Politician Archive
Thread: Devs Why would you do this?
Ithink they need to come out with barney online so all you gimps that are scard to die have a game you can play.
Dirtnap-GSF/MC
Overt till I die!
A few comments to the discussion between BT & Niska (& let me commend you both for keeping it civil despite your fundamental disagreement) ....
What bothers me about this dev decision is the all-or-nothing kneejerk quality it has ... there was just no imagination applied to solve the problem.
When it comes to load-killing or wandering into a hostile city, I think most of that has been fixed with timers. But in addition, couldn't every PRC have a "threat-level" indicator on the map (or when buying a shuttle ticket)? Cities that wanted to use some version of /warn within their boundaries would be Red cities, where you know that entry has certain perils. If you approached the border of such a city, maybe 25-50m before crossing the boundary you could receive an on-screen message "Approaching Red-level city, militia here is known to aggressively respond to perceived threats" ....
I'm not saying that's the optimal solution, it's just an idea that there could be a lot more flexible solution to this problem than ripping out one of the central features of Cities that the devs have proudly trumpeted for months. How many times do we have to hear "Oh, we didn't think of that ... never mind, just kidding" ?
I don't think there's an entitlement to be careless in the game ... you quite simply don't have the freedom to wander around in a daze safe from attack. Try it near a Nighsister camp on Dathomir! I don't follow the logic that only NPC sites should be hazardous.
As for the issue of making it hazardous for artisans to go prospecting for minerals within a City radius ... well, let's be realistic, any City with an aggressive militia is going to have zoning rights enabled and you're not going to be allowed to build a harvester inside their borders anyway.
I do not feel that load killing is the entirety of the argument. It is a major concern, but it is not the only one. As much as we would like to think otherwise, semi-unattended play is a consequence of the current game system, for good or ill. When I load the game I may or may not wander back into the room for 10 or 15 minutes (sometimes based on where I logged out at it can take that long to fully load). I may be loaded and able to respond but I may not be there to respond to a player threat and NPC threats are never an issue as I log in areas that no NPC could pose a threat. I may sit down at a cantina to watch a local dancer and go afk to grab a bite to eat or take a restroom break. If there is not a function by which I can guarantee my safety from other players then in effect SOE has cracked one of their own fundamental building blocks.
The function has nothing to do with my location but the basic functionality of never allowing one player to attack another player without express consent. The current rules set that functionality as neutrality. As a neutral I can go anywhere and do anything and the only risk I take, is being killed by a computer-controlled opponent. This is the risk inherent in a PvE game, which as I remember quite well through development, was the primary direction the developers want the game to go.
I know very well many of you were here during pre-beta. I lurked here a bit myself in those times and I remember the very heated debates that occurred with the very mention of PvP. MMORPGs have since UO proven very unsuccessful fields for PvP gaming. The vast majority of players have no desire to engage in PvP, and though there is a small fraction of the player base that enjoys limited PvP, very few hardcore PvPers exist in this market. The developers must direct content at their largest market share or risk becoming a niche game. The very future of this game depends on the ability of the developers to add content that will not disenfranchise the mass-market players. Politicans, militia members and private PAs must all step aside when it comes to pleasing the housewives, after work office wage slaves and weekenders who play to have fun and not be interfered with.
Based on what has been presented to us by the developers there is a very fundamental difference in the purpose and reasoning behind Player Cities. I believe currently the role of all player cities are to act as extensions to the NPC cities. To provide the same services to casual gamers who wish to have immediate access to POIs. (Hence the very firm answer that NBZs will not be instituted.) The reason the developers are surprised that the city caps were met in record time and the very honest surprise that the players want the caps lifted may very well be due heavily in part to the fact that the developers do not understand why other players would be willing to create for themselves so many money sinks which the developers never intended to relinquish control of. If that last sentence was not clear let me try to put it as a direct statement. Player cities are public property intended to offer services to any and all players to access content faster. This I feel was the actual design concept and this was never communicated clearly to the player base who were under the opinion that Player Cities would be privatized.
I am well aware that during development there was a great deal of discussion on what the purpose of a Player City would be. During this time a whole range of Player interactions were discussed; Outcasting, factional based cities, player bounties, tradeskill interdependencies and zones of control are all examples I can come up with off the top of my head. Each of these was discussed and debated. Some even were tested in beta, but in the end each idea was dropped. Why? It is because the developers areaware of the larger picture.
There are even larger issues at hand when developers give any level of control to players outside of their direct supervision. I really hate to use the old cliché, but it fits quite well. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you give another player power to use over another without the consent of that player in turn you have created a tool that, though could be used for the good of the community, will be used by someone, somewhere, at sometime, as a tool to grief.
I wish to say, I am pleased our discussion in this matter has been quite civil. I do agree that players may have been unintentionally misled as to what their role as custodians of civil property would be. Perhaps, what needs to be created is a galaxy or two devoted to PvP, similar to the red servers (Zeks) from EQ. This would separate out those people who want to create their own communities from those who wish to interact without player conflict.
Zakkeh wrote:
You're reasoning seems....flawed...to me
Case #1
Firstly, /citywarn gives you 2 minutes....
<clip>
You're also very mis-leading when you say
"Try ridingaround a 900 meter diameter circle multiple times per day for weeks."
Again, at worst case scenario your potential path takes you smack bang through the middle of their town...this means you have to divert your course by 450m only...and thats worst case. 450m is nothing....you have to divert more from Red Con mobs while running to a mission. It's besides the point anyway because the number of times where you actually arrive at a particular point at the city border and find someone there ready to /warn you will be rare enough as it is.
Case #1: Citywarn gives you 30 seconds. I am giving comparisons to live vs. what exists on TC now (no /citywarn).
No, you divert your route by 900... 450 north and 450 south (simple geometry). If you run almost a kilometer of wasted footwork every time you do a mission, I pity you.
TH today responded to why remove citywarn:
Because its being used as a widespread, horrible exploit to:
- Prevent players (all types of players) from getting to cool, fun content in the game.
- Its being used as a horrible grief tactic to just waylay and kill unsuspecting players. Even players who have _zero_ interest in conflict or PvP.
Remember that one of the main philosophies of this game is if you do not want to play PvP, you do not have to.
_________
There you go. It's the dev's design that consensual PvP isa higher law than total land ownership/consequences. Like it or not, this is the way SWG is designed.
So you're saying you shouldn't log off inside the boundaries of a Player City when their militia has coercive powers? Yeah, I'd agree with that ... I don't see how that changes anything except your criteria for choosing a "safe place" to log out. As far as semi-unattended play being for "good or ill", I'd have to say that sounds like extremely risky strategy to me ... at least it certainly shouldn't be. Do you think there should be no negative consequences for lazy play?
As a neutral I can go anywhere and do anything and the only risk I take, is being killed by a computer-controlled opponent.
But you've made no case to persuade me that this should be the only risk you take whenbeing careless about where you go. Neutrality should not mean invulnerability. It should be hard, nearly impossible, to PvP you if you're Neutral, I agree with that. But all that tells me is ... stay out of player cities you aren't familiar with, unless you accept the risks.
So you're saying you shouldn't log off inside the boundaries of a Player City when their militia has coercive powers? Yeah, I'd agree with that ... I don't see how that changes anything except your criteria for choosing a "safe place" to log out.
Actually, this is quite near the opposite of what I was attempting to present. It is my belief, though this is based only on personal conjecture, that the development team in no way intended for Player Cities to be anything other than fully open and public areas paid for and supported by certain individuals who would act as caretakers of civil property for no other reward than a “sense of community”.
As such the same treatment one would expect to receive in the Theed cantina as a random neutral customer is what the developers are pressing upon the players to expect in a random Player City cantina. Again, this is based entirely on my own opinion that communication about the exact purpose of a Player City failed somewhere between development and implementation.
But you've made no case to persuade me that this should be the only risk you take when being careless about where you go. Neutrality should not mean invulnerability.
I’m not sure that I can persuade you as that is not my goal. I understand full well that there are very specific and diametrically opposed philosophies regarding gaming, risk, PvP and conflict. My goal here was to point out that SOE has, as a fundamental policy regarding SWG, made it clear to players that PvP is not something that can be decided for another player, but only by themselves. Case and point; If a player wants to become a covert Imperial, they have to actively build up 200 faction points by running missions, talk to a recruiter (who informs them of the PvP status they are about to take) and click through a number of things which in effect says “I wish to participate on a part time with PvP”. This is why I have no issues with the TEF as aquired by coverts on faction missions. They have accepted the role of a part time PvPer and were made quite well aware of the consequences. If they wish to no longer PvP they can simply resign from the Empire and never have to worry about being attacked by another player ever again. Being neutral means never having to PvP. Period. This is where the problem lies. One side says one thing and the other side says another. It is an impasse that I’m quite sure will not change in the favor of the pro-/citywarn camp.
Neutrality does not equal invulnerability from PvE, but that is not what is being discussed here. A significant number of people are trying to use the single idea that Players = Environment, where it is very clearly a different aspect of the system. Players and player interaction are very separate things from the environment. The environment has rules and regulations, an order that can be deciphered and acted upon in a predictable manner. Players are an element of chaos and as such must be treated differently when it comes to the rules through which they are allowed to interact with other players.
Again, this is not something I am trying to convince you of as I am pretty sure you do not hold this personal philosophical outlook. I do feel however, the development staff does share, at least in part, this philosophy as do many MMORPG development teams. Perhaps if we can come at it from another viewpoint we might be able to discuss this in a way which will enlighten us both further…
First of all....being neutral doesn't really have anything to do with PvP or not pvp'ing....it's about not choosing a side in the GCW.
Neutrality has nothing to do with choosing sides, it has everything to do with non-PvP (Both my characters are Imperial sympathizers). Declared neutrality is the only way I, as a player, have of guaranteeing that another player can in no way kill me without my express and active consent. By being neutral there is only one way in which the developers intended PvP to occur. That is through the use of /duel. I must, as a neutral player, actively type in and accept the duel. No other player can force me into anything. It is my choice, not theirs.
If I am zoning into an area, afk, talking with a friend and ignoring the rest of the world, or whatever I might be doing, I have nothing to worry about as another player has no control over my actions which would force me to accept /duel. I do what I will, where I will, and as long as do not violate any rule of harassment as laid down by the legal department at SOE you have no ability to stop me. That is how it should be.
One problem with your reasoning: anyone who can't move 450m in two minutes isn't trying. And that's the furthest anyone has to go in order to leave a city. Don't want to PvP? Then when a PC town's militia /citywarns you, leave. It's that simple.
This is where the root of the disagreement is. Under no circumstances should I be trying to avoid conflict with another player. It is not my responsibility to avoid conflict, I am given that right, privilige, and ability to avoid any and all PvP by being neutral. Another player, as I stated above, should have no ability to decide what I can and cannot do, other than to prevent me from using facilities they own. You can inflict no harm upon my avatar without my express consent and desire for you to do so.
Getting spawned on top of by a red mob can force you into nonconsensual combat --- it's happened to me plenty of times, and I've been killed that way on more than one occasion. Whoops! Dire Cats! Runrunrun! Oh no! *chomp* I die! Well, that's part of the game, and you don't see me in here demanding that the Devs rig the game so red mobs can never spawn on top of me, do you?
PvE |= PvP
I choose to PvE based on the fact that no other human anywhere is involved in my actions. If I die, it is the fault of only one human...myself. I could possibly blame a number of technical issues, but the only player I can hold responsible is myself. I am here to interact with people on a social level not on a competitive level. I hold nothing against those who wish to PvP, and I've accepted /duel before, but I stand firmly in the confidence that the developers will remove the slightest chance that I can be directly killed by another player. (I say directly, as it is stated quite clearly in the rules that indirectly bypassing PvP to get another player killed is a form of harassment.)
I do feel sorry for those of you who thought that Player Cities would grant license of control of an area and over other players. I do believe that this was never the intention of the developers after long term development began to cement. The idea that you could circumvent the established rules of the GCW and the anti-PvP status of neutrals is in major part what is responsible for the removal of /citywarn.
Based on what has been presented to us by the developers there is a very fundamental difference in the purpose and reasoning behind Player Cities. I believe currently the role of all player cities are to act as extensions to the NPC cities. To provide the same services to casual gamers who wish to have immediate access to POIs. (Hence the very firm answer that NBZs will not be instituted.)
Here I very much disagree with you Niska. From the early early early discussions with Holocron and the other developers in the pre-beta forums it was made blazingly clear that player cities where there so that player could create unique communities of their own! Not in complete isolation, but communities with social consequence. However, you correctly imply that without /citywarn player cities will become, as you put it, merely "extensions of player cities." This would be a very sad day for SWG and the death of the vision Holocron had for what player cities could be.
Niska -- there's nothing non-concensual about PvP resulting from you entering a PRC. You choose to enter it ... you know you're entering it ... you could always turn around and leave.
But you choose to enter. Now what you're saying is, when you make that choice, you want it to be risk-free. It's not player choice you're arguing for, it's player invulnerability no matter what choice they make.
No, I don't find that a very interesting game. If you want safety, sit inside your house and craft Wastril breads all day long, you'll be safe. I can't see that you'll be very entertained, but you'll sure be safe.
Some people would like you to believe that "ignore" handles all the cases one would care about. These people apparently think SWG is a chatroom where people can't pull mobs into your town, can't leave droids and pets patrolling around with annoying names, can't advertise or harass every new visitor that gets off the shuttle in your town, can't abuse TEFs, can't abuse the ability for coverts to gather while the one overt they are grouped with shows up at the end to get killed gives them the ability to let lose...
I do believe the point I am trying to express is being lost in my rambling so I will try a few short ones to break my points down.
1)Yes, I agree, and pointed out that I know that during pre-beta and early beta testing it was clearly communicated to the player base that Player Cities would be areas of autonomy able to create and enforce their own rule.
2)What I am trying to convey is that without communicating the change to you i.e. the player base, the developers have made a decision that this autonomy is no longer the desired purpose of Player Cities.
Are these two blurbs clear? I’m not sure if I can explain it in any other way. I cannot say for what reason the developers may have had to change this, but I can make a number of educated assumptions. The main reasons I have to guess at the change are due in fact to the repeated statements of the developers and their representatives in recent months.
1)POI No Build Zones will not be implemented.
2)Complete surprise at the city cap being met on every planet in every galaxy in record time.
3)An even more puzzled response as to why players wanted even more cities.
4)Removal of /citywarn.
5)Increasing the number of citizens to acquire a certain status.
6)Allowing for cities to overtake grandfathered residences which make those people citizens of your city automatically.
Does the above list indicate to you that the developers intend for you to do anything other than provide a money sink that is public domain? What was said in development and what is implemented are usually very different things in all MMORPGs. I’ve seen it happen over and over so this comes to no great surprise to me. It is something that can be accepted or not, it is unlikely to change given the current developmental path.
p.s. I would like to point out that Raph Koster aka Holocron (formerly Designer Dragon) is no longer the Creative Director of SWG. His promotion left that position currently vacant. “The Vison” has changed, what I am simply expressing is that you were not made aware of that.
I would be truly, deeply disappointed to hear that the developers have sold out the vision of player moderated content, of TRUE player communities, and replaced it with "extensions of NPC cities." I wont deny that its true, because it very well could be. That doesnt mean I have to like it or agree with it.
Yes, I knew about Holocrons change in career. This is one of those times I really miss him.