools. 

 

In short, red side being sparsely occupied comes down to the fact, there are very few compelling reasons to play as villain.  

Agreed: playing blue is the path of least resistance.  If my goal is to get to 50 a.s.a.p., or to join a team for a bit of a challenge but not too much effort, then blue side is the safe bet.  When you're facing Wrongbow and Arachnos at level 1, red side seems like too much work (and don't even get me started on the gold side lowbie experience -- *shudder*).

 

Too bad it's a catch-22: everyone complains that blue side is too easy, but almost nobody makes the effort to tackle the challenges of red or gold side.  I've spent hours in red and gold zones that are completely deserted except for me.  But I can't run for more than 50 yards without encountering another player in most blue side zones (high-level hazard zones being the obvious exception).

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by Rathulfr

[ArchVileTerror]

24601; I generally like what you have to say on a lot of topics.

 

But games aren't films.

 

There are definitely valuable lessons to be learnt, but games are their own medium with their own audiances with their own motivations for wanting to engage with the medium.

 

Please.  Don't use screenwriting lessons as the be-all-end-all for roleplaying game writing.  They are VERY different beasts.

[Apparition]

10 hours ago, tjknight said:

I played Red Side almost exclusively, once COV launched. My toons backstories had a more Magneto or Catwoman vibe than "OMIGERD I'm EBILLLLL".  Which I think is actually fits the majority of villain side story-lines.  My take is that hero side content is just way too easy, especially with Incarnates and IO's. If you want a challenge after 50, it's always been my suggestion to go over to the Rogue Isles and do some of 50+ plus arcs there. But people rarely do.... with the exception of the Patron arc.  And the Patron arc is done because it gives a desirable reward. 

 

So I guess what I'm saying is it's not the villain content or the story lines that are the issue.  It's the fact that hero content is probably too easy. So easy in fact, that the only reason to do villain content is get something valuable for the extra effort.  And that one reason for most people is the Villain Patron Epic pools. 

 

In short, red side being sparsely occupied comes down to the fact, there are very few compelling reasons to play as villain.  

 

"Very few compelling reasons to play as villain" depends on your point of view.  Personally, I find blue side as dull as dirt.  Atlas Park is a lag fest.  The rest of the zones (with the exceptions of Croatoa and Faultline), are drab and boring.  With few exceptions (Croatoa, Faultline, and others), the mission arcs are monotonous.   "Go see Joe in Skyway!"  Arrive in Skyway,  "Hi Joe!"  Joe: "Hi, caped crusader.  Would you go to Perez Park and beat up fifteen Hellions for me so my grandma can take a stroll?"  Heck, up until the last few issues prior to sunset, the task forces were dull as dirt as well.  Some still are, (looking at you, Synapse and the Shard).  Most of the villains are cake walks as well.  "Looking for members for +4x8 Council radio missions!"

 

Then later the same people running those +4x8 Council only radio missions complain that the game is too easy.

 

Red side being more difficult is a compelling reason to play as a villain.  That most of the red side story arcs are much more self contained within a zone is a compelling reason to play as a villain.  The much better writing on a whole is a compelling reason to play as a villain.  That there are only seven zones instead of twenty is a compelling reason to play as a villain.  For me, IMO, that some of the red side zones are designed around flight is a compelling reason to play as a villain.

[Chris24601]

16 hours ago, ArchVileTerror said:

24601; I generally like what you have to say on a lot of topics.

 

But games aren't films.

 

There are definitely valuable lessons to be learnt, but games are their own medium with their own audiances with their own motivations for wanting to engage with the medium.

 

Please.  Don't use screenwriting lessons as the be-all-end-all for roleplaying game writing.  They are VERY different beasts.

I know they’re not films, but the generally linear nature of missions makes them much closer to traditional storytelling than not. That means much of the appeal is playing out the role of protagonist in a story.

 

It’s not an accident that Red-side populations hover at around 15% or less of the total player base... it’s human nature.

 

Human nature is that most of us perceive reality through the lens of being the protagonist of our own stories who actively struggles to overcome external forces (even if its really an internal problem, human nature is to externalize/cast blame outside one’s self) in linear time with a defined beginning and ending and we hope to receive what we feel out our just rewards for our efforts (and that those who wronged us get theirs too).

 

In general, the number of people who don’t ascribe to that worldview and thus find other story structures appealing is around 10% of the population and nothing is going to change that.

 

The reason my professors spent so much time time drilling that into the students was not to say “don’t write that way” but to make you understand that the potential audience for a story with a non-classical plot is much more limited and to budget your project accordingly.

 

Bringing this around to Red-side it means you’ve basically got two, mutually exclusive, options.

 

You can have a larger playerbase (by focusing on writing for the rogues) or you can have your “monsters win” content (by focusing on writing for the villains)

 

But you can’t have both because there’s just not enough of the player base comfortable with playing an outright villain to ever get you past that 10% threshold (the extra 5% Red-side are most likely those running the arcs where they can feel like the villain protagonist, more a rogue, in a classical story construction).

[ArchVileTerror]

The issue is in the disregard for the inherent power of interactivity in the medium of video games.

Stories here do not need to be linear.

That's huge.  It's something that many writers for traditional media fail to realize when they make the jump to writing for video games.  There's a major paradigm shift that generally needs to take place to break authors free from getting trapped under the weight of assumptions borne of the limitations of other media.

 

In other words:  Even if we reduced things to only two options (which we don't need to), they never have to be mutually exclusive.  The writer just needs to trust the audience to help them make the concessions to allow for it.  And this isn't even talking about branching dialogue.  It's purely about using specific language to load the player in to a position where THEY get to make the decisions on things like motivation and intent of their own character.

[Herotu]

18 hours ago, ArchVileTerror said:

24601; I generally like what you have to say on a lot of topics.

 

But games aren't films.

 

There are definitely valuable lessons to be learnt, but games are their own medium with their own audiances with their own motivations for wanting to engage with the medium.

 

Please.  Don't use screenwriting lessons as the be-all-end-all for roleplaying game writing.  They are VERY different beasts.

Distinguishing between genres of medium is easily said when not actively participating in their consumption.

 

The word "immersion" is bandied about a lot and you can see the reason why. It's because when you're absorbed in a game, you're actively participating in ROLE-PLAY: you're being the character. 

[AkuTenshiiZero]

I love the idea of giving the "losing side" a benefit.  I suggested this a long time ago, that there be a passive bonus given to whichever side has the least active players:

 

Too many Heroes: "With all the villains being locked up these days, there's more opportunities for up-and-coming ne'er-do-wells."

Too many Villains: "Paragon is in constant peril these days, now is the perfect time for new Heroes to do some real good."

 

Buuuuuuuut...Null exists.  I have been harping on this since the very inception of Homecoming, the bird needs to be shut down (By which I mean the alignment switching, everything else is fine).  Having a quick-and-easy method of switching sides completely eradicates any point in having factions, because everyone will just instantly switch to whichever side is more popular.  Nobody plays villains because there is no commitment to playing a villain, they just take their grimdark demon beast character to blueside and play there.  The alignment system, as it was intended, forces the players to make a choice and makes it difficult to change that choice.  Sometimes limiting the players is better for the game, and this is one reason why.

 

Kill the damn bird.

[Herotu]

7 hours ago, AkuTenshiiZero said:

I love the idea of giving the "losing side" a benefit.  I suggested this a long time ago, that there be a passive bonus given to whichever side has the least active players:

 

Too many Heroes: "With all the villains being locked up these days, there's more opportunities for up-and-coming ne'er-do-wells."

Too many Villains: "Paragon is in constant peril these days, now is the perfect time for new Heroes to do some real good."

 

Buuuuuuuut...Null exists.  I have been harping on this since the very inception of Homecoming, the bird needs to be shut down (By which I mean the alignment switching, everything else is fine).  Having a quick-and-easy method of switching sides completely eradicates any point in having factions, because everyone will just instantly switch to whichever side is more popular.  Nobody plays villains because there is no commitment to playing a villain, they just take their grimdark demon beast character to blueside and play there.  The alignment system, as it was intended, forces the players to make a choice and makes it difficult to change that choice.  Sometimes limiting the players is better for the game, and this is one reason why.

 

Kill the damn bird.

Ye... I get this. ... and YET, I still want to be able to go and grab Scorpion shield etc. without jumping through a million hoops on the way there and another million to get back.

 

I think a lot of players don't understand that games require limits. That's what makes them games. 

Edited April 29, 2020 by Herotu

[Peacemoon]

Well it’s a lot easier to become infamous than famous. I think it’s a great idea, providing you can somehow reduce the farmer bait. Although pro farmers moving to the rogue isle wouldn’t be a bad thing, and perhaps even quite apt!

[MTeague]

I do not like Null. 

I do not use Null. 

Null is dead to me.

 

But if Null were removed from the game today, I don't think it would meaningfully change anything.

X% of blueside players would just use Ancillary arcs instead of Patron pools.

Others would just form Tip Mission Groups and do the tip missions to switch Hero to Vig, Vig to Villain, get the Patron power, and then Tip MIssions Villain to Rogue, and Rogue back to Hero. 

And it would take them a lot longer. 

And they'd be very unhappy about it. 

And they'd bitch a lot.

But they still wouldn't STAY redside if they weren't already going to.

 

So if the net effect is "nothing changes but you piss lots of people off".... then leave the bird alone.  Let people shazam it if they want.

 

If you really want to build up redside players, you need to make them want to DO redside content.

 

Now if you actually LOST ACCESS to Patron Pools the second you returned to Hero or Vig, that MIGHT get X people to stay for the Patron pools.  Might.

But I think you'd probably have lots of people just using Hero Epic Pools.

And those who did stay would feel coerced, not like it was a thing they wanted to do.

 

I'd rather have people play redside because they want to try a character concept rather than just for powergaming reasons.

 

 

[Chris24601]

4 hours ago, MTeague said:

Now if you actually LOST ACCESS to Patron Pools the second you returned to Hero or Vig, that MIGHT get X people to stay for the Patron pools.  Might.

But I think you'd probably have lots of people just using Hero Epic Pools.

And those who did stay would feel coerced, not like it was a thing they wanted to do.

The only reason I ever take a hero redside is because my desire for thematic purity (ex. there is no charge mastery option and nothing about lightning makes it deserve to be villain only) outways my desire for my hero to remain pure.

 

There’s also NOTHING about the patron pools that makes them a power gaming option compared to the ancillary equivalents. Theme is literally the only reason to take one.

 

So take away Mu Mastery from my main after I sullied them with villain missions/badges because my theme was just that important to me and I’ll just be pissed off, stop playing the game for awhile and never touch the character again when I come back... and I’ll never use my Red-side character again just to spite whichever person suggested taking it away to get me to play Red-side.

 

So I agree with you. The ONLY thing that will make Red-side more populated is to give people real character concept reasons to want to stay.

 

I know, for me, I relate a LOT with the backstory of Dean MacArthur. A good cop has a bad day (his father is murdered and the perp gets off on a technicality) and goes too far in the heat of passion (kills his father’s murderer) and then has to go on the run because the cops he served with now see him as a villain (never mind that they looked the other way at Blue Shield beating a teenager to death because the kid’s out of control powers killed a cop).

 

There’s a sense of injustice to what befell him and his claiming that things are “more honest” (and more free) in the Rogue Isles is something several other contacts repeat in the earlier levels that appeals to the romantic notions of noble rebellion against a corrupt authority (bolstered by several earlmissions that show off the corruption in Longbow).

 

In a way, Red-side could easily be recast as the Freedom (good and bad) to Blue-side’s Order (good and bad). The Rogue Isles are a corrupt nation led by authoritarian tyrants (aka Arachnos) and the players are going after the corrupt  authorities and power brokers using theft, blackmail, assassinations, etc. for whatever reason you care to invent.

 

Remember, Robin Hood was a criminal. Danny Ocean and his crew were criminals. Batman and the Joker are both criminals in the same corrupt city where the authorities outside of Jim Gordon and a couple of cops are as bad as many villains.

 

The Joker and Batman could both do a mission chain to take down a corrupt businessman. The only difference is motive... Batman is trying to expose the man and force the corrupt authorities to save face by putting him away while the Joker just plans to murder the man because his comic themed demise will be a public spectacle. And Deadpool might do either depending on who’s paying him to do it.

 

A tech-themed villain might do it because the guy’s company has proprietary tech they want.

 

More missions where the motivation is more open to interpretation because the target is sketchy would certainly make Red-side more appealing to more people I think. Your motives could be as selfless as Robin Hood robbing from the corrupt rich to give to the poor... as selfish as just hitting them for a payday... or as villainous as wanting his resources for a bigger evil scheme... or as petty as wanting to inflict pain on someone better off than you are.

 

Basically missions open to villains, rogues and vigilantes where the main differences are a couple bits of dialogue due to your motivation.

[ArchVileTerror]

Aye, Chris.  Precisely.  That's what I've been getting at for a while now (or at least trying to).

[Chris24601]

Honestly, one of the biggest turnoffs Red-side for me is when an arc/mission goes and assumes your motivations.

 

For example, the “extended tutorial” arcs with Dr. Graves make all sorts of assumptions that you’re just a brutal thug who’s perfectly okay with betraying your fellow outlaws and people willing to be your lackey.

 

The mission where you have no option in giving that Skull who wants to be your lackey over to the sadistic serial-killer Crosscut after he’s been nothing but helpful to you rubs me raw and is a prime example of how Red-side’s assumptions of motivation can drive people off.

 

I literally re-rolled one of my few Red-Side toons the first time I finished that mission because my concept was an honorable thief type... not someone willing to throw people to serial killers for their own gain.

 

Having to research missions on a wiki so you don’t end up with your lovable Rogue concept crossing the moral event horizon into a complete monster because you started the wrong arc just make Red-side a lot more work than playing Blue-side, where you never have to worry about an arc turning you into a mass murderer

 

Frankly, the number of “leave no witnesses” missions you’ll find just dropped in the middle of random arcs Red-side is rather obnoxious. It’s bad enough that the only toon on HC I’ve actually kept Red-side past about level 20 (typically I only roll Red-side to play through the villain-to-rogue-to-hero tip/alignment missions for a “rocky-start rogue who becomes a hero” concept) has subsisted on virtually nothing but double XP, very select contacts (ex. Bane Spider Reuben, Dean MacArthur/Leonard, Hardcase, First/Night Ward, Vanguard), defeat other villain newspaper missions and rogue tip/alignment missions.

 

Hell, the only reason I even rolled that one was to help out a real life friend who I’ve introduced to the game and wanted to try Red-side. If not for their sticking out on Red-side I’d have already turned my Rogue Widow to Blue-side and not looked back.

 

That’s largely because the further up the levels you go, the more often the Red-side missions assume outright degenerate villainy as your character’s motivation.

 

If you’re in that 90% who prefer classical plot construction (and I’m actually so far into this category I honestly can’t even pretend to appreciate the artistic merits of non-classically plotted stories... they’re garbage storytelling from my PoV) then those sort of missions just sap your desire to continue playing a Red-side toon.

 

Seriously, I’m to the point with the Rogue I’m using to assist my friend where I’m seriously considering running the rogue-to-hero tip missions and then use Null to go vigilante-in-name-only so I can solo Blue-side hero content and still team with my friend.

 

All because of Red-side’s rather odious habit of presuming actively malicious motivations for characters on Red-side even though Rogues are also present.