Smuggler Archive
Thread: Apparently Neutrals/Civilians aren't important.
SmugglinZane
Sat Feb 05, 2005 11:52 am
#40
Ok, I'm replying to you again Wes... I wrapped my brain around it one more time...
If it means what I think it means, then it'll do a lot to remedy the situation for us, maybe others as well, but I still feel strongly about having more options in the new "TEF" system. What are they calling it now anyway since there won't be TEFs?
ana-mo-cara
Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:34 pm
#41
Watch out zane some idiot will tell you to try it out first. Like you do not know what you like and what you do not like. I agree 100 percent. Sadly its apparant that these changes are set in stone. The in developement thread on them was not about in developement it was about this will be on tc in three weeks.
Asfor tyrants comments about being in the GCW. Someone needs to slap him in the face his line is straight out of total ignorance.
Real GCW players you know guys who actually cared enough to set up bases and defend turf and who picked fights with the opposeing side asked for a number of things for over a year to get totally ignored by the devs, and it was not like this stuff was rocket science.
Reduce the ingame buffs.
Return citywarn.
Fix melee stacking, or put in a melee pvp reduction.
Reduce the power of area poison area disease in pvp.
Reduce armor resistances.
They were so concerned about the civil war they did the following absolutely nothing. Now they are saying the pve players are the heart and soul of the GCW. No shif sherlock you chased off ninety five percent of the players who originally cared about the GCW, and its implementation. Simply by refuseing to fix anything at all.
The truth is the CURB was a dis service it gave the devs an excuse not to do anything by saying the curb will address that. End result stupid inbalances exploded unchecked, and the combat in the game took a nose dive, and it was not fun anymore.
Infact it still blows my mind that the devs are holding onto buff nerfs and implementing melee restrictions as is seeing as the game absolutely needs them now not later.
I agree with you 100 percent this whole thing is a sugar coated travesty.
SmugglinZane
Sat Feb 05, 2005 3:04 pm
#42
WesBelden wrote:
Anyway, Zane; you should check Dev tracker more often, if you had, you'd have seen Gordon say, "The Rebels are coming." Now either that's a strange and cryptic thingy'm'bob, or.. well, the Rebels are coming
.
Change 3 on this Wes... If he's referring to the fact that Rebels will have a chance to control planets andthat it means they will bedoing scans, it means absolutely nothing to the conversation. It only makes it so there's 2 authorities that interact with anyone but a civilian. If anything, it means even less content for an already upset portion of the player base.
I really hope I'm wrong about this and that it's more along the lines of an earlier thought. If I'm not then sadly the point is still either missed or being ignored. There's nothing more annoying than an answer that has no association with the question that was asked.
Message Edited by SmugglinZane on 02-05-2005 05:04 PM
ArkonPhoenix
Sat Feb 05, 2005 6:17 pm
#43
SOETyrant wrote:
SmugglinZane wrote:
Some of you have seen my posts around here regarding the upcoming TEF changes. I finally recieved an answer to Tyrant regarding my concerns. Now either he totally missed the point of my comments, or anyone who wishes to play a neutral/civilian character, but still fully interact with the game is out of luck.
His words: It's a war (as in Star Wars). The choices are pick a side or opt out. (paraphrased, but pretty close.)
Not only do I find this statement a slap in the face considering I brought up players interacting beyond rebel/imp conflicts (meaning scans), but it's a bit condiscending to those of us it affects.
The saddest part to me, and yes I am reading into this, is that this is a telling preview of the revamp. If they will not allow neutrals/civilians to interact with Imperial authority, then any smuggling or scans are pointless. In otherwords, as I stated in another thread, this may be the death of the neutral Smuggler which is one of the most asinine things that can happen to this game.
If they are too busy revelling in the glory that some players are showering upon them to realise that their plans need some adjustment, then they're not as good as they seem to be as of late. Their claims that nothing is set in stone is yet another bit of misinformation or they are too full of themselves to think that they may not have thought of everything.
Yet another reason for the following statement. I play this game for the people I play with, not the game itself. When the game becomes more of a disappointment than being able to play itwith my friends, then another account will be canceled.
>The saddest part to me, and yes I am reading into this, is that this is a telling preview of the revamp.
Of course your read is not fact, but speculation. All we are doing right now (simplified) is opening the GCW to PvE players so that significantly more people have access to that content.
We certainly understand that Star Wars is more than Rebels and Imperials. But this is the prime conflict that drives the Star Wars universe. We know we need other factions including a vibrant underworld.
We haven't forgotten about smugglers (like you would ever let us
).
Message Edited by SOETyrant on 02-04-2005 10:49 PM
I for one have been annoyed with the Reb -vs- Imp focus on this game since launch. There are so many other factions in this game that would be cool to join, like lets say you wanted to become a Force Sensitive Night Sister Elder, now that would awesome.
What I think SOE should do is just set the date for this game forward or backward 1000 years, a time when Jedi can roam freely (for the most part)and you arent stuck in this losing situation you have now. You would then be able to create new factions, professionsand ships, in essence, you wouldnt have any limitations.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
SmugglinZane
Sat Feb 05, 2005 8:20 pm
#44
BadMisterFrosty wrote:
People want to massacre stormtroopers but do not want to be "harrassed" by the empire, when they start to kill on sight in return. Thiswas ruining the game. Decisions must entail consequences. All secrets and challenges are gone, because of access all areas tickets for everyone. Just pick a side, and if its only for a day, if you want to do certain things. You JUST cant it have it all, all the time, folks.
I love to see sabacc and an a underworld, but for obvious reasons the galactic civil war must be first. And it will be for a majority of players, not only PvPers only (see the newly announced PvE bases). The faction combatant is an option to consider for you!
You counter your own point in all of this. There need to be consequences, so civilians need to be able to interact with Stormtroopers. I'm not looking to run around farming Stormies, but I would love to be harrassed by them. Once again, as long as factions are the only ones doing some scanning, then there needs to be a way for civilians to be interactive with them.
The funny thing is that picking a side is great for you, but it's not the way of many people. It's not what they've roleplayed to date and it's not what they got into the game to do. It seems that the only people wanting it their way all the time are those that only want to PvE or PvP, not the ones asking for more interaction. Simply put, the game changed because people couldn't have it their way, now that they have it their way they're going to question why other people want a logical opt in system similar to theirs.
Please take time to read some of the arguments made by a lot of players regarding this. Not all neutrals want to be civilian, but they don't want to be a soldier either. Until something like an underworld (bringing factions that people still won't want to join since they are only loyal to themselves and their friends) they have no other option. Why can't they have an option in this?
Cloudchasing
Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:49 pm
#45
SmugglinZane wrote:
BadMisterFrosty wrote:
People want to massacre stormtroopers but do not want to be "harrassed" by the empire, when they start to kill on sight in return. Thiswas ruining the game. Decisions must entail consequences. All secrets and challenges are gone, because of access all areas tickets for everyone. Just pick a side, and if its only for a day, if you want to do certain things. You JUST cant it have it all, all the time, folks.
I love to see sabacc and an a underworld, but for obvious reasons the galactic civil war must be first. And it will be for a majority of players, not only PvPers only (see the newly announced PvE bases). The faction combatant is an option to consider for you!
You counter your own point in all of this. There need to be consequences, so civilians need to be able to interact with Stormtroopers. I'm not looking to run around farming Stormies, but I would love to be harrassed by them. Once again, as long as factions are the only ones doing some scanning, then there needs to be a way for civilians to be interactive with them.
The funny thing is that picking a side is great for you, but it's not the way of many people. It's not what they've roleplayed to date and it's not what they got into the game to do. It seems that the only people wanting it their way all the time are those that only want to PvE or PvP, not the ones asking for more interaction. Simply put, the game changed because people couldn't have it their way, now that they have it their way they're going to question why other people want a logical opt in system similar to theirs.
Please take time to read some of the arguments made by a lot of players regarding this. Not all neutrals want to be civilian, but they don't want to be a soldier either. Until something like an underworld (bringing factions that people still won't want to join since they are only loyal to themselves and their friends) they have no other option. Why can't they have an option in this?
Great points Zane. You said what I couldn't find the words to write.
Good post
riotcontrol
Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:58 pm
#46
SmugglinZane wrote:Please take time to read some of the arguments made by a lot of players regarding this. Not all neutrals want to be civilian, but they don't want to be a soldier either. Until something like an underworld (bringing factions that people still won't want to join since they are only loyal to themselves and their friends) they have no other option. Why can't they have an option in this?
I sincerely hope they designed the new TEF system in a way that it is possible to add factions to it with little effort, with the same level of PvP and PvE functionality (for example, Hutt faction where you can choose whether you wish to PvE against Valarians or PvP against the opposing Valarian faction, or even a free-for-all Criminal faction where you PvE/PvP against a) Empire, b) Rebellion, c) everyone else who's not in your Criminal sub-faction, just like the Kessel PvP system used to be before the great PvE change). If they didn't/won't design it in such a manner, I doubt we'll ever be seeing more playable factions and any interaction between them except the current Imperial/Rebel antagonism.
Nicolas_Frost
Sat Feb 05, 2005 11:31 pm
#47
SmugglinZane wrote:
Nicolas_Frost wrote:
No offence, Zane, but in civil wars, there really are only two main sides. Primarily because at leastone side is of the mindset "you're either with us or you're not". After the two main sides, there are secondary sides which will aid either one out of beliefs, profit, or the thought of the lesser of two evils; or any combination of them.
Lets take the American Revolution. While it was a revolt against Great Brittan, it could also be seen as a civil war. The Colonies were technically Brittish at the start, and the spark that ignited this war was internal to these two sides. While there were weapons and such that were Smuggled into the Colonies, those who did this did so out of profit & beliefs, and they were not joining in the fight(at least, not many andnot officially).
Forward to the American Civil War. It was a revolution as well, however, the side that was revolting failed. Same basic idea as before.
How about the Korean War? North and South Korea were at war. Some nations joined in to help the South, some joined in to help the North. Some only supplied either side.
Itsa war. Wars are based on "what side of the fence people are on". In the end, people riding the fence, civilians, get hurt the most. Its sad, but its true. This new system is a way of moving the people riding the fence to the sidelines. The only downside to this is less interaction amongst them, because they're "out of harm's way".
In the American revolution, how many "English Citizens" were killed by mistake? In the Civil War, how many law abiding plantations got burned to the ground? How many Koreans were killed because they either secretly or were just suspected of helping one side or the other? The point is this. Wars are never just about one side or the other. In civil war, more than any other kind, the tragedy is that those who aren't on a side pay a terrible price. Because more often than not, you can't tell the difference between an opponent or an ally, whichever side is in control at the time suspects the worst of you if you haven't picked their side. They catch you with something illegal or fringeand you're not "on their side" then they feel they have to assume your goods are supporting their opposition.
Wars are not always based upon what side you're on, but what side they think you're on. Not only that, but the ones who don't pick a side or don't get involved are often used to punish or draw in the other's opponent. War has neverhad crystal clear lines. Especially in a war of oppression and persecution.
Exactly my point, Zane. While there are more than two sides to every conflict, there are always two dominant forces. And at least one, if not both, is of the mentality "if you're not with us, you're against us; otherwise, you'd be with us".
Czar_Tim
Sat Feb 05, 2005 11:51 pm
#48
o i'm sry, it's just between those 2... hmm and so ur saying that for the rebels to supply their army they had a team of weopon/armorsmiths who made everything they needed right their and yet could defend themself againts the stormies.
there were plenty of people during this time that were using the war for their own good. Hutts, smugglers, production companies, BH.
I understand ur want to change the game but i seriously think u should consider a non-combat war role in the war. Unless we are just going towards a futeristic version of EQ
Nicolas_Frost
Sat Feb 05, 2005 11:56 pm
#49
Don't get me wrong, I don't want there to be only the Empire or the Rebellion, but they need to be in place and well situated before other forces can come into play.
ana-mo-cara
Sun Feb 06, 2005 10:44 am
#50
What strikes me odd is that they opened up doctor buff bots for no faction obligation. A pvp enabled player can walk up and get buffed.
Then on the other hand a smuggler a criminal. Hey when was the last time you saw a drug dealer side with one customer over another. It seems to me that a smuggler would be a natural non partisan player. A smuggler is a criminal. He could care less what your affiliation is.
The hypocracy is what gets me. These PVE slugs for one couldnt handle participateing in the GCW as it was, because and I quote a roaming jedi cut them down and they cannot stand it. Now I do not care for jedi, but this has got to be your own stupidity. No freaking reason anyone should die from a tef in all but the rarest of occassions.
No matter how much the pvp players pointed out the safe places to get faction these guys went retarded and did it outside of bestine. Not only outside of bestine, but in the direction of anchorhead. Somehow I get the fealing that the carebears in this game are mental midgets. You know why the tef wasnt a biggy to me.
When I faction hunted I preferred to do it as far from the enemy as possible. If I was hunting out of anchorhead I took missions to the south. If I did not want to be disturbed I missioned out of the lars homestead. If I wanted to camp a faction base I went to the middle of yavin 4. Never see anybody for weeks at a time. So why are these guys getting offed so readily. Its simple they are idiotic. Plus they refuse to enter a faction mind set.
Anyway the hypocracy is what gets me.
SmugglinZane
Sun Feb 06, 2005 4:48 pm
#51
You raise some good points ana-mo-cara, but the one that's most important that you don't directly state is that this change is being put in to silence the whiners. It cracks me up that on the Forums I have gotten the response that you can't have everything your way, but the people responsible for these changes demanded it be done so they could have things their way. All I'm asking for is an additional option in the system so that more people can have fun. It's not gamebreaking. It's not continuity breaking. It's the same option that factioned players are getting, and the reaction people have to it is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
The fact that to some extent the whiners are being told keep it up and you'll get what you want is a step in a scary direction. How will we be able to argue in favor ofslices being illegal, regardless of how logical our argument is, when there will be people who scream how they can'tplay how they want to if slices are illegal?I've seen many well thought out arguments against the current TEF system, but the majority are from the guy who get's angry because he walks into an enemy base and gets killed by enemy (player) troops. That's just insanity.
I miss the days when people argued that they should not have to walk into a base and witness their troops being cut down and not being able to help. Where are all those people now? If someone is only PvE enabled, cutting down Stormtroopers, then Imperial players will not be able to assist them. You call that immersion? You call that roleplaying? Most importantly, you call that right?
Message Edited by SmugglinZane on 02-06-2005 06:51 PM
01201986
Sun Feb 06, 2005 5:57 pm
#52
Well Zane, on your original post...
the new changes r specifically for the TEF system and bases and such, which are entirely involved in factions, and not in nuetrals. So i would not read too much into it, as these changes are not meant to be for nuetrals, but for the GCW, something which nuetrals are not a part of really. If u want to be involved in the GCW at this point in the game, u have to join a faction. And the only way i can see it possible for nuetrals to be involved any is to implement a faction standing system for nuetrals like there exists for every other NPC faction in the game. (i.e. if u have -5000 imp faction, they will attack you on site, and vice versa for reb faction. operating just like the npc factions do now. example: nightsisters/singing mountain clan) Of course the changeswill play into our revamp, but our revamp is not based off of or entirely dependant upon these changes. /shrug just my two cents
Message Edited by 01201986 on 02-06-2005 05:13 PM