Originally posted by teakbois

Its really more of an ideal world vs. reality issue.  Im with you, in an ideal world I would love to see them for all intents and purposes add a new crafting class that wasnt even in existence in pre-CU (Vehicle Engineer).  i dont know if I would want more house styles because the player cities already look pretty damn ugly if the amyor doesnt keep on his citizens to use some common sense.  While I like the TCG system in general, I hate the stupid Yoda houses and cloud city houses.  They are immersion breaking to the extreme and its pretty stupid that Lucasarts would allow that stuff in considering some of the stuff they dont allow.

But this is reality.  Reality is SWG is a game with probably 50k subs.  I dont know what the cost of running a server is, but does 750k/year (in reality quite a bit less than that due to station pass and lower fees for longer sub lengths) cover the cost of running them plus paying 4 developer's salaries/benefits and the cost of cs (which si a factor for swg because of the character transfers off dead servers they do for free)?    Not to mention does LA get a cut of any of that (I know they get box sales, but SWG doesnt exactly have box sales lol).  In other words, TCG keeps SWG going forward, as little forward as it is.  They need cool stuff for it.  They would never consider most of this stuff for ingame crafters, but its good for TCG.  keeps it rare, but desirable enough so a little extra income goes in.

Again, before TCG came about architects did not get immersion breaking specialty facilities.  If TCG never was implemented in all likelihood they still wouldnt have gotten it.  

Reality: Right now crafting is still pretty far ahead of most other aspects of the game, so they arent going to focus much time on it.  There are bigger fish to fry.

Just to be clear, are you implying that vehicles could not be crafted before teh TCG came along? As far as wanting more houses, that is certainly subjective and easily fixed my enforcing placement restrictions on house styles. Not introducing TCG content that can be placed anywhere couldnt hurt.

Now, the question is not whether the TCG is finiancially viable, but more whether it is a contributing factor to a diminished game for crafters. Naturally, this is an opinion call in many respects and I think my opinion is pretty clear at this point. That said, if you did want ot make an argument on this point, it could be framed as to whether investing in actually improving hte game would draw more subs and result in a greater revenue gain then the TCG provides for the reduced sub base. It'd be a speculative excercise of course, but that'd probably be a fun tangent to explore.

At least we are on the same page that the TCG implemented immersion breaking content that would have otherwise not made it into the game though. That certianly reinforces, for me, that the TCG is a parasitic feature.

Reality, crafting was a strong point of the game before the TCG. The fundamental mechanics are still in place despite its diminished value. So, one of the strong features of the game was in place well before teh CU, let alone the NGE, but instead of leveraging the strength of that feature, SOE opted for the TCG and other changes that make it less appealing....

Originally posted by teakbois

TCG didnt subtract from crafters, it didnt take away stuff that would ever have been given to crafters.  

So, since there was a time when most things were crafter made, this means teh TCG introduced things that should have never made it into the game. Alternately, it can be read that it did not subtract from crafters, but also did not add to crafters unless they paid to play the TCG. That's throwing the crafter, who also pays a sub, a bone?

Now, regarding the whole post, it is again tainted by contradictions. On one hand, there was never anythign remotely like TCG loot, but on the other, TCG loot contains housing and vehicles which, there happen to be things that remote resemble those. So there is a competition between the crafter and the shiney new house/vehicle the art department created.

That said, you've convinced me. The TCG is, in fact, a parastic feature whose effects include, but are not limited to, the reduction of immersion and diversion of resources from ongoing game development. It's unfortunate as I had considered the TCG to have less impact, but as you have displayed, it does indeed tarnish this game :(

Originally posted by teakbois

I said 'basically zero'.  In other words, the impact is so small no one really notices it.  Im sure there are overall less houses sold because of the TCG.  But it is such an extremely small number that it isnt noticed individually, and its dwarfed by the increase in house sales adding those newer generics and windowed houses added.  Its not like they havent added stuff at all.  trust me, if you were starting a guild city you would ahve a LOT to do as an architect.  I tried starting from scratch with the free 45 days.  While leveling a put a medium tat house up on the bazaar terminal each day for a week (market value).  I sold it every day.

 

Yes, instead of implementing a serious form of vehicle craftign which would require a pretty extensive overhaul, they choose to add some vehicles in for really next to no effort.  But Droid Engineers got a decent amount of new droids to craft.

 

Its okay to not like the TCG concpet, but it has not had a noticeable negative effect on the crafting game.  Not remotely.

Ok, so there is an impact. You consider it small and were able to sell some houses so it can't possibly be meaningful. All while again, isolating TCG versus what I stated regarding the TCG along with other mechanics. That's cool, I get that you like the TCG and thus are biased toward it. I dislike it and thus am biased against it. As such, we are inclined to disagree, but where it gets a bit cloudy is when more contradictions get introduced. For example, it is somehow too costly to add recipes for vehicles and leverage existing crafting mechanics. It is also, somehow, less costly, or somehow more justifiale, to do the same for droid engineers. So on one hand, it isn't too much effort, but on the other, it is....

Its ok to like the TCG concept, but the more you do to justify it the more it sounds like it does infact impact the game and now, more then I thought, development decisions. As I said though, you enjoy it. I get that. You are the paying sub and obviously part of the target market and I'm glad you are having fun with it. It is not to my personal tastes and is just another feature that prevents me from enjoying the game today. 

Now, as I said, this certainly runs the risk of becoming a circular argument given that we are both biased toward defending or opposing the feature. Additionally, it is tangent to the actual OP regarding the concept that SWG is somehow more sandbox then it was pre-CU/NGE, which we did agree was not the case. The TCG conversation could be, and I believe it ihas been, its own thread and probably deserves as much given the extent of the conversation it has occupied thus far.

Originally posted by teakbois

we are talking TCG = Trading Card Game, right?

This has basically zero effect on the crafter.   There isnt a single wearable piece of gear (as far as I know) thats isnt appearance only. No weapons, no armor.  No droids.

Housing?  Yeah theres a lot of housing items.  But they are all impractical gimmicky stuff.  Well maintained cities still want the architect housing, and espeically civic structures (shuttleports, guild halls, cantinas, etc) as well as the gardens and such.

The only real thing you can point to is vehicles, but vehicle crafting was obviously never fully developed in SWG anyway.  Would have eben nice if they did, but it wasnt something that was removed.

So really, I dont get where you think TCG has an effect on crafting.  it doesnt.

So basically, what your post is saying is that it doesn't have an impact, but it actually has an impact "this area" and "that area". But that impact doesn't matter cause you do not consider the items in question to be of any value. In cases where the items do have value, it was ok that they were implemented in TCG rather then via crafting despite that particular area being, as you stated, not fully developed. Then you restate it doesn't have an impact. Now, I'll certainly concede you are knowledgable about the game, but then you take that compliment and run on with a series of contradictions.

Another way to view this is, instead of fleshing out "obviously never fully developed" portions of the game, they chose to make those items TCG rather then tip their hate to the crafting player. 

Now, as I said in the previous post, I consider the TCG to be a contributing factor (when considered along side various other changes) to a diminished crafting game based on my preferences for the game. Certainly, for you it does not have an impact and that's great. Keep on rocking. I explained why it had an impact for me and how I believe it works alongside other changes to realize that impact. Sorry if you can't accept any of those opinions, but really that has no bearing on whether I like the TCG or not.

Originally posted by teakbois

TCG really is a non issue, it has no impact on the game.  Actually its extra revenue is probably why SWG still has 4 developers and hasnt been relegated to Vanguard  status yet.  

 

But yeah, the game is in no shape or form more sandboxy, we agree on that.

I can understnad how it would have a postiive impact on the bottom line for the game, however, I enjoy the idea that most items of use in the game are crafted by players and, on principle, do not approve of the TCG idea. As a result, I think I am justified in listing that as a turn off for me from a crafting perspective, but again, that is only speaking for my personal opinion on TCGs in general. If the game had had less depth/integration of crafting perhaps I would have felt differently :P. In addition to that though, I think it is not a standalone TCG that is the issue, but the combination of high end loot, TCG, lack of decay, and likel other factors I'm forgetting right now, that work together to present a negative impact. And maybe that is where my issues lie with the current game. It's not really any one thing, but a thousand little cuts that have a cumulative effect.

EvE, to some extent, is introducing "cash shop" items and I also disapprove there. That said, my initial impression is that it is very well thought out and a bit mroe seamless to the game experience. Additionally, these new items are for an area of the game that, at this time, does not exist (Walking in Stations/Incarna), so it is not a matter of impeding on existing crafting demands. (so far) The EvE implementation provides a contrast to the TCG approach and I mention it becuase it highlights where I view the line to be as far as acceptability (naturally a subjective view).

Anyhow, not trying to disagree to disagree. You are obviously more up on the game today, versus where it was, then I am. Glad we can agree on something though :)

sorry, I didn't elaborate, but I was speaking mroe generally about the TCG and crafting though looking at what i wrote, I can see how it looks like i was speaking specifically about architect. Apologies, but what was in my head did not make it to the screen intact ;)

Still, as I said, it's been a long time and my memory can certainly be off. Overall, crafting still seems diminished, but that is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to discussing the original assertation about the game having "more sand" which I interpret to mean that the OP believes it more of a sand box now. I listed out a veriety of reasons I disagree and certainly crafting would appear to be the weakest of those, though I am certianly open to hearing other corrections.

Originally posted by Zeppelin4

I was a master architect and I don't remember any stats on furniture only harvesters and crafting stations.

Alright, I could be off. I thought rate of decay was vaiable. so now I just have tcg, decay, and drops to complain about from a an architect perspective. If i had been a weaponsmith/armorsmith would I be any happier? :P

Originally posted by teakbois

With the exception of harvesters and some other odds and ends all architect goods come out the same, which i think was how it always was.  Architect is the easiest of the 4 by a rather large margin as its fairly easy to get the right resources for a maxed out harvester.  However if you check the hopper size on the market youll see a bit of variety so you can still push yourself for that if you want.

 

There is a cap for items though, but back in the old days it was harder to reach with lesser tools and lesser resources (and lesser knowledge)

It's been a good long time since Pre-CU for me, but I'm fairly certain there was a level of variance even in Architecture. Especially amonst the furniture items. But again, it's been a while and I could be completely off, however, Weaponsmith/Armosmith/etc certainly had a large degree of variance. Does that still exist or has that been simplified as per the imrpession I got during my "come back vets" time? Is decay still in, or has that been removed as per the impression I had gotten? Both of those, combined with the rise of loot drops/TCG items, were very unappealing to me personally.

For point of reference, my crafting was done with pretty decent crafting stations I had in my house, so maybe that factored into my perception. I didn't need to use schematics in manufacturing that much so not really considering mass produced items which I would certianly expect to be identical.

The only thing that I can think of that qualifies as "more sand" was the storyteller system which seemed pretty neat. Made me think of Ryzoms player driven content system (Ryzom Ring i think it was called). However, the tradeoffs were simplified classes, homogenized crafting, highend loot drops, TCG introduction, and a rise in zoned/instanced planets and areas.

I know I was a bit frustrated coming back and not being able to play my Master Ranger/Pistoleer. The closest I could manage was the Bounty Hunter which I didn't find as enjoyable as I had thought it would be.

I changed over to a crafter, since I had spent some time as a Master Architect and, while the mechanics were mostly the same, the actual output had no variation, that I could tell, from any other crafter. Maybe I just wasn't looking close enough, and if so, let me know. Additionally, wasn't decay removed, further diminishing the overall demand for carfted goods? Aside from this, when I left, many of the better items were still crafted, but loot drops seemed to be on par. Hopefully this has been adjusted to give crafters the edge again, but it has been a while now so I can only speculate.

As far as more content; I would say the game had "themeparks" before CU/NGE, so whatever the quest chains are called now, having more of them doesn't add "sand to the box" per se. It just adds more quests. With the zoned/instances areas, I would say it diverges away from some of the more community driven atmosphere I felt the game had, but again, that is personal opinion.

I know there is probably a lot I left out, but just going on memory from my last "come back vets" visit and those were basically the highlights. 

Don't get me wrong. If you enjoy the game, then more power to you. I'm glad you've found something you like and hope that it doesn't get pulled out from under you any time soon. I just disagree with your "more sand" assessment, but in the end, that really shouldn't have any bearing on your enjoyment of the game. 

Originally posted by archer75

I had thought they said way back when dust 514 was initially announced that it was going to be xbox only.  I was going to play it but I don't have a PS3 and have no intention of getting one.

I thought the same and was really looking forward to playing. But, like you, I don't intend to purchase a PS3 for one game. Well, let me rephrase, my wife does not intend to let me purchase a console in order to play one game :P. 

At any rate, I hope the game does well enoguh whereever it lands. As I said in another thread, it would suck to get the Dust features in EvE just to have them rendered useless by a product failure. While I might not be playing Dust, hopefully it enriches my experience in EvE anyhow :)

Originally posted by Bainwalker

Originally posted by Tamanous

Originally posted by Bainwalker

Originally posted by Tamanous

Originally posted by Bainwalker

  The only truly interesting find is that CPP is making DUST 514 for the PS3 exclusively.  I think they should have gone a step further and made it possible to play EVE on the PS3 as well.  

 

Best part about that is you finally get some true security and don't have to deal with all that pc hacking BS!

I agree FPS games can be more enjoyable on a console because hacking is less of a problem... however in saying that I much prefer computer FPS titles due to controls being a lot easier for me personally and the added computer benefits such as better graphics.

I guess I should point out that what I said was complete sarcasm.

:)

Hard to read sarcasm when it's only plain text.  So you're saying you want the game on PC?

Are our collective memories that short these days? There was recently a big issue regarding PSN being 'hacked' and information being stolen as well as seemingly daily reports of other divisions of Sony being 'hacked'. So, could have just been a tongue-in-cheek jab as opposed to a desire for PC version.

At any rate, I'll put the PS3/Dust514 down as a disappointment. Not because I love the XBox or anything, but simply because that is the platform I went with and was hoping Dust would be on it. I don't intend to buy a PS3 for one game, and really, I only buy a few games for the console per year anyhow, so this is now a title I will be passing by :(. I still hope it works out well for CCP as it would suck to introduce the mechanics (to EvE) for interacting with Dust players just to have them rendered useless later on.

So, I am a bit on the fence on this one, but one thing that seems to come up repeatedly is SP requirements to join corps and it seems like that is really not relevent. I say this because, if you introduce a mechanic that gives newer players, possibly spies (as mentioned previously) more SP faster, SP requirements will revise upward accordingly. So using corp SP requirements a sa justification, or on some level "proof" of something, seems a bit of a red herring.

I wouldn't mind new players getting more SP early on, but I can also understand a hesitence to devalue the perceived investment that "vet" players have made in developing their characters. Besides that, what problem does this solution solve that existing mechanics don't already? There is a character Bazaar and new players can pretty much order up any amount of SP they would like. Perhaps that system can be tweaked a bit. Naturally, this implies a player is willing to invest in a higher SP character and they really should learn to play the game at lower SP before making such a move anyhow ;)

As I said, I'm a bit on the fence. I don't think the "missioning" solution is good at all as it is too narrow in scope of activity, but I certainly don't mind the idea of faster skilling for newer players. I'd be more interested in how existing mechanics can be leveraged to accomodate those new players versus designing a new system though. 

One issue I see, that is contradictory to some of your other threads; Wouldn't this make it easier for bots to get new toons up to speed quicker and therefore reduce the impact that any character banning might introduce. This concept works against your other stated goals so, when thinking about how to help the new player, there has to be a lot of consideration on how to prevent exploitation of the mechanic.

Originally posted by nyxium

If you want to learn a multi platform language then C or C++ is for you. Is C# Microsoft only? I think it is.

It's Microsoft, but functional on other platforms via Mono. Not 100% on the current state of Mono as I believe there was a shake up in their dev team so there is always that concern.

That said, Java/C# are C-based languages so it follows that learning C++ would provide skills and concepts that transfer to many other scenarios/languages.

Anecdotally speaking, I work with C# and my brother works with Java. We have had numerous conversations where our code xamples back and forth to each other were nearly identical. So, based on that, I assume there is a lot of overlap between the two languages, though I am certainly no Java expert so take it with a grain of salt.

.....that said....old thread eh?

Thank goodness! I was starting to worry we were running out of things to complain about.

As pointed out, the numbers posted in the OP do not reflect the actual cost to start the game with all Xpacs. A quick search shows Amazon selling all (classic, BC, wotlk, cata) together for $89 and change. Is that too much? I suppose that is a matter of personal opinion based on perceived value. If only there were alternative....oh wai..

A number of posts have turned to the economic benefit of having the botters and, I'll be honest, I had never considered that side of things so it got me thinking....

It seems CCP can access a lot of data regarding what's going on in their game. I wonder if they can determine how much time a player spends mining. From there, a report could be generated showing something like "Players Who Mine > 95% of available uptime".

So CCP could take such a report and review a sampling of players on the list. For the sake of argument, lets say 500 players showed up on the list. They could review 10% of that list and determine a very loose idea of their false-positives. The reports can then be refined based on where it becomes manageable, based on resources required to review the account in question, and has the least false positives (though I suppose this would default to "= 100% of uptime"). Maybe over time, players who are 'false-positive' on the list become white-listed from future reports (or perhaps the next 1, 2, <whatever> months they are cleared) to reduce the admin effort.

This all assumes such data is readily available in the server logs, but the end result is a completely unobtrusive process for the legitimate customer. Another way I see this data being used is by CCPs economist to determine the break even point between bot control and ingame inflation. Perhaps players would take over for the bots and reduce inflation naturally, but a controlled approach to decreasing the Bot population is likely going to be the least disruptive solution for everyone.

Maybe that came across as a bit of a ramble, but I hope it made some sense :)

Originally posted by Teala

If you read my first post you would see that a captcha would never appear if you are actively engaged in combat.  Nice try though.

Couldn't bots just have an agression timer on each other, launch one drone that constantly attacks but can't do enough damage to break their tank, and therefore maintain active combat indeffinitely? Just the first thing that came to mind. I'm sure someone else could think of a more plausible exploit of the "active combat" evaluation.

Also, combat might be a bit vague. Is being targeted combat? Is aligning to warp enough to delay captcha? What are the chances the miner is actually going to enter combat versus trying to run? If rats show up in a belt, wouldnt that initiate combat and therefore avoid captcha? If so then an existing mechanic actively works to devoid the purposed mechanic which seems like bad design, but just my opinion there.

I don't understand. People have put forth their thoughts and have dissected the Captcha idea. What sort of conversation were you looking for? Wouldn't you rather realize the short comings of the Captcha approach rather then spend more time advocating a solution that would likely not accomplish your stated goal? Really, keep beating the drum and keep the issue visible, but complaining about legitimate feedback is counterproductive. 

My opinion on the matter, which is of course super important, lines up with cosy's post. Better to let a Bot go then to implement a mechanic that punishes a legit player. I relate to DRM in that respect I suppose. The Bot, much like the 'pirate' with DRM, will find a way around the mechanic while the legit customer is impacted. Sure, you can dismiss it as a negligible impact, but when the Bot experiences none of that impact, what have you gained? You've wasted dev resources on deiminishing the game experience for the very players your trying to support.

So, if you are truly looking for a fix, stop whinning about people not liking your captcha idea, not being a miner, or somehow casting accusations and hyperbole around and start trying to think a little more creatively about a non-intrusive solution that would accurately target bots while not inconveniencing the legitimate player/afk miner. 

Originally posted by Psychow

Hopefully everyone who is complaining and outraged will quit wow. Good riddance.

It's a freaking PREMIUM service that is being offered.  Not unlike many many other businesses offer.

Example: I have cable TV. They offer PREMIUM channels such as HBO and Showtime if I CHOOSE to pay for them. I'm not outraged that they are charging EXTRA for the cable service and I don't feel ENTITLED to receive the premium channels just because I already subscribe to cable TV.

Part of the thing about cable though is that my service has genrally increased to make what my cable company offers seem more valuable then their competitors. For example, they constantly offer discounts on the various movie packages and such which keep their price at or below the cost of competition coupled with the hassle of changing service. Aside from that, people have been fighting for the ability to order cable channels "a la carte" as opposed to strictly package based so the assumption that everyone is complacent with the structure of cable service offerings is not universal.

Now, if we look at MMOs, we can see a few high profile games in the near future which make the timing and nature of this announcement a bit odd. I mean, Blizzard could use this feature as a "hey, look at this cool new system we implemented at no extra cost!" which would, for some, increase their perceived value of the game and maybe keep them hookd a bit longer. It might even get a few curious people to come back for a month and try it out. Conversely, as someone pointed out previously, it could potentially reduce server transfer revenue, so maybe that's a factor in their decision.

For me, I wouldn't use the service, so aside from being a bit disappointed at the blatant "nickle and dime" as I see it, it doesn't significantly alter my game play experince. At least no more then seeing a character fly by on a sparkling pony or with some vanity pet they purchased. If someone has expendable income, it's really their choice what they are willing to accept, or in the case of those displeased, are willing to tolerate.

I wonder how much of this is using the customer base of WoW to test pricing models for their next MMO or if they would risk the "goodwill" of the WoW customers for such an effort...Maybe that's just me hoping there is more to it then short-term dollar signs...

Aside form the whole "charging for it" issue, doesn't soemthing like this further abstract server boundaries and turn WoW into more of the "lobby" style game? Log in, group up with friends, teleport with dungeon. If this were extended to Real ID Rated BG/Arena teams, then the it would start to seem even more "lobby-like". The only thing left that would be server specific would be questing and open-world PvP (ok, ok...just Tol Barad :P ).

I'll leave it up to others whether that's a good/bad/indifferent thing, but jsut something that occured to me as the "lobby" characterization seems to come up in various threads.

I thought I was paying $15 for premium access now. I suppose my $15 is for a "less then premium" experience. :(

But really, what is the point of charging (aside from the obvious answer of 'greed'). If they are looking to ramp up RealID, you figure they would give people more incentives to use it. I mean making this available would go a long way toward making the service more attractive and not just somethign associated with the drama over showing real names in forums, But maybe most people who would use this weren't concerned, don't care, or already forgot about all that. It just seems short-sighted to saddle their "social platform" with added fee based services so early on. But then there are people paid more then I am to figure out how that company will make more money so I guess we'll see what happens.

Still, the leveling process has been drasticaly reduced over and over. Realm transfers exist as a one time fee. Faction transfers exist as a one time fee. I suppose this just seems redundant. With that in mind, it's not a service I would ever pay for, so in that respect, I suppose it will have no real impact on me except for removing some people from the regular Dungeon Finder queue. How long before they implement "Premium, Cross-Server Rated Battleground/Arena Teams"?