Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Wow, Some People Are Stupid

BissrokBissrok Member Posts: 1,002

Found this post called "STOP SLOGGING" on the official boards:
http://soe.lithium.com/swg/board/message?board.id=swggpdiscussion&message.id=1178605


What's slogging?

Slogging is a word I just made up. It means Shuttle/Starport logging. Based on "Portal Logging" from Asheron's call.


It means You know you're gonna die, so you run away to the point you let it disrupt your game play 100% and find a way to shuttle away and log off asap.


Ok, pre nge I could see why this would be vital to stay alive as you lost EXP. After NGE you lost PVP Rating.

Post GCW you now get charged 5000 credits and a bit of load time. A joke. The bounty hunter doesn't gain any kill count off you.

So why slog?

You have nothing to lose. Hell, if 2 bh's come for me, chances are I'm gonna die. Be it by a friend picking up that bounty and clearing it, orrrrrrrr by just sayin screw it, not worth it, I lose nothin

I mean sure bounty hunters love a challenge... but seriously if you are that scared of a bounty hunter(s) that you have to log off the game and hide, you're better off just dying because you just let it ruin your game play.

Stop the Slogging. You lose nothing.


Yelling at someone for having fun at his expense so he can have fun at theirs? Wow.

«1

Comments

  • Wildcat84Wildcat84 Member Posts: 2,304
    All I can say is "cry more noob".  When I am in a no win situation and I am going to die otherwise, damn straight I am going to do everything I can do to deny you the easy win, using any means necessary.  Been there, done that, have an impressive collection of hate tells to prove it :)

    When you are a "mark" victory for you isn't killing the BH, it's surviving.

    In EQ2 there is open PvP, meaning that anyone within X levels of you can just attack you anywhere at any time if they are the opposite faction, even when you are just out grinding.  Why should I just stand there and get ganked by 6 people when I can dive off the cliff into the ocean and swim away?  :)  In EQ2 there is a potentially serious death consequence called XP debt, meaning you have to clear it before you can level up.  You get it for both PvE and PvP deaths.  You don't actually lose XP, but you go in the hole a half percent of what you need to level up per death.

    Yep, we former Jedi quickly learn escape techniques, much to the chagrin of the gank kiddies. :)

    Besides, getting hate tells are fun.  Especially when you ARE a noob in the game and the so-called vets are crying like noobs.




  • ObraikObraik Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 7,261


    Originally posted by Wildcat84
    All I can say is "cry more noob".  When I am in a no win situation and I am going to die otherwise, damn straight I am going to do everything I can do to deny you the easy win, using any means necessary.  Been there, done that, have an impressive collection of hate tells to prove it :)

    When you are a "mark" victory for you isn't killing the BH, it's surviving.

    In EQ2 there is open PvP, meaning that anyone within X levels of you can just attack you anywhere at any time if they are the opposite faction, even when you are just out grinding.  Why should I just stand there and get ganked by 6 people when I can dive off the cliff into the ocean and swim away?  :)  In EQ2 there is a potentially serious death consequence called XP debt, meaning you have to clear it before you can level up.  You get it for both PvE and PvP deaths.  You don't actually lose XP, but you go in the hole a half percent of what you need to level up per death.

    Yep, we former Jedi quickly learn escape techniques, much to the chagrin of the gank kiddies. :)

    Besides, getting hate tells are fun.  Especially when you ARE a noob in the game and the so-called vets are crying like noobs.




    If they made a SWG server with rules like that, would you play it?

    Oh, and hate tells always provide endless amounts of entertainment

    image

    image

  • RekrulRekrul Member Posts: 2,961
    Why even care?

    The xp debt mechanism on Jedi was borked. Every pvper was at -10 mil. So there was no penalty.

    The motive to stay alive was, obviously, decay, bf and wounds. Some would say buffs, but I consider buffs to be broken by design in way SWG implemented them, so I don't count them as a loss here.

    In a properly implemented system, the decay, wounds and bf alone would keep a non-jedi character in check with regards to dying. Once you die x times, your gear would be destroyed, you'd be at 1000 bf and have 90-99% wounds, making you useless in combat.

    This, is a very valid and viable concept. It's not permanent, it's not long-term, it doesn't affect you much, but enough.

    Jedi were bound by force pool and similar restrictions, but they didn't suffer from death nearly as much. But I won't go into Jedi issues here.

    GW uses the concept of death penalty. Each death gives you 15% up to a maximum of 60%. Killing others slowly clears this penalty. They affect your health and energy, by decreasing them this ammount. Battles are won and lost of this. The key difference between evenly matched teams, as it turns out, is keeping opposing player with as much penalty as possible.

    It also makes sense. A team that's dying will get weaker. This gets around the absurdity of cloning (from perpective of continuity) and gives you a reason stay alive.

    Buffs, on the other hand, broke this. It's also why they cause so many problems in the long run. They completely skewed the balance between wounds, making it impossible for all those factors to play a role. Therefore only two counters evolved. Putting lots of BF on them for increased damage, or using dots (4x too powerful ticks). Dots, incidentaly, also added tons of BF.

    The concept of combat as designed pre-cu was well thought out. But, just like everything else, it got swarmed with rushed changes without any consideration.


  • Wildcat84Wildcat84 Member Posts: 2,304
    The way EQ2 does it wouldn't work with the NGE combat system.  The EQ2 combat system is basically like the CU combat system, there is time to strategize, you can queue specials, etc.

    If you are going to have open gankage, the victim has to have the ability to overcome the "first strike" (which was why Jedi had to be more powerful than BH's in the old system), or there is no fun or challenge to it, it just become a numbers game.  The NGE system doesn't really allow for this, it's too fast and the controls/UI still too poorly done.

    Besides, they won't even bring back the TEF system, which would be the more reasonable way to do it, and the way I think it should be done.


  • ObraikObraik Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 7,261


    Originally posted by Wildcat84
    The way EQ2 does it wouldn't work with the NGE combat system.  The EQ2 combat system is basically like the CU combat system, there is time to strategize, you can queue specials, etc.

    If you are going to have open gankage, the victim has to have the ability to overcome the "first strike" (which was why Jedi had to be more powerful than BH's in the old system), or there is no fun or challenge to it, it just become a numbers game.  The NGE system doesn't really allow for this, it's too fast and the controls/UI still too poorly done.

    Besides, they won't even bring back the TEF system, which would be the more reasonable way to do it, and the way I think it should be done.


    So far, the professions with expertise do have ways to overcome the first strike, whether it be through shields, force/burst running, a large heal or mitigating the damage.  In EQ2 can you as a high level player enter an area designed for low level players and attack them?

    As for the TEF thing, no I don't think they'd ever bring it back to the current servers.  If they made special PvP servers then there wouldn't be an issue about them as everyone is obviously happy for PvP on the server.  On a PvP server though I'd rather the enemy faction be red all the time.

    image

    image

  • RekrulRekrul Member Posts: 2,961


    Originally posted by Wildcat84
    The way EQ2 does it wouldn't work with the NGE combat system.  The EQ2 combat system is basically like the CU combat system, there is time to strategize, you can queue specials, etc.

    If you are going to have open gankage, the victim has to have the ability to overcome the "first strike" (which was why Jedi had to be more powerful than BH's in the old system), or there is no fun or challenge to it, it just become a numbers game.  The NGE system doesn't really allow for this, it's too fast and the controls/UI still too poorly done.

    Besides, they won't even bring back the TEF system, which would be the more reasonable way to do it, and the way I think it should be done.




    Open pvp = gank fest.

    This is why future designs are trying to abandon it. Levels also don't work in pvp.

    WoW does support it, but it's not really useful. This is why heavy separation between different server types.

    Players are not mobs. Mobs wander around, waiting to die. Players can never be treated under the same concept and they should never be exposed to same ruleset. Saying such things quickly ends with "deal with it" "go carebear" and similar arguments. But it doesn't really matter.

    From development perspective, games need to evolve from past problems. Open ended pvp looks decent on paper, but since it's open ended by design, you have no control over it. While there can be good encounters, majority of them will not be. Even worse, every system tends to bring out the worst in people, and making an uncontrolled system with increasing penalties is a disaster.

    Many smirk at "enjoyable" "immersive" experience. But this is what it comes down to. The number of hardcore "fanbois" is always much smaller than of everyone else. Probably at 1:10 or 1:100 ratio. Yet one such person can ruin the gameplay of many others.

    And so it comes down to basic premise. Do you want a hardcore world, with few destroying the world, or a more controlled world with enjoyable community? Frustrated, hurt and defeated players are not happy. Unhappy players aren't friendly. Unfriendly players do not contribute to community. No community = no MMO.

    As MMOs increase in popularity, the diversity of players is starting to exceed anything seen before. Issues such as PR are coming to front, cultural clashes can emerge and communities are becoming somewhat fragile and explosive (look at forums of any game, the tiniest issues are become personal on daily basis)

    So yes, I do not support open pvp in a general MMO. Planetside is something different (not sure exactly, didn't play) since it's all about conflict. But in RPGs where leveling plays central role, giving someone the ability to hinder you at that is the very definition of griefing, which simply doesn't work.

    The premise of pvp should be competition. Determining who is better, who is more skilled. It should be about achieving goals and conquering territory. It should never EVER be based around anything ever remotely similar to grind - like scoring points for advancement.

    I base this simply on other game mechanics. RTS is ultimately about defeating your opponent. It is never about killing as many enemies as possible. FPS is, for most part, scoring kills. But it is all about positioning, aim, movement and twitch. Spawn camping is abuse of this system. RPGs (not MMORPGs) are about advancing your gear and stats. You will never encounter the need to kill a low level mob over and over, since the game pushes you into always higher content.

    And yet, the pvp remains, for most part, as broken as ever. Mindless slaughter of preferably much lower level players. It makes sense. The winner here will not be the game with most hardcore mechanics. It will be the one with most engaging goals. Whether any of the upcoming games will address this remains to be seen.
  • UbermanUberman Member Posts: 340


    Originally posted by Rekrul

    Originally posted by Wildcat84
    The way EQ2 does it wouldn't work with the NGE combat system.  The EQ2 combat system is basically like the CU combat system, there is time to strategize, you can queue specials, etc.

    If you are going to have open gankage, the victim has to have the ability to overcome the "first strike" (which was why Jedi had to be more powerful than BH's in the old system), or there is no fun or challenge to it, it just become a numbers game.  The NGE system doesn't really allow for this, it's too fast and the controls/UI still too poorly done.

    Besides, they won't even bring back the TEF system, which would be the more reasonable way to do it, and the way I think it should be done.



    Open pvp = gank fest.

    This is why future designs are trying to abandon it. Levels also don't work in pvp.

    WoW does support it, but it's not really useful. This is why heavy separation between different server types.

    Players are not mobs. Mobs wander around, waiting to die. Players can never be treated under the same concept and they should never be exposed to same ruleset. Saying such things quickly ends with "deal with it" "go carebear" and similar arguments. But it doesn't really matter.

    From development perspective, games need to evolve from past problems. Open ended pvp looks decent on paper, but since it's open ended by design, you have no control over it. While there can be good encounters, majority of them will not be. Even worse, every system tends to bring out the worst in people, and making an uncontrolled system with increasing penalties is a disaster.

    Many smirk at "enjoyable" "immersive" experience. But this is what it comes down to. The number of hardcore "fanbois" is always much smaller than of everyone else. Probably at 1:10 or 1:100 ratio. Yet one such person can ruin the gameplay of many others.

    And so it comes down to basic premise. Do you want a hardcore world, with few destroying the world, or a more controlled world with enjoyable community? Frustrated, hurt and defeated players are not happy. Unhappy players aren't friendly. Unfriendly players do not contribute to community. No community = no MMO.

    As MMOs increase in popularity, the diversity of players is starting to exceed anything seen before. Issues such as PR are coming to front, cultural clashes can emerge and communities are becoming somewhat fragile and explosive (look at forums of any game, the tiniest issues are become personal on daily basis)

    So yes, I do not support open pvp in a general MMO. Planetside is something different (not sure exactly, didn't play) since it's all about conflict. But in RPGs where leveling plays central role, giving someone the ability to hinder you at that is the very definition of griefing, which simply doesn't work.

    The premise of pvp should be competition. Determining who is better, who is more skilled. It should be about achieving goals and conquering territory. It should never EVER be based around anything ever remotely similar to grind - like scoring points for advancement.

    I base this simply on other game mechanics. RTS is ultimately about defeating your opponent. It is never about killing as many enemies as possible. FPS is, for most part, scoring kills. But it is all about positioning, aim, movement and twitch. Spawn camping is abuse of this system. RPGs (not MMORPGs) are about advancing your gear and stats. You will never encounter the need to kill a low level mob over and over, since the game pushes you into always higher content.

    And yet, the pvp remains, for most part, as broken as ever. Mindless slaughter of preferably much lower level players. It makes sense. The winner here will not be the game with most hardcore mechanics. It will be the one with most engaging goals. Whether any of the upcoming games will address this remains to be seen.



    Well said. 
  • haxxjoohaxxjoo Member Posts: 924


    Originally posted by Rekrul
    Why even care?

    The xp debt mechanism on Jedi was borked. Every pvper was at -10 mil. So there was no penalty.

    The motive to stay alive was, obviously, decay, bf and wounds. Some would say buffs, but I consider buffs to be broken by design in way SWG implemented them, so I don't count them as a loss here.

    In a properly implemented system, the decay, wounds and bf alone would keep a non-jedi character in check with regards to dying. Once you die x times, your gear would be destroyed, you'd be at 1000 bf and have 90-99% wounds, making you useless in combat.

    This, is a very valid and viable concept. It's not permanent, it's not long-term, it doesn't affect you much, but enough.

    Jedi were bound by force pool and similar restrictions, but they didn't suffer from death nearly as much. But I won't go into Jedi issues here.

    GW uses the concept of death penalty. Each death gives you 15% up to a maximum of 60%. Killing others slowly clears this penalty. They affect your health and energy, by decreasing them this ammount. Battles are won and lost of this. The key difference between evenly matched teams, as it turns out, is keeping opposing player with as much penalty as possible.

    It also makes sense. A team that's dying will get weaker. This gets around the absurdity of cloning (from perpective of continuity) and gives you a reason stay alive.

    Buffs, on the other hand, broke this. It's also why they cause so many problems in the long run. They completely skewed the balance between wounds, making it impossible for all those factors to play a role. Therefore only two counters evolved. Putting lots of BF on them for increased damage, or using dots (4x too powerful ticks). Dots, incidentaly, also added tons of BF.

    The concept of combat as designed pre-cu was well thought out. But, just like everything else, it got swarmed with rushed changes without any consideration.


    AH... guild wars group pvp...  mmm... My favorite.  Duel Backline Boon Prots ftw!

    I did alot of monking in guild wars.  

    I dont really agree that combat pre-cu was well thought out at all.  It was essentially a 20 man royal rumble in a battlefield.  You cannot really have well thought out 20 man group dynamics and coordination. The template builds without levels and classes really hindered any such dynamic.  What you really had was total class mixture because of to many skill points allowing a fighter to also be a primary healer without any negative consquences for having doctor/medic in his template.  Then you had double mastery combat professions with doctor in builds.  It meant you just needed 20 skilled players with the ability to follow a call.  Which meant using /assist and spamming macros and heals.  PvP was really not complex pre-cu.

    I like 8 man teams.  I guess you could do dp timers on holding a base with entertainers nearby playing and dancing off BF as needed.  It could be done.  It wont be.

  • milton1970milton1970 Member Posts: 347

    I can see why people oppsed open pvp but the tef system was just beautiful and a lot of fun imo, even though a lot of people hated it.

    Shoot stormtrooper NPC's outside Bestine SP and hey presto you were flagged. What other possible outcome could there be?

    StarwarsGalaxies minus tef = StarwarsCuddles

  • haxxjoohaxxjoo Member Posts: 924


    Originally posted by milton1970

    I can see why people oppsed open pvp but the tef system was just beautiful and a lot of fun imo, even though a lot of people hated it.
    Shoot stormtrooper NPC's outside Bestine SP and hey presto you were flagged. What other possible outcome could there be?

    StarwarsGalaxies minus tef = StarwarsCuddles


    I dont agree the TEF system worked or was a lot of fun.  Group TEF's with 1 overt and 19 coverts ready to gank 1 player was not a working system.  Dont get me wrong tefs are viable just dont tell me it was beautiful and a lot of fun because a great many people hated the gank festival they where.

    On the NPC issue while I agree to a certain extent that you should have some consquences for shooting a stormtrooper alot of people want to play the rebel side, feel like a part of the galactic civil war the entire game and that includes killing stormtroopers.  That means that quests and certain missions shouldn't net you a pvp tef.  If you want city troopers to give a pvp flag I would agree but extended that principle to all "stormtroopers" in game was a big issue and takes away from the playability of the game for 1000's of players who are low level, non-pvpers, solo gamers, new, etc.  You need a balance and having a system that accounts for multiple play styles should be included the tef system as it was orginally catered to pvp players and not to the casual player at all who thought they should be able to participate in the gcw pve wise without having the risk of being in a forced pvp situation.

  • Wildcat84Wildcat84 Member Posts: 2,304
    The TEF system has the advantage of opt-in.  Kill factional NPC's, you opt in.  Better make sure that there aren't enemy players around.



  • IcoGamesIcoGames Member Posts: 2,360


    Rekrul stated:
    Open pvp = gank fest.

    This is why future designs are trying to abandon it. Levels also don't work in pvp.

    WoW does support it, but it's not really useful. This is why heavy separation between different server types.

    Players are not mobs. Mobs wander around, waiting to die. Players can never be treated under the same concept and they should never be exposed to same ruleset. Saying such things quickly ends with "deal with it" "go carebear" and similar arguments. But it doesn't really matter.

    From development perspective, games need to evolve from past problems. Open ended pvp looks decent on paper, but since it's open ended by design, you have no control over it. While there can be good encounters, majority of them will not be. Even worse, every system tends to bring out the worst in people, and making an uncontrolled system with increasing penalties is a disaster.

    Many smirk at "enjoyable" "immersive" experience. But this is what it comes down to. The number of hardcore "fanbois" is always much smaller than of everyone else. Probably at 1:10 or 1:100 ratio. Yet one such person can ruin the gameplay of many others.

    And so it comes down to basic premise. Do you want a hardcore world, with few destroying the world, or a more controlled world with enjoyable community? Frustrated, hurt and defeated players are not happy. Unhappy players aren't friendly. Unfriendly players do not contribute to community. No community = no MMO.

    As MMOs increase in popularity, the diversity of players is starting to exceed anything seen before. Issues such as PR are coming to front, cultural clashes can emerge and communities are becoming somewhat fragile and explosive (look at forums of any game, the tiniest issues are become personal on daily basis)

    So yes, I do not support open pvp in a general MMO. Planetside is something different (not sure exactly, didn't play) since it's all about conflict. But in RPGs where leveling plays central role, giving someone the ability to hinder you at that is the very definition of griefing, which simply doesn't work.

    The premise of pvp should be competition. Determining who is better, who is more skilled. It should be about achieving goals and conquering territory. It should never EVER be based around anything ever remotely similar to grind - like scoring points for advancement.

    I base this simply on other game mechanics. RTS is ultimately about defeating your opponent. It is never about killing as many enemies as possible. FPS is, for most part, scoring kills. But it is all about positioning, aim, movement and twitch. Spawn camping is abuse of this system. RPGs (not MMORPGs) are about advancing your gear and stats. You will never encounter the need to kill a low level mob over and over, since the game pushes you into always higher content.

    And yet, the pvp remains, for most part, as broken as ever. Mindless slaughter of preferably much lower level players. It makes sense. The winner here will not be the game with most hardcore mechanics. It will be the one with most engaging goals. Whether any of the upcoming games will address this remains to be seen.



    I'm don't fully agree with your post Rekrul.

    CCP has demostrated that an Open-PvP MMO can have a great community. Players get ganked all the time, but the community respects that as part of the game. Even the famous hiest pulled off by the Guiding Social Hand Club was largely admired.

    Imo, the Eve's mechanics should be used as a base design for future open PvP MMOs. In 0.0 space you're subject to the politics of the playerbase, so if you're concerned about protection you join a corp. Outside of 0.0 space players are protected, in degrees, by the local security systems.

    Ico
    Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.

  • milton1970milton1970 Member Posts: 347


    Originally posted by haxxjoo

    Originally posted by milton1970

    I can see why people oppsed open pvp but the tef system was just beautiful and a lot of fun imo, even though a lot of people hated it.
    Shoot stormtrooper NPC's outside Bestine SP and hey presto you were flagged. What other possible outcome could there be?

    StarwarsGalaxies minus tef = StarwarsCuddles

    I dont agree the TEF system worked or was a lot of fun.  Group TEF's with 1 overt and 19 coverts ready to gank 1 player was not a working system.  Dont get me wrong tefs are viable just dont tell me it was beautiful and a lot of fun because a great many people hated the gank festival they where.

    On the NPC issue while I agree to a certain extent that you should have some consquences for shooting a stormtrooper alot of people want to play the rebel side, feel like a part of the galactic civil war the entire game and that includes killing stormtroopers.  That means that quests and certain missions shouldn't net you a pvp tef.  If you want city troopers to give a pvp flag I would agree but extended that principle to all "stormtroopers" in game was a big issue and takes away from the playability of the game for 1000's of players who are low level, non-pvpers, solo gamers, new, etc.  You need a balance and having a system that accounts for multiple play styles should be included the tef system as it was orginally catered to pvp players and not to the casual player at all who thought they should be able to participate in the gcw pve wise without having the risk of being in a forced pvp situation.



    I agree that the ganking capability of the group tef was a little harsh. But it was wild and fun, we'll have to beg to differ I guess, getting ganked was just a byproduct of a warlike environment, if you didn't want to risk a ganking then don't group with or heal an overt and don't kill factional npc's.

    Trouble could kick off at any given moment if you were grouped with an overt or attacking a lone overt of the oppsite faction, then there were the numerous times I got flagged and then ganked for doc heals/cures/buffs that I gave but I accepted that my actions had risks.

    As for low-level players running faction missions from mission terminals I'll have to agree to disagree with you mostly again. I've noticed BigdogofBria post on here, if it's the same guy as the old Bria toon he would mercilessly gank any noob running faction missions. I'd say he inspired quite a few players to actively participate in the GCW because of his noob culling.

    Maybe there should have been a non-tef rule for the themeparks since they were more quest based but grinding faction missions should have had some risk imo. maybe there's a middle ground that we could both be happy with but it would be nice to get a wider consensus of how much pvp we all wanted.

  • Squal'ZellSqual'Zell Member Posts: 1,803


    Originally posted by haxxjoo

    I dont agree the TEF system worked or was a lot of fun.  Group TEF's with 1 overt and 19 coverts ready to gank 1 player was not a working system.  Dont get me wrong tefs are viable just dont tell me it was beautiful and a lot of fun because a great many people hated the gank festival they where.



    actually TEF gank fests was kind of your fault.

    i went in a cantina as overt imperial and i saw.. OHHH an overt reb and without thinking i shot at him.. sudenly 19 other people turned around and....... well you can guess the rest... i abrely had time to say " oh shi.......

    so yeah TEF made you be aware of your suroundings. and not take anything for granted. every action you took you had to think. weather it was to attack an npc or to attack a player.

    image
    image

  • ShiloFieldsShiloFields Member Posts: 252

    Removal of TEFs was a defining moment for SWG.  TEFs were there for a very important reason and it had nothing to do with promoting PvP.  TEFs were in the game to promote Star Wars immersion.  To make the game as close as possible to the movies.  It was a good comprimise.

    You could be a rebel or imperial without being exposed to full PvP from the other side.  It fit well into the Star Wars universe, because he side had soliders (always open to attack) and covert agents that were not known and thus not attacked the other side.  TEFs gave you the option of the being the covert agent, vuneralble only when you choose to expose your self, or going overt and being the solider.  Obviously covert agents don't wear the armour or the insignia of their faction, therefore in game you had to be overt to wear armour. 

    Prior to the TEF changes I sometimes disagreed with SOE or thought they didn't do enough, but basically, I thought they were on track.  The TEF changes were the first time I thought SOE had completely lost it.  I almost quit then.  Little did I know this was all part of an overall decline in the game.  A trend away from Star Wars and toward a mockery of the movies we all love. 

    When SOE removed the TEFs, they made the fundamental decision that the movies don't matter.  The standard MMO or convenient solution is more important than staying true to the movies.  The CU, ToOW, and the NGE are just extensions of SOE's decison that the movies aren't important.

    To put it in Helios' language, SOE decided to turn SWG into a mere game rather than a virtual Star Wars world.

    The results as we can all see have been diasterous.

    TEFs are just as important to restoring the game to its former glory as is removing player Jedi or making them very rare.

  • jrscottjrscott Member Posts: 1,252


    Originally posted by Squal'Zell

    Originally posted by haxxjoo

    I dont agree the TEF system worked or was a lot of fun.  Group TEF's with 1 overt and 19 coverts ready to gank 1 player was not a working system.  Dont get me wrong tefs are viable just dont tell me it was beautiful and a lot of fun because a great many people hated the gank festival they where.


    actually TEF gank fests was kind of your fault.

    i went in a cantina as overt imperial and i saw.. OHHH an overt reb and without thinking i shot at him.. sudenly 19 other people turned around and....... well you can guess the rest... i abrely had time to say " oh shi.......

    so yeah TEF made you be aware of your suroundings. and not take anything for granted. every action you took you had to think. weather it was to attack an npc or to attack a player.


    Thank you!  You would think the first 10 times it happened to you, you would learn the lesson.  Don't attack overts in the stinking cantina when 19 other people are in there!  Gee whiz!

    Patient:  Doc, my eyes hurt whenever I pour lemon juice in them.
    Doctor:  Then stop pouring lemon juice in them.

    I'm sorry, but gankage is real.  Get over it.  Nobody is abusing an in-game system, people are just too stupid to stop and think.  A red dot to some PvPers is a lot like a donut to Homer Simpson.  "Must eat donut!  (drool)"

    I realize I said I quit. I never said it was forever :)

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183


    Originally posted by Rekrul

    Originally posted by Wildcat84
    The way EQ2 does it wouldn't work with the NGE combat system.  The EQ2 combat system is basically like the CU combat system, there is time to strategize, you can queue specials, etc.

    If you are going to have open gankage, the victim has to have the ability to overcome the "first strike" (which was why Jedi had to be more powerful than BH's in the old system), or there is no fun or challenge to it, it just become a numbers game.  The NGE system doesn't really allow for this, it's too fast and the controls/UI still too poorly done.

    Besides, they won't even bring back the TEF system, which would be the more reasonable way to do it, and the way I think it should be done.



    Open pvp = gank fest.


    This is why future designs are trying to abandon it. Levels also don't work in pvp.

    WoW does support it, but it's not really useful. This is why heavy separation between different server types.

    Players are not mobs. Mobs wander around, waiting to die. Players can never be treated under the same concept and they should never be exposed to same ruleset. Saying such things quickly ends with "deal with it" "go carebear" and similar arguments. But it doesn't really matter.

    From development perspective, games need to evolve from past problems. Open ended pvp looks decent on paper, but since it's open ended by design, you have no control over it. While there can be good encounters, majority of them will not be. Even worse, every system tends to bring out the worst in people, and making an uncontrolled system with increasing penalties is a disaster.

    Many smirk at "enjoyable" "immersive" experience. But this is what it comes down to. The number of hardcore "fanbois" is always much smaller than of everyone else. Probably at 1:10 or 1:100 ratio. Yet one such person can ruin the gameplay of many others.

    And so it comes down to basic premise. Do you want a hardcore world, with few destroying the world, or a more controlled world with enjoyable community? Frustrated, hurt and defeated players are not happy. Unhappy players aren't friendly. Unfriendly players do not contribute to community. No community = no MMO.

    As MMOs increase in popularity, the diversity of players is starting to exceed anything seen before. Issues such as PR are coming to front, cultural clashes can emerge and communities are becoming somewhat fragile and explosive (look at forums of any game, the tiniest issues are become personal on daily basis)

    So yes, I do not support open pvp in a general MMO. Planetside is something different (not sure exactly, didn't play) since it's all about conflict. But in RPGs where leveling plays central role, giving someone the ability to hinder you at that is the very definition of griefing, which simply doesn't work.

    The premise of pvp should be competition. Determining who is better, who is more skilled. It should be about achieving goals and conquering territory. It should never EVER be based around anything ever remotely similar to grind - like scoring points for advancement.

    I base this simply on other game mechanics. RTS is ultimately about defeating your opponent. It is never about killing as many enemies as possible. FPS is, for most part, scoring kills. But it is all about positioning, aim, movement and twitch. Spawn camping is abuse of this system. RPGs (not MMORPGs) are about advancing your gear and stats. You will never encounter the need to kill a low level mob over and over, since the game pushes you into always higher content.

    And yet, the pvp remains, for most part, as broken as ever. Mindless slaughter of preferably much lower level players. It makes sense. The winner here will not be the game with most hardcore mechanics. It will be the one with most engaging goals. Whether any of the upcoming games will address this remains to be seen.


    Maybe you are correct here , I just can't help but love an open PVP enviroment though . In an Opt in enviroment  I can pick and choose my battles ,Which for some may be enjoyable . While for others and myself it's a bore . I think an easy solution here would be , If you don't want to be a part of the "WAR" stay neutral . I always felt if you went toward a faction , You should be perma flagged as an enemy to the opposing  . IMO it adds to the immersion of a war , If for example I see an enemy faction member . I should be able to attack them and visa versa . What sense does it make as a rebel to not be able to attack an imperial ?

    As for open PVP being a problem or a "gank fest " . And only fan-bois enjoy this experience , IMO you couldn't be more wrong . In such an enviroment , Reaching the top is a not so easily attainable goal . Which IMO adds a greater feeling of accomplishment in doing so . Secondly a harsh enviroment creates a better player , It adds greater risk as well .During pre-cu SWG an experienced player could survive a ganking of quite a few people . I know this for fact, I and many friends of mine were known to take out a number of people solo .As well as a great number of our enemy brethren (Not only jedi ).

    On bloodfin most pvp guilds were at war constantly , We had a server wide PVP guild war going for almost a year . That was because a great number of us wanted an open pvp enviroment . In the years I played this game .All I ever wanted to do was PVP , If I did any form of PVE it was to better my character for PVP . That was my and many on bloodfins primary goal . Open PVP would of created a much greater experience IMO . But "each to their own" is key here .

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • ChessackChessack Member Posts: 978


    Originally posted by Wildcat84
    The TEF system has the advantage of opt-in.  Kill factional NPC's, you opt in.  Better make sure that there aren't enemy players around.





    The problem I always had with it, is that by opting out of PVP, you necessarily opted out of 90% of the pre-CU content. What if I wanted to do the rebel or imperial storylines, but do them in a PVE sense? I couldn't.

    Even that might not have been so bad if they had provided lots of neutral content, but they never really did.

    C
  • wolfmannwolfmann Member Posts: 1,159

    The problem by the "opt in" system, was just like in every other system that has flaws that can be used by griefers:

    It was used by griefers. Instead of playing the system like it was meant to be, they used the system to grief. Thus the wall between PvP and PvE was built.

    Heck we see it in new developed games even, griefing starts in Beta, and the game ends up atracting alot less people than it should have or they remake the PvP system into one of "PvP enabled, PvP disabled". One rotten apple spoils the barrel is a old norwegian saying.

    I'd love to play a Star Wars world/universe game, where the PvP was open. But unless they figure a way to add all the countermeasures that makes lil Tommy Griefer NOT going RAMBO in the mall or the airport in the real world, it would be a rather fruitless effort. If lil Tommy Griefer can go RAMBO 24/7, he and his friends, the boy band "Griefers in teh rain" will scare off everyone who's not hardcore enough to be RAMBOED 24/7.

    Open PvP and "it's just a game", does not work.

    imageThe last of the Trackers

  • RekrulRekrul Member Posts: 2,961


    Originally posted by Malickiebloo



    Maybe you are correct here , I just can't help but love an open PVP enviroment though . In an Opt in enviroment  I can pick and choose my battles ,Which for some may be enjoyable . While for others and myself it's a bore . I think an easy solution here would be , If you don't want to be a part of the "WAR" stay neutral . I always felt if you went toward a faction , You should be perma flagged as an enemy to the opposing  . IMO it adds to the immersion of a war , If for example I see an enemy faction member . I should be able to attack them and visa versa . What sense does it make as a rebel to not be able to attack an imperial ?

    As for open PVP being a problem or a "gank fest " . And only fan-bois enjoy this experience , IMO you couldn't be more wrong . In such an enviroment , Reaching the top is a not so easily attainable goal . Which IMO adds a greater feeling of accomplishment in doing so . Secondly a harsh enviroment creates a better player , It adds greater risk as well .During pre-cu SWG an experienced player could survive a ganking of quite a few people . I know this for fact, I and many friends of mine were known to take out a number of people solo .As well as a great number of our enemy brethren (Not only jedi ).

    On bloodfin most pvp guilds were at war constantly , We had a server wide PVP guild war going for almost a year . That was because a great number of us wanted an open pvp enviroment . In the years I played this game .All I ever wanted to do was PVP , If I did any form of PVE it was to better my character for PVP . That was my and many on bloodfins primary goal . Open PVP would of created a much greater experience IMO . But "each to their own" is key here .


    This was my point. Your server-wide guild war was not open pvp. It was opt-in battle between contesting guilds.

    General, open-ended pvp is completely boring, since it serves no purpose. A guild war is completely different, since the goal moves from some artificial scoring system to an honorish thing.

    Where open ended systems severly lack, is that they don't provide anything worth fighting for, leaving casual gankings the only semi-enjoyable thing. But why? Why bother fighting.

    During two weeks I played WoW I was on pvp server. And there came other faction and left or ganked me or something. I simply couldn't care less. Oh-key. You're Horde. You're red. Yay!!! No thanks. Red=dead is pointless when it doesn't change anything. Common justification there is to control quest givers. Well, big deal.

    Another issue I see with open ended system is that it's completely opposite of reality. With almost no exceptions, no conflict zone on earth has ever had red=dead rule. The only true exceptions were restricted areas (battlegrounds, if you will). There simply is no reason to kill someone on sight, especially if you don't achieve anything.

    There's a reason why old games are considered simple today. Doom has been replaced with Half Life2. While essentially the same gameplay, the mechanics were improved.

    Open-ended pvp hasn't evolved. It's still free-for-all, kill-on-sight. This is why instanced, contrained and rule-based confrontations have gained so much popularity. They simply offer much more accessible experience. The problem, just like sand box, is that open-ended aproach is no longer evolving. WoW for example has left it at it's core form, put up a note that everything goes, and was done with it.

    Open ended world at war has so many conceptual and design issues that it's simply not worth investing into. Just like all the other changes, I don't expect it to gain any reasonable popularity in the future. The closest to a reasonable solution for me would be the TEF system pre-13. From design only, not implementation, that one had quite a few issues.
  • TrubadurenTrubaduren Member Posts: 575
    Die with honor, or something.

    Starwars Galaxies, An Empier Diveded, That's what it says on my box anyway.

  • IcoGamesIcoGames Member Posts: 2,360


    Rekrul stated:
    ...
    General, open-ended pvp is completely boring, since it serves no purpose. A guild war is completely different, since the goal moves from some artificial scoring system to an honorish thing.

    Where open ended systems severly lack, is that they don't provide anything worth fighting for, leaving casual gankings the only semi-enjoyable thing. But why? Why bother fighting.
    ...


    I'll have to disagree again by using Eve as an example. You may gank players for the pleasure of doing so, but there are tangible rewards as well, such as looted cargo or protection of your territory.

    Ico
    Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.

  • MMO_ManMMO_Man Member Posts: 666
    The best thing to do is not log on to the NGE at all.

    image
    I sleep with a pillow under my gun.

  • RekrulRekrul Member Posts: 2,961

    Originally posted by IcoGames
    Rekrul stated:
    ...
    General, open-ended pvp is completely boring, since it serves no purpose. A guild war is completely different, since the goal moves from some artificial scoring system to an honorish thing.Where open ended systems severly lack, is that they don't provide anything worth fighting for, leaving casual gankings the only semi-enjoyable thing. But why? Why bother fighting.
    ...

    I'll have to disagree again by using Eve as an example. You may gank players for the pleasure of doing so, but there are tangible rewards as well, such as looted cargo or protection of your territory.


    Why bother fighting?

    How exactly do you protect the territory? As far as i can recall, there is no physical protection over territory (I don't remember the details of EvE anymore).

    And what about loot? Is it the only way to obtain resources? Is it considerably more viable than trading/mining?

    Take real motives as an example. Wars don't just happen on a whim. Even ones for more misguided motives are backed by strong and prevalent economic motives.

    Eve, for lack of better word, is griefers paradise. People leaving crates in noob areas, complete lack of scale in any engagement, stat dependancy and more. In EvE, that is the name of the game. Since it uses economy as the only driving force, it defines a dog eat dog world. Destroying an opponent carries incredibly harsh penalties. And let's not even get started on TS transcripts of pvp engagements. But EvE is what it is.

    But it still doesn't answer the real question. Why fight? Look at real world. Few people fight for sake of fighting. Some make fighting their profession. But majority uses a set of tools at their disposal to achieve their goals. In MMOs, pvp so far hasn't been tied to anything except pvp for the sake of pvp. When trying to achieve a goal, you are often left with absolutely no alternative. And the goals are extremly weak. Scoring kills. Scoring points.

    Real life is open ended pvp. You can take a club, and whack the person next to you. Yet most don't. Apart from that annoying "law enforcement", the benefits of not doing so greatly outweight the downsides.

    MMOs are supposedly about communities and societies. And yet, there's a system, which dictates you to kill a random person on sight. Ideal open ended pvp allows you to attack anyone anywhere anytime. Then it's up to the society that has build itself withing a particular world to decide whether it was justified or not.

    It would be an interesting experiment to see, how a no-rules pvp enabled MMO would work, and if it were able to survive. How would death be handled as to strike a balance between a zergs and completely passive attitude. Perma-death with no-grind? Full item loss with time delay for ressurection?

    UO in this case probably came closest to this. But it's an old game, and things have changed a lot. Was that system really that wrong, or did the problems lie elsewhere (grinding for skills).

    Open ended aproach IMHO would work under certain conditions:
    - Everyone is attackable
    - 1 on 1 combat even matched, an almost unwinnable situation
    - All combat elements are counterable, depending on "equipment"
    - Combat abilities are not grind based
    - Equipment differentiates characters, but in a non-discriminative way
    - Almost unconditional item loss on death
    - Behaviour is enforced through static elements

    About equipment. It is possible, to design a system, that uses variations of equipment without unbalancing the game. This is in most cases best demonstrated by benefit/penalty ration. Heavy armor/slow movement, fast fire/low damage. In MMOs problems arise due to level dependancy of items and templating. Class X will kill Class Y, but will die to Class Z. By doing away with classes, and removing the grind, you can have equal opportunity pvp. Gear still affects you, but due to complete loss on death even items giving someone edge come into balance.

    The static elements are passive, NPC-like objects that respond to player's behaviour. Kill too many "civilians", and you get bounty on you. Become known as a killer, and parts of the NPC world no longer interacts with you. Trade with such players, and you lose favor. This to some extent best reflects real relations through game mechanics.

    Perhaps the most important thing here is, that every player must have a chance to escape from conflict. Most, if not all games offer little at that, or add artificial elements, such as cloaks, snares, various portals, etc. Those without exception cry for exploitation.

    I know of many games that attempt to introduce various elements into pvp/pve relation, but as long as grind remains the central paradigm of design, I don't see any real improvement possible for open ended pvp, since grind will inevitably determine the winner, not organization, tactical skills or social relations.
  • BissrokBissrok Member Posts: 1,002

    Part Two of "Wow, Some People Are Stupid" comes to you from a Mr. ZionHalcyon:
    Clicky


    I already said I enjoyed Pre-CU more, BUT they were LOSING SUBSCRIPTIONS. I hate to break it to you, but SOE is in this to make MONEY. And they had a BUSINESS choice between a slow death, or risking a quick one in order to try to retool.

    They had balls to do what they did. I may not have agreed, but I respect it.

    And yes, their subscriptions aren't what they were. BUT THEY ARE INCREASING, which was NOT happening at the tail end of the Pre-CU.

    Come on, this is business 101 - a slow death or retooling that brings people back and encourages growth?

    The only time where there is a "WALL" is when people lie to themselves about the fact that people are coming back to the game now, and new people are joining, whereas in the old system, people were leaving, and NOONE new was coming in.


Sign In or Register to comment.