Jump To Lightspeed Archive

So now its exactly like the ground, like The Sims, except that we're in spaceships?

---

Slarus wrote:

So, is Lucas Arts taking over SWG or what?

???????????????????????????????

No and thank goodness for that, SWG would be shutdown and may never return if that happened.

---

Message Edited by DarthDiesel on 11-11-2004 03:07 PM

---

DarthDiesel wrote:

---

Slarus wrote:

So, is Lucas Arts taking over SWG or what?

???????????????????????????????

No and thank goodness for that, SWG would be shutdown and may never return if that happened.

---

Thank goodness?? I'd be thanking God if Lucasarts would take it over. I realize SOE has the experts on this sort of gaming mechanism. However, Lucasarts could easily do a lot better on the content side of things. Lucasarts might actually make an exciting game that I want to play. SOE might be able to make this comples MMORPG work, but without much gameplay value, what's the point? Death by boredom or death by technicality, is still death. I'd think Lucasarts would be able to pull it together. It's clear a game like this would be the ultimate money maker if it was pulled off correctly, which so far, it hasnt IMO.

Anyway, your confidence in a "no" answer is probably about as certain asmy confidence in a "yes." I'm just wondering if anyone else has heard of this [apparent] rumor.

Message Edited by DarthDiesel on 11-11-2004 03:07 PM

---

Let me do a little searching. There's a post somewhere with a link to a quote by the President of LA saying that it's not true.

---

Psiax wrote:
Have a good look at what you have destroyed, people.

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=Corbantis&message.id=268366

---

---

Eldana wrote:

Second of all:

What the heck prevents you guys from doing this after going overt? And stop arguing with foul reasons not to go overt.

---

---

Eldana wrote:

---

Psiax wrote:
Have a good look at what you have destroyed, people.

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=Corbantis&message.id=268366

---

First of all:

Look what the griefers have destroyed.

Second of all:

What the heck prevents you guys from doing this after going overt? And stop arguing with foul reasons not to go overt.

Well, Eldana, when I was in Kessel I was overt. All the time. It is not a question of being overt or not overt.

With this change, two things have happened:
1) Neutrals like Wildman can not PvP until master. So everyone who wanted to RP a privateer is out of luck.
2) PvP with a real purpose has been removed. And no, I am not talking about griefing or ganking. I am talking about attacking and/or defending an objective that meant something to the other side.

As far as the overt argument: by all rights, and if there were any sort of consistency or logic to the GCW in this game at all, attacking a factioned npc in space while you are a member of the opposing faction would generate a TEF. I can just imagine how all PvE-oriented crowd would feel about this.

---

Diorchas wrote:

Psiax,

The outcry would've been a lot less in the PvE community if the system had allowed for "meaningful PvP content" without also opening the door for griefing. Sure, some PvErs still wouldn't have liked doing a PvE mission in PvP space. But what killed it was that there was no way to HAVE that PvP without opening everyone up to griefing.

I'm all for having meaningful PvP content. I played DAoC for a while and the RvR in that game was fun (even if it was just a big zergfest). I'd LOVE to see the Devs come up with a system that rewards PvPers with things that, in turn, make their characters better in PvP. I'd love to see a reason to PvP as it relates to the GCW. The problem is not with the theory, it's with the execution. The Devs made a poor design decision and now they're fixing it. Until they finish the fix you'll have to live with the realisation that it was the attitude of the PvP griefers that made this step necessary in the first place.

---

You are absolutely correct in your assessment that the system as instituted was incompatible with a segment of the player base. I agree with you that I would like to see a meaningful PvP system with goals and rewards. Kessel was the first such instance of this in this game. I believe, however, that you are incorrect both in calling combat in a PvP zone 'griefing' and in attempting to place blame on the PvP community simply for playing the game they were given.

As my original post satirized, very simply put (and I know this will generate hate rather than intelligent discussion): the PvE community knew the risks of entering Kessel but wanted access to the "content" and the rewards that came with master. So, they complained, and the devs caved in. Load killing could have easily been solved with a timer or a buffer zone. Strategy and tactics would have enabled most to complete the mission sooner or later. The 25% damage reduction I have seen that is in the works might have solved the one-hit kill problem.

The 'fix' that was chosen for Kessel was likely the quickest, easiest, and definitely the most drastic solution to implement. As I said above, if JtL had a system consistent with the ground game, killing a factioned NPC as a member of the opposing faction should generate a TEF. So basically, the PvE community who joined a faction for pilot were exposed to the POSSIBLILITY of PvP for only two out of all of their missions from novice pilot to master. I guess that was two too many.

I don't see any reason to let me believe that this 'fix' is temporary, as you, Slarus, and others have indicated. I admire your optimism. However, everything that has been 'fixed' in this manner (e.g. battlefields) have never been readressed.

---

Psiax wrote:

---

Diorchas wrote:

I'm not naive. I know the possibility exists that the changes wrought by the Devs could well end up permanent. And I'll go on record right now as a staunch PvEr that that would be a terrible decision. I want you guys to have meaningful PvP as much as you do. I just want you to be given content that is pleasing to you that does not force me into a style of gameplay that I dislike. Intensely. hehehe

You're misrepresenting me if you imply that I call all PvP combat "griefing." That was neither what I said or implied. Load camping is griefing. Attacking someone who is participating in a PvE mission to the extent that they cannot complete said mission is griefing. I suspect you will agree with me about the former and disagree about the latter. But it's really about our definition of "griefing". To me, if I am trying to accomplish something in a PvE context and am gated frtom completing it by another player, that is griefing.

---

I certainly appreciate and agree with your hope for meaningful opportunities to PvP in game. In my opinion, it probably will never happen.

You are correct; it does boil down to a definition of "griefing". Load killing is griefing, as most will agree. Until today, the master mission WAS in a PvP context. It was voluntary to undertake, and clearly stated as being within an open PvP zone. Regardless of intent or desire of the mission holder, it can not be considered griefing to attack someone in a clearly identified, open PvP zone that was voluntary to enter. The "don't shoot me" attempts made by certain players in the zone failed because that is one of the oldest tricks in the book to get the upper hand on someone.

The fact that the mission had a "PvE" objective is irrelevant; faction targets and faction missions on the ground have always been PvE, and attacking a factioned NPC if you were a member of that faction generates consequences (a TEF) that expose you to the possibility of PvP. I would trade what has happened to Kessel in a second for TEFs to be generated on factioned player pilots who kill NPCs of the opposing faction. The PvE crowd could all be neutral pilots and not have to PvP (unless the three neutral 'factions' were able to attack each other(?) ).

Once you join the Rebel or Imperial faction--as a pilot, or on the ground--you have by definition taken a stance in the GCW. You should face the possibility of consequences for that decision whenever you choose to take action against PCs or NPCs of the opposing faction. If you take no action, you can remain a covert supporter and not have to face the possibility of PvP. This is how faction membership works on the ground. This was the point of Rebel and Imperial factions when SWG was conceived and first launched. It is a point I think many have forgotten.

---

The Master Mission was not in a PvP context. PvP was ancillary to the mission, not a part of it. If the mission had been "Kill 30 NPCs and 5 PCs of the opposing faction, then take on the Corvette" you would be right. As it is, the only connection between the two is that you had a PvE mission that took place in a FFA PvP zone. THAT is what the PvE community was up in arms about. The fact that we could not complete a PvE mission because of enforced PvP gameplay.

Please stop with the "voluntary" nonsense. RPers and PvPers alike see profession mastery as an endgoal. To say that mastering one's profession is "voluntary" is disingenuous. To powergamers it is THE endgoal. To roleplayers it is about the journey taken to get to that goal. But the common thread is that it is a goal aspired to by just about everyone who undertakes a profession. To say "either PvP or don't Master" is incredibly selfish. Why should only PvPers be able to master their chosen profession? No other profession in the game requires PvP for Mastery (aside from Jedi, which is a world unto itself), and Pilot should be no different.

Thankfully the Devs saw that and made the right decision, even if they did overreact considerably in the execution of that decision.