+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: What would you like to see more of in Discovery? (/showthread.php?tid=174807)
RE: What would you like to see more of in Discovery? - Binski - 11-08-2019
(11-08-2019, 01:01 PM)Durandal Wrote:(11-08-2019, 12:28 PM)Lythrilux Wrote:(11-08-2019, 08:04 AM)Ramke Wrote: Events, player interaction, new content additions. Progress, which is severely lacking at the moment and has been a theme for years. MRG| can't even play right now because their reputation is completely borked afaik.
There's no reason for veterans to come back, and this game is hard to find for new people. Most of the people I still interact with that left/are no longer active are just not interested in playing anymore because there's just nothing to do, and they dislike the way things were handled. While you can see both sides of the coin, factions are discouraged from making moves themselves to start wars/politics/drama, so people just lose motivation before even trying.
I personally despise the whole "a faction is a pawn, you don't control it, you can roleplay its journey as the story devs play chess for you if you want to". Openness to faction leaders and their feedback would be welcome, but there's always a clash of personalities.
This 100% percent.
Go start a war that doesn't ***** with existing plans/completely change the face of the map and get back to us. Current staff would've allowed Kusari/Gallia to shoot each other as long as it didn't spiral out of control. That's the big big problem with these; it's very hard for people to accept isolated incidents that don't completely rewrite everything. I'm not even saying it can't be canonized, just stuff that doesn't totally destroy the playing board.
This seems to point out that this stance is what also keeps the server 'static' or frozen from a great degree of potential player interaction. It suppresses motivation and activity. In not being willing to budge over things, the place can't and doesn't feel 'alive' anymore. We could probably use at the very least a designated area that can be 'tore up' or fought over for a while, and yes, change around depending on player actions. More 'fluid' wars means the board can be fixed. 'Destroyed' or captured stations can always be replaced or change back. It would be nice to see some new things happen though, where things are set up so players can better carry out in game battles with real targets and real reprecussions.
(11-08-2019, 01:17 PM)Durandal Wrote: Yeah well the Gallic war is over so we don't have to stick our dick into things nearly as much. Get out there and do the do guys. None of that micromanagement over Aland or GC would have happened if Bretonia hadn't been slated to lose two entire systems, you realize that, right?
Aland shipyard was a perfect example.
Aland Shipyard was a perfect example of why slating systems to be lost far in advance was the big mistake in my eyes. People don't mind waiting for changes to drop after a battle or battles in order for things to change along with the outcomes as they occur. That way we don't need fixed outcome battles for future wars, we should try to set up some kind of systematic way for players to apply themselves in groups (factions). This has always been a good way to heigten activity. People loved coming out for the battles in the wars, but we always had hands tied when it came to the larger situation.
If Aland had simply been made like a POB and were siegeable, players could have organized around it. Spontaneously developing situations are the best kind here, and they should be given the most freedom they can be always. Yet so many are afraid of change (or change they don't like), when it should be obvious that the risk involved is what attracts high interest. Perhaps Bretonia would have lost the station, but I think if it had been set up properly and actively managed by GM's, they could have allowed for Bretonian side to try again and counter challenge within a week, and the battle could have been kept rolling. Maybe build a POB to add more security and hold the area, while the other side would try to stop them. Eventually, things would have settled. IMG aleady had a POB there, and everyone was prepared to fight a little war with everything they had. That's what gets players online, we need more of that, it shouldn't be suppressed!
Which also was the case with Gran Canaria. If OF's had a right to challenge each other (depending on ZOI), then maybe OF Zoner factions would form and launch a counter attack, make allies of the Corairs and work on attacking a base, like the Stirling, or make the Docking Ring attackable. But situations like this are why I suggested a Faction Battle System, which is still too complicated it seems, but I think the parts of having war zones with destroyable NPC battleships should still be seriously considered, and give them a value so there's some reprecussions to fight over when it comes to future wars. Factions could challenge over territory but the battles would be centered around the focal points (bases).
People seem to support more smaller faction conflicts. I can't help but wonder what it would be like if Liberty's NPC bases, at least the ships, were destructable solars with super high HP similar to a Core 4. At least then small factions like the Roges, Hackers, HF, Unioners, etc would be more enticing to join, as you could form a group just to go commit attacks on the bases, eventually knocking them out of play if not defended (even if they only make a dent, they can RP an 'act of terrorism' and it has a real basis). And if we set those bases up to be monitored by bots on the public dischord, everyone who could play would know in real time where and when action was breaking out, giving defenders a better chance. Which then leads me to suggest, if a ship is eventually 'knocked out', instead of grinding for new ships, houses can just get replacements within a certain time, like a month. So in that case, for at least a month, the area would be clear of the battleship base. That would create a good situation where anyone can get involved and there's something to fight for. Something to do, and the players drive the chess board a bit more, which will get players online!
(11-08-2019, 02:41 PM)WPeregrine Wrote: Can we have back the two or three mining fields per mineral commodity system like we used to, but with a twist? Instead of setting up a "X Ore" field in one system at all time, why not rotate it within the fields that sport that mineral every 3 months or so? The other fields who don't give out the ore produce the regular mineral instead, until the ore production is shifted to the next field...
A, B, C fields, all producers of X commodity. B produces the ore version, while the others yield the regular good. After three months, B field downgrades into common commodity, and one of the other two starts producing the more expensive Ore variant.
Well I liked having multiple spots to find miners. I think if we add more reasons to get players active, having more mining fields isn't a problem. It was nice back when you could mine scrap in New London and Cambridge. Put valuable stuff everywhere and see what happens.
I also noticed the other day that field drain is on. Any way we can get that axed for a while?
Quote:New weapons
New ships
New Systems
New Commodities
New Trade Routes
More useful commodities (consumable)
New everything seems to be strongly supported. This was pretty obvious and has always been the case anyways. I'd like to see some new freighters with higher cargo limits, like around 750ish. Otherwise personally I've been pretty content with our ship and weapons options. Commodities are lovely, but I support making commodities practically valuable, maybe making one commodity a consumable commodity by POB's, like Munitions or Armaments. If players need them, they have more RP value, both from the criminal and policing perspective. And if we did that, every POB in an area that might be in need of its WP's becomes part of a trade route. Just make a central source, like, um (drum roll) Detroit Munitions. DM to the rest of Sirius, Minitions needed for POB WP respawns, and bam, new in game industry. Even if we could get something like it by next spring, that would make things more interseting.
I also always have to shout out NEMP's to get back in the fight. These were perfect balancers for battle situations that formed spontaneously by the players. If one side was smaller, they knew they could work to compensate, maybe pull out a surprise.
Quote:More ways for factions to create NPC bases
More ways for factions to develop themselves
Rights for OF's to challenge over NPC bases/territory
More options for factions to gain territory
More options for factions to use perks
I've heard a few players say they wish they could build a shipyard for their faction. This should be a thing we can do here! Its something to do, a decent goal to have, and would be a good reward for a lot of work and activity. We should just combine what we already have seen and let player factions that can get a core 5 POB and let them do one additional project (shipping in X thousand units of a commodity, if we don't have one, make Mooring Fixture Parts). Then even if it took until the following patch, they could still consider it a shipyard inrp, and then get the right to generate more NPC ship bases. At least if its known a POB building up to become a Core 5 may be a shipyard, inrp wise factions will treat bases much differently, and have a fair chance to stop them. Just go into the project knowing that you may provoke a war if another faction is unhappy that yours is planning to expand. If you learn a group is building a POB, you may want to know if they are planning to make it a shipyard in the end and stop them. That is what gets people motivated!
If this were allowed, and if it were simply allowed and even encouraged, that building POB's for making Shipyards, or staking a claim on an area of space, like a mining field, planet or trade lane/jumpgate were actually OK, factions could use what we already have to make moves. POB's used to also be potential fortresses. My only real criticism of the 'devs' in general, is the fear that opening things up more will destroy the board. That's not the case, and its been keeping things frozen here that has done most of the driving off of players over the years. Vets and hardcores stay.
Quote:More fluid (unscipted) wars
More story based wars
No more wars
Smaller faction conflicts
Wars for territory
Covered above, but More Fluid Wars is clearly popular choice. We can have this without tearing up the lore. So what if a House capital system is attacked by a random small faction that gets players interested enough to make the attempt, and actually build numbers for it. Let the House navy players use that same situation to try to recruit players. Change is controlable, if its systemized to reflect player power. The more players want a thing, the more they work, the more they get. It just has to be set up that way.
Quote:Rule changes (updates)
Stat tweaks
More Scidata uses
Less Scidata uses
I'm personally fine on the rules, but I support faction battle rules to straighten out the mess finally.
Players always seem to raise balance issues as they go so I've had little issues with balance. I did find they made NPC cruisers harder to nail with Nova's and you can't even 1v1 an NPC cruiser in a bomber anymore.
I am also all for more Sci Data uses. I like having a highly valuable commodity that we can both use for stuff, and ship. Thats what freighters should be for. I'd find it intersting to make scidata mining easier, allow freighters to do it. Add more things to consume the stuff at the same time so we see more of it in use, and its not so horrible to pirate someone for some. You could still make a decent profit just out in a freighter or small transport looking for scidata. And again, people want some centralized activity, we could use Sci Data fields in NY, NL, NB, NT and a few more in the Omicrons/Omegas. Make uses for it, put value to it, and more players will be out for it. We just need to encourage these options more.
RE: What would you like to see more of in Discovery? - Hubjump - 11-09-2019
You know wars for pre established core or ex-core territory is just gonna cause massive flame wars out side of the game so careful with that.
I voted for More fluid (unscripted) wars* and More options for factions to gain territory* because at least this sounds like only parts of systems being taken at a time as well as possibly new systems for factions to war over.
I also voted More ways for factions to create NPC bases* and More ways for factions to develop themselves cos that's just a given for fluid story/faction rp development.
Also can we get someone who isn't an absolute brainlet to look at Sci Data and more specifically Cap codes and re-evaluate their place in disco and pvp combat? Cos those spread fire weapons are all F**ky. K thanks. Anyone who has been around BAF chat and seen my rants about PPAC knows my reasoning and proposed solutions to the entire broken concept of cap codes. Fuck PPAC's.
Edit: When I say core I mean as in core house systems not the core faction. Eg New London is a core system for Bretonia house.
RE: What would you like to see more of in Discovery? - Lythrilux - 11-09-2019
(11-09-2019, 01:50 AM)Hubjump Wrote: Edit: When I say core I mean as in core house systems not the core faction. Eg New London is a core system for Bretonia house.
Pretty sure new London is a Core system.