+- 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: Opinion: Discovery's Problems (/showthread.php?tid=177636)
Opinion: Discovery's Problems - Binski - 03-22-2020
Probably should have done this a while back.
I am a call it as I see it guy, I know many will disagree and I look forwards to examining the arguments already. Instead of doing a bunch of threads, might as well lay out my issues all in one place, and undoubtedly for the last time.
1. Lack of closed roleplay/immersion:
I know many see it as completely unreasonable to go back, but the truth is, ditching closed roleplay helped destroy this place. It now lacks completely substance and depth. Apparently everyone should just belong to every faction. That also underscores though that there is no real depth to any action being done here. There are no real secrets, no one bothers anymore, since its pointless and frowned upon (by the weak, who's only option is to oorp'ly pressure things to be better for them).
Basically though, it was always better, and always would be better, to have real teams, and real sides. As 'real' as real gets for a video game. I know many here can't get into it though without scratching at each others' eyes, so I often wonder how much better things could have been if the lost boys here weren't so immature. We care so much about winning but not about the substance, which is what made this game, and this mod for it, so unique and enjoyable. Having actual factions was so cool here. I think they'd say it was all done to avoid kids freaking out, but really, we let an important vestige of the game die to appease kids that should be told instead that immersion is important here. You can't have good immersion when someone was on your side yesterday and is on the enemy's side today. This also creates a huge degree of uncontrollable negative metagaming.
Sadly, as long as there are no real lines, nothing matters. Your events don't matter, its just oorp practice. Might as well just have weekly arena battles in conn. This simple fact is also what has ruined pretty much every 'war'. People need to stop being afraid. Its a video game. Some of us could be enjoying real competitive wars, with real sides, keeping real secrets, actually trying to beat the other in real time (at some kind of goal or goals in game), but it can't happen because others are too weak to bother, and won't say anything out of fear even if they did have a problem.
Sports leagues use teams, and their players usually still get along outside of the games. You should be able to still be friends and belong to differing or opposing factions. If not, thats up to you, but purposely killing an aspect of real competition in battles has killed this place.
2. Storyline is too scripted
If player efforts are completely bypassed, ignored and missed by those in charge (including factions leaderships), there is a problem. If the players must rp around a script they know nothing about in advance, and constantly adjust what they are doing to fit a dictated reality, why bother? Doesn't that cancel out the point of a free and open world? Is that what this place is? Or what its trying to be?
I'd actually be speechless if as much work went into adding new activities around in game objects like planets, moons, asteroids, bases and territory, as what went into the end of the Gallic War. Activities that are more than just mindless pvp or just looking at objects. Years have gone by, no effort ever went into doing anything more with the environment that is the game world itself. And even if not done in game, I came up with a rules set that clearly shows if we had just set some values, come of with some charts, and started a system, we could be macro gaming and having a larger game on top of the one we do. It would systemize our actions so stories would write themselves.
I can't enjoy RP or want to get into it or take it that seriously if it isn't real, if sides that are enemies get together to organize a conflict for the heck of it. Which makes me have to ask in every case, IS THIS REAL? Is this really happening? Or is it scripted, and the players involved being told how its gonna be. And in every case, we should ask, how can players have effect? Can they fight back fairly? Do they have a fair chance to win an objective or achieve a goal by doing stuff in game? Because that's how we make sure the RP creates activity, and vice versa!
3. Pointless PVP
I'm sure many wonder why I don't bother with events. First of all, everyone loves that event style. Registration! To me though, that is arcadethink, and not fit for an RP server. I would only come to an event that was real and open ended, and over something. Why these events leave much to be desired? There is no point. They're like wars where armies lined up across from each other on battlefields, kill each other off, and thats it. And they didn't complain about balancing both armies, if one side was smaller, they probably lost. But, why did they fight at all? Because they had to. They couldn't just look at the odds and moan about things not being perfect for their side, and not show up.
To fix pvp, we need things to fight over. Base sieges prove this. When something real is on the line, both sides are forced to gamble. That means, 2 sides show up, and one might be an underdog. Well a smaller force does not always guarantee loss, its all in how you use it. Sometimes an issue is SO important, a small force will show and maybe lose trying, but at least we'd get a battle like that. Where because there is an issue, sides simply form, gather, and go to work on their plan of attack. This is a 24/7 server. So before you say there' aren't enough people with time for 24/7 activity, consider that maybe more people would stay, come back, or come in general, if they knew the place was like what I describe, with more real situations to participate in.
I don't actually want to insult players that do this stuff, but at the same time, if it were done the other way, would it be so bad? In most events, if there aren't POB's to fight over, they could just pick an NPC station to fight over, or a planet, or a nebula, jumhole or jumpgate connection. But there's been no real consideration of doing more of that, and the reasons are not because people don't like them, its that someone, somewhere in the leadership, must want nothing to do with it. And that blows my mind, because it shows a mega disconnect, somewhere. And at this point, I really don't think I'm crazy for suggesting all of this! Its our lack of substance after years of making things easier on the easier roles and favored factions that is why people aren't taking the place as seriously.
Things like NEMP's, and attacks with them, require beurocratic processing, because it was so terrible to leave them be used in pvp (again, changed to accommodate weaker players that couldn't handle being insta'd by someone who mined thousands of units of sci-data or payed hundreds of millions of credits per use, to get that one volley).
If a year ago, the Devs had gone to work figuring out how to make an NPC station NEMP'able so you could just show up and shoot the darn thing, would it have been figured out by now? It seems hard but if it had been done years ago instead of being seen as too much effort, it would be done.
When battle events come up, instead of No NEMPs, it should be, if you can, use them. Both sides should just ACCEPT they may have to die a few waves until NEMP's are burnt off. Or you get to save it for a strategic use near the end of a battle...I can't believe it was nerfed to appease the other guy in that situation. (again, makes sense if you fight over something important that makes you have to try, instead of just showing up to pew and leave). If you demanded NEMP's be removed from PVP, you shouldn't even be allowed to play.
Not to mention, an obvious counter would have been a special moneysink shield exempting it or reducing the damage.
4. Player Development Stagnation
Well, if you hadn't guessed, people come here to feel like they're in a space world. Like they're participating in one. Eventually it starts to make sense that in a world made of 0's and 1's we can make some changes. Many who have been here a while or have played other mods know what can be done. There seems to be a high demand for player investment, and players still have interest in building stuff. POB's are a great addition to the game, it would have died years ago otherwise, so all that lacks is building infrastructure, like trade lanes, docking rings, jumpgates, etc.
The current RCR system is fine in layout, but lacks in definitive parameters. As many things do here, we leave a lot up to discretion of staff, which sometimes completely cancels the point. Either staff controls everything or players can freely do stuff, we can't really have both. That lack of freedom prevents a lot of activity, and a pre set system and routine would open things up.
And, if there would be a high demand for in game development with/from players, and the problem is a lack of people able to help, maybe we need more workers. Otherwise, it seems like staff only ever bring in "yes men", that there's no solid direction on where things are going, and so not much actual will for opening things up.
There are tons of planets and places that players would love to build bases onto, secret or public, etc, for corps or rebel groups, etc. If more works is needed, find the people! Player contributions should be integrated soon as we find them, since it also seems we may be lacking in unexplored systems and fresh models due to a lack of workers/contributors.
5. Arbitrary rules
Some rules are necessary to govern player action, but we go way beyond that. Basically, it seems discovery players can't handle reality. So a rule is needed to stop players from spying cloaked, to stop ships from engaging others based on class, or to stop ID's like pirates from extorting certain ship classes. Would I ever love to see the looks on some people faces if they could be spied on by a cloaker and actually face reprecussions, or if they had to pay attention after they undocked and watch what they say in open chat when they think no one's around. Or if they got caught in a transport by a cruiser and got wasted! OOOOH do you know how many times I flew into Denver with over 4k of Nobium after coming out of the lane facing the planet, and died, because I lost attention for a moment. Did I demand they rearrange the game for me? No. These rules are not something we should ever have had to deal with, and we could probably do just fine without reality bending rules to protect those who want to play but not work beyond silent trade lane trading to succeed.
What the server and community should look like:
We need to embrace change here. But at the same time, we need to make it part of the game. So any changes in game should have some commensurate activity in game. Stations, planets or houses shouldn't change hands without battles, supply, or building something.
Players would be divided up, and made to choose a side. Closed roleplay means players sort that out themselves. You could still be a Zoner and whatever, just no OF Zoners and OF K'hara, or if you are in OF's that are actually enemies, just fly for one (Balanced battles are only needed if there's no other reason to be there).
Events would in every case have an issue to be fought over, and registration ended (private events can do what they want but to me would be just for pvp practice). this would mean more would come out, show up on the spot as many would prefer, and fly what they F***ING feel like without taking sh*t from players that just want to trick people into doing what they want. If you actually care about this place, examine your behavior, and grow up a bit.
People would stop saying 'no this, no that' no this ship, no that ship, no cloaks, no leaving, no coming back, no ANYTHING THAT IS HARD TO BEAT THAT WORKS AGAINST MY FAVOR, honestly its sad and pathetic. We have all these ships, technologies, players learning skills, and for the major battles you must be forced into the open again, square off like fools, and give yourself to the enemy. The pier pressure against doing what you like, what is logical and fun must end. If you can't beat something, get better, or admit you're not that good. If someone cloaks and gets away, comes back, that's a thing that can happen, a rule shouldn't be able to save you. The side that can apply themselves best is the better side. I guess there would be a lot of disgruntled VHF flyers if you could sneak out of a battle and return. Does it make a battle longer? Yes, and too bad. Fighting close to friendly bases gives an advantage, use them! Its war! (just don't get caught leaving a dock message and its fair!)
Player etiquette must change finally, and should ignore toxic pier pressure. I hate to say it, if you rush into combat, and wind up alone, and a bunch of enemies waste you without hesitation (ganking) that is just the way it goes out here! Thats just like afk flyers, if you stop paying attention, and something kills you, its your fault, not the other person/thing. There was a time that everyone knew, when you launched, you took all the risk. No one was obligated to not spy on you cloaked, or to not shoot you with a capital ship, or to not attack you cloaked (with proper RP still). So, be a good loser, not a sore one, and if you lose bad, don't go oorp and try to win by pressure on the other players. This has ruined the game over the years, as staff almost always seem to side with those who complain first.
And most importantly, people would stop the discouraging attitudes. Go build a base to do something crazy, block a route, claim a nebula or ore field, etc. The inconvenience to other players is the reason to get out and do stuff! Balance it out...in game.
So all in all, we could have events with more substance and depth and purpose. We could have a more mature player base that just accepts what happens to them when they get in battle or when they fly period, or that they're faction would lose a war if put to the test. We could have actual consistent conflicts with real situations going on, like wars yes, that would make sense for everyone because they'd all have no choice but to simply accept the outcome of an open ended battle, and likely because they had to fight to defend something (which will effect their side) which got people to show up, even if the odds weren't in their favor. Imagine if we used this place to its potential, and hadn't reduced it to an arcade game like Star Conflict (great game for pvp practice, nice engine, if only it had been done an open world game though right?). This place has been watered down so long, when Pa went to grab his rum, he found a glass bottle of water!
Go ahead and vent your anger at me, but I'm just the messenger. I'd rather get kicked for actually talking about this stuff at this point, rather than do a leaving thread. But are you really leaving if you just can't find the will to double click the launcher?
RE: Opinion: Discovery's Problems - Grumblesaur - 03-22-2020
If the message here is "bully the people who stockpile SRPs and scheme absurd alliances through forum diplomacy", then I am 100% for it.
RE: Opinion: Discovery's Problems - Groshyr - 03-22-2020
Discovery's problem is zoner caps
RE: Opinion: Discovery's Problems - Jeuge - 03-22-2020
make gallia simply
RE: Opinion: Discovery's Problems - Thunderer - 03-22-2020
You should rename yourself to The Wall of Text Guy. Literally every post you make rivals a Tanith, excluding the verbosity. I think that leaving a tl;dr version at the bottom will ensure that more people read what you say.
PS: If the tl;dr version actually has everything important that you wished to say, then it would be useful to replace your original post with that.
RE: Opinion: Discovery's Problems - Groshyr - 03-22-2020
(03-22-2020, 11:12 PM)Thunderer Wrote: You should rename yourself to The Wall of Text Guy. Literally every post you make rivals a Tanith, excluding the verbosity. I think that leaving a tl;dr version at the bottom will ensure that more people read what you say.
I'll be short with you, Omryn
RE: Opinion: Discovery's Problems - Sava - 03-22-2020
I read your first point to the end, kind of agreed with it, then scrolled down and... no, that's too much text, sorry xD
(03-22-2020, 11:12 PM)Thunderer Wrote: I think that leaving a tl;dr version at the bottom will ensure that more people read what you say.
RE: Opinion: Discovery's Problems - Hemlocke - 03-22-2020
I agree with everything you said here, most of this is why I've retreated from disco aside from the occasional meme post, too unplayable, too unenjoyable in it's current state, unfortunately however, as thunderer pointed out himself, only those that really give a damn will actually take the time to read a post that isn't less than two sentences, Many people share your sentiment, but the next question is. Can anything be done about it?
Short answer, probably not.
RE: Opinion: Discovery's Problems - NixOlympica - 03-22-2020
(03-22-2020, 11:18 PM)Groshyr Wrote:(03-22-2020, 11:12 PM)Thunderer Wrote: You should rename yourself to The Wall of Text Guy. Literally every post you make rivals a Tanith, excluding the verbosity. I think that leaving a tl;dr version at the bottom will ensure that more people read what you say.
I'll be short with you, Omryn
This genuinely made me laugh. Usually anyone that says something along the lines of "I'll be brief" will be everything but,
RE: Opinion: Discovery's Problems - Alestone - 03-23-2020
I think the worship of intentional ignorance is a good example of the problem. It Shows that you don't want to bother, and that there is no respect for someone else.