Politician Archive
Thread: Your Definition of 2 Terms:
Page 1 of 1
TalonWolfe
Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:13 pm
#1
Fidgiter,
For the sake of understanding your definition of exploit....
What criteria determines whether an advantage is unfair or fair? Availability to the masses? Secrecy of the method?
Fidgiter
Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:20 pm
#2
There is a highly subjective aspect to what is and is not an exploit just as there is a subjective aspect to what is fair and what is unfair.
Let's say for sake of arguement there are two cities working on reaching tier 5 on the same planet and there is only one slot available. One city works the starter cities looking for new players and actively seeks people who are wanderers to settle down in their city. The other goes out to the forums and solicits people from other galaxies to trade lots. In the end the city which worked hard and within their community fails while the lot swapper succeeds.
Is it fair? Which city was more deserving of the success?
KJFett
Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:28 pm
#3
First, I will say that it is difficult to add on to what Fidgiter has already stated.
His definition of an exploit nailed it on the head. In our game, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD be able to do something. Guys could multi slice weapons...banned. Guys could dupe credits..banned. Guys have 40K HAM swoops...being "dealt" with...the list goes on. Common sense, our peers and SOE are all ultimately those who judge us for an exploit. Being seen with a 40K ham swoop may not get you banned, but SOE will delete it, and your peers will determine you will do anything to get what you want...what will you do next to get the upper hand? Faith is lost.
What determines a successful city is a bit of an opinion.
(these are generailzed, I know, but it would take all day to list all of this without generalizing.)
1.) The merchant will view a successful city onethat gets alot of visitors resulting in their pockets getting lined....
2.) A hunter will view a successful city as one that has a lot of hunting and a variety of challanges.
3.) A new player will view a successful city as one that welcomes them and has players around that can help them.
4.) A veteran player will veiw a successful city as one that has many friends they recognize
5.) As a long time politician,I would say that a successful city ....
Is one that has struggled through the growing pains....reached the top...struggled and gone through the hard times, and risen again stronger for it. One that has weathered the storms of growth, of political strife, guild drama, the GCW, the loss of vendors...each time recovering from the losses. Standing firm, trying to be the kind stranger to the new players, the relaxing hunting lodge to the veterans, the busy mall to the merchant and the quiet village to the hunter. One that strives to go beyond being a city for its own citizens, but one that strives to be a city for the visitors as well, for the galaxy as a whole, offering player events for all, and reaching out to its sister cities to help them stand as well.
Now...ask what a makes a good mayor? 
TalonWolfe
Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:36 pm
#4
Edit: (*ack! you beat me to the post. This was a responde to Fidgiter)
which one indeed, especially in light of that both methods were available to both cities.
How about these examples:
A miner, actively surveying on different planets, workingherway up to getting better harvesters, sellingher resources both on the bazaar and on her vendor. She has heard about 'lot swapping' and planting static harvesters, but has not chosen to pursue that. Meanwhile, several miners do just that, end up with 70-100 or more static harvesters, get massive quantities of resources and undercut prices on the server.
Fair or unfair? Why?
Or, imagine a young brawler, working their way up to become master. Picking fights that she can handle, and trying to make money as she goes. Meanwhile...
...another brawlerhassome friends that hook him up withthe best comp armor, buffs and a killer VibroKnuckler. Withing a couple of days, they are already halfway through Teras Kasi.
Fair or unfair? Why?
Message Edited by TalonWolfe on 01-17-2005 01:38 PM
KJFett
Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:50 pm
#5
You are missing the point of why we mayors call the server swap exploit.
1) The devs have stated in the past that the server swap to boost numbers was bad, but do to the ability to create toons on multiple servers, was difficult to fix, but would eventually be resolved.
2) Many posts asking about server swaps are deleted by the mods. After your earlier post, I went back in my history to find some of the many posts I have made in regards to this, not just here, but on my own server and trade forums. Only one has not been deleted...that one is one in which I point out it being wrong, and that previous posts asking for swaps have been deleted....my response is the only one on the thread, and it fell to many many pages down.
3)I know some argue the point of it not being "fair". I dont really go for this as it is easliy refuted by existing non exploitable mechanics. like you point out equiping a new player with good equipment. I also dont side with many on the server swap being used as harvy farms not being an exploit. The idea of toons on other servers creating lots on on servers they dont play on sinply to boost a city or boost resource collection is more a game breaking issue...more a database problem....it opens a can of worms...to more so a point, what would happen if EVERYONE did it? Suddenly the entire landscape of Tat is one big hary farm....does that sounds fun? suddenly every city is crammed with feilds of small houses empty and bare....does that sounds fun?
I think the majority of mayors dont just feel it is an exploit because of the reference from devs andthe mods deleting the posts, but because of what the galaxy would become if it WERE okay. One look at a a huge harvy farm, and you will get an idea of what I mean. The game simply was not meant to operate that way...there is the exploit...
TalonWolfe
Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:15 pm
#6
Edit: KJ, once again beat me to the post! 
see my response to your last post below this post. (sorry for confusion)
see my response to your last post below this post. (sorry for confusion)KJFett, I see what you mean. Isn't there a difference between known, obvious advantages gained, and advantages gained that are somewhat of a bug that is only known to a few (the 40k HAM vehicle thing comes to mind). For instance, how would you have classified the old bug that allowed players to repair their vehicles at no cost simply by leaving them out when they shuttled to another location (and then when you stored it and called it again, it was at 100%)?
On your response, if I am reading you correctly, you are saying that the definition of a successful city varies depending on the viewpoint of the individuals that inhabit it, and what their needs are, plus being able to last, survive, and thrive through the ups and downs....I know I simplified it a bit, but is that the essence of what you said, or did I miss something?
A Good Mayor? Glad to add that to the discussion, since I am a new one and to paraphrase Yoda: "Much to learn I still have!"
To me a Mayor is:
Initially: theone that by himself starts a city, or by election of others to do the task, starts a city. In purely functional/technical terms, the person who goes and gets the necessary AP points, trains Novice Politician, buys with his own credits (or the entrusted credits of future citizens) the City Hall, and gets the town planted. Beyond that mere functionality, a mayor, depending on whether he has citizens behind him or not, will then rally the citizenry needed to keep the town past the 24 hour deadline. The initial mayor must plant structures or appoint someone to do so for the citizenry, hopefully planning the 'look' of the town.
HOWEVER, beyond the functions of a founding mayor, to me, a good mayor must be responsible to the citizens of the city, and what is wanted/needed forthe town. The town is the citizens, not just the Mayors. Determining with the citizens the purpose(s) of the town, and the goals for growth. Establishing and the code of conduct (what rep will people of the town have? What faction?), the criteria for admittance to the town (simply observing the code of conduct? Being a certain faction?). The Mayor should concern himself with the look and layout of the town, or entrust someone with that. The 'buck' stops with the mayor, in terms of making sure that the weekly maintenance is being collected/generated from the citizenry. The Mayor must make himself available to residents, and respond to their needs in a timely manner, even if it means setting aside his night's plans of hunting to spend some time talking out an issue that cannot wait. If the citizens have not decided on a 'growth cap', the mayor should spearhead attracting new residences that will be the right 'fit'...
A Mayor should hold job one the intended goals of the town, if the town even has goals (besides simple growth and paying the bills). A Mayor should protect the town and people their, and make sure things are secure. A Mayor may want to even make himself available to residents out of game, via email or more. A mayormay want toconcern himself with 'out of game' perks for the residents, too, even if it's just a free tripod website that shows the town. There may be residents that can contribute to that end.
As a mayor, my reward is not in the pay I get (none), or the headache that sometimes comes with the job (a lot), or the thanks I get (none, most of the time). My reward is the town itself, seeing it, seeing if alive and functioning for it's residents, seeing the way it looks, knowing the time and effort that went into making it special. It is about the residents having a cool, unique place to call their own and take pride in. As Mayor, I ask myself, "Why my town? Why not one of the other many towns? Why mine, and is that enough to make it worthwhile for them and me?"
That's just some of the stuff that comes to mind when I think of what makes a good mayor.
Message Edited by TalonWolfe on 01-17-2005 02:29 PM
TalonWolfe
Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:28 pm
#7
I think I understand why the Mayors call server swap of citizens an exploit
I was simply thinking about exploits in broader terms, trying to find a sharper definition of 'exploit'. Thus far, the definition we have seems to be too broad, since it would appear to include other game stuff that does not seem to be considered exploitative.
"An exploit is using game mechanics in ways which are not intended to gain an unfair advantage." <--- that definition resulted in the questions, "what is the criteria to decide what is 'fair'?"
From what I can understand, it would seem there are these levels:
1. Obvious Game Mechanic
2. Game Mechanic that is'higher'knowledge, yet okay with devs ('higher knowledge', i.e., buffs, armor, CA's, etc.)
3. Game Mechanic that is 'higher' knowledge, but frowned on by devs (lot swaps, etc)
4. Game Mechanic that is a bug, and is called 'exploit' by devs, and carries a consequence/punishment (endor spawn, duping creds, etc).
What do you think of that breakdown? and by 'Higher Knowledge' I am saying knowledge beyone noob or casual player level. Knowledge you would have if you browsed the boards, talked to other players that knew the ropes a bit, or surfed SWG devoted websites.
Message Edited by TalonWolfe on 01-17-2005 02:31 PM
KJFett
Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:32 pm
#8
TalonWolfe wrote:
Edit: KJ, once again beat me to the post!
KJFett, I see what you mean. Isn't there a difference between known, obvious advantages gained, and advantages gained that are somewhat of a bug that is only known to a few (the 40k HAM vehicle thing comes to mind). For instance, how would you have classified the old bug that allowed players to repair their vehicles at no cost simply by leaving them out when they shuttled to another location (and then when you stored it and called it again, it was at 100%)?
Sadly, there is no grey area in regards to an exploit. Most are found unintentionally, and reported. Those that continue to do so afterwards are dealt with by SOE. To that end, everyone has likely exploited. (the vehicle repair bug as you point out is the broadest one). That doens't excuse it tho. It just means SOE decided on a different way of handling it.
On your response, if I am reading you correctly, you are saying that the definition of a successful city varies depending on the viewpoint of the individuals that inhabit it, and what their needs are, plus being able to last, survive, and thrive through the ups and downs....I know I simplified it a bit, but is that the essence of what you said, or did I miss something?
Yeah...that's really whittling it down though.
A Good Mayor? Glad to add that to the discussion, since I am a new one and to paraphrase Yoda: "Much to learn I still have!"
To me a Mayor is:
Initially: theone that by himself starts a city, or by election of others to do the task, starts a city. In purely functional/technical terms, the person who goes and gets the necessary AP points, trains Novice Politician, buys with his own credits (or the entrusted credits of future citizens) the City Hall, and gets the town planted. Beyond that mere functionality, a mayor, depending on whether he has citizens behind him or not, will then rally the citizenry needed to keep the town past the 24 hour deadline. The initial mayor must plant structures or appoint someone to do so for the citizenry, hopefully planning the 'look' of the town.
HOWEVER, beyond the functions of a founding mayor, to me, a good mayor must be responsible to the citizens of the city, and what is wanted/needed forthe town. The town is the citizens, not just the Mayors. Determining with the citizens the purpose(s) of the town, and the goals for growth. Establishing and the code of conduct (what rep will people of the town have? What faction?), the criteria for admittance to the town (simply observing the code of conduct? Being a certain faction?). The Mayor should concern himself with the look and layout of the town, or entrust someone with that. The 'buck' stops with the mayor, in terms of making sure that the weekly maintenance is being collected/generated from the citizenry. The Mayor must make himself available to residents, and respond to their needs in a timely manner, even if it means setting aside his night's plans of hunting to spend some time talking out an issue that cannot wait. If the citizens have not decided on a 'growth cap', the mayor should spearhead attracting new residences that will be the right 'fit'...
A Mayor should hold job one the intended goals of the town, if the town even has goals (besides simple growth and paying the bills). A Mayor should protect the town and people their, and make sure things are secure. A Mayor may want to even make himself available to residents out of game, via email or more. A mayormay want toconcern himself with 'out of game' perks for the residents, too, even if it's just a free tripod website that shows the town. There may be residents that can contribute to that end.
As a mayor, my reward is not in the pay I get (none), or the headache that sometimes comes with the job (a lot), or the thanks I get (none, most of the time). My reward is the town itself, seeing it, seeing if alive and functioning for it's residents, seeing the way it looks, knowing the time and effort that went into making it special. It is about the residents having a cool, unique place to call their own and take pride in. As Mayor, I ask myself, "Why my town? Why not one of the other many towns? Why mine, and is that enough to make it worthwhile for them and me?"
That's just some of the stuff that comes to mind when I think of what makes a good mayor.
I can see by your definition of a mayor that you want to really help your city...I just want to point out one thing....your city will be known not only by the citizens it keeps, but by the mayor of the town. We all represent our city. When we do something that many see as an exploit, be it one or not, to simply get numbers in our city to acheive our city goal...are we really helping or hurting the city reputation? The reputaiton is the binding that holds all of what I mentioned earlier together. It is teh one thing in the background that allows all of that to work. Without it, none of that stuff can hold together...with it, an outpost can be a better city than any Metro.
Message Edited by TalonWolfe on 01-17-2005 02:17 PM
TalonWolfe
Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:19 am
#9
Please consider this thread separate from any past thread or discussion, I simply would like to start a polite, intelligent dialogue about a couple of things to better my own understanding.
How would you define the following, in terms of this game:
1. Exploit
2. Successful Player City ('city' being used here as an inclusive word to describe a player settlement at any of the levels, whether it be outpost, metropolis or anywhere in between)
thanks!
Message Edited by TalonWolfe on 01-17-2005 12:20 PM
Fidgiter
Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:31 am
#10
TalonWolfe wrote:
Please consider this thread separate from any past thread or discussion, I simply would like to start a polite, intelligent dialogue about a couple of things to better my own understanding.
How would you define the following, in terms of this game:
1. Exploit
An exploit is using game mechanics in ways which are not intended to gain an unfair advantage.
For example: The ability to create characters on other galaxies is intended to let a player try out playing other races and factions. To create a character with the sole intent of placing a structure for someone else is exploiting the feature.
2. Successful Player City ('city' being used here as an inclusive word to describe a player settlement at any of the levels, whether it be outpost, metropolis or anywhere in between)
A successful player city is one which maintains a number of residents who are or had been active members of the galactic community and has a "draw" which makes other people want come and visit from time to time. This "draw" could be the city layout, mission options, well decorated structures, well stocked vendors, entertainers or any of a number of gimmics.
thanks!
Message Edited by Fidgiter on 01-17-2005 01:02 PM
Page 1 of 1