Jump To Lightspeed Archive

---

Nell2ThaIzzay wrote:

Well first off, if this is in debate, I can talk from experience about the City of Heroes boards. I left this game to go play City of Heroes when it came out, and I was very active on the boards at the time. The message board community for City of Heroes was actually VERY happy to see no PvP in the game. There were only a couple incidents in the entire time that I was on those boards that someone brought up wanting PvP. But the overwhelming majority (about 99%) of people on those message boards did not want PvP. When talks of City of Villians was coming up, the people were very skeptical over how the PvP in that would be run. The COH crowd is very cautious over PvP in that game, and they want it implemented absolutley right, or else not at all.

City of Heroes isn't directly based on an already existing universe (I.E. X-Men, or Batman, or something), however, it gives players an oppourtunity to make characters that they have always imagined in those universes. Kinda like how this game gives you an oppourtunity to create a character in a living Star Wars universe, City of Heroes allows people to create characters in a living comic book universe. And many people in that game do base their characters on already existing comic book characters (you don't know how many versions of Logan, Wolverine, Weapon X, and Hulk I have seen in that game).

That's fine. I think the game looks like a lot of fun, but as a concept, it is not a hard game to explain why there isn't PvP. In the comics, the heroes rarely attack other heroes (and when they do it's usually just a contrived situation created to sell a few extra issues by getting two groups together). In a game like this, the lack of PvP can make sense. Once there are player villans, it would not make as much sense for a group of heroes to just stand there while a bloodbath ensues, but it can still fit in with the concept that in comics, most heroes have their own nemesis who are rarely seen battling other heroes and groups of heroes.

Now, onto something else I'd like to respond to:

---

I also think your concept of the number of people who are opposed to PvP in SWG is a little off, too. I'll be the first to admit there are very few people who are interested in hardcore PvP play and I'd be willing to bet the number is similar to the hardcore no-PvPers. My perception is that thevast majority are closer to the middle in that they would like to PvP occassionally but would prefer to be left alone while they are improving their skills or playing out a storyline. Ialso believe the numbers of people who would engage in PvP would increase exponentially if they ever got a decent system going where there was abenefit forparticipating in PvP. Right now, the numbers are skewed by a terrible system withno real reward.If and/or when they fix PvP, I predict you will see a lot more people getting involved.

---

I would say I'd agree with that. I am not anti-PvP by any means. I am anti-being forced to PvP. I am the kind of person that wants to be left alone while I advance in my skills (after all, this is an RPG, not an FPS, you shouldn't have to PvP to advance). I would however like to PvP at some point. I know I don't have the best PvP'ing template (Droid Engineer, Creature Handler, Trickshot), but I would like to try it out. And I talked with a buddy in game about it who is solely a combat class, and he said that I could probably hold my own with that template (seeing as I'd have a lot of pets in droids and creatures to distract my target). But right now, I don't want to PvP because the system is completely whack. Last time I was a PvP'er, I stood no chance, because people just spammed Knockdown on me, and all of my faction points that I put into having soldiers along side me were wasted. We do need a better PvP system. Then I'd love to take part in it.

And I agree there should be PvP perks. Greater risk should equal greater reward. And role-playing in the Star Wars universe can very well be PvP'ing. I'm lucky tho, since I don't really want to PvP right now, I've role played why I won't PvP. Everything that I do from PvE, PvP, and guild hunts, is all some form of role play for me, something my character would do anyways. So I don't have to worry that I'm not role playing right for not PvP'ing.

Anyways, I don't know where this is going anymore. So I'm gonna stop. I'm hungry, and want something to eat.

---

---

Slarus wrote:

But the same can be said about EQ (Built in Fantasy base), City of Heroes (Built in superhero base), sorry you cant accpet it but this is what we have this is what SOE has too. The game is PvE based like ALL other MMOs, so SOE did thier homework, they did not go the open PvP because the statistics show they are not popular.

Those are genres not franchises. After out previous exchanges, I'm not at all surprised you are unable to tell the difference. Fantasy, superheroes, sci-fi, whatever have a wide variety of plots and are generic enough to allow for enormous creative liberties. Star Wars, on the other hand, is a specific universe within a couple genres (sci-fi and fantasy). It has a specific story which this game must be shoe-horned into, and while liberties can and have still been taken, need to make sense within the story.

Yes, most if not all MMORPGs are based on PvE for advancement, storylines, etc... You left out that the main reason for this design choice is actually to prevent exploiting. If players could get XP or moneyfor killing each other, for example, it would be easy to level by just taking turns killing each other. A game cannot rely 100% on player-based content - it's just not feasible. That is why all games are PvE-based - it has nothing to do with consumer preferences.

I'm not making assumptions, I am basing it on the information on MMOs that is availible, your assuming that one element (Star Wars) makes this totally unrelated to EVERY MMO before it. Look at the market I know SOE did that is why the game is PvE and PvP is consensual.

I'm not saying it's totally unrelated to every MMORPG, butinstead arguingit's major difference supercedes conventional analysis. Nor did I (or most PvPers) ever say SWG should be full PvP. We understand the reasoning behind consensual PvP - we might not always agree on what constitutes consent, but we agree that it should be a choice to PvP or not to.

From a basis of what we have right now, you'd be right. But the reality is a Rebel CAN stand next an Imperial and that is the way it was from as far back as I started my interest in SWG in 2001 with Star Wars gamer magazine, and the kicker is that one can be Overt and still not be able to attack each other, so the Default game is Covert, you have to do an extra step to go Overt, so from the get go you Dont have to PvP, plus you can be a faction and stay PvE it is not rediculous, the only way you'd even consider it is because PvP already exsists, IF the game had ZERO PvP we would not be talking about PvP, there is more proof then not to this. Dont accept it, live in ignorance that EVERY wants PvP and SWG would never work without PvP, nevermind PvP is ALREADY a joke and so few actually do it, it is as good as dead. But facts are it is NOT IMPOSSIBLE to have the GCW with no PvP.

Covert play is another beast all together. I'm not arguing about the presence of covert forces in the GCW, but under your no-PvP utopia, there would not have been covert players - there would be no reason to have them. You would just have rebels and Imperials and it would not make sense for them not to be able to fight each other - any argument you have to the contrary is not based on the Star Wars theme but rather your own personal fantasies.

If the game had had zero PvP from the start, I think you would still have a lot more people than the norm complaining about it - you are the one who is not accepting reality where opposing sides in a war logically fight each other whether they are controlled by a computer or a person. Yes, PvP is a joke because anytime it gets brought up, the chicken littles start running around screaming about how they are being disenfranchised (sometimes rightfully so, other times without merit).

Yes, it would be *possible* to have the GCW without PvP - it just wouldn't make sense. That might be ok for someone like you, but being a fan of Star Wars, I am a little more adamant about the game making sense within the license even if it means having to put up with a little whining.

Again I stated that because subscribtion rates and retension is higher on game with No PvP or consensual PvP by a factor of 2 times, the data is out there, tacking Star Wars on an MMO is debatable if it has a considerable effect on these trends, but I would put in SWG would have strong subscribtions with no PvP, BECAUSE it's Star Wars, can you prove that wrong? Nope because you cant prove people want PvP because it's Star Wars either, but it CAN be proved that PvE MMOs are more popular then PvP MMOs.

I'm sure it would have a huge starting base because of being Star Wars, but I think to retain those fans, the game needs to be true to the name - if the lack of PvP didn't make sense, many of the fans would become disillusioned and leave. Covert play at least makes a little sense, so once again I will reiterate how I believe Sony made the right choice by making SWG consensual PvP. Your little utopia would have hurt the game more than it helped...

You can say your not a hardcore PvPer, but since you fight for ego boosting, PvP only no coverts and Master mission being PvP required you are clearly a PvPer. I can say I am president of SOE doesn't make it true.

I can also say you're a dumbass. I was in complete support of moving the master missions out of Kessel. I also never advocated anything to do with 'ego boosting' or PvP-only with no coverts. I *have* advocated making all Imperials overt with faction perks allowing them to operate covert for periods of time. I have also advocated allowing rebels to attack from covert but giving the Imperials the ability to reveal covert rebels based on their negative faction and the size of their group. But in the same train of thought, I proposed a 'sympathsizer' classification which would never be subject to PvP but could not assist in PvP-related activities such as healing a declared faction member in combat. Why? Because it makes sense in the scope of the franchise and it would add a lot towards making this game feel like 'Star Wars'.

People who support this idea are not casual PvPers, as any casual gamer realizes that covert operatives are perfectly valid, only hardcore PvPers who want special content call for this, and ONLY AFTER this stupid assuption of Master Pilot being a PvP entitlement, not ONE post pre-JTL called for this.

Once again, you are making assumptions not based anywhere near the realm of reality. I *do* believe there should be some content available to only those taking the risk of PvP, but I do not believe it should be required for any professional advancement nor should it be unofficially required in a way that PvPers have an advantage in PvE over non-PvPers. Before you start ranting about how all content should be available to non-PvPers, I would like to point out that even the Devs do not agree (or at least they didn't in the start). If you don't believe me, then perhaps you can explain how battlefields could be utilized in PvE? How about ATSTs and troopers? Face it, there *is* content that is only available to those willing to PvP.

Granted, I did say factioned pilots in space should always be overt, but I would like to qualify my statements by pointing out that I don't believe it would work or be fair the way space-based PvP currently is. My belief is the choice to PvP comes when you join a faction. At that point, you are agreeing to the possibility of PvP. If you remain neutral, you should never be subject to PvP and if you want to be covert (even in space) you should still get a TEF for attacking the opposing side's forces.

That said, I think your last statement is based on your errorneous belief that I support keeping the master missions and PvP in Kessel. Just to prove it (since I know you don't believe me), here are a number of links to my posts on the subject:

The one where I talk about coverts and overts (prefaced above)
The one where I comment about how mastering Pilot in PvP Kessel proves nothing
The one where I disagreed with you that factioned players should face the possibility of PvP even in space (also prefaced above)
The one where I smacked-down a PvPer who was whining about how overt is useless in space
Yet another one where I point out that people wanted to PvP while doing their space missions they can always declare themselves overt
And another one where I try to point out that we were asking to have the master missions removed from Kessel (or made instanced) - not having PvP removed

Now maybe you can show me how I am a 'hardcore PVPer'?

---

Message Edited by Slarus on 11-16-2004 08:31 PM

Message Edited by Slarus on 11-16-2004 08:35 PM

Message Edited by a1davida1 on 11-16-2004 10:51 PM

---

Slarus wrote:

It still doesnt mean that just because this is Star Wars makes your point, these games while not under any special licence doesnt mean that the data of how they work absolutly doesnt apply, since you have no proof and I have at least some other MMO data to g by I am tired of going in circles your wrong or atleast have no basis.

There is ZERO basis for you claiming people would complain about LACK of PvP in an all PvP game,(I assume this is a typo, but you're right - I would have ZERO basis for a claim that people would complain about the lack of PvP in an all-PvP game)EVERY MMO that is all PvE has no complaints until the devs talk about PvP, EVERY one, now you may think that Star Wars instantly negates EVERY MMO out there as a baseline for data compiling, but your wrong and EVERY company who researches the market goes by what is out there and how they works, so as I said you have no basis and I am getting tired of the circles offalacy you are trying to put out.

I am tired of going in circles with you, too - especially when you keep avoiding the point or twisting it around by putting words in my mouth. I have not implied that the way other games work has absolutely nothing to do with how this one does. All I have said is you cannot rely on that data 100% when making your assumptions because - and I will say it yet again - those other games do not have to fit within a pre-established storyline involving a well-defined, predetermined conflict between two sides.

I'm not saying Star Wars negates all trends in MMO, but that it doesn't inherently fall within the exact same criteria as every other MMO. I realize it is a bit of a distinction that those of lesser deductive reasoning might not be able to understand, but it's a simple truth that people will expect a Star Wars game to be Star Wars - which means rebels and Imperials will be fighting each other. Those who aren't interested in role-playing or Star Wars might not have a problem with only certain rebels being able to fight certain Imperials, but I am interested in role-playing within the Star Wars mythos. I think the fallacy here is your contention that NO ONE wouldcomplain if SOME rebels could only fight with SOME Imperials if the Devs had stated the game would be PvE-only. All I said was that it would be probable that more people would complain than usual - once again, stop putting words into my mouth...

You clearly are not a designer, it doesnt make sense because you lack the ability to think outside what is in front of you, I am not saying it would be better or more fun, but it IS INDEED very possible.

I can easily think beyond what is in front of me (though I question whether you can think beyond what is in front of you in the form of other MMORPGs). As I previously stated, the only way they could do it in this game and still have it make sense is if they forced all players to be either all rebels or all Imperials. How about you offer up an example of how players could be aligned with both sides in a way that makes sense for them to never be engaged in the conflict with each other? I didn't say it wasn't possible (actually, I specificly stated that it is entirely possible - just that it wouldn't make sense).

Again you only show you cant think hypothectically and you lack the insight to see what the market says. It is moot since there is PvP few players can think what it would be like and refuse to see it clearly, again it may not be better but it most ceratinly would have made sense IF that is how they designed it, think all you want but your viewing it with todays knowledge and cant seperate yourself from it to see the game as it could be IF they designed ti from the start.

*I* can't think hypothetically?! No, sir, it is *you* who have shown you can't think outside the data from other games. You can't comprehend the possibility that players (at least some of them)in a Star Wars game expect the game to be a Star Wars game and fit within that story in a manner that makes sense. Look at all the complaints about there being too many Jedi if you want some data on the number of people who think this game should try to remain true to the storyline - even if the Devs try to give aplausible (though contrived) reason for the break in continuity.

And after saying you support consensual PvP you want to force people into PvP. There simply is too much room to grief folks, if your just going from A to B not interested in PvP (Even IF you dont mind PvP), blam you get forced into it or at least have the chance to. It may seem fine to you, but EVERYONE has had those times they just want to get a few "housekeeping" chores done and if you are constantly getting scanned by players intent on pushing PvP on you. what fun is that, your doing something you put off but now have to do, but now you just continuously get side traked by obsessive Imperials wanting to force EVERY Rebel into PvP with this scanning idea. It's not fun it's annoying and it most certainly not consensual. When the Devs talk about PvP, they said consensual, not consensual but (Insert laundry list of PvP causes). I know you are obsessed with this theory that the GCW absolutly mandates forced PvP, but it doesnt you are wrong but I'm not gonna call you a dumbass, just ignorant.

As I said, I view joining a faction as consent to the risk of PvP. I don't believe the consent is in the *exact* moment of PvP - if that's what they are looking for, there is the Duel option. There is no grief. It's pretty simple... say it with me... if you don't want to face the risk of PvP, don't join a side. As a covert rebel operative, there should be a chance that you will not be able to perform a few 'housekeeping' chores - the other side doesn't care if you need to collect some resources from your harvesters.What's the fun? The fun is in getting there without getting caught. The fun is having an enemy that doesn't just stand there waiting for you to come and kill it. Do you need to join a faction to progress in your professions? No. Do you need a to join a faction to access content? With the exception of the theme parks, no. Hmmmm.... why do you think there is a neutral theme park? The GCW does NOT mandate *forced* PvP - it DOES mandate the risk of PvP - even when it's not convenient.

Once again your ignorant, for the sake of not being able to deal with a reality that you dont believe. There are more PvEers and casual PvPers then hardcore PvPers, do some research before you call someone a liar there are many cases to support this, many MMOs (Star Wars doesnt change the market facts).

I never said differently -actually, Isaid that very thing. Are you able to comprehend what you read above a third-grade level? Did I call you a liar? Nope. Once again... say it with me... 1-800-ABC-DEFG (Hooked on Phonics - for those that don't have any idea what I'm talking about).

Yeah ok so I am wrong on that, ok cool doesnt support PvP rewards in JTL as ALL JTL rewards and advancement are PvE based, ALL 100% every single bit, the complaint of reward for PvPers centers not on this info but on the thoery that the Master/Ace mission was PvP only content, they assumed it was PvP, so they and you want special treatment for a false belief. O yeah and lets look at how great an idea that was, they were so unbalanced that the Devs nerfed em till they became useless and then left it alone, great lets add more gas to the fire creat rewards that will take more time and just get screwed up, good idea.

You are making false assumptions again. I, for one, did not complain about the lack of PvP-only content in the form of the master missions and I am not 'asking for special treatment' because of it. Guess that means it's not 100%... I was, and still am, against forcing people to PvP in order to master (or advance) in a profession, but I believe there should be *some* content for people interested in PvP other than PvP itself. Your adamant stance against any reward besides lip-service just shows how you are against *everything* for PvP. Did the PvP rewards get nerfed? Yeah, but with the exception of the ATST's ability to attack PvE content, those nerfs had no impact on anyone outside of PvP and were brought about by complaints within the PvP community. It should also be noted, there have been just as many things outside of PvP to be nerfed because of the imbalance they create within the game. Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't subscribe to the notion that the Devs should just give up on things because they had some problems with similar things in the past. Maybe I'd just like them to learn from their mistakes and make things better the next time around...

You only kissing the ass of the few powergamers that want to force us all into believing they are our masters, our betters. PvP rewards in JTL will be just as ruined as PvP on the ground, SOE does a good enough job screwing up this game, quit pounding more stupid ideas into being, the more this kind of crap gets out the more f**ked up this game will get. PvP rewards are ass kissing the VAST minority, you know if you are half as objective as you claim, nowI am finished with you, clearly you cant think outside the box, your an ass kisser and you cant back anything up because you think 2 words negate EVERY shread of data on how players respond to various MMO concepts.

I am kissing no one's ass whether they are in the minority or the majority of players in this game. I don't care if SOE messes things up frequently - it's to be expected in this type of game. I ex[pect them to keep trying until they get it right. You are so unwilling to pull your head out of your ass and realize that giving something to a subset of the players, whether they are in the minority or not, does not have to come at the expense of those not in the subset.

It's you and people like you who lack the ability to look objectively at the situation. You settle for continuity-breaking in an effort to keep everything worth doingwithin your playstyle - even if it has no impact on you or your playstyle.Are you afraid they might get aship weapon that's better than yours or aspecial command, even if it can only be used on other PvPers? I'm sorry, but I don't see how anything given that is PvP-only (as in, it cannot be used in PvE) hurts anything. That you find the notion so offensive makes me seriously question if the ego-boosting problem isn't your own... god forbid someone have something you don't.

It's not ass-kissing to realizesome players might actually want *something* for playingin the style they enjoy. If thetables were turned, wouldn't you,a fanatical PvEr, be screaming up a stormif ALL rewards and progress in the game revolved around PvP? I know I would. Both sides, whether large or small, should be rewarded in some manner for playing within their chosen playstyle. You are just as guiltyas the fanatical PvPers of tryingto *always* force everyone into playing the way *you* want to playand it's not right no matter what side of the fence you fall on. PvEers shouldn't have to PvP to advance their characters and PvPers shouldn't have to PvE to access all content and rewards - just because it hasn't been done or done right, doesn't mean it can't be.

Since this discussion is about as productive as arguing with a religious zealot, I care little whether you are through with me or not. You don't understand the concepts of compromise,objective thought or reading comprehension so I might as well be having this little debate with a brick wall - at least the responses would be better thought out...

---

Message Edited by slave138 on 11-18-2004 05:46 AM