Development Cycle Archive
Thread: Weekly Roundtable Discussion (Week Ending 2-16-04)
Can we get the Star-Rating system on these boards to ONLY allow users to RATE a topic if they actually REPLIED in the thread?
The 1-star bandits everywhere are getting out of hand.
Thank you.
SykositY KorathHlicalanthe,
Thank you for the lengthy, and well considered response. I noticed that you accidently omitted certain very relevanttext when quoting me, and also accidently re-arranged certain text, thus adding slightly different flavor to the intended original meaning. Darn these cumbersome editors. I'd like to add a few comments, if I may...
Hlicalanthe wrote:
Kirillian wrote: Correct - you need not explain to me that players preferring PvE game play to PvP have indeed joined factions. While it may seem counter-intuitive to do so, sometimes it is the only way to experience certain extended content in the game. Granted, there have always been risks for doing so, but they are worth it, in my opinion.
To whom does this seem counterintuitive? Certainly not myself, nor the majority of GCW players. In actuality, it's counterintuitive to assume that a status that is supposed to equate "limited pvp" infers that only pvpers would choose it.
Correct, and I would never make that assumption either. To do so would be almost as illogical as assuming that "limited PvP" equates to zero risk, or total immunity. To whom does it seem counterintuitive tojoin a PvP-enabled segment of the game when you do not prefer PvP? Well, me, for one. And most of myacquaintences with whom I play. And most of the posters on theseforums. Of which majority do you speak?
Further, the two previous methods whereby the coverts were made susceptible to pvp are not even comparable to the crackdown.
First, the TEF gained by a covert rebel from attacking imperial npcs. This is 100% under the control of the player to initiate, or not, at a particular point in time. Second, the TEF gained by passing near a faction detector. This is indeed a passive method, and could be reasonably compared to the crackdown if not for the fact that faction detectors cost fp, cannot be redeeded once placed, cannot be placed in a city, appear on radar and don't spawn nearby a stationary player. Running into a covert detector is a rare occurrence; few players are going to pay 500 fp and drop the fd in an undefendable location just so they can TEF coverts. Those that did have quickly found the scanner destroyed. Indeed, the primary purpose of fd's isn't to TEF coverts going about PvE, it's to TEF coverts that are participating in an attack or survey of an opposite faction base (i.e., PvPing!). That they appear on radar well in advance and can be tabbed means they can be easily avoided, as well.
Now, it should be obvious that the standing methods whereby coverts could become susceptible to pvp applied equally to imperial and rebel coverts, and that they were temporary, easily avoidable, and did not grant one faction an inherent edge over the other.
Perhaps your confusion stems from our accepted definition of the label "PvEer." As people far wiser than us have squealed, "PvE is not just for Neutrals," it is for everyone. In fact, everyone does (and must) participate in the PvE aspects of this game. Every player of this game is a "PvEer," and those that enjoy the PvP aspect are a subset. When you try to express "PvEer" as a subset by itself, the only subset that exclusively qualifies is the Neutral set.
To summarize what I said to you before, with simplistic descriptors included:
PvE'ers (since that is everyone - which wouldn't make sense, I assumed you meant the only pure subset: neutrals) will only be fined.
Only those of us within a faction (All of us PvEers that either a) enjoy PvP or, b) joined to persue extended content, but don't necessarily seek out conflict with other players) have anything to fear.
Perhaps this is where your confusion stems, as "PvEer" does not equate "neutral" any more than the GCW equates PvP. Remember, neutrals can and do participate in PvP (i.e., duels); further, in the recent past, they could also participate in GCW PvP (i.e., battlefields).
No confusion at all here. In fact, you just paraphrased exactly what I had said. See above. We are all PvEers.
Allow me: when one refers to "PvEer" or "PvPer", one is generally referring to a group of players with the preferred playstyle of PvE or PvP, respectively. This is the accepted use of those terms. The skills, methods and mindset required to PvE are quite different from those required to PvP, hence the distinction. Certainly, many can do both, but it does require a switch in mindset and strategy (hence concerns about any method that forces the switch on a player), but most have a preference for one over the other (overwhelmingly in the direction of PvEer).
Frankly, to make any assumption about faction or lack thereof when speaking about a PvPer or PvEer is quite misguided.
The new risks are minimal. As a Rebel PvEer that can appreciate the appeal of PvP (but I rather suck at it), I find my play style won't be altered one bit by this new publish. With the aid of my Covert Status, and a little smart playing, I have avoided all instances of 'unexpected' or 'unwanted' player versus player conflict. While I know the risks are out there, they seem virtually non-existant to me. Now, with the addition of this new minor risk, I merely have to add a few Imperial city cantinas to my mental list of hot spots, and play on as usual.
That ignores the multitude that have already altered their playstyle, and the many more that eventually will, as well. But I won't belabor that point.
Regarding risks: no, I did not know that the devs would add additional ways to force pve coverts into pvp.
By this, I assume you mean you did not know the devs would add additional risks to being a covert faction member. (I know I don't have to explain to you that no one can be 'forced' into PvP - as the Devs have always stressed. I understand the desire of some people to add shock-value to their statements - but misleading terms like this should be avoided.)
And I understand the desire of some to minimize the harshness of this change.
Maybe it is a matter of individual perception. I evaluated the risks of being a Covert faction member when I signed up. As I stated previously (but you mistakenlyfailed to paste in when quoting me): With the aid of my Covert Status, and a little smart playing, I have avoided all instances of 'unexpected' or 'unwanted' player versus player conflict. While I know the risks are out there, they seem virtually non-existant to me. Now, with the addition of this new minor risk, I merely have to add a few Imperial city cantinas to my mental list of hot spots, and play on as usual.
Your perception may differ.
{CONTINUED on next post...}
I stand by my words; the devs have implemented a method whereby covert rebels are being made overt, and I'll call a spade "a spade" and say that this is forcing PvEing coverts into PvP. It's your prerogative to disagree, of course; but to state that it's misleading is equally misleading.
Among the dozen or so "risks of PvP exposure" with which Covert faction members must contend, this latest one ranks fairly low on the list.
Again, this is where confusion lies. This ranks high, if not highest, on the list. Any one player is likely to come into contact with a shakedown/crackdown crew considerably more often than a faction detector (indeed, I've come across more of the former since this went live than the latter since I began playing last June).
Perhaps your server is different. On each of mine, I've compared the number of Imperial Cantinas with crackdown squads to the number of Player Faction Bases, fortified Player Towns, roving bands of Imperial playerswith scanners, etc. Believe me when I tell you that a handful of easily avoided Imperial Cantinas does not rank high on *MY* list of risks for being Covert. I do agree with you - your confusion lies here.
And attacking factional npcs is completely a choice one makes at that time; it doesn't require much advance thought in order to decide whether I want to risk a TEF. I can walk right up to the camp and decide, "nah, I'd rather not today" and turn back. Previous inventory considerations revolved only around "what do I need to drop off at the safe deposit so I won't be full;" now, one must seriously consider whether to leave behind items that one may feel are necessary to competitively PvE (i.e., get higher, more difficult, non-factional missions {you do accept that a factioned player doesn't have to do only faction missions, don't you?}). In addition, the risk from the previous methods, as I pointed out earlier, were limited in time; changing a covert's status to overt is anything but.
Of course I do - did I not state, "In fact, everyone does (and must) participate in the PvE aspects of this game. Every player of this game is a 'PvEer,' and those that enjoy the PvP aspect are a subset." Oh, that's right - somehow that got omitted when you were quoting me. Wonder of wonders. Don't worry, I'm fixing the omissions.
AFIK, there were only three methods whereby a covert became susceptible to PvP (and again, they all involved only a temporary TEF): 1) attacking a factional npc, 2) coming too close to a faction detector (includes dish turrets), and 3) grouping with someone that himself becomes the target of pvp (didn't refer to this above, but it should be equally obvious how this differs from the crackdown). I'm quite interested in seeing this list of a "dozen or so" risks; please post them.
Done. See above. And that is not an all inclusive list either.
I don't follow you. Can you please give a little more detail on these "promises?"
It's been said before, but basically revolves around the fact that this is forcing PvP onto PvEing covert rebels. While you apparently don't realize that this is a break from promises, the Devs, at least, acknowledge that it is. In this very thread (page five), TH wrote, "the change in PvP philosophy is a big issue and the devs are keeping a close eye on it. Im also watching the boards very closely. As it stands, it is a major shift and if it works, it stays. If it doesnt work, then it goes, but that decision will be made slowly and thoughtfully," (emphasis mine).
It's been said before, the Developers will not force PvP onto any player (regardless of their preference for PvE or PvP). While you apparently don't realize it, the Developers are standing by this philosophy, and will continue to do so. This new publish adds many new aspects to the existing PvP system. The change in the PvP philosophy ThunderHeart speaks of is the current trend toward motivating already consentingfaction membersto follow their roles more closely. Declared Rebels are being made to act the part of rebels (they will be hunted; they will need to be more cautious and secretive, etc.) and declared Imperials are being motivated to act the part of a dominating, oppressive military force (they will be Overt more, demonstrating control and a show of force).
It is indeed a major shift! And most players, while they are reserving judgement, are optimistic about the results. We shall see. But rest assured - the developers long standing philosophy that anyone who joins a faction is voluntarily risking PvP hasn't changed. You still must do so voluntarily. And those risks aren't increased that much by this most recent publish. Choosing to be Covert will still reduce your PvP exposure dramatically, as it always has.
This is a very basic game play concept in SWG. You killed Faction NPCs (Stormtroopers). You gained a TEF (you attacked first, so they didn't get a chance to actually make you Overt). You are now a target for wandering Overt players. No different than when we kill NPCs as part of a Rebel Terminal mission. I simply handle certain cantinas exactly the way I would handle my Rebel Missions. I don't think I would have the nerve to attack the Stormtrooper first, as you did - I would much prefer he make me Overt first, under the currect mechanics. I
Certainly, I understood and was in complete (complete? Uh huh. *wink*)control of getting that TEF. What I disagree with, and you acknowledge to be a problem, is that an Overt Imp can get the jump on a TEFd covert. What you don't acknowledge--which, sadly, was the point of including that experience in my report--is that forcing covert rebels overt and placing them at pvp risk for an hour is even more of a problem than allowing overts first-strike on coverts that willingly brought upon themselves a TEF. I find it surprising that you have a problem with the latter but not the former.
This, I feel, really is a matter of personal playstyle preference. If I am going to be in the vacinity of a patrolling Stormtrooper scanner, it will be purely by choice. So, why would I voluntarily put myself in that situation? Hmmm - the only reason that comes to mind is: If am looking for a fight. Either with Stormtrooper NPCs, Imperial Players, or both. Now if you were consciously seeking a combat situation, of your own timing and choosing, would you elect to initiate that conflict as a TEF'd individual, or as an Overt individual? Exactly - me too. As an Overt. THAT is why I did not take issue with the Overt-Status issue.
Why not simply respond that a covert that doesn't want to get jumped by an overt shouldn't get himself TEF'd?
Because I know that isn't always possible. I try to make only defensible statements.
I never make that argument either. It's much more reliable to simply recommend that a player simply avoid those situations through whatever manner they choose. But after your report on your experiences, I guess you could add: "Don't worry about it, and just shoot your way out" as yet another option.
That's no different than the current argument that a covert that doesn't want to be turned overt shouldn't carry contraband. Both equate an unacceptable removal of game content from PvEers.
But, despite your confession of being a PvEer, I expect you're really a PvPer who just PvEs more than he PvPs. Hehe.
Overts select that status so as to be able to attack and defend at will - that part is correct. The part about specifically targetting TEF'd PvEers (unless you mean everyone) is unfounded drivel.
And coverts select that status so as to be able to pick and choose when to partake in PvP, and not have the AI determine it for them.
Or more correctly stated, "We Coverts select that status so as to be able to significantly limit our exposure to PvP, and not have the AI or other players always determine it for us."
If you persist in denying that a significant portion of overts don't go overt because the ability to attack TEF'd covert PvEers is more on their mind than going after other overts, then I'd have to seriously question either your sincerity or how long you've played this game.
Define "significant portion of the Overts." 3%? 10%? Fine, then I'll concede. That may be significant to you, but that also equates to those that join in PvP to "grief" other players. The MORE significant portion (we're talking well over 90% here) of the players that choose Overt status do so for challenging player versus player interaction. Are you implying that most Overt players approach each TEF'd covert player with the question, "Do you prefer PvE over PvP" and then elect to shoot only PvEers? Sure. How long have you played?
- K
- Updatecommunity with all the known issues.
- Update status of issues. Status caneither be -> indiscussion (internally).. scheduled for publish 7 ... etc
- Move the thread to In Development and then finally to Test Center when the time comes.
- A central point to check on known issues. No need to post them again if it's acknowledged by the developers.
- Check on the status of known issues.
- Add comments to known issues (workarounds, proposed solutions etc)
And last but not least, only red names can start a new thread so it doesn't get out of control like SWG Discussion.
Thunderheart said he has a huge Excel spreadsheet with all known bugs. Please share some if not all with us
I'm not sure if these have been mentioned, as this thread is quite long now, so I'll apologize if I'm duplicating, but:
1) I ran around Dant last night in a group for over and hour on Kettemoor, and came across exactly 1 savage quenker. Has the spawn rate been looked at on Dant lately? Esp since the patch? I know it was mentioned previously, but it's getting worse than ever.
2) If we have to have shuttle waits, at least give us something to do in the shuttleports. In-game solitaire! Gambling machines! Allow entertainers to function there. Anything to make that 10 minute wait more tolerable.
3) Can we have the ticket collector give a shout a minute before the shuttle leaves. "The shuttle takes off in 1 minute, pleaseboard now" and possibly a second one 30 seconds before? It would be nice to have some warning, esp. if you need to take a connecting shuttle.
4) Can we have the ability to buy shuttle tickets for multiple stages? I know if I want to get from Dant to Naboo, I've gotta go through Corellia. I would really like to have the ability to buy my Corellia-Naboo ticket at the same time as the Dant-Corellia ticket, which would reduce my chances of missing my connecting flight.
5) This is kind of picky, I know, but how are Pikets able to grow to be so tall without any bones? It just doesn't make sense! Can we have some of these resources looked at to make sure they are logical?
6) How come when I place a camp, I can level an entire mountain, but I can't kick a pebble out of the way to place a harvester?
7) Can we get a better interface for placing buildings? Perhaps mark off in the interface any area incapable of holding the building you'd like to place, rather than moving the building around hoping for a bit of green to flash.
That's enough for now. Thanks for listening.
Kirillian wrote:
Hlicalanthe,
Thank you for the lengthy, and well considered response. I noticed that you accidently omitted certain very relevanttext when quoting me, and also accidently re-arranged certain text, thus adding slightly different flavor to the intended original meaning. Darn these cumbersome editors. I'd like to add a few comments, if I may...
Heh, I had started a reply with a denial of any such thing, before I realized the validity of your tongue-in-cheek remarks. I had drafted my original reply in Word, and for some reason the ellipses I entered didn't make it into the final post when I copied and pasted. But I assure you that my rebuttals were based on valid quotes from your post. There was no "rearranging" (other than the admittedly missing ellipses)--certainly not anything that would add a "slightly different flavor" to anything you said. If you'd like, I'll go through and find where they were dropped and repost the quotes with the ellipses. I can try to edit the original post, but editing doesn't always work for some reason (sometimes I get an error, other times it let's me go ahead).
That said, I won't continue the debate with you, as I get the strong feeling that you're playing with semantics to make the debate overly tedious; and I don't care to spend the effort preparing another lengthy response, which your posts would again require. I'm satisfied to let my posts stand against yours.