Ranger Archive
Thread: Emphasis on the wilderness Ban vehicles and mounts from Dathomir, Endor, and Yavin
I reposted this from the Discussion Forum but am particularly interested in what this community has to say about the idea (FYI, the people there don't seem to like it very much. *shrug*)
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=Development&message.id=1006001
Vehicles have made the planets smaller and opened up what used to be dangerous territory to even the newest characters.
But adventure planets should be dangerous. They should be wild. And because of their history, their bordersshould be under tight Imperial control.
Endor is supposed to be a staging ground for the new Death Star, Dathomir is supposed to be a remote prison location, and Yavin is under investigation for its recent Rebel presence.
As such, the Empire should crack down and ban all vehicles and mounts from these three planets.
Banning vehicles on Dathomir, Endor, and Yavinwould accomplish several things that would enrich SWG:
1) It would stress the wild nature of each of these planets.
2) It would make expeditions on these planets more difficult and make distance meaningful.
3) It would force people to carefully avoid aggressive, dangerous creatures rather than cruise by them fearlessly.
4) It would make resources on these planets more valuable due to the difficulty of traveling around them without risk.
5) It would make Rangers and Scouts very useful group members for expeditions into adventure planets.
I'd appreciate any feedback and responses you might have to this idea. Thanks in advance!
I'm fine with banning vehicles. But mounts should be allowed.
I mean, they are animals, just pets. That's pretty wild.
As an alternative idea, how about making vehicles more vulnerable to attack by aggros? If you're crusing across Endor on your speeder bike, and decide to speed right through a mob, how come that mob can't knock you off your bike (unless you're camoflauged, of course...)
Although even as I write this, I realize that with the problems I see with mobs not displaying on my screen until I'm right in their midst, this would be considered annoying and wouldn't make the cut either.
astralzebra wrote:
Definitely would benefit scouts and rangers to have this implemented... but I see little chance of that ever happening, since the coding for vehicles is probably the same cross planet, and the community as a whole loves there speeders and would likely not support this.
Hey, most of the SWG community lived for 6 months without speeders, they can go on living without them on 3 of 10 planets.
If the Devs simply make vehicle impossible to generate on these 3 planets, it probably wouldn't be much of a coding issue. There are already lots of "no-generate" zones on planets, they'd just have to make it universal.
I imagine they could code the same thing to work for mounts without affecting other pets. Personally,I think even mounts should stay off high-end planets and it should be like an expedition up Mount Everest or a serious cave dive - you take what you wear on your back.
By the way, I'm not a Ranger and I only have Exploration 1 in Scout. This is not going to make me into Superman on thos planets.I just want to recapture the magic of exploring a dangerous planet and crossing it very carefully. I want these planets to be truly high-end, not places where some 5-minute-old Artisan can go for tourism on his speeder.
NRaas wrote:
Might have a slight problem with continuity and the fact that the movies depicted speeders on Endor...
- I like the idea though.
Nah, the speeders onEndor were owned by Imperial guards, who apparently didn't want anyone prowling around. There wouldn't be a continuity problem at all.
If I sawthe occasionalImperial NPC riding around patrolling Endor on a speeder, I'd be all in favor of it. But players, who at best operate like freelance Imperials or who have no Imperial ties whatsoever? Nah, they just shouldn't have the authority to own transportation on tightly-controlledhot zoneslike those.
I would like to see such a change take place, but I'm not sure they would do it, too many people would cry nerf....
HOWEVER it's not too late for possible future additions! For example in the Space Expansion, perhaps if they add Hoth and Dagobah, those worlds could be new true adventure planets by disallowing vehicles. And to take it further, there wouldn't even be any citiesor shuttleports there either. You'd just have to take your own ship and land it in a specific area and trek out into the wild yourself. And if only a few specific areas allow ship landings that would keep large areas out of easy reach.
All of this would be justifiable because these planets are virtually undeveloped, and are inhospitable to relatively frail technology like speeders.
Keiner wrote:
I would like to see such a change take place, but I'm not sure they would do it, too many people would cry nerf....
Idon't know, you used to be able to build houses on Dathomir, Endor, and Yavin. Then the Devs said, "Hey, these are supposed to be wild adventure planets, so we're banning future construction here." And there was barely a peep afterwards.
I think after the initial shock of self-entitlement, people will simply go back to walking and not think twice about it. As loud as people would object at first, they'd see that their games would, of course, continue, and they'd still be able to have just as much fun either walking or avoiding planets where they have to walk.
How about a compromise...
Pets/Mounts anywhere. They don't go all that fast and you can still be attacked.
Vehicles only in locations that can be easily navigated. No more driving up a sheer clif face. In fact, there should be certain locations inaccessable to certain vehicles on every planet. There are more of these areas on the "wild" planets.
"Nah, the speeders onEndor were owned by Imperial guards, who apparently didn't want anyone prowling around. There wouldn't be a continuity problem at all."
So you are saying that only Faction members would get the benefit of vehicles on the adventure planets?
- Because if we give speeders to the Imperials, it is a forgone conclusion that the Rebels will simply steal them (as in the movies).
NRaas wrote:
"Nah, the speeders onEndor were owned by Imperial guards, who apparently didn't want anyone prowling around. There wouldn't be a continuity problem at all."
So you are saying that only Faction members would get the benefit of vehicles on the adventure planets?
- Because if we give speeders to the Imperials, it is a forgone conclusion that the Rebels will simply steal them (as in the movies).
No, I think that Imperial players are different than Imperial NPCs, and it's a very clear line. They have different mandates and different roles.
I've always seen Imperial players as freelancers or privateers who have license to do what they want. After all, they don't have to report for duty, don't have to wear uniforms, etc.
Now Imperial NPCs are always on duty. They would enforce the rules - the rules being that nobody leaves the Outposts on Dathomir, Endor, or Yavin with a vehicle or a mount, no exceptions. There wouldn't need to be any special scan or dialogue to set this up, the vehicles/mounts would simply be disabled and it would be as if the Imperial guards confiscated the vehicles/mounts for the duration of your stay (if anyone objects to the "realism" of that, ask them how they justify pulling a speeder out of their pocket).
The bottom line is that Imperial guards on these planets should prevent EVERYONE from using vehicles and mounts. It's a restricted area. Let's imagine that I'm a Captain in the US Army. Can I just waltz into, say, Area 51 or Fort Knox orthe Vieques military testing groundswithout any clearance? No. Can I walk into the White House or an airport or certain cities with a gun if I didn't get permission? No. And it could besimilar in this case. These planets could have restricted clearance on certain items. People should feel lucky to even BE there, in my opinion.
Anyway, that's a long way to answer your question. Thanks for asking.
"No, I think that Imperial players are different than Imperial NPCs, and it's a very clear line. They have different mandates and different roles."
It is not as clear cut as that for most of the player community however, and such artificial restrictions would not aid immersion.
In the system, there is no true distinction between Players and NPCs...
- If you attack an Faction NPC, an Overt player can come to its aid, and vice versa.
A Factioned player can equip a full suit of Stormtrooper armor androle playa NPC Stormtrooper...
- Not being able to perform all the same actions as said NPC Stormtrooper would be quite immersion breaking.
This is chiefly academic however, as JEST3R would have my hide ifwe tried to dictate CGW policy. 
The Saharra is one of the most inhospitable places on Earth, but people ride camels and horses out there. Perhaps (and I know this would be harder to implement than it sounds, but I'm just thinking outloud) planets could have a min. creature rating for mounts. In other words, if your mount is, for example, a lesser dewback, you're S-O-L. But, if you're riding a greater mountain dewback or a giant carrion spat, then you're OK.
Also, since we rangers have been asking about enhanced mount abilities, perhaps that could tie into such an implementation as well.