Player Associations Archive
Thread: Planning Reliability for Us?
Page 1 of 1
BadMisterFrosty
Mon Dec 27, 2004 6:16 pm
#1
The past publishes introdruced systems around jedi that never were planned before. More major changes at least with the combat upgrade and the GCW publish are at the horizon. This changes are newer than the basement we build our guilds upon.
The game came into a critical phase month ago. Many lost their motivation to login, while grinding and the mass movement to jedi destroyed many guilds. Jump to Lightspeed delayed some of this problems but now they strike again while we wait for the next major publishes the community seems to see as their redeemer.
Guilds work different than a single player. They have a concept or a general plan. You need to know what kind of members you recruit, what they want to achieve and what your guild is about, which is all dependend of the game that surrounds us. You cannot change your guild overnight and you should not change it because ofone publish.
We know that certain ideas are floating around and they areproclaimed often enoughthat they must be taken seriously. The faction guild is definitely on that list, but alsothejedi system, as it still refuses to fit smoothly in the game world.The ideas range from dark jedi vs light jedi (kind of own factions) to full integrity into the galactic civil war (problems right now: balancing, rebel BH can hunt rebel jedi [...] ). Changes are expected but nobody knows which one.
We cannot live in the present like we do usually because the game is quite broken. We need to know what is at the end of the tunnel. I have much respect for the developers work and I know that they mightnot know right now, how they gonna change the game in those core areas.
In earlier days haden blackman and raph koster both shared their visions with us. Even if they came up with different solutions at the end, we got an idea of what they want to do. I think developers have an opinion on those ideas, even if one half is for one solution while the other half of the team wants the opposite.
The situation for guilds is really worse, not only with the mechanics directly connected to us, but because everything about group-play influences our future.
Comments are -as always- greatly appreciated. 
MDEUK
Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:08 am
#2
I agree - I used to run a 200 person guild, and I watched as the Jedi grind and uber-buffs slowly destroyed the very fabric of multiple player interaction...
However, I have recently seen a ton of new players enter the game and it is my hope that, when the Combat Upgrade finally makes it, we will see a return to group activities and the subtle interdependency that I first saw in SWG back in June 2003...
BadMisterFrosty
Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:43 pm
#3
However, I have recently seen a ton of new players enter the game and it is my hope that, when the Combat Upgrade finally makes it, we will see a return to group activities and the subtle interdependency that I first saw in SWG back in June 2003...
This is true, but I still fear a turnaround as we had with the entire jedi issue. We were told, imperials are the arch enemy of the jedi. It was told the entire pre-release phase, remindedoften later. Even when the first jedi appeared after a few month of play, it was common knowledge. In my guild we were confused, because we were able to huntdark jedi (imperials).
The sudden (apparent)accessibility of jedi via profession grinding caught us on our necks. People actually left our guildbecause they thought that they could not be imperial and jedi at the same time. Also we didnt support grinding, because we refused to accept this turnaround (lets say, we were too inflexible on this). I still don't know if I should treat dark jedi (with imperial affiliation) as imperials, because they appear as bounty hunter targets for imperial hunters.
Obviously, additional game concepts caused contradictions both in game designand star wars lore. We have no clue on how (if)they gonna change things, not the faintest idea about what they'd like to do.The focus is set too near-term at the moment. Grand ideas of what is in discussion are missing. We need -figurative spoken- a thread we can use as an orientation.
»player association« is more than just on how you arrange a list in a terminal.In games like everquest, guilds are seen as a kind of community backbone. They even minimize griefplay, because they tend to urge their members to play fair. Justwant to annotate: griefplay is a huge issue with many $$$ behind (CS...). The guild environment in SWG is hostile to say the least.
Thats why I want to encourage the developers to share their (even vague) visions with us, as they did ealier with holobits and shug cubes.
Rothin
Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:20 am
#4
The problem with sharing their vision and design goals for the long term is that then the players want to have it now, not later. The community tends to take anything the Devs say as set in stone and will be happening (Even if they flat out say its just an idea). That's one reason they moved to this new platform for future development and that's to keep the feedback focused and on target.
If you want one prime example of why they decided to change to this platform, look at the Smugglers. They talked about their revamp a LONG time ago, but priorities changed and development time just wasn't there and the smugglers felt like they were lied to, when they really weren't, its just how game development works.
I personally prefer this new platform so all the focus is on whats coming next rather than what's coming 6 months down the road and letting other things slip through in the meantime.
As far as Guilds in EQ vs SWG, they're the same thing. Guilds always police themselves. The only reason why it seems like things are more controlled in EQ is because its VERY and MAINLY group oriented. So all it takes is one bad instance for you to lose your ability to find groups and it stops you from playing. In SWG, we still police ourselves except that SWG is more solo at the current time and that means even if a guild polices itself and removes the bad apples, people can just go solo and cause problems for someone else or another guild.
BadMisterFrosty
Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:58 am
#5
No doubt, the focuson issues is much better than the oldchaos. The ideas are better channeled now. Well,I thought about the downsides of talking about visions.There are marketing purposes to control information very strict andfor sure there is a need to protect ideas as long as possible from rival business companies. And there are the players who tend to nail the team on their statements.
But withall those contras, I always came to the solution that you need to find a compromise. It depends very much on the tone you post your visions.
»Today we start a new-old tradition. The dev-teamwants to share their visionson star wars galaxies in a2-week series. This way we want to tighten community ties. Everything is subject to change until its live, we just want to let you know where we heading at.I hope you will understand, that we cannot give out detailed information on this subjects,consider itmind-fodder for your sole enjoyment.«
«Give it a name like Holobits or Shug Cubes and people will get used to the fact, that all information is just and pure »what the team knows, what the team likes, what we think would be cool« and by no means any development information or scheduled stuff. I really depends on the tone and setting.
Rothin
Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:57 am
#6
While I agree some info on things they'd like to change down the road is good, that's really all they should mention. What they do / don't like. No time tables, no specifics at all. If you remember back, the Devs used to tell us everything and say 'This is not set in stone and can change' but the community still took it as it will happen and when things changed the Community was up in arms.
While at first people may accept it as might change / may not happen, as time goes on people slowly forget that part and begin to expect it and thus start to get angry when it doesn't happen. You can look back to a lot of the old threads talking about changes that have never come about and people are still upset that some of them didn't happen. Remember when JustG laid out the publish schedule a while back? Mentioning the Mini Publish goals as well as main publishes. Some of those Mini Publishes didn't happen and I still see people complain about them even saying it if they couldn't deliver. On the one hand, I love the open communication. On the other though we've seen first hand how people take the attempt to deliver information they want and complain with it as well.
I agree though, we should try to find a middle ground somewhere. I'm not sure where it would really be, but I'm all for discussing it!
Page 1 of 1