Development Cycle Archive
Thread: Weekly Roundtable Discussion (Week Ending 2-9-04)
Simple enough to exploit actually with regards to being overt getting you a discount.
Go to recruiter.
Go Overt.
Buy Insurance at discount rate.
Trade backpack to friend with armour in it (because for the most part that is all that is really in question here)
/duel friend
Friend DB's you
You clone and come back covert.
You get your backpack back
Congradulations you have just exploited the system.
Have a nice day 
Thunderheart wrote:
Are you saying you want random loot distribution amongst the party?
No, a system message telling the group what was looted by who would be enough to keep people honest, or to at least help us figure out who the dishonest ones are.
Thunderheart wrote:
Are you saying you want random loot distribution amongst the party?
Thunderheart wrote:
Well mostly. The team went with "Factioned death". That inevitably means a little PvE, but thats ok. Sometimes its mixed and there are lots of special instances, but overall, "Faction Death" is something that can be measured easily.
Credit splitting has always worked, Item splitting (or at least notification) is what is critical.
Thunderheart wrote:
yes, I meant credit splitting.
Are you saying you want random loot distribution amongst the party?
If you do, please get Kstarfire in the Core Systems forum involved and Ill try to elevate the issue.
Thunderheart wrote:
The one hour delay is a whole can of confusing. Taking a moment to make a couple of clicks is one thing. Not having that 1 hour time delay is a different scenario. Without that time delay, it opens the door for some grief tactics. A good example would be /covert whilebase fighting. Without that delay built into the faction recruiters at player earned faction bases, players were able togrief faction bases pretty bad.
This is true - but is an HOUR really what's needed?
Even a 1/2 hour...but an HOUR is a very, very long time in SWG when you are overt. This is especially true if you get attacked, since this often intterupts your return to covert status (I never get reliable results - sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't).
To me, the end of a PvP battle is usually, "let's go sit in a locked house for an hour so I don't get ganked while crafting".
Should it take time? Certainly. But with vehicles you can cross one end of a planet to the other on a speeder in less than a 1/3 of that time - as I said, an hour, now more than ever, is a VERY long time in SWG.
This discourages people from defending their cities, and staying those annoying coverts who sit and watch their "comrades" die.
It's shouldn't be instant - but it shouldn't be seeingly endless either.
Great, I'll be ok with that when you compensate me for the 2million credits I paid for my pre sliced, max effect suit.
"The game will get a lot more exciting and fun next week"
For who? You?
Cmon TH, don't let us down man. I'm on the fence right now and whats sad is, most of my guild is up here with me. One wrong turn and you'll knock us all off.
Thunderheart wrote:
Haruspex77 wrote:
Credit splitting has always worked, Item splitting (or at least notification) is what is critical.
yes, I meant credit splitting.
Are you saying you want random loot distribution amongst the party?
If you do, please get Kstarfire in the Core Systems forum involved and Ill try to elevate the issue.
Thunderheart wrote:
Haruspex77 wrote:
Credit splitting has always worked, Item splitting (or at least notification) is what is critical.yes, I meant credit splitting.
Are you saying you want random loot distribution amongst the party?
If you do, please get Kstarfire in the Core Systems forum involved and Ill try to elevate the issue.
TH, first, in my opinion, group loot notification should be considered mandatory for a functional MMORPG.
"Ninja Looting" has appeared in every MMO that I know of. If you can loot a container in a mission, or a fallen corpse before the others, or perhaps while they are occupied with other targets, and there is no notification, you could easily end up with 9 trusting group members being robbed by a 10th Ninja-looting member... and worse, no one knows but the Ninja-looter.
The worst part about Ninja-looting without notification is know one can know 1) that it is definitely occurring, or 2) know for sure who is doing it. This breeds mistrust within a group of strangers... and can even cause tension among those who are acquainted with their group-mates. It can even hurt morale when no Ninja-looting is occurring, but the loot is slim, because there is no way to know whether it's happening or not.
Not only does accurrate and dependable loot notification shed light where there is darkness, dispelling any false fears that Ninja-looting is happening, when the group is just in a poor-loot rut, it insures that everyone knows what everone else loots. If Bob-Ninja gets a Krayt Pearl, everyone knows it, and at least if he decides not to share it with the group, those group-members will know never to group with him again. After notification, if Bob-Ninja wants to stick to his ninja ways, he'll develop a bad reputation, and most will know to avoid him.
Just give us a system message...
[Player] looted [item] from [container/corpse].
...one line for each item looted. That's all we need.
Second, while of course loot can't exactly be auto-split, there are several ways to implement some loot-rules that would give people a greater sense of control with unknown groupmembers. As no single option is more favorable than others, and it is unecessary in groups of friends, these should be options available for the leader to set. First: All can loot any. Basically... what we have now. This would be default. Second: Leader-only looting. This should definitely be an option... the leader loots all, the members agree to this, and items are split at some later point. Third: Designated Looter. Not completely necessary so long as Leader-only is available... but would be a nice feature. Many leaders may not want to have to keep up with corpses, but lead the group... they could designate someone they trust to collect and hold loot until it is split. Fourth: (order)-loot. Any order is fine... either the group order (which I think lists from the first member joined to the last) or alphabetical order. For each kill, a specific person is allowed to loot the corpse. For each successive kill, the next person in order is given looting rights, until after the final person, the list starts over... each person gets an equal opportunity to loot. I've seen this work ok in another MMO until they got wacky with some of the loot... class-specific, unique (meaning you can only have one... if you loot or trade for a second, it dissapears), no-drop (meaning you can't trade it to someone else). Obviously if I'm a human, and I get looting rights to take an item that could be Wookie-only and no-drop, then not only is it worthless to me, but if there were a wookie in the group, they just lost a potentially great item. Also, that game where it worked well had a group maximum of 6... we have up to 20. I can just imagine someone in a Krayt hunt 20th in line popping kreetles on the way to to the Krayts.... but it could be good in some situations, and if there are ever lootable no-drops (please don't do that here), then an ability to give rights to another player would be a must (via /consent maybe). Not the best option... but I'm presenting it anyhow.
Anyhow... that was part of the discussion, so I threw in some options... my main focus here is still: group loot notification should be considered mandatory for a functional MMORPG. Right now in SWG, groups can be a little... dysfunctional. This would be a great step in the right direction.
Lazarus Long
Thunderheart wrote:
Haruspex77 wrote:
Credit splitting has always worked, Item splitting (or at least notification) is what is critical.
yes, I meant credit splitting.
Are you saying you want random loot distribution amongst the party?
If you do, please get Kstarfire in the Core Systems forum involved and Ill try to elevate the issue.
TH- Please could you please help asuage the fears of many of us in the Smuggling community?
Basically it breaks down like this:
Imperial Crackdown=contraband scanners
Evading contraband scanners=smugglers job
But Imperials never have to worry about contraband scanners. Not only is this a problem now, it's an even bigger concern for the our possible future. To us, it seems that this seems like great groundwork for smuggling content even though this isn't a smuggling publish. If that is so and our profession is supposed to get around contraband scans then what good are we when you DO introduce smuggling content and Imperials are fully able to evade them by simply buying enough Faction Points (from us ironically enough) to qualify for the rank necessary to evade contraband scanners? We're looking down the road here and it seems that while this could be an exciting beginning to smuggling content (while fully acknowledging that it's not meant to be that) that if Imperials can automatically circumvent the system it will never be more than a good beginning and preclude a middle and an end. People seem to believe that Imperials will NEVER infringe on this business because they aren't smugglers and wouldn't perform the service for rebels, or any non-Imperial. I disagree, because as Raph has pointed out, one of the primary rules of an MMO is that a player will always take the quickest, easiest and least painful route to achieve their ends, and if having an Imperial officer of "high rank" (which we'd like a definitiion of, by the way, just to ground our debates a little more) is a 100% guarentee, and they charge less because, hey, they're not smugglers, then they'll do it. And many Imperials will break immersion and role to provide that service if the money is right. In short we are depending on players to act like Imperials to NOT step on our skills and business, on their honor so to speak and this is unacceptable.
The most immediate thing we can think to do at the moment is to remove the contraband part of the scans altogether from this crackdown. That way, Imperials can still get their walk through, rebels still get hunted, and neutrals still get hassled for either having rebellion issue goods or rebel faction points, and smugglers still can group with rebels to aid them. Also, the smugglers business of smuggling (which is moving illegal goods from point A to point B, the definition of smuggling and our ulitmate goal) is not jeoparadized in the future.
This is not the only solution offered, simply the simplest. Another would be for contraband items to only be tradable by smugglers. Imperials still get a walk so they never have to get busted, nor can they infringe upon our business in the future.
At the moment I only suggest these things as constructive suggestions of alternatives. We could REALLY use some sort of statement from the developers, especially one that promises us that these changes will in NO way infringe up on the smuggler's future and future demand to move illicit goods from point A to point B. We do not ask to divulge what you have planned for us, nor when it will come, simply an assurance that it will fulfill the criteria of smuggling, and smuggling content we have LONG awaited and NOT be infringed upon by non-smugglers. This is not about rebel or imperial to us. This is not about the penalties being too high or low (but in truth many of us believe ALL of the penalties are too low to really create a demand from the consumer to use a smuggler to evade the scans). This is, in short, about smugglers worried that Imperial immunity from contraband scans, that which defines illegality negates now, or will negate a need for smugglers in the community and our role in the galaxy.
Thunderheart wrote:
Haruspex77 wrote:
Credit splitting has always worked, Item splitting (or at least notification) is what is critical.
yes, I meant credit splitting.
Are you saying you want random loot distribution amongst the party?
If you do, please get Kstarfire in the Core Systems forum involved and Ill try to elevate the issue.
There is at least one way to do random loot splitting that works, which is to separately roll loot for each group member, on a reduced table, as is done for scout harvests.
Actually, though, I think just loot notification alone would be better. Requiring everyone to go loot the corpse would just be a pain. With notification a master looter could be assigned and an equitable distribution agreed upon, whether random or cash equivalent bids. While there might be occasional rip-offs, it would serve most cases. But notification has to be reliable for the whole group!
Thunderheart wrote:
Arnwald wrote:
TH,
you wrote 5k creds is too much, but I'm sure you know that smugglers sells factions points for 110-130 credits the point. So it would cost us from 5500 credits to 13000 Credits to insure. Could you explain your logic on this please?
You also wrote it is a minor inconvenient to see a recruiter declare and pay the insurance . This way we are stuck with one hour Overt status and opposed to TEF exploitation.
Ty for your answer
The 5K answer is for most folks. Its tough to find a smuggler who can do this for you on the spot. That also creates the situation where PAs with smugglers get an instant advantage. Whether thats good or bad, i dont know, but it would have to be thought out.
The one hour delay is a whole can of confusing. Taking a moment to make a couple of clicks is one thing. Not having that 1 hour time delay is a different scenario. Without that time delay, it opens the door for some grief tactics. A good example would be /covert whilebase fighting. Without that delay built into the faction recruiters at player earned faction bases, players were able togrief faction bases pretty bad.
TH,
I agree it istough to find a smuggler who can do this and it surely would give PA with high ranking smugglers and advantage (btw I'm an high ranking smuggler :smileywink
It could be even tough to find recruiter in the wilderness....
I sent an email to all my friend list and most of them wheren't aware either the decay would be removed or not...
==> Could it be possible to implement a voting poll in the login screen?