Development Cycle Archive
Thread: SWG Changes Part 2: New GCW Bases and the Planetary Control Meta Game
ImperialReporter
Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:17 am
#287
My concern still hasn't been addressed how will this be a fair GCW when on most servers the rebels outnumber the Imperials?
So basically on those servers the Planetary Control System will be out of sync since players can drop PvE bases to bump up their score much more than the Imperials can...
*Joke* Maybe since the Imperials are in the minority we should play the rebels and all the rebels in majority should be Imperial. (Thus the odds of GCW would be correct :smileytongue
A way to offset this would be perhaps give Imperialsbases which have heavier defenses. This would represent the normallygreater firepower the Empirehas to use.
Other examples where this shows as true:
AT AT > Snow Speeder (Speeders get lucky but Generator is still destroyed You may start your landing!)
ISD > Mon Calamari Cruiser (We won't last long against those SD's)
Stormtrooper > Covette Trooper (Episode IV enough said)
Collin Moonrider
EE
Corbantis
Message Edited by ImperialReporter on 02-03-2005 04:21 PM
Frost1977
Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:27 am
#289
LamirVargas wrote:
Frost1977 wrote:
with the New PVP bases. will there be a methoid coming for finding out the pvp base vanurability times with out, having the same old spy accounts, or just getting lucky?
add spy skills to a profession like bounty hunter .and detect the spy skills to cammando orsmuggler. there needs to be a more GCW faction based way to find this out.
mbh can make spy kit where they apper as NPC rebel or stormtrooper ( can't be used while "on leave") quality of kitmakes harder for NPC's to detect u or players to ID scan & use a device build by a Droid Engineer maybe on the terminal to find out Time vanurable. tool quality & BH skill = greater chance of sucsses. each use and failure increase chance of detection by NPC's for suspisious activity.
cammando/smugglers can use a single or multy (5 ) use device built by DE's that can scan a Suspisous NPC chance of sucsses depends on tool players skill ( bh's & cammandos) & bh's spy gear quality.
just food for thought.
there needs to be something done, what ever it is. besides the old spy account.
BHs as spies? Nope I think Smugglers would be better as spies, you know as they can be 'Smuggling information about the opposing faction to their faction friends'.
Maybe it should be BH & smuggler spys / cammando's &squadleaders as the detection skills
that would allow for non-cookie cutters, and fits them into the 2 groups
bh & smugglers are your rouges cammandos & squadleaders are military types
Emmoth
Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:27 am
#290
OK as the Smuggler I am I still havent got it????
How will I sell faction points? Since as it is now I have to be declared to delegate and buy points, can I do that freely with this?
How will I sell faction points? Since as it is now I have to be declared to delegate and buy points, can I do that freely with this?
negilum
Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:43 am
#291
unless TH is guilty of a typo it looks like three bases per ***PLAYER*** not per character
freedomwarrior wrote:What I'm trying to imply, is 3 bases per ***PLAYER***, but is this specific to acct or to chars? I mean, every ***PLAYER*** can have 8 chars on different servers. So the way i'm reading this, and I might be reading it wrong, but i'm reading it as 3 per player for each char. Now again, I might be reading something into it thats not there, but I would like it clarified for safety sake.
DarthMinos wrote:Maybe I don't understand how trading lots will effect this. TH said you can only place three bases, and they don't cost lots. So, it will do you no good to trade lots in order to place more bases. If I don't get it, straighten me out.
freedomwarrior wrote:I can forsee a lot of griefing here. Lot trades are already rampant on the servers. With this coming into play, your going to have even more issues with cross traded bases. This has the potential to be great, but also has a real potential for disaster. Please look at the issues with lot trading before its implemented or the servers are going to be even worse than they already are for lag and placement room.
Thunderheart wrote:
Base CostYou will be limited to a maximum of 3 bases per ***PLAYER***.
DravTroele
Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:43 am
#292
I think it would be great if the PvE bases were random spawns. Because, while I understand that you get better benefits from having more bases down than the opposing faction, what you are actually doing is providing content for the opposing faction. It would be better if the PvE bases were random spawns, never in the same place to prevent faction farming, but random. And of course each faction would get the same amount of random faction bases put on a planet in a given day. This would encourage attacks against the PvE bases. Even 'gasp' co-ordinated attacks against PvE bases. It would be great as a PvE player you could hire a group of NPC's to help you battle a Base.
BleuDestiny
Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:58 am
#294
SOETyrant wrote:
MadDog36 wrote:
We are not forcing people into PvP anymore. It is a playstyle choice that people should make, not have it forced on them.
PvE bases are there for PvE players, and are defended by NPCs, not players.
OMG OMG OMG, pink rabbits are flying across my field of vision, did I just read what I thought I just read? THANK YOU....
Now, if that's the case, what's this business about BH's and non-consentual PvP being forced on Jedi !!!
And along with that, I truly hope to be motivated in the future to engage in PvP, but the climate today is too ugly, busy, and unattractive. Hoping in the future that you're able to make this PvE'er want to go Enabled.
BleuDestiny
Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:03 am
#295
Didn't I also read that the PvE bases counted towards some sort of planetary control standing, even if not as much as a PvP base does? I'm guessing there's going to be some benefit to having a status of Planetary Control ?!
Thunderheart wrote:
Tlk wrote:
1) On the original post on Bases, TH specifically says PvE bases are placed and defended by both PvE and PvP players
2) Further in the post (by you) it is stated that PvE bases are only defendable by NPCs.
Which way is it? Also, what is hte incentive for any factionaly player to place a PvE base if they can not defend it?
Ok, had a pow wow internally to go over all the rules again.
So you can't really defend PvE bases - - that's why we're giving them away for free.
The purpose of these bases is PvE fun.
supersparc
Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:31 am
#296
Thunderheart wrote:Does this make more sense?Base DefensePvE Bases are defended by NPC's
Is it possible to add PvE defenses to a base? Make some PvE base stuff buyable from the faction recruiter. Then when your base gets attacked you can 'defend' it by adding defenses at a terminal....Still no PvP, but adding a ATST at the right time could make the fights more dynamic. Kinda like a call for reinforcements made to the owner of the base.
Sznake
Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:39 am
#297
Sznake wrote:
Base Vulnerability
All existing bases will be treated as PvE bases.
To soften the transition, for each existing base you own you will be rewarded X faction points
PvE bases are always vulnerable. When they are defeated, they will explode.
One of our cities on our server has around 5-6 factional Detachment HQs and other types. Are you saying that these will become PvE bases always vulnerable? Some players have over tens of millions of credits into the bases to have them turn into faction farms, and to have a nice PvP...basically Fortress turn into faction farming central, gets some of us VERY steamed. It will take a lot more than faction points to get new bases placed, there better be a way to withdraw credits from the maintenance pool to reimburse our new PvP bases.
The existing bases should be CHOSEN to be PvE or PvP
Message Edited by Sznake on 02-02-2005 11:09 PM
Could I get some form of a response on this? Some of our bases are paid off with millions of credits, and to have them turn into PvE bases is a significant loss to us. WIll there be an option to have them PvP bases, whether by more FP payment or something, or be able to withdraw maintenance from currently placed bases? It will take a LOT more than faction to reimburse our losses.
Kenbow2
Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:41 am
#298
Great ideas Devs and a big step in the right direction. I do see one SIGNIFICANT problem with this new system, however, I do offer a solution.
SWG Background: There are several POIs in the game that are alligned, and always should be alligned, to a particular faction. For example, The Imperial Outposts on Dantooine and Yavin, The Emperor's Retreat on Naboo, The Imperial Prison on Dathimor, and the Hidden Rebel Base on Correllia, among others, are locations that should usually always be aligned to their particular faction. Notice that cities are not included regardless of their historical faction aligment.
Potential Problem with new system:A rebel PvPdisabled player logs in game and says, "Well time to go farm some faction at no risk of being subject to PvP... Lets go to the Imp Outpost on Dantooine." So he goes to the Imp Outpost by means of public transportation (Another issue I have, but will not be discussed in this post... But seriously, a Rebel takes a shuttle straight into a Imp Outpost where he can start to fight immediately? Wouldnt the Empire ban this guy from taking a public shuttle to an Imp Outpost? Really?) Back on topic: So this rebel arrives at Imp Outpost on Dantooine and realizes that half a dozen other PvPdisabled rebels are already here farming faction. So, the rebel players says... "Well, time to try Imp Outpost on Yavin, or Imp Prison on Dath." As a result of rebels or imps going to known POI locations to obtain faction points, instead of having imperial outposts throughout the galaxy filled with stormtroopers, you will have imperial outposts full of PvPdisabled rebels farming the stormtrooper spawns. Not to mention the verbal abuse from them to passing imperial players (all in good fun and within reason, of course,... but still). Its not very star waries when my imp player decked out in stortrooper armor walks into an outpost to see a recruiter and the whole place is void of stormtroopers but packed with rebel players (who cant be touched by me in regards to combat)
Solution: For very limited faction alligned POIs (not cities or player bases), incorporate the /citywarn coding for a type of /factionwarn function. This could be used by any PvPenabled player of the faction aligned POI on any PvPdisabled opposing faction player who in INSIDE the POI perimeter. (A faction alligned PvPdisabled player would not have this function... you HAVE to be PvPenabled to use /factionban). It can be a 30 sec warning, a 1 minute warning, a 3 minute warning (doesnt matter to me) at which point the PvPdisabled player would become PvPenabled if he refused to leave the immediate POI area. Because it is limited to set POIs in the game, it cant be used to grief various locations as it was with player cities. There can also be a warning when you first enter the area when the opposing faction player enters the area. For example, a rebel walks close to the Emperor's Retreat and getsa message, "Caution: You are entering a Faction Controlled Location and are subject to attack after warning", or whatever message is appropriate. This will keep the historically Faction alligned POIs, well... in tune with the SWG gameplay.
And keep in mind that this doesn't prevent players from entering if they still want too, it just puts them at risk of a PvPenabled opposing faction player from /factionwarn-ing them, and if they then refuse to leave the area in a reasonable amount of time, they become automatically PvPenabled and are subject to attack (however, they could win the fight).
Reasoning: There is something wrong with a imp/rebel going to their themepark or outpost and having dozens of the opposing faction players just hanging out killing the random NPC spawns and verbally harrassing the opposing players.
Conclusion: I think my supplement idea would be a fair and balanced way to keep the historically factioned POIs consistent with the feel of Star Wars. Afterall, a player can stillattack opposing PvE bases, or do terminal faction missions, or locate random NPC spawns outside the POIs that would not put them at any risk of becoming PvPenabled. Afterall, if a bold Rebel wants to land in the middle of a Imperial Outpost and start blasting away at NPC stormtroopers.. he/she has to expect the sh*%T to hit the fan. If you dont want to risk being turned into PvPenabled, then dont go to a faction alligned POIs to start your own civil war.
This post and $1.50 will get me a ride on public transit, but I had to throw an idea out here due to the potential problem (see above) I see with the new system once its in place. Other than that, the system appears pretty good. 8)
MadJynx
Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:46 am
#299
BleuDestiny wrote:
Now, if that's the case, what's this business about BH's and non-consentual PvP being forced on Jedi !!!
If your a jedi, and you don't want a BH coming for you, don't gain visability. A jedi gaining visability is a jedi consenting to PvP.