Smuggler Archive

You know I think the whole wanting to pit friend against friend thing pretty disturbing. Putting aside what such a desire on the part of the devs means about them and their particular psychological pathologies, it ruins the game, I think. One of the key aspect that makes MMORP's fun is the friends you make. Now the devs say they want to break those friendships? That's silly and stupid. It looks like they somehow equate animosity with fun. I also think their whole attitude of forcing the community in a particular direction is counterproductive and detrimental to building a sense of community. I have friends who are imps and friends who are rebel. I've been rebel in the past, but I'm not really into this because I want to fight a war. It seems to me what the devs are really saying is PvE is on its way out and we are going to force everyone to PvP, which I thought, was something they promised never to do, and in the past had worked to make sure people who don't want to be forced to PvP don't have to.

I wonder when this changed. I wonder when they decided to start plans to force us all to PvP, which is essentially what they are saying. Furthermore, I'm a smuggler and hopefully this will actually mean something someday, so I want to be able to work both sides. It seems to me the essence of the SMuggler is they play both sides. We are only in it for ourselves and the money, right?

I don't know which is more disturbing, there plans to force PvP on everyone or their seemingly getting off on forcing us to do so. I can't help but think they are playing some metagame of Black and White with us and we aren't customers they are trying to provide entertainment for, but little toys they play with for thier own enjoyment. Of course, it's easy to come to this conclusion as a long time smuggler, for it has been clear they think very little of us, but it looks like this darkside of the devs has won over the whole of them and the new order is something we will have to obey.

It's no longer a game for us to play...it's a game for them to play and we are the toys.

I've never felt more like cancelling my account than ever...but there still is that carrot called the revamp right in front of me...

I was juest looking at the back of the SWg box. One part says "Choose your own path". Now to me that means you can do what YOU want, you might not want to choose reb or imp. Now it seems that the devs WANT us to choose a side. Is everyone in the SW universe a either a reb or imp? No they aren't. The underworld, which we are supposed to be a part of, cared for themselves. They couldn't care who won, as long as the made creds, they were happy.

---

Shrendyc wrote:
If they wanted to do it correctly, there would not be any "neutral" faction. You'd be an imperial citizen. If you wanted to rebel, then you could join the rebellion. If you wanted to join a criminal gang then you could do that (when and if it becomes possible to do that). But you should be considered an imperial citizen from the get go.

But they made the neutral faction a possibility, so they need to work it out in the existing framework.

---

I thought that was the whole reason they're renaming "neutral" to "civilian" - to make it clear that not choosing a side means that you're considered to be an Imperial citizen, since the Empire rules the galaxy.

In response to the earlier posts about pushing people into PvP - it looks to me like these GCW changes are going out of their way to avoid forced PvP (unless I've misread it, you're never in PvP unless you're a Jedi or choose to go Spec-Ops/overt - no more TEFs, and no more overtness from scans). The planetary control system that's going incould probablylead to conflicts of interest between people of opposing factions - maybe that's what those interview quotes are getting at?

---

Jackrabbit187 wrote:

Brekkee - *Big-Rug* How does the Development Team think the new GCW changes will effect guilds/cities that accept multi-factioned members?
Lord_Pall - Once again.. We're trying to make the gcw more important.
Lord_Pall - With this change, the world around you, relationships that you've formed will potentially change.
Lord_Pall - Sure you can go on-leave to go adventuring, but at the end of the day you're involved in a war
Lord_Pall - You can have a multi factional guild and player city, but you need to understand that the dynamics of your relationships have changed.
Tyrant - Time to recruit them to your side is my advice. Make them see the error of their Rebel (or Imperial) ways!
Lord_Pall - brother against brother if you can't.
Tyrant - It is a war people! The worst kind of war, a civil war.
Tyrant - But "on leave" was made to allow for this possibility.

---

---

mrbleepbleep wrote:

---

Jackrabbit187 wrote:

Brekkee - *Big-Rug* How does the Development Team think the new GCW changes will effect guilds/cities that accept multi-factioned members?
Lord_Pall - Once again.. We're trying to make the gcw more important.
Lord_Pall - With this change, the world around you, relationships that you've formed will potentially change.
Lord_Pall - Sure you can go on-leave to go adventuring, but at the end of the day you're involved in a war
Lord_Pall - You can have a multi factional guild and player city, but you need to understand that the dynamics of your relationships have changed.
Tyrant - Time to recruit them to your side is my advice. Make them see the error of their Rebel (or Imperial) ways!
Lord_Pall - brother against brother if you can't.
Tyrant - It is a war people! The worst kind of war, a civil war.
Tyrant - But "on leave" was made to allow for this possibility.

---

How I look at this, is that friends on the opposite side can still be friends, but there will be a sense that they're on the other side (assuming it works as intended, heh). Put it this way - Romeo and Juliet managed to fall in love despite being on opposing sides, but the conflict that resulted from that was what made it an interesting story.

---

Very good point.

When I saw that part of the chat, I thought "Oooh geez, THAT will create an uproar on the board".
But you know,they can say in threads and chat "It's WAR! Pick a side!" all they want, but in the end of the day they can't force friends to fight each other if they don't want to. They talked about wanting more peoples involved with the GCW, but no talk of removing neutrals. So really, what do that chat change? Nothing, it just reinfored the "we think picking a side is funnier" feeling they already created on the board since the first GCW thread. So they are being all "GCW will be great, you will see!" sure, but that not prevent anyone from being neutral.

They are maing GCW related changes, so I think it is normal they are focussing on the GCW. That do not mean there won't be any other faction ever or that neutrals won't ever have something to do in the game.

Message Edited by LaughingWolf on 02-17-2005 04:45 PM

---

mrbleepbleep wrote:

---

Jackrabbit187 wrote:

Brekkee - *Big-Rug* How does the Development Team think the new GCW changes will effect guilds/cities that accept multi-factioned members?
Lord_Pall - Once again.. We're trying to make the gcw more important.
Lord_Pall - With this change, the world around you, relationships that you've formed will potentially change.
Lord_Pall - Sure you can go on-leave to go adventuring, but at the end of the day you're involved in a war
Lord_Pall - You can have a multi factional guild and player city, but you need to understand that the dynamics of your relationships have changed.
Tyrant - Time to recruit them to your side is my advice. Make them see the error of their Rebel (or Imperial) ways!
Lord_Pall - brother against brother if you can't.
Tyrant - It is a war people! The worst kind of war, a civil war.
Tyrant - But "on leave" was made to allow for this possibility.

---

How I look at this, is that friends on the opposite side can still be friends, but there will be a sense that they're on the other side (assuming it works as intended, heh). Put it this way - Romeo and Juliet managed to fall in love despite being on opposing sides, but the conflict that resulted from that was what made it an interesting story.

---

And then both commited suicide. A good portion of the main characters killed each other. And the apothecary was laughing all the way to the bank. I'd think I'd rather be the apothecary. *looks to the future for the smuggler revamp*

Message Edited by TarynGuinn on 02-17-2005 01:44 PM

On the GCW, TEF Changes, and General Star Wars Galaxies Gameplay

I know this has been a very "heated" topic lately, but I wanted to try to present this from another perspective to try to help everyone understand each other (meaning I have some difficulty understanding the side some have taken, just as I think some have misunderstood the thought process I have sided with).

1. "SOE apparently hates Neutrals and wants all PvP"
   
   Personally, I think this is a somewhat extreme argument that is being used "out of context" for the actual debate. The choice remains to be Neutral. Nothing has changed in that respect. The only thing that has changed is that Rebels and Imperials are more divided, which I would think would be a great thing given that they are, at least in evrything that I have seen and read, enemies.
   
   I realize that much of the concern lies in the "limitation" of Civilians being able to do some of the things they were able to do with mixed hunting groups, and I have no doubt that it will take some "getting used to." But this, by no means whatsoever, seems to be pushing someone into PvP (at least not in any way that I can discern).
   
   It also stands to reason that the first changes would be to Imperials and Rebels, as the GCW is an integral part of Star Wars, and those two factions are the ones involved. I sincerely doubt that SOE "hates" Neutrals, but merely chose to focus on Rebels and Imperials first (wouldn't make much sense to me to be making GCW changes for Neutrals only at first, and then going back and adding in Imperials and Rebels when adequate developement time allowed, just my thoughts though).
   
   
2. "But if they do not have time to do it now then they should wait until they do have time"
   
   I can understand this sentiment completely, and even would have supported it if you asked me around a year ago. However, I think this mentality is what has caused us to be delayed on so many things in the past. This one, I am certain, will come down to each individual person's preference, so I'm not certain there is really anything more to say here.
   
   

Please remember that these are strictly my opinions, I just wanted to present something from a slightly different perspective, as I think a lot of perceptions are skewed slightly due to many different things. I could easily take this further if anyone doesn't quite understand what I am trying to say, or has any questions (after all, I'm a little out of it today, so no clue if I even got the point across the way I wanted to )