(04-01-2020, 07:02 AM)WPeregrine Wrote: Requesting a tl:dr digest version of the post above, or at least the actual points underlined and emphasised within that wall of text, por favor.

(04-01-2020, 07:02 AM)WPeregrine Wrote: Requesting a tl:dr digest version of the post above, or at least the actual points underlined and emphasised within that wall of text, por favor.

(04-01-2020, 09:53 AM)jammi Wrote:

(04-01-2020, 07:02 AM)WPeregrine Wrote: Requesting a tl:dr digest version of the post above, or at least the actual points underlined and emphasised within that wall of text, por favor.

TLR - Players shouldn't get salty about overwhelming force or JH blocking bases - they're an emergent element of the game. The game should preferentially be used to resolve conflicts instead of the external application of rules wherever possible. Development should more closely follow on from player actions to allow and encourage conflict, attempts at seizing territory and shaping the storyline.

Rebuttal: blocking chokepoints with bases may provide benefits to the owners (see King's Cross), but they will largely result in an overall negative effect on the wider environment (see King's Cross). This is exacerbated when a base is set hostile to all and will open up on anything jumping in that hasn't been explicitly approved. All it does is results in activity null spots where people avoid the area and interesting activity consequently withers and dies.

In terms of player input on the story, I'm of two minds about this. The earliest dev teams were very strongly of the mind that there should be no correlation between in-game performance and the direction the story took. This was to stop larger, more popular factions always winning by default simply because they had more ships to throw at an issue. Reinforcing that positive feedback loop would then lead to a snowballing effect. The faction was popular so it always won, and it got more popular because it was always winning. Any conflict system that is pegged to POB sieges will also massively exacerbate this issue.

The introduction of the new conflict systems (or even conflict zones inside systems) has the potential to strike a middle ground though. If the devs set these zones up with branching outcomes in mind from the outset, and a published 'win condition' for the involved factions, server activity could be taken account of in those circumstances. This would allow a direct (if limited) impact on the story direction, without opening things up to the bizarre distortions raw popularity contests can introduce.

So my question would then be, what is a 'well balanced conflict' or a system where 'everything is arranged properly'? These things are mentioned a few times in the OP, but it's very light on details about what that actually entails.

I don't think allowing bases to block routes create dead zones in every case. Otherwise there's practically no challenge from factions over travel through there territory. They're too afraid to put WP's or NPC ships close to jump holes to block them better. I feel in most places, traders can use other routes, etc. Else we sacrifice what can use to stimulate new situations (border disputes) and a faction's real development remains limited. Of course, if capitals were mortal solars, factions could request they be placed at certain points. Bottom line is, threats to trade routes create some purpose, and when the objects (pob or npc base) are mortal, they can become the focus of activity, and eventually be destroyed. Things are decently balanced so if you get a base built up, your chances of successful defense go up.

This is the battle system I made as an example or template to start from. It goes into details about using the objects of the environment like planets, but the main focus is on using npc caps as POB's so people will siege them instead of POB's as much, and we could use those battles to determine the outcome of battles (). I will say though, that one other way to do my system is just make all public bases mortal, and let factions use NPC caps to help in their defense. I'm talking about making most bases like POB's but be set to extremely strong so the sieges take days or longer. Repair ships working on mortal bases like that would mean damaged bases could be repaired on the spot between attacks. All in all, a faction should be able to keep important bases protected reasonably, and provide more immersive activity to the basic life on the server.

So thats 2 options, make most bases mortal, or make any base unprotected by a nearby NPC cap base applicable to a siege request. One requires more GM/Dev work, it would be up to them, if it was seriously considered.

As to the threat of larger factions outweighing smaller ones, I think we should accomodate for it. Each faction could have a 'diminished state' it could be reduced to as a bare minimum, perhaps with the exception of houses. Say we take Core and the Order, one could eventually dominate over the other, turning the weaker party into an underdog, or guerrilla group like the Maquis (reduced to hidden bases).

Technically it could be set up so that when/if the underdog can muster many players, and know how to use what they have, could make moves to reverse their situation at any time by trying to launch attacks on occupied bases. Not every war will be a win for all but they will be much better wars, much more immersive. As far as I believe, they would be farely balanced wars that will be commensurate to activity. if core can take out most of the Order's (known) bases, and capture or eliminate them via the system, they could turn order into a much reduced version of itself...or vice versa. Keep in mind that it would probably take months for real change to add up, and greatly depend on how many players they have.

So if we prepare we can set limits and basically create purpose. Say a faction like the Order or Hessians did have most of their known bases sieged and taken over or destroyed in organized sieges, the faction would still exist but lose ship capability, and switch in purpose to guerrilla mode, going back to the goal of rising up.

In theory we would have shifting lines here and there. I know it would start small, but would be exactly what factions need to create some purpose, move against their enemies, and when beaten still have chances and keep their faction. If a group can remain dominant, they do. If they get lacks, underdog factions fill up and it starts all over.

I believe that if we did all that and announced it, we'd attract an influx of players!

(04-01-2020, 10:03 AM)Groshyr Wrote: I think IRMM could block Phi to force guard-status of the system, as well as any faction could block their territory with these bases so a very few could survive and get unathorized access

I say if they want to, they certainly should be allowed to try. Thats like earning your guard status, people will work for that, as long as we make it clear its not bad or wrong to want to try. If a Player built WP (I'd say use the models they use for the Gallic ones in Aquintaine, they're big and easy to hit) could be dropped with something like 50 mil HP, they could do it that way too, and enemies could still give them counter effort by trying to take them out, making the defenders work to produce more. Every faction would add to their own security with them (which would be really useful if a battle system were put in place) and that would be yet another real way for players to go score victories against each other, and help their cause. All in all it should create a super immersion system for faction wars, and use all the activity to determine the outcomes.

Lucky for me though, I already have jump coords for the black hole