Remove combatant

Remove combatant
This idea/suggestion has been flagged as Not Implemented because of a lack of popularity, lack of interest, lack of feasibility, or other determination by the Development Team, so the suggestion will not be implemented. Once a suggestion has been flagged this way, the decision is final. Although the issue may be raised again in the future after a six month cooldown. A response explanation from the Development Team can be found in the thread.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rozay

Rozay

Proposal
This will be unpopular for most, but I believe combatant should be removed, You should either be SF or on leave. It makes zero sense that players can attack factional npcs and structures and players of the opposite faction can't contest. I believe this will bring about more pvp and sink credits to combat inflation. But on the other hand people who don't like pvp for the thrills will need rewards for pvp ie. Cosmetics, skins, use items etc that can be purchased from a vendor for credits and certain player rating brackets.
Justification
Combatant makes zero sense and pvp is a huge credit sink to combat inflation.
Motivation
Combatant in GWC doesn't make sense and this will encourage more pvp and a healthier economy.
Remove combatant as an option and only have on leave and special forces.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Exuyar, Omen, Kreeve and 2 others
Upvote 0 Downvote
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
I should be able to stop people from killing stormtroopers right in front of me, especially considering my Imperial Officer uniform
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kreeve
Agree about the “killing stormtroopers” in front of you and in early versions of the game it would flag a player temporarily and they could then be attacked by SF enemies.

That said, I don’t think your idea would encourage PvP or somehow make the GCW more fun, it’d more likely serve to take content away from those who prefer PvE.

You have to cater to diverse play styles and PvE has its place in the GCW.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oomas, gunnythok, Sobewan814 and 2 others
Versatti said:
Agree about the “killing stormtroopers” in front of you and in early versions of the game it would flag a player temporarily and they could then be attacked by SF enemies.

That said, I don’t think your idea would encourage PvP or somehow make the GCW more fun, it’d more likely serve to take content away from those who prefer PvE.

You have to cater to diverse play styles and PvE has its place in the GCW.
Click to expand...
But in reality does it make sense that you can flip zones and kill factional npcs in a war and others can't do anything about it? When GCW officer ranks get re-implemented there are negative affects from the other faction controlling zones and it kinda sucks that the people can cause those negative affects while combatant and all you can do is watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatoNovus, DeathByDab, reidski182 and 1 other person
You also have to consider people want to be involved in the GCW without worrying that if they beat up a stormtrooper some S.F. player is going to take them out. By removing combatant you're holding part of the content hostage because not everybody wants PVP, that is why having the flag switch open is a good idea. Can you lessen the rewards if someone only affects through PvE vice PvP sure, that's absolutely fair. But don't remove the option for non-pvp types to get involved by saying if you do, we have the option to kill you.
 
S
Rozay said:
But in reality does it make sense that you can flip zones and kill factional npcs in a war and others can't do anything about it? When GCW officer ranks get re-implemented there are negative affects from the other faction controlling zones and it kinda sucks that the people can cause those negative affects while combatant and all you can do is watch.
Click to expand...
Something that needs to be considered ahead of the ranks being reimplemented.

The danger is that taking something away without a good incentive to be SF will only cause people to be turned off by it. It’s also going to remove content for many.

Scenario: Timmy the Trandoshan (CL50) is doing Imperial NPC missions for 200 measly faction points and 1000 credits. In lands Stevie the Imp slayer with his high end armor, weapons and 2 rows of buffs. The risk vs reward in this scenario is too low and would likely stop Tim from playing.

I agree with the zones, but in reality If flipping a zone meant an ISD parked itself outside the Tatooine space station and blew up any remotely rebel ship that tried to launch then fair enough. But as it stands for a few silver chevron CL60 NPC it’s hardly game breaking to allow PvErs to contribute to the GCW.

Also it’s a waste of Dev time and effort to remove player content as a means to incentivise PvP.

I’ll throw another idea out there to flip this around. Whilst set as SF, enemy players “off duty” or “combatant” can instantly attack you without the need to change duty status. This then flags them as SF but only temporarily.
 
I’m not generally supportive of this.

I believe there’s ways (e.g., PvP radius around GCW Invasion Defensive General, Player City ability to enforce as SF zone, the Covert Factional Scanner likely to return, faction perk bases being SF only, GCW Officer ranks enforcing permanent enemy flagging, a much heavier weighting towards PvP in GCW Regional Control) that strike a balance between ensuring PvP can play an active role with strong influence and incentive in the game while not alienating players who only want to participate in PvE (e.g., theme parks).

As mentioned here, I also think temporary flagging against players who attack NPCs when they are also observed to be attacking by a player of the opposite faction who is declared/special forces, could make sense if properly worked out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Draconious, gunnythok, Chiraka and 7 others
Aconite said:
I’m not generally supportive of this.

I believe there’s ways (e.g., PvP radius around GCW Invasion Defensive General, Player City ability to enforce as SF zone, the Covert Factional Scanner likely to return, faction perk bases being SF only, GCW Officer ranks enforcing permanent enemy flagging, a much heavier weighting towards PvP in GCW Regional Control) that strike a balance between ensuring PvP can play an active role with strong influence and incentive in the game while not alienating players who only want to participate in PvE (e.g., theme parks).

As mentioned here, I also think temporary flagging against players who attack NPCs when they are also observed to be attacking by a player of the opposite faction who is declared/special forces, could make sense if properly worked out.
Click to expand...
The tef would be a good midpoint, if seen fighting enemy npcs by a enemy player they have a tef similar to a bounty, where you can choose to attack or let them be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatoNovus, Nitrate, Chiraka and 1 other person
Yea - I think I originally supported this. I'm definitely more on board with a TEF that doesn't show up on the scanner, but makes it so if you come across someone killing factional NPCs you can attack. It is sort of senseless if you're an Imperial you can come across someone slaying Stormtroopers but just have to stand and watch. Doesn't really make much sense with the whole GCW.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kazhar and Rozay
The big thing to consider here is the whole basis of SWG, which is Rebel vs Imp war that is supposed to be going on. If you join a war, you can't just strategically kill valuable NPCs, assist in invasions and do all these other war activities and have no repercussions from the other side. If you want in the war you should be made to be fully apart of the war. A lot of the "big names" in GCW flipping or invasions have almost never pvped lol, that seems a bit off to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kazhar, DeathByDab, Oomas and 6 others
Booyai1 said:
The big thing to consider here is the whole basis of SWG, which is Rebel vs Imp war that is supposed to be going on. If you join a war, you can't just strategically kill valuable NPCs, assist in invasions and do all these other war activities and have no repercussions from the other side. If you want in the war you should be made to be fully apart of the war. A lot of the "big names" in GCW flipping or invasions have almost never pvped lol, that seems a bit off to me.
Click to expand...
What exactly are you trying to say, remove neutral participation in GCW ? There is alot of talk about committing to the war. "if you want in the war you should be made to be fully apart of the war" - Booyai .

90% of the arguments for the support of the player voice just seem to be arguing for the increase of GCW participation. increase GCW participation is effectively the main credit sink of the game (insurance, stims, cosmetics) as well as propping up the economy for crafters which I'm paraphrasing from Rozay.

Both the statements are true but not for the idea that is being proposed.

I think Aconite's temp flagging system is a wonderful idea but removing Combatant would alienate a large player base and future players.

Just a spit balling idea, actually reward the people picking a side and winning.
Here are some suggestions:

maintenance cost of buildings affected by the owner's factional alignment and cost is based on linear scaling of factional control %s of the overall galaxy. Example maintenance increases by 10% for every 1% of the opposing faction controls. The wining side gets a reduce maintenance cost of 5% for ever 1% of the control for the faction control. (Example: Overall galaxy is 60% imperial and 40% rebel, the maintenance cost would be 2x (200%) for the rebels and .5x (50%) for the imperials. )
For Neutrals its a flat increase of 75% or 1.75x being that 100% or 1x is the base line.

Shuttle cost via the same planet follow the same linear scaling of factional %s but just based on the planet's GCW %. Neutrals its a flat increase of 75%.

Shuttle cost via different planets follow the same linear scaling of factional %s but just based on the originating planet's space GCW % . Neutrals its a flat increase of 75%.

3x the factional influence on a planet for being SF from what it is now.

GCW Base's on the ground are all turned to SF to destroy from the opposing side.

Increase GCW influence by player placed GCW bases.

This way the economy and everyone is directly affected by GCW but encourages people actually to pick a side participate in the conflict.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CatoNovus, gunnythok and Eric
Chiraka said:
What exactly are you trying to say, remove neutral participation in GCW ? There is alot of talk about committing to the war. "if you want in the war you should be made to be fully apart of the war" - Booyai .

90% of the arguments for the support of the player voice just seem to be arguing for the increase of GCW participation. increase GCW participation is effectively the main credit sink of the game (insurance, stims, cosmetics) as well as propping up the economy for crafters which I'm paraphrasing from Rozay.

Both the statements are true but not for the idea that is being proposed.

I think Aconite's temp flagging system is a wonderful idea but removing Combatant would alienate a large player base and future players.

Just a spit balling idea, actually reward the people picking a side and winning.
Here are some suggestions:

maintenance cost of buildings affected by the owner's factional alignment and cost is based on linear scaling of factional control %s of the overall galaxy. Example maintenance increases by 10% for every 1% of the opposing faction controls. The wining side gets a reduce maintenance cost of .05% for ever 1% of the control for the faction control. (Example: Overall galaxy is 60% imperial and 40% rebel, the maintenance cost would be 2x (200%) for the rebels and .5x (50%) for the imperials. )
For Neutrals its a flat increase of 75% or 1.75x being that 100% or 1x is the base line.

Shuttle cost via the same planet follow the same linear scaling of factional %s but just based on the planet's GCW %. Neutrals its a flat increase of 75%.

Shuttle cost via different planets follow the same linear scaling of factional %s but just based on the originating planet's space GCW % . Neutrals its a flat increase of 75%.

3x the factional influence on a planet for being SF from what it is now.

GCW Base's on the ground are all turned to SF to destroy from the opposing side.

Increase GCW influence by player placed GCW bases.

This way the economy and everyone is directly affected by GCW but encourages people actually to pick a side participate in the conflict.
Click to expand...
Never did like the idea of PvE bases back in the day, didn’t make a lot of sense. If this is something to be removed why not turn the PvE versions into player housing?

I think ultimately though the key question for any change to content should be “is it fun?”

Personally I think “Risk vs Reward” should be the driving force and incentive rather than “Penalty and Punishment” as you propose.

The coolest GCW shinies should be reserved for SF combat. That would encourage more participation in my opinion.
 
Chiraka said:
What exactly are you trying to say, remove neutral participation in GCW ? There is alot of talk about committing to the war. "if you want in the war you should be made to be fully apart of the war" - Booyai .

90% of the arguments for the support of the player voice just seem to be arguing for the increase of GCW participation. increase GCW participation is effectively the main credit sink of the game (insurance, stims, cosmetics) as well as propping up the economy for crafters which I'm paraphrasing from Rozay.

Both the statements are true but not for the idea that is being proposed.

I think Aconite's temp flagging system is a wonderful idea but removing Combatant would alienate a large player base and future players.

Just a spit balling idea, actually reward the people picking a side and winning.
Here are some suggestions:

maintenance cost of buildings affected by the owner's factional alignment and cost is based on linear scaling of factional control %s of the overall galaxy. Example maintenance increases by 10% for every 1% of the opposing faction controls. The wining side gets a reduce maintenance cost of .05% for ever 1% of the control for the faction control. (Example: Overall galaxy is 60% imperial and 40% rebel, the maintenance cost would be 2x (200%) for the rebels and .5x (50%) for the imperials. )
For Neutrals its a flat increase of 75% or 1.75x being that 100% or 1x is the base line.

Shuttle cost via the same planet follow the same linear scaling of factional %s but just based on the planet's GCW %. Neutrals its a flat increase of 75%.

Shuttle cost via different planets follow the same linear scaling of factional %s but just based on the originating planet's space GCW % . Neutrals its a flat increase of 75%.

3x the factional influence on a planet for being SF from what it is now.

GCW Base's on the ground are all turned to SF to destroy from the opposing side.

Increase GCW influence by player placed GCW bases.

This way the economy and everyone is directly affected by GCW but encourages people actually to pick a side participate in the conflict.
Click to expand...
Maybe I should have clarified more. My issue is with the GCW activities being largely PVE focused or done with minimal pvp activity. I don’t care if you are neutral, if you flag up to “go to war”. All of the things you listed would not change the amount of active pvp in the slightest. What I don’t like is that people who don’t pvp are able to reap the same GCW rewards or in some cases take pvper’s rewards away just by pveing. I think if you are actively participating in the GCW, that is you choosing to pvp, any and all activities and rewards related to that should be PVP related. A specific example that comes to mind is the ability to build attack forces in an invasion and not be flagged SF. You can now win that invasion without so much as lifting a finger if you chose. Whilst the defender has to be flagged to defend. That being said I do also like some of your ideas but they are not from the perspective I was going for.
 
Versatti said:
Never did like the idea of PvE bases back in the day, didn’t make a lot of sense. If this is something to be removed why not turn the PvE versions into player housing?

I think ultimately though the key question for any change to content should be “is it fun?”

Personally I think “Risk vs Reward” should be the driving force and incentive rather than “Penalty and Punishment” as you propose.

The coolest GCW shinies should be reserved for SF combat. That would encourage more participation in my opinion.
Click to expand...
The point of my response is to show a flaw in the logic you guys are submitting. You want more pvp, and suggesting to force pvp upon all those that participate in GCW.

Using your own logic against you "ultimately though the key question for any change to content should be "is it fun?"" the suggestion to force people to pvp you again are alienating a large player base. So your logic is completely flawed. People just wont flag because it is not fun. The people that do GCW and dont wanna pvp just wont do it anymore and then what do you gain by this change? a dead server?

To your point "penalty and punishment" what do you mean? Everything suggested in my suggestion is creating a "risk and reward" system.

What is the point of doing GCW? what bearing and system does it affect the galaxy... currently nothing besides roleplay.
 
Chiraka said:
The point of my response is to show a flaw in the logic you guys are submitting. You want more pvp, and suggesting to force pvp upon all those that participate in GCW.

Using your own logic against you "ultimately though the key question for any change to content should be "is it fun?"" the suggestion to force people to pvp you again are alienating a large player base. So your logic is completely flawed. People just wont flag because it is not fun. The people that do GCW and dont wanna pvp just wont do it anymore and then what do you gain by this change? a dead server?

To your point "penalty and punishment" what do you mean? Everything suggested in my suggestion is creating a "risk and reward" system.

What is the point of doing GCW? what bearing and system does it affect the galaxy... currently nothing besides roleplay.
Click to expand...

A fun engaging GCW regardless of PvP/PvE isn’t the cost of a shuttle going up or higher taxes. That just isn’t a fun system to me and that was my point.

I definitely don’t advocate forced PvP and also don’t want to see combatant content go *poof* either (as I mentioned in previous posts).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
SWG Restoration is a fan-made, non-profit, community-driven, project.
Not affiliated with nor endorsed by Daybreak Games, Lucasfilm Entertainment, Electronic Arts or The Walt Disney Company.
Star Wars ™ & © Lucasfilm Ltd. No marks or intellectual property are owned by or licensed to SWG Restoration.
Top Bottom