Jump To Lightspeed Archive

---

Lorell wrote:
That was a good chuckle but I would like to point out the hypocrisy of your statment.

"Look man, I pay $15 a month to sit in this here X-Wing, and if I can't do anything I want, I am canceling."

Funnily enough, I see that your account is now cancelled.

---

Hypocrisy would lie in threatening to cancel without ever doing so. That trait was parodied in the line above. I never threatened: I acted. Your sense of irony is misplaced.

---

Psiax wrote:

---

Diorchas wrote:

Psiax,

There are quite a few things about your post that confirm my belief that you simply cannot see out of your own worldview. Normally I would quote and pick apart, but I just don't have the energy for this argument anymore. Nothing anyone says who doesn't agree with is going to get through to you. You simply don't accept that any view other than yours is valid and that makes for a dull debate partner.

I'll close saying only that PvP is a choice and it should ALWAYS be a choice. If you cannot understand that then there is absolutely no point debating anything with you.

---

On the contrary, I understand you perfectly well. Your accusations, however, serve only to diminish the strength of your own arguments. Let them stand on their own merits. You want content without limits, fun without unwanted intrusions, and freedom of choice without consequences. I have absolutely no problem with that. Play your game as pure entertainment to your heart's content. I agree wholeheartedly: PvP is a choice and should always be a choice.

Let us now examine when a given player makes that choice, with regard to both JtL and the game as a whole.

In games, as in life, actions and decisions lead to results and consequences--some being positive, some negative. This game is set around a Galactic civil war. The ground game offers a clear choice: join a side in that war, or remain neutral with respect to it. Choosing a side in the war entails the acceptance of risk (i.e. exposure to PvP) with the possibility of rewards (i.e. access to equipment unavailable to those who remain neutral).

JtL was, inexplicably and illogically, implemented somewhat differently. You could join a faction as a pilot and not incur immediate negative consequences, other than the fact that NPC ships of the opposing faction became aggresive toward you. You still, however, chose a side in the civil war when you joined a faction as a pilot. The only risk associated with this choice in game came as you approached master, and had to enter a PvP-open Kessel.

Declaring your support for one side in the civil war should have consequences in space as it does on the ground. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the designers have consistently pandered to the philosophy of "enjoyment without consequence" and have forgotten that the basic premise of factions on the ground was to facilitate the active engagement of players in the Galactic Civil War through direct competition, i.e. PvP. In the ground game, the choice to join a side in the civil war is when a player makes the decision and gives consent to open themselves to the possibility of PvP.

In my view, the same choice was made when entering pilot training for the Rebel or Imperial factions in JtL. Others may disagree. Intentionally or otherwise, the designers have failed to implement factions in space in a manner consistent with those on the ground. In addition, with the change to Kessel they have removed any consequences associated with the choice and benefits of taking part in the Galactic Civil War as a pilot.

I will tell you what changes should be made to JtL:

1) For Imperials and Rebels, the developers should institute TEFs for players who attack enemy ships of the opposing faction, regardless of zone.

2) Kessel should be restored as a FFA PvP zone, subject to the limits listed below.

3) Zone timers should be instituted to prevent load killing.

4) The planned 25% damage reduction should be applied.

5) Players who choose to be Neutral pilots should be unattackable by other factions, even in Kessel, thereby allowing pure PvE players to "experience all the content" and get their multiplayer ships. A third, neutral-only corvette would be needed to facilitate this.

6) Neutral players who want to PvP should be allowed to declare as Privateers, making them able to attack (or be attacked by) any overt player, whether Rebel, Neutral or Imperial.

7) All pilot skills should be wiped to even the playing field.

If these things were implemented, the wishes of both PvE and PvP oriented players would be addressed. There would be a viable GCW, with real goals. Rebel and Imperial would mean something. PvP would be completely consentual. No one would be "gated" from content. And JtL would have both challenge and, hopefully, some longevity. These things will never happen, however, because most people want all the positives without any of the negatives.

---

You know, Psiax, if the only way you can bolster your argument is by falsely attributing motivations and desires to me (ref: freedom of choice without consequences) then I suggest it is YOUR argument, not mine, that needs the help. What consequences are you talking about, exactly? Do I lose more if I die by PvP as opposed to PvE? Am I somehow subject to feelings of inadequacy if I am shot down by a PvPer? An extremely weak argument from you here and, strangely enough, I'm disappointed. You seem intelligent, so I'm at a bit of a loss to explain why you go out on such a rickety limb.

You equate this game with life and there again you misstep. This is a game, NOT life. People play games to have fun, not to have their lives re-created (with the possible exception of The Sims). I'm rather well acquainted with challenges and consequences in my real life. I play SWG because I want to roleplay a rebel pilot. Within the context of the game, your tenuous claim that the manual supports your claim is nothing more than wishful thinking. Your own biases lead you to your conclusions about what the devs intend, while at the same time the very nature of the game supports my view. Tell me, are you more right than I am because you read into the manual what you expected to find, or am I with the force of the game behind me? Tough decision, hmm?

Perhaps you could enlighten me why it is you think that being given a choice whether to engage in PvP somehow infringes upon your ability to play the game in the way you want? After all, you can go overt if you want the unique "consequences" that PvP affords. If you do, that doesn't bother me in the slightest because you are not infringing upon my ability to enjoy the game. Yet you do not want to afford me the same consideration. Is it simply that you want to frag unwilling players? Otherwise there is no viable argument that you could put forward.

Let me take a moment here to address your bullet points.

1. Your idea will not be acceptable here, because you are still enforcing a playstyle on an unwilling populace. I could get behind an entire zone that had TEF for those players that want to play that way. In fact, I might even visit it occasionally. But only when I WANT PvP. And I know that most of the players of SWG are with me on this.

2. I agree that Kessel should be returned to FFA PvP, but only if the Master Pilot Mission is removed from it.

3. 100% with you on this one.

4. Again, with you on this. Reducing PvP damage would make for longer, more enjoyable dogfights and introduces a tactical element to it that I think adds to the experience.

5. I think that having a non-attackable neutral faction would be great, but you're talking about adding a lot of code here and there's no reason to do it if you simply keep PvP optional.

6. Same as above. There is no need to add extra coding if you simply stick with an optional PvP system.

7. Sorry, but this is utter crap. There is no way you can justify a skill wipe for things the playerbase has already accomplished just to satisfy your sense of justice. Just unworkable.

Your last statement contains so much self-righteous tripe, though, that I really have to say something about IT too. Foremost, your suggestions would NOT please the PvE community. To say so only shows that you have no conception of any viewpoint other than your own.

Rebel and Imperial DO mean something... they mean something different to every person, though. Your conception of being involved in the GCW is no more right or wrong than mine. To imply that it is, again shows the bias you bring to the table and your complete inability to conceive that an opposing viewpoint can be as right for someone else as yours is for you.

Saying that PvP is consensual under your system is disingenuous. Out of one side of your mouth you say "consensual" and out of the other you say "enforced PvP for faction-aligned characters." That removes the ability to play from anyone who simply wants to roleplay a Rebel or Imperial.

Finally, you once again attribute a desire on the part of the PvE community to "have all of the positives without any of the negatives". Every time you launch into space in the game you stand the risk of being shot down, whether by PvP or PvE. One risk is not any greater than another, because the consequences are no different between them.

You want PvP. Great. So go overt. That way you can fight against people who are after the same things you are. But rather than doing that you quit. That's pretty revealing in its way.

EDIT: Real mature of you, btw, to go through my post history and one star pretty much everything I've posted. Have you nothing better to do with your time? How childish.

Message Edited by Diorchas on 11-17-2004 03:39 AM

---

Diorchas wrote:

You know, Psiax, if the only way you can bolster your argument is by falsely attributing motivations and desires to me (ref: freedom of choice without consequences) then I suggest it is YOUR argument, not mine, that needs the help. What consequences are you talking about, exactly? Do I lose more if I die by PvP as opposed to PvE? Am I somehow subject to feelings of inadequacy if I am shot down by a PvPer? An extremely weak argument from you here and, strangely enough, I'm disappointed. You seem intelligent, so I'm at a bit of a loss to explain why you go out on such a rickety limb.

You equate this game with life and there again you misstep. This is a game, NOT life. People play games to have fun, not to have their lives re-created (with the possible exception of The Sims). I'm rather well acquainted with challenges and consequences in my real life. I play SWG because I want to roleplay a rebel pilot. Within the context of the game, your tenuous claim that the manual supports your claim is nothing more than wishful thinking. Your own biases lead you to your conclusions about what the devs intend, while at the same time the very nature of the game supports my view. Tell me, are you more right than I am because you read into the manual what you expected to find, or am I with the force of the game behind me? Tough decision, hmm?

Perhaps you could enlighten me why it is you think that being given a choice whether to engage in PvP somehow infringes upon your ability to play the game in the way you want? After all, you can go overt if you want the unique "consequences" that PvP affords. If you do, that doesn't bother me in the slightest because you are not infringing upon my ability to enjoy the game. Yet you do not want to afford me the same consideration. Is it simply that you want to frag unwilling players? Otherwise there is no viable argument that you could put forward.

Let me take a moment here to address your bullet points.

1. Your idea will not be acceptable here, because you are still enforcing a playstyle on an unwilling populace. I could get behind an entire zone that had TEF for those players that want to play that way. In fact, I might even visit it occasionally. But only when I WANT PvP. And I know that most of the players of SWG are with me on this.

2. I agree that Kessel should be returned to FFA PvP, but only if the Master Pilot Mission is removed from it.

3. 100% with you on this one.

4. Again, with you on this. Reducing PvP damage would make for longer, more enjoyable dogfights and introduces a tactical element to it that I think adds to the experience.

5. I think that having a non-attackable neutral faction would be great, but you're talking about adding a lot of code here and there's no reason to do it if you simply keep PvP optional.

6. Same as above. There is no need to add extra coding if you simply stick with an optional PvP system.

7. Sorry, but this is utter crap. There is no way you can justify a skill wipe for things the playerbase has already accomplished just to satisfy your sense of justice. Just unworkable.

Your last statement contains so much self-righteous tripe, though, that I really have to say something about IT too. Foremost, your suggestions would NOT please the PvE community. To say so only shows that you have no conception of any viewpoint other than your own.

Rebel and Imperial DO mean something... they mean something different to every person, though. Your conception of being involved in the GCW is no more right or wrong than mine. To imply that it is, again shows the bias you bring to the table and your complete inability to conceive that an opposing viewpoint can be as right for someone else as yours is for you.

Saying that PvP is consensual under your system is disingenuous. Out of one side of your mouth you say "consensual" and out of the other you say "enforced PvP for faction-aligned characters." That removes the ability to play from anyone who simply wants to roleplay a Rebel or Imperial.

Finally, you once again attribute a desire on the part of the PvE community to "have all of the positives without any of the negatives". Every time you launch into space in the game you stand the risk of being shot down, whether by PvP or PvE. One risk is not any greater than another, because the consequences are no different between them.

You want PvP. Great. So go overt. That way you can fight against people who are after the same things you are. But rather than doing that you quit. That's pretty revealing in its way.

EDIT: Real mature of you, btw, to go through my post history and one star pretty much everything I've posted. Have you nothing better to do with your time? How childish.

Message Edited by Diorchas on 11-17-2004 03:39 AM

---

Tsk, tsk...there you go again with ad hominem attacks: and I thought you said you didn't have the energy. Maybe you were too tired to see that my comparison of life to this game was an analogy , not a conflation.

With regard to your motivation: you have stated you play because you "want to roleplay a Rebel Pilot" (=fun, and freedom of choice) but want to do so without PvP "infringing on your ability to enjoy the game" (=consequences). I am sorry if you don't like to see your motivations restated plainly.

With regard to the GCW: since you don't like what the game manual says, try reading the statement of purpose of the GCW forum, or the job description of the GCW correspondent. Except for discussion of PvE battlefields (which have been removed from the game) the GCW is concerned with PvP and with factions as they relate to PvP. You chose to join the rebellion. You took sides in the GCW. You should face the potentiality of consequences stemming from your choice whenever you attack Imperial forces. I am sorry if your idea of the GCW differs.

The bottom line is that you disagree angrily and have attacked me personally for questioning any aspect of the game that threatens to affect your own personal view of 1) what the game should be and 2) how you want to play it. You seem to judge things as being selfish frequently, so: how does your own attitude measure up?

You certainly have "the force of the game behind" you. That doesn't make you right, it simply puts you in line with a trend. For the seventeen or so months I have played since launch, the developers have consistently moved the game from its original conception (as far as can be understood from the movies, manual, posts, dev interviews, etc.) to one where "fun" has taken precedence over continuity. This trend has continued to the point where this game hardly resembles Star Wars any longer. Despite your statement, people don't play games solely for fun; they also play them for competition. JtL was a step towards the original concept of a game revolving around a civil war in which players could participate. It was a move toward continuity with Star Wars, and away from what it had become. With the change to Kessel, I saw the game take another huge step in the opposite direction. After that, I had had enough.

You want to "roleplay a Rebel Pilot." Fine. The "force of the game" is behind you. Just understand that continuity goes right out the window if members of the Empire can do nothing but watch you as you attack and kill Imperial NPCs. The GCW used to mean exposing yourself to the possibility of PvP when attacking NPCs of the opposing faction; in space it meant that in two zones. Now it doesn't seem to mean anything. So play at being a rebel pilot. You aren't rebelling against anything in game other than some dumb, easily defeated AI. The only thing that makes you a rebel is the title above your character's head and your imagination. If that is your idea of fun, go for it. I will continue to call that freedom of choice without consequence.

Thanks again for continuing to bump my thread. Oh, and about the 1*s...don't be so paranoid. I am sure plenty of people like neither what you say, nor (especially) the way you say it.

Message Edited by Psiax on 11-17-2004 06:04 PM