Ranger Archive
Thread: Battle Fatigue can be healed in multi-player craft (JTL)
Calculus_Entropy
Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:22 am
#15
Here is the thread that says the ND has been lifted, but it is on the Beta forum, so you can't see it if you aren't in Beta.
Typho
Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:28 pm
#17
Thanks for all of the posts! I want to be clear that this is not a petition, but rather just a wish/suggestion. Also, thanks for the concern on the NDA and for Calc clearing up the fact I didn't break it (I would never break the NDA). I just hope a the devs plan on making camp changes in the near future. This is definately not a game breaking deal but would add something to the Ranger profession.
Sojourner
Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:47 pm
#18
Typho wrote:Thanks for all of the posts! I want to be clear that this is not a petition, but rather just a wish/suggestion. Also, thanks for the concern on the NDA and for Calc clearing up the fact I didn't break it (I would never break the NDA). I just hope a the devs plan on making camp changes in the near future. This is definately not a game breaking deal but would add something to the Ranger profession.
Well personally I've always been infavor of letting entertainers heal BF in high end camps (I am against passive BF healing though). The fact that multiplayer ships can do it is just one more arguement for it in camps as well.
Rhyeal
Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:13 pm
#19
right...now if we could bring to the Devs attention that we WERE being updated, then never fully finished, we may get to the top of the list and get changed.
Typho
Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:52 pm
#21
Almagill wrote:
I'm only here for the cookiees
HAHAHAAH. And I thought it was the punch 
KaiRaene
Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:34 am
#22
Giving Ranger camps bf healing ability wont make sony any more money. But a ship from the JTL expansion that allows entertaienrs to heal bf will.
I heard that Rangers made with the JTL Expansion will have bf healing camps, massive creature to hit bonus, poison/disease resists, Ranger hat!, and immediate DB to anyone wearing hawtpants. heh... 
lammergeier
Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:49 am
#23
multiplayer ships take up one 'lot' from the character's 10 'lot' count, just as a small naboo round house.
BF can be healed in any player-placed structure (excepting factories and harvesters... there may be a few other exceptions that haven't occurred to me (merchant tents?)) which takes up lots.
multiplayer ships can be decorated, and they 'persist' between calls.
camps, however, don't persist. they don't take up a lot.
as it is, a player can carry a small generic house and deed it on any planet except yavin, endor, and dathomir... and while they can't carry it deeded with items in place, they CAN use it as a mobile base to heal BF.
whether or not camps should allow BF to be healed is a point of long contention, and needs to be looked at... but multiplayer ships allow BF healing because of their similarity to player structures (as far as I can see). to draw similiarities between an 'on demand' structure with no lot cost and no ability to persist... and a 'permanent' structure that costs a lot (or more) is somewhat flawed.
BF can be healed in any player-placed structure (excepting factories and harvesters... there may be a few other exceptions that haven't occurred to me (merchant tents?)) which takes up lots.
multiplayer ships can be decorated, and they 'persist' between calls.
camps, however, don't persist. they don't take up a lot.
as it is, a player can carry a small generic house and deed it on any planet except yavin, endor, and dathomir... and while they can't carry it deeded with items in place, they CAN use it as a mobile base to heal BF.
whether or not camps should allow BF to be healed is a point of long contention, and needs to be looked at... but multiplayer ships allow BF healing because of their similarity to player structures (as far as I can see). to draw similiarities between an 'on demand' structure with no lot cost and no ability to persist... and a 'permanent' structure that costs a lot (or more) is somewhat flawed.
Nemo0
Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:57 pm
#24
Just a note on the ship lots: the Devs added the ship lot cost in exchange for letting us have more than one decorated ship. At first, you had no lot cost for ships but you couldn't have 2 multiplayer ships (well, if one was decorated you couldn't launch the other so you would essentially be stuck with one ship). Because people wanted to be able to have a fighting ship and a party barge, the Devs worked quite hard to make a system where people could have 2 decorated ships (let's just say that the first response was that a lot cost was not really possible but they tried anyway--sort of like when one of the Devs decided to get the PA Halls down to 7 lots without causing any discomfort to the players). Despite this, ships healed BF before they cost lots (although it took some work to get healing of any kind on ships).
Typho
Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:17 pm
#25
Excellent reply Sojourner! You post was one of the most thought through ones 've seen in a long time. It just goes to show you that Ranger profession is made up of great people! FWIW, I tend to play solo (been a while since I've been in beta) and always use the HTFB to heal my wounds. I love the atmosphere, the "WOW" remarks you get from other players and the fact its cheaper than getting someone to heal you (yes I'mcheap
) .
) .
lammergeier
Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:12 pm
#26
excellent points, sojourner.
I'd like to re-emphasize one of my statements:
BF healing in camps is something that has long been argued with the devs... and the devs have already decided that player structures allow for BF healing.
player structures, and therefore multiplayer ships (essentially 'houses in space'), are a done deal.
your points address the more basic concern, which is NOT that multiplayer ships undermine the limited usefulness of camps, but that BF healing in camps needs to be discussed as an option.
my earlier post was meant to explain the reasoning for association of player structures with multiplayer ships... which it seems is an agreeable line of thought to all. before I examine my own reasons to support BF healing in camps (which I favor), I'd like to extend the more specific 'cantina as a place of social interaction' with 'multiplayer ships as a place of social interaction' case.
as is, cantinas are public structures. with very few exceptions, ANY player can enter ANY cantina to interact with other players and seek healing. even private houses allow players to come and go at will (provided the player is 'on the list').
multiplayer ships, however, are 'limited entry/exit' instances of a player structure.
this means that entertainers can enter a cantina (or other groud structure) and go AFK... netting them any xp or creds that may fall their way, and offering their services to any player who comes along. a multiplayer ship, however, requires a specific group-invite to enter... and can only be left by escape pod, crash, or by landing the ship. an AFK entertainer will NOT find a roving audience on a multiplayer ship. instead, a group that requires the services of an entertainer will meet at a starport, launch into space, 'socialize', travel, and land...
that's a good thing. entertainers become valuable group members before (and possibly after) a hunting expedition or raid. an AFK entertainer or bot becomes a drag on the group limit, and is dumped on whatever planet the ship (and group) comes to land upon. bad news for bots and AFK'rs, and good news for real entertainers.
multiplayer ships, while still a tool of the 'group that already knows each other', still rewards the balanced group of professions, while it does NOT reward hodge-podge groups, AFK players and bots, and the rest of the failures of the original concept for 'cantina interaction' the social phase of the game envisioned.
again... multiplayer ships are de facto player structures... in space... with all the rules of decoration, persistance, lot usage... and with expanded restrictions on entry and exit.
now... to the matter at hand:
SHOULD CAMPS ALLOW FOR BF HEALING?
I wish I could just answer this with a 'YES', and let that be enough. instead, I'll offer some reasons for and against it.
CON:
AFK campers coupled with AFK entertainers: big problem. survival xp is not a lot of fun, and automating it (to ANY degree) only encourages AFK play. despite the fact that an AFK camping macro only exists as an inefficient and pretty much useless exercise (though still possible... I'd be happy to offer the macro to anyone desperate enough to use it), any enhanced reward for such AFK play makes the carrot seem a little bigger, and the stick a little shorter. since a 'static' AFK camp with advertising near an 'adventure planet' POI that offers AFK or bot healing, doc buffs, BF healing, and entertainer buffs... would eventually be a free ticket to survival xp (and entertainer, and medical xp)... this is a real (as far-fetched as it seems) possibility, and a reason for concern.
coding: god knows what flag needs to be turned on to allow BF healing in camps... which are a temporary placement on a worldmap, with limited effectiveness within their boundaries (where is the 'repels aggressive creatures' part of camps? do camps accurately add the bonus for healing in all cases?... and more). if the coding for this risks breaking other code (like the ability to heal BF in cantinas, player structures, etc), then we're unlikely to see a change.
the level of the camp: do ALL camps allow a certain degree of effectiveness of BF healing? is BF healing in a camp limited to the HTFB at master ranger? realistically, a line must be drawn: do ALL ranger camps allow BF healing? only camps above x level? this needs to be discussed. if this is a master ranger-only option, it needs to be justified. if it is allowed at ANY camping level, it needs additional coding. what about squad leaders and THEIR camps?
obstinance: if the devs are hell-bent on limiting BF healing to cantinas and player structures, then we're butting our heads against a wall. a very solid wall that even AOE attacks won't break.
PROS:
AFK campers and AFK entertainers: far-fetched, and unlikely. the time sink this involves, coupled with the coding implemented, will determine whether this is a concern.
GOOD implementation of the 'social phase' of SWG: camps require some sort of attendance, whether by the camper, or by the camp attendees. making the 'camp' a center of social interaction could do a lot to improve the ranger's abilities as a support class, as well as encourage more players to meet and interact with each other.
the limited usefulness of camps: camps don't do much except re-level terrain, take up space, and look nifty. adding BF healing to camps would make them useful.
a better definition of the ranger profession: rangers, like camps, have limited usefulness. by defining rangers as a support class, a better range of abilities can be assigned to a class that desperately needs more functionality.
again: I want camps to heal BF. comparing camps to structures, or to multiplayer ships, doesn't solve anything. I want rangers and squad leaders to offer a substantial benefit to groups. more than anything else, I think that BF healing in camps needs a frank and thorough discussion.
I hope that we can sway the devs on this.
I'd like to re-emphasize one of my statements:
BF healing in camps is something that has long been argued with the devs... and the devs have already decided that player structures allow for BF healing.
player structures, and therefore multiplayer ships (essentially 'houses in space'), are a done deal.
your points address the more basic concern, which is NOT that multiplayer ships undermine the limited usefulness of camps, but that BF healing in camps needs to be discussed as an option.
my earlier post was meant to explain the reasoning for association of player structures with multiplayer ships... which it seems is an agreeable line of thought to all. before I examine my own reasons to support BF healing in camps (which I favor), I'd like to extend the more specific 'cantina as a place of social interaction' with 'multiplayer ships as a place of social interaction' case.
as is, cantinas are public structures. with very few exceptions, ANY player can enter ANY cantina to interact with other players and seek healing. even private houses allow players to come and go at will (provided the player is 'on the list').
multiplayer ships, however, are 'limited entry/exit' instances of a player structure.
this means that entertainers can enter a cantina (or other groud structure) and go AFK... netting them any xp or creds that may fall their way, and offering their services to any player who comes along. a multiplayer ship, however, requires a specific group-invite to enter... and can only be left by escape pod, crash, or by landing the ship. an AFK entertainer will NOT find a roving audience on a multiplayer ship. instead, a group that requires the services of an entertainer will meet at a starport, launch into space, 'socialize', travel, and land...
that's a good thing. entertainers become valuable group members before (and possibly after) a hunting expedition or raid. an AFK entertainer or bot becomes a drag on the group limit, and is dumped on whatever planet the ship (and group) comes to land upon. bad news for bots and AFK'rs, and good news for real entertainers.
multiplayer ships, while still a tool of the 'group that already knows each other', still rewards the balanced group of professions, while it does NOT reward hodge-podge groups, AFK players and bots, and the rest of the failures of the original concept for 'cantina interaction' the social phase of the game envisioned.
again... multiplayer ships are de facto player structures... in space... with all the rules of decoration, persistance, lot usage... and with expanded restrictions on entry and exit.
now... to the matter at hand:
SHOULD CAMPS ALLOW FOR BF HEALING?
I wish I could just answer this with a 'YES', and let that be enough. instead, I'll offer some reasons for and against it.
CON:
AFK campers coupled with AFK entertainers: big problem. survival xp is not a lot of fun, and automating it (to ANY degree) only encourages AFK play. despite the fact that an AFK camping macro only exists as an inefficient and pretty much useless exercise (though still possible... I'd be happy to offer the macro to anyone desperate enough to use it), any enhanced reward for such AFK play makes the carrot seem a little bigger, and the stick a little shorter. since a 'static' AFK camp with advertising near an 'adventure planet' POI that offers AFK or bot healing, doc buffs, BF healing, and entertainer buffs... would eventually be a free ticket to survival xp (and entertainer, and medical xp)... this is a real (as far-fetched as it seems) possibility, and a reason for concern.
coding: god knows what flag needs to be turned on to allow BF healing in camps... which are a temporary placement on a worldmap, with limited effectiveness within their boundaries (where is the 'repels aggressive creatures' part of camps? do camps accurately add the bonus for healing in all cases?... and more). if the coding for this risks breaking other code (like the ability to heal BF in cantinas, player structures, etc), then we're unlikely to see a change.
the level of the camp: do ALL camps allow a certain degree of effectiveness of BF healing? is BF healing in a camp limited to the HTFB at master ranger? realistically, a line must be drawn: do ALL ranger camps allow BF healing? only camps above x level? this needs to be discussed. if this is a master ranger-only option, it needs to be justified. if it is allowed at ANY camping level, it needs additional coding. what about squad leaders and THEIR camps?
obstinance: if the devs are hell-bent on limiting BF healing to cantinas and player structures, then we're butting our heads against a wall. a very solid wall that even AOE attacks won't break.
PROS:
AFK campers and AFK entertainers: far-fetched, and unlikely. the time sink this involves, coupled with the coding implemented, will determine whether this is a concern.
GOOD implementation of the 'social phase' of SWG: camps require some sort of attendance, whether by the camper, or by the camp attendees. making the 'camp' a center of social interaction could do a lot to improve the ranger's abilities as a support class, as well as encourage more players to meet and interact with each other.
the limited usefulness of camps: camps don't do much except re-level terrain, take up space, and look nifty. adding BF healing to camps would make them useful.
a better definition of the ranger profession: rangers, like camps, have limited usefulness. by defining rangers as a support class, a better range of abilities can be assigned to a class that desperately needs more functionality.
again: I want camps to heal BF. comparing camps to structures, or to multiplayer ships, doesn't solve anything. I want rangers and squad leaders to offer a substantial benefit to groups. more than anything else, I think that BF healing in camps needs a frank and thorough discussion.
I hope that we can sway the devs on this.