Squad Leader Archive
Thread: Squad Leader: Fan Fest Info Dump
Darth_Sushi wrote:
Well, first off, I don't want to get boxed in by speaking on behalf of the developers unless I get some kind of official sanction to express their stated vision. So, failing that, I will say this - I have no idea what they have in store for us, and if they know they wasn't sharing it. They were very open-minded in regard to most of the suggestions they were presented with. However, that doesn't mean any of those ideas will ever see the light of day.
I also get the impression from both the official forum panelsand casual conversation that, although they do in fact play the game, they don't always play it the way we do. Or more directly, it seems we don't play the way they intended us to. As for the GCW stuff, you have to remember that the Squad Leader profession transcends the GCW - and, while they do overlap,they track seperately. I doubt they will ever create a situation where either one wouldbecome a prerequisite for the other. Also, keep in mind that, in the new paradigm, GCW!= PvP - so there must always be a PvE and/or non-GCW role for the Squad Leader as well.
Ok now you've got my curiosity peaked. We don't play it the way they inteded us to? Can you speculate on how they intended us to play?
How does the Content Lead person you talked to play differently we do?
Do you have clue as to what the main differentiators are and how this gap came to be? Do you think it's because they were looking at the game "from the code up" and we play it top-down somehow?
Also....I'm wondering why don't know what to do with us....but yet we have a pretty good consensus of what we want to do with us. I'm wondering if the Level of Effort planning/coding/cost wise is just to high to bring SL in line with our vision.
You make an extremely interesting point. Do you feel comfortable commenting?
Message Edited by Lorianna_Aliishyn on 06-08-2005 07:00 AM
Darth_Sushi wrote:
As for the GCW stuff, you have to remember that the Squad Leader profession transcends the GCW - and, while they do overlap,they track seperately. I doubt they will ever create a situation where either one wouldbecome a prerequisite for the other. Also, keep in mind that, in the new paradigm, GCW!= PvP - so there must always be a PvE and/or non-GCW role for the Squad Leader as well.
yes, i think we all understand this. but the point most of us is bringing up is that in a group oriented combat system the profession that is supposed to benefit groups is for the most part being ignored by the player base. our peers just dont see or understand the benefit of a SL. i would say 3/4 of my guild dont even know what i do (some do and ask me to come out with them, but i think its more for my ranged attacks than Rally, VolleyFire, etc)
here's a quick example: i am the only SL in my guild (and we're not small). last night i log on to check in game emails and i see some of the gang putting together a group to go hunt DJM's or DJK's. they were discussing what profs they would need and the roles they would fit. things like tank, healer, kiter, ranged attacks, force transfer(?), etc. NOT ONCE did they say "hey, anyone seen kharast? we could use him as a SL"
yes, the GCW is seperate game content from PvE, but not completely. there is GCW based PvE gaming: one faction drops a couple bases on tatooine and it stands there, all by itself, until a group of the other faction comes along and blows it up.but more than that, what we're asking for is a PURPOSE. make us viable and wanted by the players in a PvP engagement (whether GCW or guildwar related); give us a reason to be used in PvE whether its blowing up factional bases or hunting on Dantooine, Dathomir, Yavin, Rori, or any other planet. the benefit difference between PvP and PvEa SLgives tohis group should not be that great; it does not matter which play style one enjoys or partakes in at any given moment. a Squad Leader should be useful and wanted byany playerat any time.
give usa SL only vehicle that could transport the full group. give us more effective passive mods (in a system of diminishing returns how much does one benefit from an additional +25 melee defense when they're already over 250?). give us more effective specials (pulling agro w/ Volley Fire seems irrational to me. i just want to tell my squad who to attack; if i wanted to shoot it first myself i would).Give a reason to be wanted by our peers!
Kharast wrote:
i really do enjoy being a Master Squad Leader, but what _i_ see benefiting my friends is more from my personality, knowledge, and communciation than my SL specials. while the person behind the keyboard should have more to do with success playing the game than any special abilities, for the sake of our profession this needs to change!
QFE.
Lorianna_Aliishyn wrote:
Based on your conversations at Fan Fest....how much of this seems to ring true or false?
Well, first off, I don't want to get boxed in by speaking on behalf of the developers unless I get some kind of official sanction to express their stated vision. So, failing that, I will say this - I have no idea what they have in store for us, and if they know they wasn't sharing it. They were very open-minded in regard to most of the suggestions they were presented with. However, that doesn't mean any of those ideas will ever see the light of day.
I also get the impression from both the official forum panelsand casual conversation that, although they do in fact play the game, they don't always play it the way we do. Or more directly, it seems we don't play the way they intended us to. As for the GCW stuff, you have to remember that the Squad Leader profession transcends the GCW - and, while they do overlap,they track seperately. I doubt they will ever create a situation where either one wouldbecome a prerequisite for the other. Also, keep in mind that, in the new paradigm, GCW!= PvP - so there must always be a PvE and/or non-GCW role for the Squad Leader as well.
The intel you have gathered is very helpful.
This is exactly where I saw things going before I left the correspondent program.
With the introduction of the CURB, combat is self contained and doesnt have much room for tactic changing buffs/debuffs which is where we would shine best.
Its been said many times before, and I agree, the true leader is based on the player at the keyboard... not the specials they may use. But, Squad Leader needs to be looked at as a profession that has a role within combat, skills that (when used correctly) will accentuate the players natural leading ability.
Yeah . . . so keep in mind none of this really has anything to do with being a Squad Leader. What was getting at here is that they design and implementcomplex systems with the apparent expectation that when we play we will go about playing it in the spirit they intended, rather than exploiting every last possible design oversight for even the remotest chance of a return on advantage.
Lorianna_Aliishyn wrote:
Ok now you've got my curiosity peaked. We don't play it the way they inteded us to? Can you speculate on how they intended us to play?
Which brings me tothe turrets. They recently put in some really cool RotW quest/loot cyberarms that give +10 to range. So, of course thisbecomes the new baseline. Every Rifle-wielder (and remember that's the only weapon being used now) in the game will now need 2 such cyberarmsin order to stay competitive and hit that 85m mark. This is not without ramifications. Witness the recent removal of turrets from GCW Special Force bases as one impact of this design. So, the rifle/range issue has become a metaphor for the law of unintended consequences.
Darth_Sushi, I hope you don't mind my paraphrasing of your comments for the sake of brevity and coherence in my post.
Darth_Sushi wrote:
Yeah . . . so keep in mind none of this really has anything to do with being a Squad Leader. What was getting at here is that they design and implementcomplex systems with the apparent expectation that when we play we will go about playing it in the spirit they intended, rather than exploiting every last possible design oversight for even the remotest chance of a return on advantage.
As I listened to the devs speak as to how they had actually envisioned use of the rifle in combat (going prone, crawling in under cover and using /aim to set up a /sniperShot - a heinously long warmup to a monster damage shot, during which the wielder is left quite vulnerable) it was clear to me that we are barely playing the same game.
It was amusing to watch their reactions when they were told that how it really works is that the Rifle-wielders are running around toggling between /startleShot and /concussionShot to create an unbreakable chain-root effect and alternately using their cyberarm range bonus to nuke base turrets from safety outside their danger zone.
The thought that comes to mind is why is there a difference between QA Testers and Hard Core Gamers? I thought most gaming companies hired the one from the other catagory?
Seems like they need some of these people in the process, somehow, before posting a patch to Bria.
Which brings me tothe turrets. They recently put in some really cool RotW quest/loot cyberarms that give +10 to range. So, of course thisbecomes the new baseline. Every Rifle-wielder (and remember that's the only weapon being used now) in the game will now need 2 such cyberarmsin order to stay competitive and hit that 85m mark. This is not without ramifications....
and this is what led us in the past to the Uber combat templates and buff stacks that everyone HAD to have...or else.
Anyway, there's pages more where that came from - but that's the jist ofmy observations. I make no claim that I could do it any better, but it is clear to me that the single-minded pursuit of any possible advantage by the powergaming elite is not a significant factor inSWG's development process. Generally speaking, the design looks pretty good as a concept. The coders and artists work real hard to implement that design. The QA staff does what they can to validate that the code satisfies the intended design. It goes to TC for a while and then gets released to live. It is not until the patch hits Briathatthe developers' vision - no matter how solid or noble in intent- will become perverted beyond all recognition.
I think this seems to explain a lot....and I think it shows that the Devs and SOE areNOT incompetant or not listening to us as some contend.
I also think this whole thread is constructive and is helpingSubscriber/Playersto understand where SOE/Devs are coming from. I for one often ponder why there seems such a disconnect....and I they doread these Forums. We have such a hard time understanding why they apparently don'tconsider and act on our input. Darth_Sushis impression seems to explain an awful lot and makes me think SOE/DEVs are considering and trying to implement some of what we want....within practical limits....but that there may beacritical gap indesign/testing methodology.
I'm also reconsidering your comment in the earlier post that we don't play the game as intended. Rather it seems the situation is that the vast majority of players....casual gamers, content people and RPers....DO play it more as SOE intends in their design....but the "powergaming elite" has such a disproportionate impact.
I think in the future when we submit proposals to the Devs for changes to the SL Prof....merger or no merger with Ranger....we should point out possible unintended consequences....that "powergaming elites", dedicated ProfPlayers or even casual players would exploit to maximum effect...intended or otherwise.
Again, I find this very helpful and constructive feedback Darth_Sushi. Thanks.
An open question to anyone.....is this "powergamer" more of an issue on SWG than on other such non-linear MMOG's? This is the only one I know, but from what I've heard about EQ, I wouldn't expect a big difference between the two in terms of game evolution and Community relationship between Players and Devs/Mgmt.
Darth_Sushi wrote:
Yeah . . . so keep in mind none of this really has anything to do with being a Squad Leader. What was getting at here is that they design and implement complex systems with the apparent expectation that when we play we will go about playing it in the spirit they intended, rather than exploiting every last possible design oversight for even the remotest chance of a return on advantage.
Lorianna_Aliishyn wrote:Ok now you've got my curiosity peaked. We don't play it the way they inteded us to? Can you speculate on how they intended us to play?
As a prime example, lets take the current state of the rifle in PvP combat. They appeared to be genuinely surprised when confronted at Fan Fest with the assertion that pretty much all PvP combat has devolved to Jedi vs. Rifle-wielders. Well of course they were surprised. Rightfully so, because they had spent a lot of time and effort to go to all the hassle of including all kinds of class-distincitve special abilities and weapons in the CU on RotW.However, when you can use any special with any weapon (and maximization of DPS is the only comparative consideration in weapon selection) you will naturally gravitate to the only weapon stat that still matters - range. Rifles were originally intended to have a minumum range, inside of which they could not be used, but this was deemed "too confusing" to their focus test group - so it was removed. They are adamant that it will never return. When this range imbalance was discussed at Fan Fest, there was some brief yet ominous developer talk of slowing rifles down. Riflemen cried nerf, and the devs backpedalled.The point is that, if you can use a high-damage state-application special maneuver with any weapon, you better be using a 65m range rifle to do it - and not a pistol with a 30m range cap. Evidently, reduced maximum range is an acceptable gimp to the pistol and the carbine, whereas increased minimum range for rifles is too confusing. While this may perplex a newbie on his first day in the game, I assure you it is no mystery whatsoever to the hardcore PvP elite of my home server.As I listened to the devs speak as to how they had actually envisioned use of the rifle in combat (going prone, crawling in under cover and using /aim to set up a /sniperShot - a heinously long warmup to a monster damage shot, during which the wielder is left quite vulnerable) it was clear to me that we are barely playing the same game. It was amusing to watch their reactions when they were told that how it really works is that the Rifle-wielders are running around toggling between /startleShot and /concussionShot to create an unbreakable chain-root effect and alternately using their cyberarm range bonus to nuke base turrets from safety outside their danger zone.Which brings me to the turrets. They recently put in some really cool RotW quest/loot cyberarms that give +10 to range. So, of course this becomes the new baseline. Every Rifle-wielder (and remember that's the only weapon being used now) in the game will now need 2 such cyberarms in order to stay competitive and hit that 85m mark. This is not without ramifications. Witness the recent removal of turrets from GCW Special Force bases as one impact of this design. So, the rifle/range issue has become a metaphor for the law of unintended consequences.Anyway, there's pages more where that came from - but that's the jist of my observations. I make no claim that I could do it any better, but it is clear to me that the single-minded pursuit of any possible advantage by the powergaming elite is not a significant factor in SWG's development process. Generally speaking, the design looks pretty good as a concept. The coders and artists work real hard to implement that design. The QA staff does what they can to validate that the code satisfies the intended design. It goes to TC for a while and then gets released to live. It is not until the patch hits Bria that the developers' vision - no matter how solid or noble in intent - will become perverted beyond all recognition.
Great post Darth, you should definately post this on the correspondent forums for the devs to see, it would help them understand a bit more about how things work in live(I mean this I actually believe this post would be of some help)
As far as I can tell, the only fixes ranger would need to be totally playable are:
a) increase the range of track
b) make camo work on player characters too, include graphics with it (like some sort of grass covered cape and netted hat that goes over your clothes\armor), and make camo-ed characters harder to target until we break camo.
And if that isn't enough:
c) make our highest level traps somewhat effective against pc's and npc's.
Changes a and c wouldn't be very hard to implement, I think, and b would make the biggest impact on the profession. And no, I don't think it should be merged with squad leader. Rangers are fun as solo, stealthy types. Stalkers. Not as *waving the banner* "Follow me, guys! Fire!" types.