Return Shanty to its True Vision
|
*Longo* Posted Nov 29, 2012, 3:11 pm |
Shanty was designed and made to be an Open Pvp town, for everyone. Thats what made it different. You could use it as a shortcut to Texan also. It worked fine there. When I was on the RC I agreed to all of the present changes under the assumption that Shanty would remain the same. When Sam posted the polls on the new Pvp system the idea of keeping Shanty the same (open Pvp for all) was accidently left out. I would like to see it return to Open Pvp for all.
For those of you newer players or those who havent been to Shanty, you cannot buy or sell anything from NPCs. The maps there are of medium difficulty. However, the loot/rares available there are the best in the game. It should be a dangerous place. SO vote what you think. You don't have to agree with me, but at least let your 2 cents be heard either way. -Longo |
||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Nov 29, 2012, 3:49 pm |
i never knew this had been changed.. at teh time of teh PVP changes sam specifically said he would look at it when he realised the impact on shanty | ||||||||
|
Groove Champion Posted Nov 29, 2012, 9:11 pm |
I'll abstain from voting because I don't like Shanty's lack of NPC traders/garage. Though I like the PvP emphasis, I don't want to dedicate my gang to surviving in one town: I'd rather see the rest of Evan.
I hope this poll goes the way Shanty players want it... |
||||||||
|
Juris Posted Nov 29, 2012, 9:17 pm |
Really makes no difference there are so few players in Shanty there is no chance of PvP. Shanty is just a PITA. | ||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Nov 29, 2012, 9:24 pm |
Wait till I get back there | ||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Nov 29, 2012, 11:28 pm |
Quite the contrary. I posted some cheap semi rare cars up there and they sold like mad and were bought by a variety of gangs. |
||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Nov 30, 2012, 12:49 am |
My stuff is selling like hotcakes there right now.
I have so much junk down there, Im really happy to sell it, even if it is for 10-20% of SS prices. I got my flag on, I don't care one way or the other. |
||||||||
|
Serephe Posted Nov 30, 2012, 5:03 am |
How many of those gangs do anything besides ship vehicles north and resell them or use them in other towns? It's not hard to leave a single member of your gang in a worthless town on a trade route. |
||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Nov 30, 2012, 6:07 am |
At least 5 gangs had at least 1 peep there in the last 24 hrs I can tell ya. |
||||||||
|
Serephe Posted Nov 30, 2012, 7:07 am |
That doesn't mean that they're actively using the town. | ||||||||
|
Blackwill Posted Nov 30, 2012, 7:25 am |
I don't think anyone can "actively" use Shantyville. It's kind of pointless to operate out of it, as it lacks any of the amenities required for active scouting. Scouting out of nearby camps would seem a better prospect.
|
||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Nov 30, 2012, 7:34 am |
Your point was taken the 1st time, I just added my observation. |
||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Nov 30, 2012, 7:35 am |
Its a gold mine hauling in rares, playing medium level maps. |
||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Nov 30, 2012, 10:12 am |
its brilliant.. i ran out of sahnty for years and looted all the best stuff i owned there.
try it before saying it is impossible |
||||||||
|
JS Posted Nov 30, 2012, 12:35 pm |
It's completely possible, I've been there for a very long time. Like others I've sold many rare vehicles for there and they sell well, they also sell at very low prices. Lots of low to medium gangs buy good stuff there and take it south on their own. I've also moved stuff for people etc. Shanty is active, perhaps not as active as we would like.
I thought shanty was always PvP open? Didn't even realize it had changed. But isn't everything sout of GW now PvP open? So damn confused... |
||||||||
|
Blackwill Posted Nov 30, 2012, 2:19 pm |
I never said it was impossible, gents.... | ||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Nov 30, 2012, 2:56 pm |
i read that as impossible you can actively scout out of it.. all you need to do is ship in ammo... everything else is fine |
||||||||
|
Simple Zed Posted Nov 30, 2012, 4:12 pm |
By the same token, can Somerset be made to be a PvP-closed area? By that, I merely mean that intercepts (intentional / accidental) are disabled. Not that there's no Squad Challenges, SCL, PvP events, or anything ludicrous like that.
The frequency of unintentional intercepts between PvP-on squads seems to have increased. Generally speaking, that's the price of having a PvP flag on, I get it. But when neither side set out for an intercept and both truce, it just costs hours of time to get back and prepare the next scout. So Somerset being reverted to a Pvp-off area at the same time as Shanty being flipped back on would serve as a meaningful compromise. Win-win for both schools of thought and couldn't be perceived as a one-sided encroachment. |
||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Nov 30, 2012, 4:22 pm |
The flags now affect every towns, including SS, and there are no exceptions to the rule to keep things simple. That's what was voted, and Sam said he would revisit Shanty's role sometimes after a period of cooling down from the last vote. |
||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Nov 30, 2012, 4:42 pm |
This would effectively reverse the vote we had on PVP just a few months ago. Given the overwhelming tide of that vote, I don't see any need for a compromise of making Somerset PVP closed in order to return Shanty to how it was always intended to be. Shanty not being kept completely PVP Open regardless of the flag was an oversight by Sam in drawing up the PVP vote, and he said as much almost immediately. If the "problem" (and I'm not certain this really is a problem) is the accidental PVP encounters where neither team was trying to PVP, the simpler solution would seem to be to look at the code which creates such accidental PVP encounters. No need to completely close Somerset to PVP. |
||||||||
|
JS Posted Nov 30, 2012, 5:25 pm |
Blackwill, copy, you didn't say that, fair enough, but I would contend that it is well within many peoples ability to actively use it. |
||||||||
|
JS Posted Nov 30, 2012, 5:26 pm |
Ahh, copy, missed that bit. Yeah, make Shanty open all the time. |
||||||||
|
Simple Zed Posted Nov 30, 2012, 7:45 pm |
The vote was in favor of simplification. Now we're adding exceptions. I'm simply asking that those exceptions be balanced as they were in the past. The net vote results without making SS a sanctuary city and with the proposed change to Shanty is that: * PvP on players can no longer use bounties anywhere outside the triangle. * Same Team Targeting is now available to hit PvP off players during events in all towns. This is pretty much a backslide for folks that don't wish to participate in unbalanced PvP intercept situations. They're getting kicked onto smaller and smaller reservations. Is it really necessary? |
||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Nov 30, 2012, 9:13 pm |
Neither of the two things you list is changed at all by making Shanty a PVP only town, so I don't see how they in anyway make a case for restoring Shanty to it's intended role only if SS is returned to being PVP closed for all. Those are the terms the vast majority voted for, and I seriously doubt many would have changed their vote based on the issue of Shanty. Especially since the first post in the vote thread mentioned that the poll had been worded in such a way to impact Shanty when that hadn't been the intention. People who don't want to participate in "unbalanced PVP intercept situations" were benefited by the vote, since now they can change their flag to PVP OFF and travel throughout all of Evan without having to worry about such events. Prior to that, they had to stay in the northern triangle. Sure they could have paid the forced bounty in the south, but that was a failed mechanism which helped no one's enjoyment of the game. You seem to be trying to argue against the previous vote, not about the specific issue of Shanty being restored to the role for which it was created. |
||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Nov 30, 2012, 9:59 pm |
It was an oversight by Sam, and the vote was supposed to include Shanty open Pvp for everyone. I commented on this and he declared it was an oversight, and said we would address it after things settled. If you look in the original Evan map, there was no Shanty. It was added simply to have a more hardcore area that was Open Pvp for everyone. |
||||||||
|
*Brunwulf* Posted Nov 30, 2012, 10:06 pm |
For what it's worth- I agree with Longo.
But I would go further and say: Put a mech vendor in Shanty, and spawn real good stuff there- then players can try to 'run the gauntlet' of PVP, because it's worth the risk to get the rares back up north? I would do exactly the same with Morgan- but that's another matter.... |
||||||||
|
Simple Zed Posted Nov 30, 2012, 10:09 pm |
I list those two things as examples of a trend towards making a smaller world for folks who would prefer exclusively PvE entertainment. However, I'd overlooked the issue that your comment below highlights... that there were gains made for the PvE crowd as well.
Right. I overlooked this. My mistake.
No, I am not arguing against the previous vote. This vote, as you pointed out, restored players' ability to safely explore BL, TX, Sars, Shanty, FL and Morgan without threat of an unwanted intercept. Now it is being proposed to take one of these cities back without a corresponding gain for the PvE folks, such as making Somerset the sanctuary city it once was. It's only fair that if Shanty gets restored to its original settings that Somerset also be restored. I'm not the one proposing we "adjust" or "fix" oversights in the vote. However, since the idea is now floating around, I'm suggesting we compromise so that everyone wins. This might not be as much of an issue if it weren't for the fact that you can't circumvent Shanty and travel from BL to TX without tacking thousands(?) of miles to your journey. |
||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Nov 30, 2012, 10:17 pm |
Stop right there, same team targeting was never designed to hit players with their flags off, it is to make things more realistic, and remove an artificial exemption which was hastily added after one bad event were it was possibly abused, Sam admitted as much. |
||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Nov 30, 2012, 10:25 pm |
It's only fair? ... That the town with 90% of the active player base should be "balanced" vs the most barren outpost with the most limited town services? |
||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Nov 30, 2012, 11:13 pm |
I really have a difficult time believing a single vote would have changed if Sam had correctly phrased the poll as was intended so that Shanty would have remained as a PVP Open town. Shanty was specifically added to the game to provide a PVP focused city. If it is not to be such, I'd argue there really isn't much reason for it to exist and it should be removed completely. And I'd be careful with the argument that if Shanty gets restored to it's original settings that Somerset also be restored. The original settings for Somerset are well before my time, but I fully realize that SS's originally settings were PVP open, as was all of Evan. 
The current "openness" of Somerset (and all of Evan) appears to be working out fairly well. Those who want wilderness intercept PVP action are now able to get it more frequently because there are more of them scouting in a place where it is possible. Those, like myself, who aren't as interested, don't have to worry about it because we can keep our flag off. I don't think having one PVP town will impact the PVE players much, if at all. And while I don't agree with your fairness argument, I would say that if a PVE town is needed to balance Shanty, it shouldn't be Somerset. It should either Elmsfield or a new north town located East or North of Somerset. I just don't feel that one is needed. By the way, the previous vote did not "restore players' ability to safely explore Shanty", as that had never existed. |
||||||||
|
Blackwill Posted Nov 30, 2012, 11:26 pm |
The new PvP rules do change the dynamic in Somerset, certainly. You now have to be a little more vigilant, and keep an eye on who you will or will not scout with. I don't think it has unbalanced anything, and flying my PvP flag in Somerset has actually added a bit of excitement to my otherwise rigid travel squads...I never know when someone will decide to try to put their foot in my rear for my forum posts 
I like the idea of PvP everywhere, but I also understand that others play the game for different reasons. I think the new rules strike a decent balance. |
||||||||
|
*Brunwulf* Posted Nov 30, 2012, 11:59 pm |
Having recently turned my flag ON- I totally agree with Blackwill's comments. Every mundane travel and solo scout just has that little bit more 'what if' edge to it now. I totally think that the Northern triangle should remain as PVP: CHOICE, so that new players can cut their teeth in this harsh world, but I do think that SHANTY should go back to being the pirate, open, no-holds-barred, enter at your own risk place that it was originally meant to be. Cheers. |
||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Dec 1, 2012, 12:15 am |
I bet it does... now ninesticks is after you
|
||||||||
|
*Brunwulf* Posted Dec 1, 2012, 12:40 am |
Is he?
Good- at least someone is! I am so desperate now for a PVP interception, I'm going to start announcing my travels in the lobby! On a serious note- is there a PVP interception guide anywhere? I have tried to intercept a few players, but I keep kind of 'missing'?! I'm obviously doing something wrong, but I have read as much as I can find on the wiki, and can't figure out why I can't intercept players, even though they are listed as 'attackable' when I am monitoring the town gates? Cheers. |
||||||||
|
Serephe Posted Dec 1, 2012, 12:56 am |
I really don't see a reason to open the town to PvP. Not only does it confuse the PvP issue making exceptions to the rule this way or that, but the way Shanty is set up, making it open PvP basically only provides a place for the most developed of gangs (those that can regularly perform the logistics of moving large quantities of ammunition, replacement hardware, etc) to pick on non-pvp people traveling to Texan who don't want to spend the next week of their life traveling the roundabout route.
Shantyville was basically the precursor to Scavenger, anyway. |
||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Dec 1, 2012, 1:02 am |
If we "restore" Shanty, we set a precidence of just wasting Sam's time. We moaned, btchd, griped, bleated and fought over changing it, ending with what we have now. Now we want him to change it back to the way it was?
I tried moving people there once but the place was a ghost town for group scouts. Everyone there who scouts seems to solo. Certainly some change needs made to promote diversity and player exploration/expansion before "hardening" zones like SV. For the time being anyway... |
||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Dec 1, 2012, 1:04 am |
was the idea when first introduced, to make the short route between BL and Texan more dangerous with the open PvP for shanty? I know for the first little while I was still going the long way around to avoid the added dangers. Countless runs through the Maze with traders, soon changed my approach. | ||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 1, 2012, 8:13 pm |
Yes Bast, it was. | ||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Dec 1, 2012, 9:41 pm |
Funny Sere, all the reasons you point out are the good reasons why Shanty should be changed back to what it was originally. What game are you playing again? sure doesn't sound like the dark wind I remember and signed up for. |
||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Dec 1, 2012, 10:00 pm |
This is a fabrication. No one "moaned, btchd, griped, bleated and fought" over changing Shanty as being part of the broad change to PVP. It largely wasn't even part of the discussion since the first two replies in the voting thread were Longo pointing out that the way Sam worded the poll meant that Shanty was included in the vote and Sam saying he made a mistake and that he'd do another vote about Shanty afterwards. And then next few posts after that are all agreeing that Shanty should remain as a PVP open town. There was minor discussion about it after, but much of that involved people who didn't know that you can get to Texan without going through Shanty. Sam made a mistake in how he worded the PVP vote. He admitted that almost immediately (only 10 votes had been cast at the time). He said there would be a vote on Shanty after the PVP vote was completed. Since that vote hasn't happened yet, Longo raised this issue here as a suggestion. Nothing about this wastes any of Sam's time. If you don't want Shanty to be PVP open, feel free to vote that way. But let's not distort what actually happened in the previous vote to try to claim that holding a vote on Shanty as PVP open somehow fundamentally impacts that vote. Unless you were one of those initial 10 voters, you had to know another vote about Shanty was forthcoming if you had read anything at all when casting your vote. |
||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Dec 1, 2012, 10:25 pm |
Don't worry, we dd that long time ago. And besides its fun!
has anyone got a place I can hide? |
||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Dec 1, 2012, 10:26 pm |
absolutely alex | ||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Dec 1, 2012, 11:37 pm |
If im reading this right, you are saying you want to now prevent those who are PvP OFF from traveling through Shanty unmolested. I was under the impression the vote was about UNIFORMITY of application and CHOICE. I like having a choice. I dont like "you have a choice except where I dont want you to have one" because thats too much like America |
||||||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Dec 1, 2012, 11:38 pm |
It still is if your flag is off. For a true PvE player, the ONLY town to 'avoid' is Shantyville (if this proposal goes through).
I don't understand the reason for this. Can you elaborate?
That was the whole purpose in the original SV design though... Sam said it's much shorter, but you have the POSSIBILITY of intercept there. The 'thousands of miles' are the offset - safer, but takes MUCH longer. |
||||||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Dec 1, 2012, 11:41 pm |
I truly wish everyone would read the text above - whether you're for it or against it - and see that this is the true crux of the matter. It's not an attempt to "take away" part of evan and give it to the pro-Intercept people. It's not a waste of Sam's time. It's an attempt by Longo to "finish" what Sam started with before. By all means vote against the proposal if you want, but vote against it because you don't like it - not because you think someone is trying to take something away... The ONLY reason SV is NOT open PvP right now is because Sam made the error in wording and immediately admitted it. |
||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Dec 1, 2012, 11:45 pm |
Morgan? |
||||||||
|
Serephe Posted Dec 2, 2012, 12:36 am |
I've still yet to see a valid reason for making Shantyville PvP open beyond "SAM MADE MISTAKE SO IT SHOULD BE PVP OPEN" though.
The PvP system we have right now is the best it has been since the game was open PvP, as far as clarity goes. Anything that would cloud the waters should be done very cautiously. Opening Shantyville would bring a MINISCULE amount of pvp to the game, in the form of the few players that actually scout there intercepting the few PvP off players that travel through. In return, it brings back the problem where PvP off players feel that some parts of the game are not allowed to them, simply because they don't have the time, skill, whatever to deal with fighting other players in the world arena. I do not believe it is a good idea to make a town pvp open for everyone at this time, especially one that is on a trade route. |
||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Dec 2, 2012, 1:11 am |
I kinda agree with that
The trade route is meant to be tougher for it, but if it brings up the argument to otherwise change the PvP system again, Im not sure if thats good. Having a PvP safe town back north again for example. SS is having some PvP, I have never heard so much talk about PvP and people actively looking for, and enjoying PvP, since I joined. And that to mind is a great thing for the game. It might bring sars into a play a bit with PvP forced through SV. That could be a bonus. Does sars currently have the toughest maps, best loot available. That might be enough incentive. On the flip side, it might make people stay up north more instead, and that would be bad imo. |
||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Dec 2, 2012, 1:16 am |
I'm saying Sam said when the previous vote was taken that there would be another vote about Shanty, since including Shanty in the vote was a mistake he made in writing up the poll. Unless you were one of the first ten to vote in the previous PVP poll (and I'm doubtful you were), then you clearly should have been aware that including Shanty in the vote was a mistake made by Sam and that another vote would be forthcoming. If you weren't aware of that, you obviously didn't read the thread where you were voting. There are arguments that can be made for keeping Shanty the same as the rest of Evan (see Serephe's posts - he said pretty much the same thing in the original PVP vote thread) but any argument that involves saying this is an attempt to change the previous PVP vote, or goes against what was voted on, is purely specious. As a PVP off player (and I fully expect to always be) I am not bothered by having one town that is PVP open as a means of attempting to encourage PVP action. Especially when there is absolutely no reason any player ever has to go to that town except for wanting to go to that town. You can get to Texan without going through Shanty, so it isn't actually on a trade route, like Gateway or Badlands. And even if you do chose to travel through it as a PVP off player, you can only be intercepted when you are exiting Shantyville. That's an extremely small chance that anyone who is just traveling through will actually have to deal with intercept PVP. Finally, everyone should realize that is thread is not an official vote. It is a suggestion by Longo to try to get Sam to hold the vote he said he would be holding. Even if the majority in this poll say they want Shanty to be returned to its previous status of being a PVP open town, an official vote should still be held. One which is advertised in the lobby just like the previous PVP poll was. |
||||||||
|
Simple Zed Posted Dec 2, 2012, 1:52 am |
... No Somerset isn't. Including a single PvP-on player in a group scout makes that entire squad PvP-on. There have been many accidental and intentional intercepts of squads containing PvP-off players from SS. This would not happen if SS were the sanctuary city that it was before the vote.
Sure. The vote changed Shanty from PvP-on ( the city setting overriding a player's individual preference ) to merely reflect the player's individual preference. At the exact same time the vote changed Somerset from PvP-off ( the city setting overriding a player's individual preference ) to merely reflect the player's individual preference. Now we're discussing changing Shanty back to where the individual's preference is ignored, making it PvP-on. If we're correcting mistakes, let's fix Somerset as well. Let's ignore individual preferences in a balanced way and set it to be PvP-off. Just like Somerset was before the vote simplified everything. And while we're busy re-complicating things, how about restoring the bounty option for Shanty? If we want to revert it to its pre-vote status, well, we were able to pay bounties in Shanty before the vote. |
||||||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Dec 2, 2012, 3:50 am |
Serephe - good points all around - you've made me back up and rethink this...
Zed - also good points. If changing SV *BACK* would also change SS back, then I'm against it. I personally don't think people having to be careful who they scout with is bad for the game... |
||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Dec 2, 2012, 3:05 pm |
You keeping ignoring the facts of the last vote to try to claim that there is some relationship between Shanty's status and Somerset's. It was a known (to all but 10 people when they voted) mistake that Shanty's status was included in the previous vote. It was clear that changing Somerset's status was intended in the last vote. Quit trying to claim that if one was a mistake, so was the other. I also find the notion that changing the status of one of the least populated towns is "balanced" by changing the status of the by far most populous town hilarious. If you were actually interested in balance you'd be looking for a town that is at least similar to Shanty to be your "PVP off sanctuary". As for Somerset not being safe for PVE players, it is for any who take a little bit of interest in paying attention to what they are doing. PVP-off players can only be involved-in wilderness intercepts if they join squads with PVP-on players. If they do that, they really shouldn't have any problem if the squad ends up engaged in a wilderness PVP encounter - intentional intercept or accidental encounter. Sure it requires a little bit of work in terms of paying attention to who is in a squad you are joining, but if intercept PVP is something that a person is that concerned about avoiding, I don't see why they wouldn't be taking that care. Serephe has raised some good points regarding why, if a vote is held on Shanty, Shanty should remain the same as everywhere else. Earlier in the thread others have mentioned how Shanty is currently one of the best places for loot while only having moderate AI difficulty and that adding PVP adds to the danger associated with going after that relatively easier high-end loot. I find these to be the relevant types of discussion points around Shanty's PVP-on status, not these false claims that a vote on Shanty some how fundamentally attacks the heart of the previous PVP vote. An additional vote on Shanty's status was something that was known (at least if they read the first 3 posts in the poll thread) and promised to almost all of the people who voted in that poll. |
||||||||
|
Simple Zed Posted Dec 2, 2012, 6:08 pm |
I'm seeing this as you taking it upon yourself to determine "voter intent". Makes me think of happy times with hanging chads and seniors casting votes for the wrong candidate when they find the ballots confusing. We've seen the vote. We've seen the results. The decision was overwhelming which was kind of a first for the community. Now it is being proposed that we fine-tune the results, that we revert an aspect of the vote back to its pre-existing settings. Well, most of them. The part where you used to be able to bounty out of PvP intercepts in Shanty is nowhere on the list of pre-vote settings to be reverted.
Has it occured to you that one of the reasons SS is such a populous town is because it has historically been free of threat of unbalanced pvp intercepts? I am suggesting that reverting town pre-vote status be balanced, town for town, to protect this. Otherwise, flipping towns to pvp-on, one by one, is just a pattern of encroachment. Some would say that Evan-wide PvP-on status was the "initial intent" or "grand vision" or whatever. This is a step.
Blame the victim and then there's no need to establish a meaningful solution to the problem. Sure, that's one approach.
Every time I hear the catch phrases "True Vision", "Original Vision", etc., I realize that someone is trying to sell something unpalatable which is to be accepted without undue consideration because it must somehow be good for us. Some of us, maybe. It would be especially good for those that have established gangs and wish to establish a stranglehold over the flow of high-value and highly sought after equipment. This is really the crux of the issue. Those who currently have all the exclusive high-end equipment want to use PvP as a tool to ensure they maintain their advantages over those who don't. In Shantyville, for now. Their established gangs have elite personnel whose decisive advantages in skills and specializations determine the outcome of PvP intercepts before the first shot gets fired. This proposal serves to ensure that those elite crews are firing high-end weaponry out of high-end chassis at targets that will continue to suffer equipment disadvantages. |
||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Dec 2, 2012, 6:42 pm |
that is probably the stupidest post i have ever seen on here... and i know one when i see one having posted a few myself | ||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Dec 2, 2012, 7:05 pm |
Not now - in the third post in the thread of the original vote. Which means that the vast majority of those voting in the previous poll knew a vote specifically about Shanty would be in the future. Or they simple didn't read the thread. You can talk about others determining the intent of the voters, but your claim that most of the voters weren't expecting a forthcoming vote on Shanty and that it didn't influence how they voted in the previous poll does that more than any one else has done. And very little would revert back if a new vote was held and the option to make Shanty PVP-open won. In fact, only the status of Shanty. That's one town out of 9 (technically it isn't even one of Evan's town - check the map) and doesn't include other parts of the previous vote. And whether or Shanty being PVP-open would include the return of the bounty system in Shanty is clearly an issue that would need to be included in such a vote. Which again, this is not a poll that will determine the status of Shanty - it is a poll to see if people are in favor of Sam doing what he said he would do in the third post in the PVP voting thread, which is hold a separate vote concerning Shanty after that vote was concluded. The rest of your post shows very little understanding of the actual history of this game, so I'm not bothering to comment on it. |
||||||||
|
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Dec 2, 2012, 8:38 pm |
This is hilarious. It's like you guys are trying to argue something with Dustin Hoffman in 'Rain Man'.
On the upside, the discussion of Shanty's characteristics -- all of which comes as news to me -- has convinced me to ship a crew down there. See ya in the cool-loot wastes, amigos! |
||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Dec 2, 2012, 9:07 pm |
I wish that point hadn't been brought up.
Im glad you want to scout there, but I have never liked the idea of loot farming. |
||||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Dec 2, 2012, 10:02 pm |
I just find these arguments funny now... thx for the laughs.
THIS TEXT HAS BEEN REMOVED BY MARSHAL JD_Basher DUE TO ITS LANGUAGE WHICH IS CONTRARY TO FORUM RULES AND DAMAGING TO THE ENJOYMENT OF OTHER PLAYER(S). 
|
||||||||
|
Groove Champion Posted Dec 2, 2012, 10:33 pm |
So there seems to be a problem (or problems) with Shanty... We don't all agree on the nature of the issues, but we all seem to think it could be made better.
I say Sam and the RC should run with this and just block out this entire thread's content beyond the agreement that there is a problem. Some of the posters here seriously need to be ignored... in a very serious way. |
||||||||
|
*Brunwulf* Posted Dec 2, 2012, 10:40 pm |
Yes. especially the guy who posted right above you! He seems to never have anything useful to say, and says his un-useful comments in an almost unitelligable language! |
||||||||
|
*Jagged Monkey* Posted Dec 2, 2012, 10:49 pm |
What evs.... | ||||||||
|
Blackwill Posted Dec 2, 2012, 10:50 pm |
Is it possible to have a serious discussion on these matters without resorting to sophomoric insults and wholly negative comments?
Players play these games for different reasons, all of them as valid as the next. Striking a balance should be considered an important, serious matter, as it directly affects player participation and longevity. Might I suggest that we try to, for the sake of discussion, to put aside our petty personal differences, and concentrate on the real issues? That would be awesome. Thanks in advance for your kind consideration.... |
||||||||
|
*Brunwulf* Posted Dec 2, 2012, 10:56 pm |
Blackwill- I totally agree......
but don't hold your breath! |
||||||||
|
Groove Champion Posted Dec 2, 2012, 11:10 pm |
I strongly suggest people posting in this thread take a moment to read Serephe's posts up to now.
Answering his observations would be much more constructive than bitching out other players, or bringing SS into the picture (seriously, wtf?!) |
||||||||
|
lordhuey Posted Dec 2, 2012, 11:37 pm |
Sifting through the pages of this thread, I think the following two posts pretty much summed up two sides of the issue. Personally, I agree with the spirit of what Tinker is saying: PvP always open in Shantyville gives hardcore PvPers a place to go and whoop it up. Doesn't every spaghetti western need a real Shantytown? This is Darkwind and you do have the option of "wasting" character time by traveling the long way, your choice.
|
||||||||
|
Serephe Posted Dec 3, 2012, 12:40 am |
Sorry Tinker, I didn't see this post until lordhuey pointed it out.
The darkwind I remember and signed up for didn't include any pvp flags. Or shantyvilles. Or firelights, peds, trash trucks, or any semblance of balance with loot for that matter(remember buying RGMs from SS shop and looting heavy lasers/ambulances on BL gates map?). The game evolves over time. Obviously some changes are good for certain people, obviously some changes are bad for certain people. Sam has made it clear that he doesn't want to force people to do something they don't want to do. I believe he even mentioned that if he did it all again, he'd make the game entirely cooperative rather than pvp, though I may be remembering this incorrectly. The majority of bad changes to PvP have, as far as I have seen, been caused by both people wanting the option NOT to have to PvP and a lack of clarity as to how PvP actually works. I personally see zero gain from opening a town to open PvP for all because the people who have interest in that kind of PvP already have their flags open. |
||||||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Dec 3, 2012, 1:19 am |
VERY good point... I totally agree. There are some that would say without "forced" PvP the farmers could farm the rares and they couldn't retaliate... I don't necessarily agree with that frame of mind, but it's out there...
I would change my vote to "no" if I could.
|
||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Dec 3, 2012, 2:10 am |
Or those farming the rares cant murdur off the people who would rather capture a rare instead of paying excessive prices to the farmer to buy it.
How better to monopolize a market than kill the consumer when he tries to provide for himself... Oh wait... That sounds like America. OOC: The city got onto me for having a garden and for having solar panels. I was cutting into their profit. |
||||||||
|
Groove Champion Posted Dec 3, 2012, 3:03 am |
Don't you ever get tired of your conspiracy theories? Yet again, I remind you that intercepting another player's squad is very difficult to do: there is a huge amount of (lucky) timing involved, as well as a high chance of watching the other player's squad slip through your fingers (there is a built-in [i.e. coded] chance of this happening every time a player successfully ATTEMPTS an intercept).
I'm not for or against changing Shanty, but seriously StC: would you please stop demonizing PvP players and veterans? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. |
||||||||
|
Blackwill Posted Dec 3, 2012, 3:16 am |
St. Crispin: What city were you in when this happened?
|
||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Dec 3, 2012, 3:25 am |
Considering the RP threats recieved when I was bringing rares north, and the tactics I was told would be employed against me if I tried to enter into certain players monopolized markets, I think I do know what im talking about. Luckily I was only bringing them north for personal use so no one bothered to follow through once I explained this.
Im certainly not demonizing anyone. Im simply pointing out motivations that could be in play. I dont care what is done to shanty. There is no reason to drive through there since it is one of the most difficult strips in the game other than between TX and SF. I just have stuff there to scout, but no one there wants to group scout so my guys sit around drinking booze with Muties |
||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Dec 3, 2012, 3:34 am |
Kansas City, Missouri, USA. It seems you have to purchase a "special use permit" to plant food crops. My neighbor tried to plant corn... Thats probably what attracted their attention to my lettuce and beets, and my roommate's tomato plant. City code states you may not have any plant in excess of 10" tall also. Including trees unless they are registered with the planning office and on your lot diagram thingy they keep on file. The solar issue turned out ok since I knew the loophole of having it not permanently attached to the house, and off-grid (not wired into the home wires or city's electric). |
||||||||
|
*Ninesticks* Posted Dec 3, 2012, 6:13 am |
If the reason for opening up Shanty again was to deliberately benefit the PvP players then you would be correct to a degree. But I don't think that is the case at all. As far as I recall Shanty was introduced as the shortcut to Texan at a risk (apart from being the forerunner for Scav in some ways). With Shanty not being open it doesn't contribute to that risk (however slight it was). So zero gain? I don't think so, even if the gain is merely a phantom of what might happen taking that route. With the town now being like any other I would be surprised if the southern route is seeing much use, after all why would you bother when you have a route where you can stop off to get your armour patched up and then carry on again at no extra risk? |
||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Dec 3, 2012, 6:26 am |
Other than the southern route having a smaller number of cumulative encounters and easier maps? IMO Texan should be eliminated entirely. Whatever unique properties it has (if any... other than Bastilles awsome track) should be merged with Sarsfield. Then Shantyville would be "the end of the line" for the road it is on (which is fitting since it is a town of misfits and mutants who are trying to be isolated from the rest of Evan). Then some other incentive should be added to SV to attract those who would normally stay away. THEN it would be understandable to make it the "Hardcore Mode Town" Maybe add a feature where gangs can manufacture things like camps (but less cost effectively than camps to offset it). This would make it less appealing than camp manufacture yet appealing to those who like to be independant. Or even have a percursor to "Ruins" where you can send out a Ped scout vs peds or creatures or something plausable to fight. That would bring your Ped-centric there. PvP open, Ped vs Ped scout intercepts... that would be sweet. But thats "suggestions" rather than on topic so it really merits a seperate thread. |
||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Dec 3, 2012, 8:56 am |
I think all towns have the potential of offering something different, and it doesn't have to rely on any special mechanism for that town (like with Morgan or Shantyville, when it was a PvP town).
I scout Texan because I can hit my natural enemy there. Its the best place for me to do this. I can do this in GW but find it easier and more entertaining in Texan. As it is, I still find privateers, raiders or anarchists far more than I really wish too (such is life) and need to offset these fights with big targets, which I can find in Texan (generally BHs, and don't generally get any good loot out of them unless I want a bus in Firelight). I don't hunt Shanty because the targets there are my friends, and theres no point hitting on them unless I want to farm loot, which I don't. So I rarely scout from SV. The only reason I fight at the gates of SV is due to the fact I need to travel through the region often. It takes me a week to travel from Texan to EL and back, in that time camp can chomp through the supplies I get from that trip. So pretty much have to do this constantly with a 2 Lorry squad to keep things running, or, spend lots of money or have to make deals with other players. Possible, but unreliable. If the trip was roughly 900 miles longer (through SF) this would add a couple days to this trip. I alluded to the idea above of making SF a higher yield area to attract more attention, or maybe changing the faction balance a bit might help people find reason to visit. Thats not really the point though, its making the shortcut harder. So the opposite should stand true. A longer, but easier route. I personally think this should be done with harder maps (make the route more shortcutty), not special plans for one town. |
||||||||
|
lordhuey Posted Dec 3, 2012, 5:09 pm |
With all the blather on here, the best argument you "no" voters have is the simple one: PvP closed is PvP closed, even in SV. This is a much more universal argument than all of your others ones. Don't you see that complaining about how the change will affect the ways you personally do business is not winning any converts?
Honestly, the only common theme I hear from the "no" voters involves how they currently operate out of TX. Sounds like a change to SV will hurt your business. While these arguments may seem empirical to you, as the change would absolutely affect you, other folks probably greet your statements with rolled-eyes. - >>>BTW, not to fan the flames, but tying in your complaints about your community bylaws does not really mean there is something wrong with America. 99% of the country doesn't have any ridiculous restrictions on the height of the houseplants you grow. See, again, maybe the problem is not with everyone else in the world but with your own choices which put your own self into your own unique situation. |
||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Dec 3, 2012, 7:11 pm |
The name of this poll what to vote weather or not to make Shanty what it was before, what it was designed as.
It's a Pity that reason is labelled Pro PVP, Rich Vet, Hard Core, or what ever. It's like Some people can't see the forest through the trees. This poll is yet another example of the level of "hand-out" culture we have, many want's Sam to carve them a little "make it easier for me" slice.
|
||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 3, 2012, 10:55 pm |
If this vote fails, then Shanty's rare spawn should be dropped to GW levels rather than the best in the game. The only reason they were this high was to try and generate people to scout here and generate Pvp activity back when Shanty opened as a total Pvp Town. If this is no more, then its rare spawn should be returned to a level consistent with its maps and area. | ||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Dec 3, 2012, 11:04 pm |
I agree with longo. Also, since "safe sanctuary" towns are now more dangerous, their spawns for rares should be increased | ||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 3, 2012, 11:28 pm |
You lost me. How are safe sanctuary towns more dangerous now? |
||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Dec 3, 2012, 11:41 pm |
I niether operate out of TX nor travel through Shanty. I operate out of Sarsfield and take the much easier road to BL. My "No" vote is based on the "yes" voters who want to prey on "no" voters when they drive by.
Try letting your grass grow knee deep and see if there isnt. There are alot of little items that you dont know about until someone shows up looking for their kickback that you forgot to pay. Or to tell you, you cant have something. Fence heights, property coverage, distances your belongings have to be from the property lines, plant heights, etc... 99% of them tied to you having to pay the city some money for the right to do what you want with your own belongings. Granted, as a homeowner in a major metropolitain area, I face more regulations and fees than would someone who only rents or lives in a rural area. But they exist statewide and every state has its own regulations. There are normally loopholes though. For example, next year I am planting my garden in the BACKyard. Items in the BACK do not lower property tax values and do not "rob" the city, county, and state of "their" money. And are thus less regulated. (this is fact not opinion. Says so in the planning office guides). Im not imlplying America is broke... I mean broken... We all know we are broke. Lol. Im trying to point out that our arguements are as flawed as the political garbage we get incenced about in real life. I think we are better than that... |
||||||||
|
Groove Champion Posted Dec 4, 2012, 12:12 am |
Outrageous. If your flag is off, there is absolutely no change in the danger level. Could you please start checking your facts?!? |
||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Dec 4, 2012, 12:55 am |
Im not sure about others, Ive given detail to my operations to give some transparency. In my case its not about loot farming. It IS about the short cut, and this route is easy for me to take right now, easy enough that I will not think about running through SF. Take of that what you will.
Not sure this vote will come to a No, lots in favour of the change back it seems. Whether yes or no.... yep, agree, but the enemy should be tough. On most encounters I only find the odd Stone, Pulv, Peg or WD. I very rarely find a buzzer travelling through the region with 2000+ CR. Twice I have found an FE (pretty sure that was scouting, not travelling). So from my pov I would say it sits well (this is travelling through the area, probably 200 trips at least for the described loot. Sounds about right, not too good, but its pretty tough 5 on 18 in an ambush). I do know that others trawl the area with nets and get Black Marlin at will (and why I agree with the above statement. Its a mutant Shanty town, and theres mega Laser Gattling cannons to be found there. Doesn't quite sit right with me). The road should be tough to travel, not a loot farm, imo. High end loot should sit more on the big factory towns. If the loot is there for PvP incentive, does that make sense, plenty travel the region, numbers is not the issue. I don't think love for your country or bitching about it comes into it, you need to love something a lot to bitch about it so much. Who doesn't bitch about their wife or partner  Such is life. Im an aussie, and I still bitch about the US, I wouldn't waste my breath doing this for some low life country like New Zealand ( ... jokes, points at 80s and laughs at the sheep burgler)
|
||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Dec 4, 2012, 1:04 am |
So if I scout with a player with his flag ON we cant be intercepted and "there is absolutly no change in the danger level" ? I stand corrected. I was under the impression that if the scout host was PvP ON then the entire scout was PvP ON. |
||||||||
|
Serephe Posted Dec 4, 2012, 1:09 am |
If the idea is to make the route short and dangerous, there are much better ways to do that than to open up the central town to PvP. More difficult maps on the route, or more numerous low value high danger enemies etc. Just like the GW-EL vs GW-SS-EL, now that it there is no travel size limit for the shorter route. BL-SV-TX is so much shorter than BL-SF-TX though, that it's really quite absurd to expect people to take the second route, regardless of the amount of danger added. Especially considering that the maps on the BL-SF-TX maps have some of the worst maps in the game to get a large ambush on. Big ass canyons with nowhere to go. |
||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Dec 4, 2012, 1:22 am |
It also doesn't really matter what this vote comes to, as this is the suggestion forum and not an official vote.
|
||||||||
|
Groove Champion Posted Dec 4, 2012, 1:32 am |
What does this have to do with Shanty? What does your rampant hatred for veterans have to do with Shanty? I'm already getting way off topic by wasting time on you, so this is the last of it for me. I suggest you take yourself out of the argument as well and leave the discussion here to those who have an interest in Shanty and a basic understanding of how this game functions. |
||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Dec 4, 2012, 2:10 am |
You maybe missed that post. Longo said the rares loot from Shanty should be reduced if it doesnt return to PvP due to less danger. I agreed with him. From a uniformity standpoint reducing rares found in towns made more safe means we should increase rares in towns made less safe (although this has already happened but maybe not for that reason) Then you disagreed. And stated no place was made safer, that PvP OFF was PvP OFF and that my idea of how interception worked was flawed. I was under the impression that a PvP OFF player could be attacked in places like SS if scouting with someone who was PvP ON. However you pointed out that this is NOT the case. As such, then my agreement with longo would be based on incorrect data.
You assume too much. Anyone here think I hate them?
I have an interest in Shanty. I have crews abd cars there but its a soloers town so they sat there unused for the past 8 months. I'd like to see a change to make it appealing and attract people |
||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Dec 4, 2012, 2:10 am |
I think its good some of these feelings come out. Whether based on fact or not, it shows the reasons behind decisions, and that can make it easier to sift through the rubble. | ||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Dec 4, 2012, 2:45 am |
Since most of what I have to contribute to this discussion is more of a.set.of suggestions and ideas to make PvP ON a more appealing way of life, or making locations more populated (lack of ppl to do anything in the towns south of GW was my biggest dissapointment while I was subbed, FYI), I will make a more appropriate and focused thread when I can do it on something other than this accursed phone. Ugh! | ||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Dec 4, 2012, 3:26 am |
I don't believe that the rare spawn rates in SS, Elms and GW were ever reduced from the rates when all three were PVP only town (like all of Evan originally). So by that standard, even today they are safer than when they were created and "rares" spawn too often in relation to the level of danger. So I guess both you and Longo feel the rares in those three towns should actually be reduced?
|
||||||||
|
Blackwill Posted Dec 4, 2012, 3:39 am |
Groove: If your flag is OFF, and you scout with someone whos flag is ON, you may be intercepted just as easily as if your own flag were ON.
That's the way it works. I've seen it happen, |
||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Dec 4, 2012, 5:00 am |
sure! Lol, I dont see many rares there anyway. Though I do think rares and loot valuables should be tied to some governing factor uniformly. And danger or difficulty levels are a good starting point to apply that. Ive seen better loot near BL than ive seen down near SV. And just as many cars shot lasers at me in FL or SF as they ever did near SV. |
||||||||
|
*Ninesticks* Posted Dec 4, 2012, 6:24 am |
The original idea was to make the route short and dangerous. As this was a discussion/vote on reversion then the original purpose of the town should be made clear (imo). Certainly, there are other ways of making the shorter route more dangerous that could and should be looked at as well. But I don't think we should just dismiss what was already done as it doesn't necessarily tick all the boxes by itself.
No that limit wasn't found to be particularly useful in of itself I believe. The best way to limit squad size is in the map designs themselves I reckon.
I don't expect anyone to go any particular route, that was just the carrot as it were to tempt people in order to give people a meaningful choice (which takes us back to square one again).
Again I kind of agree with you, but how good or bad a map is will vary significantly by play style, squad composition, character skill etc. |
||||||||
|
Groove Champion Posted Dec 4, 2012, 11:41 am |
I know this. Far off is the day when StC actually teaches me anything about this game. And it isn't "you may be intercepted just as easily" because it barely ever happens. Anyone who is arguing that they will be bullied through PvP should really list event IDs. But I know this won't happen because it's far too much work to dig through hundreds of events to find 'that one event you got intercepted and promptly truced out'. |
||||||||
|
*Brunwulf* Posted Dec 4, 2012, 5:01 pm |
Completely irrelevant- but...
Shanty is an important town for newish players. I myself, and other new players I have spoken to, made their first real money by buying cheap stuff from Shanty player market and driving it back to SS for a good mark-up. Just thought I would mention that- for what it's worth. Cheers. |
||||||||
|
Blackwill Posted Dec 4, 2012, 5:28 pm |
"Just as easily" is relative. But, intercepts in SS are certainly on the rise. | ||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Dec 4, 2012, 7:51 pm |
then why did you lie in your prior post to support your side of the vote? Its bad enough you insult people who disagree with you (to reduce their credibility and marginalize them?), but at least dont use falsehoods to discount the countering side's arguement |
||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 21, 2013, 9:28 am |
we have a poll *bump* | ||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Feb 21, 2013, 9:41 am |
I'm glad you found this tinker.
[quote=*Ninesticks*][quote=Sere] If the idea is to make the route short and dangerous, there are much better ways to do that than to open up the central town to PvP. More difficult maps on the route, or more numerous low value high danger enemies etc. [/quote] The [i]original idea was[/i] to make the route short and dangerous. As this was a discussion/vote on reversion then the original purpose of the town should be made clear (imo). Certainly, there are other ways of making the shorter route more dangerous that could and should be looked at as well. But I don't think we should just dismiss what was already done as it doesn't necessarily tick all the boxes by itself.[/quote] both would probably be good. What maps would be good for more difficult? it would be possible to limit these like the morgan maps, but that may cause outrage. Id still probably run 3 lorries down the road, given the chance
|