Discovery Gaming Community

In lieu of how wars have been allowed to unfold in the past, it has been easier to measure opinions than battle data. I would like to suggest that for the future we adopt at least some real time 24/7 activities that would be able to be documented/submitted for effects and/or faction perks and/or rewards. This will be to add more value to player activity, and clear up the confusion as to what should be happening in any given situation.

I believe we have everything we need in place to within disco's capabilities to allow for such activities to take place with a bit of dev and admin help to facilitate some of the details, could have an active 'battle system' to keep us busy with smaller goals. Here is an example system to serve as a framework.

Suggestion #1: NPC farming for faction 'battle points'

For official factions, quotas could be available to be achieved for a minimum amount of confirmed destroyed NPC ships (yes by screenshot), varying by class, in order to justify earning measurable effect on opposing sides. (this isn't pilots, I mean confirmed npc kills, group or individually achieved, regular NPC spawns, not mission spawns, of factions you are at war with). Over a period of 1 month, screens would need to be documented and submitted like tickets to account for a kill. Something like 250 gunboats, 100 cruisers and 50 battleships. In the Gallia-Bretonia-Liberty war, this could be applied to front line systems (Edinburgh, Leeds, New London, Manchester, Newcastle, Cortez, Magellan, California, Omega-3, Omega-49). (open to suggestions on disputed areas and quota numbers), points earned per quota, etc). (yes we would need screen counters like judges. If we made it collecting pilots, it might still be hard to tell real amounts, whereas simple screens showing IFF, rep as its exploding would be unmistakeable, but really if we could simply have counters set up to count the NPC deaths caused by offical tags, that would be perfect!)

If your faction achieves a quota at the end of the period, earn Battle Points that you can choose to spend on a reward in the form of equipment(?), or an effect on a system like destruction or placement of a base (open to suggestions for reward types). Instead of requiring a quota per system, all warzone systems are fair game. So each side has a huge area to get their numbers in. It may also mean a great deal for how houses fight their wars and focus their efforts (as areas that spawn npcs go back to being potential battle zones). Every 30 days changes could be implimented and we go on with the next month. Of course the kills should only count from tagged ships for this duty ( bonus for faction inducing activity, also makes it easy for opposition to see what you are up to and have a fair chance to stop you, and vice versa).

Here's some potentials:

Make quota level 1 (250 GB's, 100 cruisers, 50 battleships)= 1 battle point
Make quota level 2 (300 GB's, 150 cruisers, 75 battleships)= 3 additional battle points (for each time 2nd quota is met, meaning it stacks. Double quota 2 means 6 points if you're that hardcore)

Prizes:

Removal of enemy NPC base (turned to wreck) = 4 battle points
50 sci data per battle point
1 faction SRP shared capital ship = 8 battle points

This way basically over time factions could try to make their top quota, and automatically qualify to have an NPC enemy base turned wreck. But their enemies may also achieve the same goal against them. If each side makes enough to remove the other's front line base, they can also use those points to block the other, and justify a stalemate.

This is where intelligence factions can come in:

Intel Quota 1 - (200 destroyed transports behind enemy lines) = 2 battle points.
Intel Quota 2 - (300 destroyed transports behind enemy lines) = 3 battle points.
Intel Quota 3 - (100 destroyed cruisers behind enemy lines) = 2 battle points
Intel Quota 4 - (200 destroyed gunboats behind enemy lines) = 2 battle points
Intel Quota 5 - (50 destroyed battleships behind enemy lines) = 3 battle points

*this can mean NPC's from any enemy faction. Example, for Gallia, that means Bretonia ships, Maquis, Council.

So each side's intel ageny factions could also be out earning points to help their respective navies and armed forces with decisive battle points to contribute to tie breakers. All throughout, each side's attempts to collect kills may also result in forces hoping to block them from achieving their goals! This is where bounties and freelancers come in and police come in. And for the intel quotas, there is a choice to focus more on tranports or combat ships. This way they can also save their own points, or join at the request of navy or police factions to combine points for a larger goal (if other factions totals fall short).

The point of all of this, is to give us all something to do again. This gives us a real time goal to achieve. One side will know if the other is out working on their NPC goals, and that situation can be used to provoke a fight and give reason for patrolling (area denial). The over all goal will be to give a long term goal for factions to work together to achieve a systematic and fairly measurable effect. Simply put, let us earn points, set rewards with prices, and let sides determine how to save or spend their points. Once we put something in place, the thought that the other side may out earn yours may entice you to get out blasting and guncamming to keep up. Sadly, factions that could not bolster any numbers against their challengers, would start to see their side measurable shrink up. I also look at the potential for some that can now get more out of their time if they are just going around fighting NPC's, and they can also get more chances to stop opponents from farming. Many situations can arise from having something valuable to get you out more, and create more random situations.

Examples:
BAF could earn 4 BP's a month just by making Quota 2.

MRG could only make first quota, 1 point, but the GRI may earn 3 points by killing ships behind the lines. Total of 4 points to challenge the BAF, equals a stalemate.

Factions would have to work together based on their numbers and player bases to coordinate. If BAF knew it might not make its top quota, it could encourage bounty hunters/freelancers to patrol spots where MRG or GRI show to get their farming in. Or they can ask SIS or BPA for whatever points they also earn to break a stalemate. Bottom line, whoever earns the most points fastest will fair the best. If you can't out earn your oppenent, the tactic to slow down your enemy is also available.


Suggestion #2: Temp Sieges

On top of earning points for effect, allow for official factions to have the right to declare temporary (1 day) sieges upon NPC ship bases, with 1 attempt per month. An official faction could nominate 1 npc base inside their ZOI for 1 day siege. Meaning for that 1 day (between restarts), a fixed HP be set for it. If the challenging faction can get the HP to 0 within that day period, it will be considered wrecked. They then can organize and attack on their own time within that period, and the other side would have reciept of the challenge, and similar to current base sieges, have their heads up that they may need to defend that base during that day period. The side that can bolster the best numbers and tactics wins. It might even be sly to try to schedule sieges around others, to make use of potential distractions! Plan your strategy well!

We could even spice thints up for battleships, where if the losing faction wants the chance to get it back, they could forfiet their next attack to submit for a supply event to recover the wreck instead (opening up a supply inderdiction event). The risk would be theirs to weigh!

Again, the overall goal will be to have regular events that don't require much pre planning. Individual faction members always also have the ability to recruit freelancers to augment their sides as well for the one time battle events. How each battle may unfold may depend greatly on how well it recruits for its offense/defence. Yet each side would be aware of its general goal, be able to gather and work like any normal base siege, yet not drag on for days. It would be a one shot to see if the other side was vulnerable to a quick shot or not...as meanwhile they may be focusing on a target of their own. There would also be little reason for registration, and allow for 3rd party players to notice the battles and join in as they see fit.

And of course we could come up with a system of reward points to be spent on varios options. Such as, after several consecutive victories, points to be spent on deploying more NPC battleships at locations of a faction's choice to further justify advancement.

Please drop all suggestions for the exact numbers and other potential features that might contribute to an organized system! I believe this framework is just a start, and others might have ideas for how points could be spent to claim territory/resources, etc. After everything is weighed, I myself will hammer out some options for rule sets the community could vote on and submit to the admins and devs.

I'm sure they could just make certain NPCs drop a unique commodity when destroyed to serve as proof of the kill.

I think both ideas are terrible and since they'd both require FLHook to be implemented, I doubt either would happen either. That is going under the assumption that everyone else would like the idea, which I doubt. For the sake of constructive criticism, the idea of, shall we say, "high level" player driven story, is a terrible one and just not be encouraged. If gave a high level of freedom to the players when it came to influencing the story, we'd get groups of players forming to change outcomes to their personal desires. See the OC vs CR event for evidence of such.

(01-19-2019, 10:38 PM)Tenacity Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure they could just make certain NPCs drop a unique commodity when destroyed to serve as proof of the kill.

It kinda already egsist .
Ships already drop commodity that can serve as proof of kills,they drop pilots/commanders/captains/admirals of their factions .
So,all Galic pilot ,for example have to do is to take a screenshoot of how many Bretonian Pilots it have in cargo bay .
I for example, at one point , had over 80 Admirals and 500 Commanders of
Bretonia and Liberty at my Galic Police Liner which i collected with my Valor .
I intended to RP some kind of Prisoners transfer event from Leeds to Il de France .

While I don't the ideas are terrible, the ideas could use some polishing, I agree there needs to be some sort of catalyst for players to log into war zones other than calls on Discord that the other side is logged in.

Linking NPC deaths directly to NPC bases being destroyed would probably result in some salt though, may be better to leave that out and find another route, would be better if said BS were sent home rather than destroyed, eh?

Would like to also avoid screenshots being required, part of why bounty hunting is annoying is the need to confirm the kills. The commodity idea would perhaps work.

Another thing, would be good to focus the NPCs within a select area of the map, otherwise players might not meet each other as desired.

(01-19-2019, 09:24 PM)JonasHudson Wrote: [ -> ]Suggestion #1: NPC farming for faction 'battle points'

For official factions, quotas could be available to be achieved for a minimum amount of confirmed destroyed NPC ships (yes by screenshot), varying by class, in order to justify earning measurable effect on opposing sides. (this isn't pilots, I mean confirmed npc kills, group or individually achieved, regular NPC spawns, not mission spawns, of factions you are at war with). Over a period of 1 month, screens would need to be documented and submitted like tickets to account for a kill. Something like 250 gunboats, 100 cruisers and 50 battleships. In the Gallia-Bretonia-Liberty war, this could be applied to front line systems (Edinburgh, Leeds, New London, Manchester, Newcastle, Cortez, Magellan, California, Omega-3, Omega-49). (open to suggestions on disputed areas and quota numbers), points earned per quota, etc). (yes we would need screen counters like judges. If we made it collecting pilots, it might still be hard to tell real amounts, whereas simple screens showing IFF, rep as its exploding would be unmistakeable, but really if we could simply have counters set up to count the NPC deaths caused by offical tags, that would be perfect!)

If your faction achieves a quota at the end of the period, earn Battle Points that you can choose to spend on a reward in the form of equipment(?), or an effect on a system like destruction or placement of a base (open to suggestions for reward types). Instead of requiring a quota per system, all warzone systems are fair game. So each side has a huge area to get their numbers in. It may also mean a great deal for how houses fight their wars and focus their efforts (as areas that spawn npcs go back to being potential battle zones). Every 30 days changes could be implimented and we go on with the next month. Of course the kills should only count from tagged ships for this duty ( bonus for faction inducing activity, also makes it easy for opposition to see what you are up to and have a fair chance to stop you, and vice versa).

Here's some potentials:

Make quota level 1 (250 GB's, 100 cruisers, 50 battleships)= 1 battle point
Make quota level 2 (300 GB's, 150 cruisers, 75 battleships)= 3 additional battle points (for each time 2nd quota is met, meaning it stacks. Double quota 2 means 6 points if you're that hardcore)

Prizes:

Removal of enemy NPC base (turned to wreck) = 4 battle points
50 sci data per battle point
1 faction SRP shared capital ship = 8 battle points

Intel Quota 1 - (200 destroyed transports behind enemy lines) = 2 battle points.
Intel Quota 2 - (300 destroyed transports behind enemy lines) = 3 battle points.
Intel Quota 3 - (100 destroyed cruisers behind enemy lines) = 2 battle points
Intel Quota 4 - (200 destroyed gunboats behind enemy lines) = 2 battle points
Intel Quota 5 - (50 destroyed battleships behind enemy lines) = 3 battle points

*this can mean NPC's from any enemy faction. Example, for Gallia, that means Bretonia ships, Maquis, Council.

If i'd seek to grind hundreds of monsters - NPCs, in our case - i'd go and play some MMO.
While the whole concept isn't a bad one - do not involve overly complicated NPC grinding as it's main mechanic. No. Discovery doesn't need this in the proposed way.

(01-19-2019, 10:38 PM)Tenacity Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure they could just make certain NPCs drop a unique commodity when destroyed to serve as proof of the kill.

(01-19-2019, 11:17 PM)Piombo65 Wrote: [ -> ]NPCs should be resetted and also buffed if this idea could be considered by mods. And this likes me.

(01-20-2019, 02:33 AM)Pito-Chan Wrote: [ -> ]If i'd seek to grind hundreds of monsters - NPCs, in our case - i'd go and play some MMO.
While the whole concept isn't a bad one - do not involve overly complicated NPC grinding as it's main mechanic. No. Discovery doesn't need this in the proposed way.

(01-20-2019, 02:07 AM)Markam Wrote: [ -> ]Linking NPC deaths directly to NPC bases being destroyed would probably result in some salt though, may be better to leave that out and find another route, would be better if said BS were sent home rather than destroyed, eh?

Would like to also avoid screenshots being required, part of why bounty hunting is annoying is the need to confirm the kills. The commodity idea would perhaps work.

Another thing, would be good to focus the NPCs within a select area of the map, otherwise players might not meet each other as desired.

Well the options seem to be, no FLhook, we can just use our own screens as proof. But personally I am in favor of using a dropable commodity. Something to form 'bills' so you can clearly see "10 X cruiser commanders" etc. As long as we make ones clearly identifiable regarding what class of ship they came from. Makes sense to me to use BS/carriers, cruiser and GB npc's. Basically we turn those npc pilots into a thing of greater value (sub currency) which leads to a larger RP currency. Then yes, it would make sense to re evaluate where what NPC's spawn and create some 'hot zone's for pilot harvesting. The only main issue is distinguising one sides pilots from another. Like you'd need a 'Gallic Cruiser Commander' vs 'Bretonian Cruiser Commander" so you wouldn't be able to harvest npcs from your own faction.

And really, at this point a lot of our current gameplay activity is dead because the only grinding available is trade. This at least adds one more kind of grinding, combat grinding, which would let factions send their guys out on 'real' missions to collect 20, 30, 50 pilots. The missions don't actually require FL hook, the players can do it on their own time, and they collect slowly for further long term goals, which may not always include destroying NPC bases. Even consider as a Freelancer, or any other kind of ID, collecting pilots to sell to a faction that is collecting pilots, or buying them. Again, we have a new currency, a points war, and a bit of stimulation to get players moving again because the ultimate value of the points becomes potential investements in faction equipment, or RP goals. Sometimes, a REAL RP GOAL will entice players to grind more than any capital ship or weapon. So think of it this way, disco needs a system of SELLING RP satisfaction to the player base, where they can EARN it through activity that is also bound to cause much PVP and RP.

Example: Any allied faction could go to Leeds to try and harvest NPC pilots. So its up to them to strategize. Maybe they bring a cruiser, bomber, fighter, and one transport to collect the pilots. This gets players our, so maybe the Gauls try to get out and stop them, or take out their transport.

Instead of setting quotas, we could simply set points levels for rewards, you get for redeeming the right pilots. You can go for smaller gain, or large ones, always depending on your efforts. I'm sorry but I do think we need an alternate form of grinding. This will also be like a different kind of mission. So tbh, if we wanted to count mission NPC pilot drops, it would simply be a matter of group pilot farming, like back in the old days, but with a bonus. Of course, because for some, NPC killin is as easy as breathing, we need to set the 'quotas' pretty high, the easier they are to get.

(01-20-2019, 12:18 AM)Laz Wrote: [ -> ]I think both ideas are terrible and since they'd both require FLHook to be implemented, I doubt either would happen either. That is going under the assumption that everyone else would like the idea, which I doubt. For the sake of constructive criticism, the idea of, shall we say, "high level" player driven story, is a terrible one and just not be encouraged. If gave a high level of freedom to the players when it came to influencing the story, we'd get groups of players forming to change outcomes to their personal desires. See the OC vs CR event for evidence of such.

Sorry, but this is absolutely irrational nonsense to me. Why would anyone advocate against their own freedom like this? Besides, with this system, the amount of player driven/faction driven story becomes about equal to how hard they are willing to output. However, its within reason I agree that the admins and devs should have a final say about how extreme we go. However for houses at war, its easy to simply designate certain territory as in dispute, and let the RP challenges (and following action) count for those zones until a clear victory or imbalance is achieved. Meaning if houses are at war, even over a system, and via this battle system one side overtakes the other, then the war ends! The thing is, imagine when both sides have a reason to try, maybe numbers would pick up? Maybe a losing side can try again in the future. This lets us have issues that get some resolution before we start new situations, and avoids scenarios going 'dead end' and stagnant for too long. I would forsee some factions being very active with their ability to gain things, and others not so much. And when you say 'we'd get groups of players forming to change outcomes to their personal desires" ...keep in mind it is already like this when only devs and/or admins dictate story...right? So lets open it up for the players to contribute a bit more and bring some order to our war stories!

I am not sure if we want to affect outcomes by mindlessly grinding NPCs.

To be fair, on a small scale, outcomes could be successfully decided by certain actions. If people want to grind NPCs, why not? Giving them something to do that is worth logging for, while causing other people to counterlog? As long as the "reward" is matching, I'm not against it. That would be something the devs might want to think about, about smaller but dynamic, player-driven skirmishes. 3-5 zones that are contested by two or more factions and could shift with each patch, displayed by an undockable battleship or smaller capital. Igniting the flames and the story devs have more material to work with instead of forcing extremely controversial decisions on the community because they feel obliged to.