Smuggler Archive

---

Rissen wrote:

But I fail to see the problem here? You can still be neutral, you can still trade and do business with anyone regardless of faction except in the case of healing it sounds like. you still get armor and weapons to use...seems very little changed for the civilian other than the name which is an improvement in my opinion.

If a factional goes on leave which seems an easy enough process they can basically be treated as a neutral.

Only spec ops are player attackable and you choose that in every case but a crackdown.

So why can't you continue to be neutral??

As to being able to kill both factons? maybe in an underworld publish like you say but even then I see that being more likely bounty hunters otherwise they would be implementing murder, mayhem and player griefing one would think.

I am not necessarily criticizing but what are you missing that you want? neutral content?(never been there, heck there not that much content other than scenery anyway) factional armor and toys?(thats for the factions makes no sense for a civilian to wear storm trooper armor) mass murder? (go grab HL2 or UT2004)

---

The problem is not that you cannot remain neutral, it's that they are putting neutrals further into an orphan category. Small changes should have been made to the system to include neutrals in portions of the update. I'm not going to get into all of them here, but they would not have impeded on the GCW.

Why cannot neutral players be included if neutral factions are? It's a funny thing that we can still be told it's a war when they're including factions not involved in the war.

Noone said they were looking to go around killing both factions. At the very least, the game WAS dynamic and ever changing. It wasn't always a change that benefitted you and it wasn't always a change you liked, but this made it challenging and exciting. What we going in now is a stagnant system that makes things one dimensional. There is no validity to it being a war and picking a side when you cannot even defend your side, and you can choose your level of loyalty with no benefit or repercussions.

Finally, in response to your option of playing HALO 2 or UT 2004, why don't the ones who insist it must all be about the GCW just go play battlefields? These are the people who just want to kill stormtroopers without anyone interfering. These are the people who want there to be nothing but war. I want a dynamic and challenging environment that lets you exist on many levels, with all of the levels being MEANINGFUL. Ifpeoplewant a Star Wars game that's only about war, then I think those people already have an option. This game was not exactly supposed to be that option.

• Own a house! And decorateone whole room!


• Do Jabba and Nym theme parks!

uh...

• shoot stuff!


• craft!

uh...

Well, lots of stuff!

---

SmugglinZane wrote:

Although I agree the initial argument is a bit harsh, it has a point. That point being two things:

1. It's very possible to implement an additional layer to the changes being made. I never asked to be a Stormtrooper, but as long as they're acting as an authority, there should be a BETTER level of interaction. In this case, what was a step forward for the factions was a step backwards for those who wish to remain neutral or even play boths sides against each other were put into an orphan category. To really step things up, and provide better incentive for neutrals to either join a faction or even face consequences for their actions, they should have included a faction loss when failing a scan. That faction obviously looks down upon you for doing the things you do. I think this applies to the "police" factions more than anything (which I'll get to in a second). The GCW is an important part of the game, maybe (yes maybe) even the most important part, but that doesn't mean you should leave everyone else out in the cold when they could easily have a place in the systems being put in.

2. When GCW changes were first put out, I was angry. My feeling were a result of the opinion outlined above. I was told by Tyrant himself that "it's a war, pick a side". Although I find the logic flawed, at least it was a semi valid argument. Then part 3 rolled out. Any argument that "it's a war, pick a side" goes out the window as soon as you start including third party/neutral factions. They are creating interaction with NPCs outside of the GCW, so why not create it for all? Why not implement a "police" faction loss when you fail a scan so that eventually the "law breakers" will be recognised as such? I have two possible options for why.

a. The don't care about neutrals. I don't think it's the reason, but it is a possibility.

b. They want to force the players into the 2 factions to get content so they have less to work on. Working on content for two groups is a lot easier than working on it for 3. This also allows them to put the players off for another period of time until they feel like investing some time in implementing features that were advertised at launch!

It's a hard pill to swallow, but I will not be blinded by faith. Actions speak louder than words, and at this point I've seen little action to make me believe that the powers that be have really changed their tune. I will find a way to work within the new system and attempt to maintain the character that I've developed, but there needs to come a day, and soon, that SOE realises that they cannot continue to ignore a large portion of the player base, regardless of what the portion is. They've done it in the past, and they're doing it now. Patience is warranted, but haste and effort is as well. When valid and easily implementable features can go into publishes to include more players, it needs to be in there.

I'd like to close with one final question:

When didmore content for neutral NPCs than for neutral players become acceptable?

---

Believe me Zane, I understand why it could be (and is) approached this way. But this is where I think the argument becomes flawed. How exactly does it leave everyone else in the cold? What is it that is actually lost by Civilians in these changes? If anyone has more to lose from these changes it is the Coverts, who will now be more strictly aligned with their faction (which is, at least in my opinion, how it should have been all along).

Now, I agree that another Faction would be ideal. But then the question becomes more complicated. What can you do for Civilians who do not want to join that faction either? They would be placed in the same place they are now. This is where the question really becomes "what can we do for Civilians?" That is not something that would be a simple fix to add in as an afterthought to the foundation being presented now, but something that would need some serious developement time. Just as the inclusion of any type of third faction would require some significant developement time. This takes us back to "should we put this off until we can do it all at once, or should we get the basics out the door now?"

Part two of your response can also be looked at as taking the time to do things right as well (in waiting until some real developement time can be given instead of just adding another type of penalty onto what we have now and calling it content). Personally, I've seen too much of the "afterthought" menatality and would prefer the third faction (and yes, I know Neutrals technically would be but for the sake of this discussion I consider then unaligned factionally) be done correctly, and not just "tacked on" to other changes.

As an answer to your question I have a question of my own:

When did the beginnings of a foundation to build on be looked at as neglect of factionally unaligned players?

---

SmugglinZane wrote:

One more thing, this game was planned and released under the guise of being dynamic enough that you could play who and how you wanted. You could be your OWN character in the Star Wars galaxy. It' blatently apparent that now they want you to do that as long as you conform to their standards.

---

I actually have to side with the Devs on this issue. Believe me, when I started playing I wanted to stay a Neutral Smuggler, in fact I only joined the Rebellion out of convenience (and just eventually decided to stay to try to get more content from the game). But I think I understand where they're coming from with this change.

There is, as we all know, a war going on, and the Galaxy is supposed to be under the iron rule of the Empire. All citizens feel the oppression, and those who rebelling are just shot on sight. The Rebels of course attack Imperials for their cause, which brings added more danger to the civilian population. The point? Neutrals are meant to feel squeezed. If you were a citizen during these times: you'd hate and fear the Empire for it's oppressive rule on the Galaxy; you'd fear the Empire thinking you were Rebelling because you know they'd just shoot first and ask questions later; you'd fear, and possibly hate, the Rebellion because they're attacking the Empire which turns your city into a potential warzone. You're going to have feelings, based on what you've heard and your characters personality, leaning more towards one side of the war than the other. Based on those feelings you're going to have to make a decision: 1. Aid the side that I feel is the better of the two in an attempt to help bring order to the Galaxy, or 2. Sit back, live in fear, and try not to get involved.

So yes, Neutrals are being squeezed because that's how a civilian SHOULD feel during these times. Are you being forced to pick a side? No, you always have a choice. But, are you being influenced into wanting to take a side? Absolutely.

Also, if the Devs want to make this game feel like there's a war going on, then they need some players to participate in that war to achieve the full effect for all players. I know there are lots of players who are, or want to be, involved already, but the more players involved the better the effect. So of course they want to try to coax more players into picking a side, they want to make that "this is war" feeling as strong as possible. They're not going to force you to pick a side, but if you're going to be a civilian in these times then you need other players to participate in the war to make you feel like you're in the Star Wars universe.

So, in my opnion who will this all benefit in the end?
PvP'ers - Gain a big part of the planetary control meta game (PvP bases count more than PvE), gain more content (PvE bases), but lose some immersion due to the TEF removal (they have to watch PvE'ers kill NPC's of their faction)
PvE'ers - A way to participate in the GCW without fear of PvP or getting ganked, a part in the planetary control meta game, more content (PvE bases)
Neutrals - Gain a more immersive game that better reflects the setting and time period, lose some of their ranks because other Neutrals got coaxed into joining a faction due to the newly, and heavily felt "this is war" setting.

In my opinion the PvP'ers are getting the worst end of the stick, otherwise it all looks positive to me.

What I've said above reflects what, I believe, the Devs are trying to accomplish. Whether their mehtod actually WILL accomplish all that can only be seen in time.

My views are this: My character is a"Smuggler" (theoretically, if not actually). It doesn't matter to him which political faction is in place, what he does will still be illegal (theoretically, if not actually). I like being a non-political scoundrel.

Message Edited by TarynGuinn on 02-17-2005 12:44 PM

Sorry for not coming back and replying sooner . I want to thank all of you for replying to my post. You've all acted very civil, there has been no flaming or yelling, and you've all done an excellent job at presenting your respective opinions.

First off I don't know how to quote, so you'll have to bear with me . To the person who was talking about me wanting to kill everybody - I want to be able to kill all Overts, not everybody. I'm not a PvPer at all, but every once and a while I'd love to be able to risk my hide and let it be known to everybody that I am a Criminal. It's not about the fighting; it's about representing my decision to always remain outside the box. I probably wouldn't even attack other overts, but I'd love to defend myself and take one of them down.

KaernLegorah brought up an excellent point about living in fear and either him or somebody else mentioned civilians feeling "squeezed". I agree with the GCW changes if looked at from that perspective, and now I would actually argue that point . As a criminal I would love to feel "squeezed" from both sides, and always on my guard. But, I believe that with every GCW revamp, the Neutrals loose a little bit of game time. As people said, with this patch not much has changed for the Neutrals, but I'm thinking about down the road. If they keep pressuring people into joining factions, I think that soon the Neutral population will be forgotten completely. I picture it getting to a point where the majority of people assume that Neutral is only for "newbs and a few holdouts". My views may be extreme, but I like to plan for the worst so I can handle it when it happens.

I still disagree with what Lord_Pall said about multi-factioned PAs. I know he might not be as experienced with HoC chats, and I noticed his n00bness a few times . But as someone who's been in a multi-factioned PA since launch, I have a strong opinion on this subject. Sometimes people just want to pretend that SWG is a game, and hang out with their friends.

So basically my opinion is this. I agree with putting more pressure on the Civilians, I don't agree with pitting friend against friend. I think I should have the option to be neutral as far as the GCW goes, and I would like to attack and be attackable by both sides from time to time. I understand that when the Underworld patch/expansion comes I might be able to do that, so I'll just be patient for now. But please, please, please please please, do not forget about us Neutrals for the time being. We're still here, and some of us want to remain here .