Making killing hostages fail TFs?

[justicebeliever]

That would mean a moratorium ALL suggestions...There is no one suggesting anything on this board that isn't someone's personal preference...

That's a bit facetious. There are plenty of preferences that can be voiced that aren't forcing anything on others. I'd prefer it if Null had a no-fx option for barrier. It'd help me see better in caves and wouldn't bother anyone. That's entirely different from wanting to change how a TF works for everyone because it doesn't fit someone's concept of heroism. These boards are full of suggestions like that. Everyone should stop speeding because i like to read the stories... Stop PLs because I like to level slowly... Change how the market works because I'm not able to make money the exact way I did on live...

 

That's fair, and HC's philosophy has definitely been about enabling choices, not restricting them...And for the record, I like the philosophy.  Read my posts, I am all about not pushing leveling choices on people.  But regardless we are going to face some choices where only one group can be satisfied...Build Changes, Power Changes, IO Set Changes, what not. 

 

Now for this specific change, the game is not consistent.  Renaults SF fails if you don't rescue the hostage (and that's on the villain side).  Moonfire, admittedly, is pretty hard to have the hostage die, unless everyone just abandons her.  Lady Grey is the one driving most of the discussion here...

 

One of the best things about this game is that it offers so many different ways to play and have fun. Why impose unnecessary limits? When I run with my usual group we let the hostages die for speed. Every time I run LG or Moonfire with a pug I ask going into the missions what the leader/team wants to do and go with whatever they say. It's not rocket surgery.

 

Again, fair point.  I would argue that game mechanics are the reason to impose limits.  With these missions, it is a mission objective, and failing a mission objective should have consequences.  I will say that in 100% of the PUG's I have been on, neither I nor anyone else has ever had the conversation you are describing, but again, that's not saying that it is rocket surgery either.

 

If you are running TF's solely for speed, then I'm unclear why you would pick Moonfire at all...it's a total slog, and unnecessary for any accolades.  And IMHO, the most BORING of all the TF's (Hey, wow, the council's in a cave again...for the eight time).  If you are going for speed records and a change is made, then the playing field is still level and no harm, no foul.

 

You've made some good points, Veelectric Boogaloo.  +1 Inf

 

 

 

 

[OEM61]

/jranger

 

if you don't want them to die then don't let them on your run. leave my run alone. can we get a moratorium on suggestions which involve forcing a personal preference on everyone, please? besides, glacia totally deserves it (she knows what she did).

 

You may not know that "they" are on "your" run until everyone decides not to defend the hostage.

 

The game has stories.  TFs have stories.

If you are rescuing a bunch of random office workers that get taken hostage and have to escort them out?  A death or two or ten wouldn't necessarily impact the larger mission.

 

I would, on hero side especially, advocate for a reduced reward if the hostages die*, though.  Influence is a representation of our character's reputation and if you are the guy that was responsible for what has become known as the "Paragon Legal Services Slaughter" then that reputation won't be worth much.

 

If the hostage(s) are important, on the other hand, then yeah, a botched rescue should require more.

"You have to save Dr. Smartgirl!  She told us that she had made a major breakthrough before she was kidnapped!".

 

Okay, so you save her you get the benefit of her knowledge.  She dies?  You have to go to another map and search for clues so that you can hope to discover the breakthrough yourself.  It makes sense in terms of the story.

 

 

* Redside could just flip it.  It all ends up in the same place.  The hero is expected to save lives and so they lose standing for failing.

The villain is not expected to save lives, necessarily, but if they do so then it would give them a bit of a boost with at least some people.

 

Story still takes precedent, though.

Let the office workers die?  Whatever.  You trade speed for influence/infamy.

 

Let Dr. Smartguy die?  You need to put together what he knew during the course of another mission.

 

[Mr. Vee]

 

 

If you are running TF's solely for speed, then I'm unclear why you would pick Moonfire at all...it's a total slog, and unnecessary for any accolades.  And IMHO, the most BORING of all the TF's (Hey, wow, the council's in a cave again...for the eight time).  If you are going for speed records and a change is made, then the playing field is still level and no harm, no foul.

 

You've made some good points, Veelectric Boogaloo.  +1 Inf

 

Back at ya. Not running moonfire solely for speed, usually running it for atlas medallion kills. But once you've gotten through those kill all or de facto kill all caves there are a couple zippy missions. Also I've been on many runs where we decided not to kill the doc and she was so kamikaze we couldn't keep her alive anyway :D

 

Oh and to the various folks talking about letting hostages 'die' - failed missions of this type generally have the contact mention the hospital porter getting them out.

 

e.g.

Dr. Todd should recover any day. When I spoke with her, she described a great energy transfer device Arakhn forced her to develop. I believe I know what it is.

 

[Shinobu]

Let's just say I'm RPing as a Vigilante who knows that the #1 goal is to take Arakhn out by the most expedient means possible, and if Dr. Todd is going to get herself "defeated" (and transferred to the hospital, as noted) then it is not my responsibility to save her and in fact doing so risks my overall mission of defeating Arakhn as quickly as I can.

 

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  If Dr. Todd has to die so that I can complete my mission faster, so be it.  I'm a hero who sees the bigger picture, not one of those soft-headed types who thinks they can save every last soul.  I don't want to lose focus on the main mission trying to solve everyone else's problems.  If you can't keep up then get out of the way because I've got a job to do.

 

If you ask me, heroes who take the time to escort Dr. Todd safely out of the caverns despite her near-suicidal willingness to attack everything she sees are the ones that should be penalized, because they are putting at risk the larger goal of stopping Arakhn.  Telling me I should be penalized for being efficient and having my eyes on the more important end goal is pathetic.  If you want to make an omelette you need to break a few eggs.

 

 

Now, maybe I just like speeding TFs as quickly as possible.  ;)  But people keep telling me what the heroic thing is to do, and I don't buy it.  Vigilantes and Rogues can do Moonfire too, and even heroes have to make decisions between rescuing everyone in danger that they see, or sticking to the more important mission of stopping the true threat.  It's not as black and white as "if you let Dr. Todd die you're not a true hero".  It never was.

 

 

 

[justicebeliever]

If you ask me, heroes who take the time to escort Dr. Todd safely out of the caverns despite her near-suicidal willingness to attack everything she sees are the ones that should be penalized, because they are putting at risk the larger goal of stopping Arakhn.  Telling me I should be penalized for being efficient and having my eyes on the more important end goal is pathetic.  If you want to make an omelette you need to break a few eggs.

 

I'm not sure I would call myself or Citadel pathetic...maybe optimistic that you can do 2 things in the same mission without sacrificing either goal...

 

Now, maybe I just like speeding TFs as quickly as possible.  ;)  But people keep telling me what the heroic thing is to do, and I don't buy it.  Vigilantes and Rogues can do Moonfire too, and even heroes have to make decisions between rescuing everyone in danger that they see, or sticking to the more important mission of stopping the true threat.  It's not as black and white as "if you let Dr. Todd die you're not a true hero".  It never was.

 

In the terms of real life, I would agree with you Shinobu...In terms of this mission, it is easily the case, that if you have the power to do something (save Todd and defeat the council), and you've chosen the duty of doing so (by accepting the mission), then yes, I would say if you let Dr. Todd die, you are NOT a true hero. 

 

Stepping out of morality however, this rule is not applied consistently.  The Renault SF (Villain side) does require hostage rescue or you fail the SF...So if even an out and out villain can save the hostage, I'm confident that the slightly higher ethical code of a vigilant or rogue can handle it as well.

[Heraclea]

The AI should be changed in that case to make these NPCs act like hostages whose number one priority is escape.  In game, they actually act like they have a death wish.  They will aggro spawns you could have easily slipped past or even just ran by.  The idiots in tips and radios may not be smart enough to find their way around a pipe, but at least they don't do the let's you and him fight routine of Todd and the Lady Grey hostages. 

[Burnt Toast]

Uh ok...

 

Just because RP is in the acronym of the game type doesn't mean people role play at all any more than it implies that people team up together (plenty of people solo their entire CoH existence).

 

I read the stories and that is the extent of my role playing. I find actual role playing nauseating and avoid it like the plague. My toons (not characters) do not have back stories. They do not have personalities. They are "avatars" with specific powers that I have chosen to complete tasks at the most efficient way possible. I don't spend hours in the costume creator - I have like 3 costumes i use for toons - although I do color their powers because that looks cool.

 

My objection is: I was a beta tester from Issue 6 through Issue 24... This issue was brought up and discussed at length between the beta community and the developers. It was decided by the developers and the community that failing this part of the task force was completely acceptable. You mention the moonfire task force.. that is a hero task force 100% and if you are going to apply your morality to it (which I still do not think should be done) then yes that hero task force should require the hostage to be saved in order to successfully complete the task force. The villain SF that requires it... should then alternatively be changed to reflect your moral standards of not requiring it. (I do not play villain side except to get my patron arc on some toons).

 

You can assume all you want (erroneously I might add), but that is just you ignoring the reasons that I (and others) have given for keeping the task force as is. I am all for change when it is not the result of someone's warped RP sense of morality, when it doesn't fly in the face of the way the game was designed (for 13 issues), and when it is not telling others how they must play. As it stands NO ONE is forced to let the hostages die or live.. it is an option... which is a good thing. If you personally object to this form of completion... don't join speed TFs/PUGs who are going to run it that way - that is your choice. Don't impose your beliefs of how it should be done discrediting the months of beta-testing, discussion, and ultimately the decision by the community and development team because you don't like it... thus robbing others of their choice or penalizing them for not playing how you think they should when the option to play YOUR way already exists.

 

 

Happy Independence Day Toast!  If you are in the US, I hope you have a grand celebration with fireworks, BBQ, and laughter...and my favorite: beer!  If not, then I still celebrate Freedom with you wherever you are, and still hope you have BBQ, laughter, and beer.  (Unless you are vegan, have wheat allergies, or avoid alcohol, in which case I still wish for laughter for you.)

 

1. This is a video game about heroes, villains, rogues, and vigilantes all of which take part in this task force. This is NOT a heroic task force - you can have a mixed team or a team of all heroes/villains. So let's get that straight right away. While many people simply call the game CoH - I much prefer CoX because that is more reflective of the true nature of the game which allows 4 distinct alignments.

 

Easy there big guy...I know this...I called out exactly that about Lady Grey...However the OP and myself also mentioned Moonfire, which IS a heroic task force.  And a comparable Strike Force (Villains only) does require rescue of the hostage or the TF fails and must be redone.

 

I'm on the fence with Lady Grey...it could be argued that for a mixed mission some villainy should be allowed...but it still is a mission objective, and as was mentioned, the Renault Strike Force does FAIL the TF if the "hostage" isn't rescued...So there is also precedent

 

2. This issue was discussed in depth on live for a very long time - and as a result it stayed the way it was BECAUSE allowing the hostages to die was a valid method of completion both mechanic and lore wise. Again.. because this is not a hero task force.

 

True!  Again, I mentioned that just because a thing was so, doesn't mean in needs to stay so.  Saying NO to something because it is a change, is not in itself a valid reason.  What do you personally prefer about the current way?

 

3. The desire to roleplay should never affect the general pve experience of everyone else.

 

It is a MMORPG (MMO Role Playing G).  So I think immersion in the world is 100% part of the experience...If you think pretending to be a super hero or super villain is dumb or stupid, then I am not sure why you are here...And all of the missions/contacts have story content and objectives that range the comic book gamut from Do-Gooder to Morally Conflicted, etc...So again, I'm not really sure I understand.  There are all sorts of rescue hostage missions that require you to rescue the hostages...Are those also objectionable to you?  Maybe they are...IDK...

 

4. Moral objections in this game are outlandish - this is not a hero game as previously mentioned... there are HUGE gray areas and personal morality should not affect the way thousands of others play. What if I object to the family being nothing more than a gross stereotype of people of Italian heritage? Why should we have a game with Nazis in it...? Anyone can come up with some "oh so personal" moral objection, but those said objections shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things. It would be different if the game was glorifying rape, incest, killing handicapped people, etc... but it's not.

 

This is absolutely a Hero game.  It is also absolutely a Villain game.  It can be more than one thing.  It's not a lot of things, but it can be more than one thing.  So hero content can be heroic, and villain content should be not so much. 

 

If we are going to go a moral route, then I agree that there aren't absolutes in morality..  But if we are going to talk about personal morality, I sincerely hope we both agree that if someone has the ability and duty to rescue someone else, and chooses not  to, then they are a coward and morally wrong.  I want to be clear here that I do not for a moment believe you think this, so I assume that we both agree that we share the same morality in this.  I'm 99.99% sure you are saying that "video game" morality isn't the same as "real life" morality...and I would agree that we can express our desire to sometimes do immoral things in video games and that's OK (hence City of Villains).  You mentioned the Family...the Mafia is a real life group of "villains", but the game does not play to the "italian" side in any way.  Nazi's are real life super villains...and in the game, you can only EVER be opposed to them, even on the villain side.  No where does it glorify them.

 

But on the hero side, I would love to see our shared "real life" morality be the core story element.  And it is for the most part...so I am still unclear on your objection to the hero side changes...

 

I guess, I am asking, why do you like the current content.  I'm still mostly hearing, don't change it because I don't like change...And if that's the only reason, that's fair, but it doesn't really need all the justification you are giving it...

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight, so if I am getting your blood pressure up, just say so, and I'll let it go.  I truly want you to enjoy your Holiday (or my Holiday if you are outside the US), and not be angry at that guy who really just doesn't seem to get your POV...

[golstat2003]

I completely agree with Burnt Toast and others and I distinctly remember those discussions and threads with the original devs in various closed and open betas.

 

This HAS NOT been a purely heroic game since the issue that launched villains. That moral standpoint was also diluted with the launch of Going Rogue and the close later launch of being able to directly start on any side, with any AT.

 

If you are making an RP based suggestion (this is to anyone posting them in the future and discussing now) let’s keep that in mind. Another poster said CoX is more appropriate an acronym for what we ended up with when the game shut down. I hard agree. And would bet had the game survived the moral options in TIPS and GR might have seen their way into TFs and SFs anyway. The tech in TIPs and GR was probably the starting point for that.

 

As has been pointed out, unless you plan to change the various SFs to also allow hostages to be killed there as a legitimate mission closure method, then I say the TFs should be left as is.

[justicebeliever]

Just because RP is in the acronym of the game type doesn't mean people role play at all any more than it implies that people team up together (plenty of people solo their entire CoH existence).

 

I solo for much of my CoH existence...except for TF's and Trials...

 

And for me, the enjoyment of an RPG is the mental roleplay...that the story makes me feel like I am a super hero...Regardless of how you interact with people in chats (for which there is no control over, and nor should there be, beyond the Code of Conduct), an RPG is still about building an immersive environment...That's table stakes for an RPG...

 

My objection is: I was a beta tester from Issue 6 through Issue 24... This issue was brought up and discussed at length between the beta community and the developers. It was decided by the developers and the community that failing this part of the task force was completely acceptable. You mention the moonfire task force.. that is a hero task force 100% and if you are going to apply your morality to it (which I still do not think should be done) then yes that hero task force should require the hostage to be saved in order to successfully complete the task force. The villain SF that requires it... should then alternatively be changed to reflect your moral standards of not requiring it. (I do not play villain side except to get my patron arc on some toons).

 

You can assume all you want (erroneously I might add), but that is just you ignoring the reasons that I (and others) have given for keeping the task force as is. I am all for change when it is not the result of someone's warped RP sense of morality, when it doesn't fly in the face of the way the game was designed (for 13 issues), and when it is not telling others how they must play. As it stands NO ONE is forced to let the hostages die or live.. it is an option... which is a good thing. If you personally object to this form of completion... don't join speed TFs/PUGs who are going to run it that way - that is your choice. Don't impose your beliefs of how it should be done discrediting the months of beta-testing, discussion, and ultimately the decision by the community and development team because you don't like it... thus robbing others of their choice or penalizing them for not playing how you think they should when the option to play YOUR way already exists.

 

The only assumption I am making, and will continue to make unless you explicitly tell me otherwise, is that we BOTH share a common morality in this regard:

 

If a person has both the skills/training and the duty to rescue someone, then they should...Firefighters, Police Offices, and Military all fall into this.  We expect a Firefighter to brave a fire and rescue the people in the burning building because they have the equipment and training, AND because they accepted that as part of the job.  If you do NOT share this morality with me, then there's nothing to discuss...

 

I get that it's a game...and not real life...but it is supposed to be an immersive environment.  It is supposed to simulate something heroic on the heroic side.

 

Finally - I've already said I'm fine with leaving Lady Grey alone because it is a mixed TF...so I'm not sure why you are still pounding on that...I'm not ignoring those discussions, I'm still never going to be convinced that "hey this is how we agreed to do it 10 years ago, so we can't change it"...The game for 21 issues also required you run missions to get an aura or capes, and we've discarded that (rightfully so).  I haven't heard WHY you made that decision (you've mentioned that it was because it's a mixed TF, but we already have a Villain SF that does require it; you've mentioned that is was a valid game mechanic, but that's because you decided to make it a valid game mechanic, again not a WHY.  If the reason was:  We just wanted people to be able to go fast...Or it was just ridiculously hard to keep the hostages alive?  Those are WHY's.  I don't need a why for Lady Grey...I'm not advocating change there, but it's more helpful to have a discussion if we talk about WHY a change or not a change, instead of just saying "we can't change it".

[Doctor Brainbottle]

 

The only assumption I am making, and will continue to make unless you explicitly tell me otherwise, is that we BOTH share a common morality in this regard:

 

If a person has both the skills/training and the duty to rescue someone, then they should...Firefighters, Police Offices, and Military all fall into this.  We expect a Firefighter to brave a fire and rescue the people in the burning building because they have the equipment and training, AND because they accepted that as part of the job.  If you do NOT share this morality with me, then there's nothing to discuss...

 

To say that a person who has the "duty" to do something is morally obliged to do it it is merely belaboring the definition of what duty means in the first place.

 

Fire fighting isn't an easy job from a practical perspective, but it's a pretty simple job from a moral perspective: if someone's life is in danger, you save their lives. Not just "because you're equipped to do it", as if it's just some lucky coincidence you happened to be show up at a burning building wearing that getup and carrying an ax, you do it because it's pretty much the entire POINT of your job. There are a few other things in the job description, like getting cats down from trees... but when someone is trapped in a burning building AND someone's cat is stuck up a tree, it isn't a "tough call" to decide which is more important. Nobody is going to literally die if that kitten stays stuck up a tree for another hour.

 

If you're a soldier in a war, your "job" is much less exclusively about saving the lives of random innocent civilians. In this job, there ARE other priorities to consider. If you are under orders to achieve a military objective, and you happen to pass by some civilians in danger, you might have the "training and equipment" to save them, but what about your strategic objective? The orders you would be ignoring are probably about something MUCH more important than just some kitten stuck up in a tree. It's very possible people WOULD die if you stopped to help these people.

 

Lady Gray is fighting a War against the Rikti. This isn't fire-fighting, it's war. A war she can't win without the help of villains. That is the perfectly logical, in-game reason villains are invited to participate in her task forces, and why civilian casualties are disappointing but not considered "failure".

 

 

 

[justicebeliever]

To say that a person who has the "duty" to do something is morally obliged to do it it is merely belaboring the definition of what duty means in the first place.

 

If we are going to be technical about it’s not belaboring the definition, it’s actually defining what duty means since I am being accused of having a warped sense of morality or bein selective in my morality.

 

Fire fighting isn't an easy job from a practical perspective, but it's a pretty simple job from a moral perspective: if someone's life is in danger, you save their lives. Not just "because you're equipped to do it", as if it's just some lucky coincidence you happened to be show up at a burning building wearing that getup and carrying an ax, you do it because it's pretty much the entire POINT of your job. There are a few other things in the job description, like getting cats down from trees... but when someone is trapped in a burning building AND someone's cat is stuck up a tree, it isn't a "tough call" to decide which is more important. Nobody is going to literally die if that kitten stays stuck up a tree for another hour.

 

If you're a soldier in a war, your "job" is much less exclusively about saving the lives of random innocent civilians. In this job, there ARE other priorities to consider. If you are under orders to achieve a military objective, and you happen to pass by some civilians in danger, you might have the "training and equipment" to save them, but what about your strategic objective? The orders you would be ignoring are probably about something MUCH more important than just some kitten stuck up in a tree. It's very possible people WOULD die if you stopped to help these people.

 

Lady Gray is fighting a War against the Rikti. This isn't fire-fighting, it's war. A war she can't win without the help of villains. That is the perfectly logical, in-game reason villains are invited to participate in her task forces, and why civilian casualties are disappointing but not considered "failure".

 

A soldiers duty is to follow orders and to complete their assigned objectives.  In real life this can be a rescue operation, protecting high value assets, or emergency response to save lives. 

Some military missions have single objectives, some have several.

 

These aren’t foreign citizen casualties you are trying avoid.  These psychics are intelligence assets, something that is of high value to the people you agreed to follow orders from. 

 

Now again, I get that villains on Lady Grey might be inclined to not follow orders.  To shirk their duties.  Which is why I am fine with not changing it.  But that doesn’t apply to Moonfire.

[Burnt Toast]

It is a GAME just like you said.. and this so-called immersion you speak of.. does not apply to everyone. I do not assign a personality or morality to any of my toons. They are not real in the slightest to me. They are toons in a video game and have no morality attached to them nor any sense of duty. ALL of my characters are Vigilantes not because of their gray morality, but rather because it allows me to hop from side to side to do SFs..help friends doing patron arcs, etc.

 

Stop applying morality and reality to a video game - THAT is where you are going wrong because you then erroneously assume that everyone does that. This game is a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I hang with min/maxers.. we don't feel for our characters anymore than I feel for my desk lamp that I bought off Amazon. To apply real world "duty" to toons in a video game is just silly - to me... it obviously isn't to you and that's ok - but your morality and sense of duty should never dictate what the masses do or how the game is played.

 

So you see we do not share the same morality because I could care less about morality in CoX. I read the instructions to a mission/TF and complete said mission/TF within the boundaries set by the developers. I don't care about the lore... when Stateman died I laughed because I knew it was actually a slap in the face to Jack to kill Stateman and not some grand scheme lore thing. I don't care about Sister Psyche, Penelope Yin, or any of them.. I know their stories sure, but it's not like I care for them in any way.

 

Stop assuming that everyone plays the way you do...that even the majority play this game from a roleplay standpoint. I actually (like most) started on Torchbearer and when the new servers were added made toons on them (to see which server population was going to be like Freedom server). The minute it was announced that Everlasting was the unofficial RP server... I deleted my characters because I have no use for roleplay in this (or any) game. This game isn't about immersion to me.. it is about pushing myself to be the best build I can be for that particular toon.

 

So I guess with your statement we have nothing left to discuss... I have had to repeat myself time and time again while you try to justify injecting morality and RP into a game that for many isn't about that at all and is just a game. I get you like to pretend you are your characters and that you have a sense of duty... that's great if that's what makes you like the game... stop trying to make that something everyone has to do. I am done discussing this as it is a circular discussion that isn't going anywhere. Take care.

 

 

 

 

The only assumption I am making, and will continue to make unless you explicitly tell me otherwise, is that we BOTH share a common morality in this regard:

 

If a person has both the skills/training and the duty to rescue someone, then they should...Firefighters, Police Offices, and Military all fall into this.  We expect a Firefighter to brave a fire and rescue the people in the burning building because they have the equipment and training, AND because they accepted that as part of the job.  If you do NOT share this morality with me, then there's nothing to discuss...

 

I get that it's a game...and not real life...but it is supposed to be an immersive environment.  It is supposed to simulate something heroic on the heroic side.

 

[Burnt Toast]

Then start a Moonfire thread. Moonfire and LGTF are completely dissimiliar and a totally different conversation.

 

 

To say that a person who has the "duty" to do something is morally obliged to do it it is merely belaboring the definition of what duty means in the first place.

 

If we are going to be technical about it’s not belaboring the definition, it’s actually defining what duty means since I am being accused of having a warped sense of morality or bein selective in my morality.

 

Fire fighting isn't an easy job from a practical perspective, but it's a pretty simple job from a moral perspective: if someone's life is in danger, you save their lives. Not just "because you're equipped to do it", as if it's just some lucky coincidence you happened to be show up at a burning building wearing that getup and carrying an ax, you do it because it's pretty much the entire POINT of your job. There are a few other things in the job description, like getting cats down from trees... but when someone is trapped in a burning building AND someone's cat is stuck up a tree, it isn't a "tough call" to decide which is more important. Nobody is going to literally die if that kitten stays stuck up a tree for another hour.

 

If you're a soldier in a war, your "job" is much less exclusively about saving the lives of random innocent civilians. In this job, there ARE other priorities to consider. If you are under orders to achieve a military objective, and you happen to pass by some civilians in danger, you might have the "training and equipment" to save them, but what about your strategic objective? The orders you would be ignoring are probably about something MUCH more important than just some kitten stuck up in a tree. It's very possible people WOULD die if you stopped to help these people.

 

Lady Gray is fighting a War against the Rikti. This isn't fire-fighting, it's war. A war she can't win without the help of villains. That is the perfectly logical, in-game reason villains are invited to participate in her task forces, and why civilian casualties are disappointing but not considered "failure".

 

A soldiers duty is to follow orders and to complete their assigned objectives.  In real life this can be a rescue operation, protecting high value assets, or emergency response to save lives. 

Some military missions have single objectives, some have several.

 

These aren’t foreign citizen casualties you are trying avoid.  These psychics are intelligence assets, something that is of high value to the people you agreed to follow orders from. 

 

Now again, I get that villains on Lady Grey might be inclined to not follow orders.  To shirk their duties.  Which is why I am fine with not changing it.  But that doesn’t apply to Moonfire.

[justicebeliever]

Stop assuming that everyone plays the way you do...that even the majority play this game from a roleplay standpoint. I actually (like most) started on Torchbearer and when the new servers were added made toons on them (to see which server population was going to be like Freedom server). The minute it was announced that Everlasting was the unofficial RP server... I deleted my characters because I have no use for roleplay in this (or any) game. This game isn't about immersion to me.. it is about pushing myself to be the best build I can be for that particular toon.

I don’t assume anything if the sort.  Everyone has their own combination of preferences and playstyles.  And my statements in other posts support that.  I get that content isn’t important to you.  It is to me. 

 

So I guess with your statement we have nothing left to discuss... I have had to repeat myself time and time again while you try to justify injecting morality and RP into a game that for many isn't about that at all and is just a game. I get you like to pretend you are your characters and that you have a sense of duty... that's great if that's what makes you like the game... stop trying to make that something everyone has to do. I am done discussing this as it is a circular discussion that isn't going anywhere. Take care.

 

Do I have to justify the morality of duty to you?  Really?  Are you saying (and I’m still assuming you are not), that it would be OK for soldiers to choose which orders to follow or for firefighters to not go into that burning building?  Because you’ve accused me of having warped morality.  I’m really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

And the conversation is circular, because I keep asking the same questions and you keep not answersing them.  I’ve heard you say that you aren’t into RP, every time.  I’m not asking you to RP anything.  I’ve asked why not keep things consistent?  I don’t hear you complaining about ANY other mission where you are required to rescue hostages, so why is Lady Grey so sacred?  You’ve mentioned repeatedly  that you discussed it during Beta.  That’s great, but you’ve never mentioned why you decided it be this way during Beta.  I’ve asked several times.

 

I’ve said several times, that I’m more focused on Moonfire, and not that worried about Lady Grey, but you keep going back there.

 

I’ve never said you were wrong in anything you’ve said.  I’ve not used one adjective to describe you.  You seem like a decent sort, and I’m trying to be civil.  It’s OK to just agree to disagree since neither of us have the power to change anything.  It’s clear we look at this from different POV’s.

 

 

 

 

[justicebeliever]

Then start a Moonfire thread. Moonfire and LGTF are completely dissimiliar and a totally different conversation.

 

 

The OP brought up Moonfire as well in the OP.  This is a Moonfire and LG thread.  I think we can manage two parts in one thread.  We do it all the time in the forums.

[Mr. Vee]

Ran a solo moonfire tonight for vamps/wolves and to see if my 37 rad/bio brute could solo an av yet (alas poor Arakh). in honor of this thread i really tried to save the doc but she aggroed a boss mob while i was killing ambushes.

[golstat2003]

Ran a solo moonfire tonight for vamps/wolves and to see if my 37 rad/bio brute could solo an av yet (alas poor Arakh). in honor of this thread i really tried to save the doc but she aggroed a boss mob while i was killing ambushes.

 

 

And then there is this. If the AI were actually not mind numbingly stupid there COULD be a greater argument about failing the tf if you don't save them.

 

Let's maybe switch the discussion to fixing the AI first.

[Burnt Toast]

For the last time... THIS IS NOT THE REAL WORLD! My sense of duty in the real world has NOTHING to do with a frickin video game. Get over yourself and your superior attitude. Stop trying to compare this.. a game.. to ANYTHING in the real world. My sense of duty... I work for the government making sure you and everyone else is safe... I deal with the worst of the worst - rapist and murderers so you can sleep at night. Don't come at me with real world morality when it has no place in this conversation.. THAT is what I mean by circular - you keep bringing up DUTY which is not applicable in a game. I have no duty to any of these characters because they are not real.. the "danger" they face is not real... can you not understand that?

 

Either stay on topic or be ignored because frankly I find you to be condescending and purposefully obtuse.

 

 

 

Stop assuming that everyone plays the way you do...that even the majority play this game from a roleplay standpoint. I actually (like most) started on Torchbearer and when the new servers were added made toons on them (to see which server population was going to be like Freedom server). The minute it was announced that Everlasting was the unofficial RP server... I deleted my characters because I have no use for roleplay in this (or any) game. This game isn't about immersion to me.. it is about pushing myself to be the best build I can be for that particular toon.

I don’t assume anything if the sort.  Everyone has their own combination of preferences and playstyles.  And my statements in other posts support that.  I get that content isn’t important to you.  It is to me. 

 

So I guess with your statement we have nothing left to discuss... I have had to repeat myself time and time again while you try to justify injecting morality and RP into a game that for many isn't about that at all and is just a game. I get you like to pretend you are your characters and that you have a sense of duty... that's great if that's what makes you like the game... stop trying to make that something everyone has to do. I am done discussing this as it is a circular discussion that isn't going anywhere. Take care.

 

Do I have to justify the morality of duty to you?  Really?  Are you saying (and I’m still assuming you are not), that it would be OK for soldiers to choose which orders to follow or for firefighters to not go into that burning building?  Because you’ve accused me of having warped morality.  I’m really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

And the conversation is circular, because I keep asking the same questions and you keep not answersing them.  I’ve heard you say that you aren’t into RP, every time.  I’m not asking you to RP anything.  I’ve asked why not keep things consistent?  I don’t hear you complaining about ANY other mission where you are required to rescue hostages, so why is Lady Grey so sacred?  You’ve mentioned repeatedly  that you discussed it during Beta.  That’s great, but you’ve never mentioned why you decided it be this way during Beta.  I’ve asked several times.

 

I’ve said several times, that I’m more focused on Moonfire, and not that worried about Lady Grey, but you keep going back there.

 

I’ve never said you were wrong in anything you’ve said.  I’ve not used one adjective to describe you.  You seem like a decent sort, and I’m trying to be civil.  It’s OK to just agree to disagree since neither of us have the power to change anything.  It’s clear we look at this from different POV’s.