(12-21-2019, 06:31 PM)Binski Wrote: Personally, I'm now just not acknowledging story changes or scripted situations anymore. Unless we can get a patch in between 'episodes' to set things up for faction conflicts to be more executable in game, other than scripting backdrops. With no achievable goals and no way to really challenge over territory, situations like Omega-49 are just hollow now. The common world here makes so much sense its better just to not look up.
If you all together just ignored a certain change that wasn't something like a subjective name change then maybe it could work. Like a story strike. A lore boycott.
For people like me it means less people with any significant reason to get involved or do anything around the story. Especially where there is so much potential for more. Things need to go back to the concept of using the ongoing story, events and changes to generate activity, to entice players to utilize their resources to the best of their ability to score victories and exert change. Usually that meant players would clump together, populate factions, work on collective goals. We need more real time collective goals, it means more stuff to do, and activity that drives the story.
(12-21-2019, 06:40 PM)Thunderer Wrote:
(12-21-2019, 06:31 PM)Binski Wrote: Just when I was thinking unscripted stuff still happens here, Bret vs Coalition turns out to be cooked up. Too bad it will just be mindless pvp and no real way for any measurable war to happen. Neither side has anything to risk, I say why bother log for scripted situations at all?
Hey! @conmann35 and I worked for that! We knew what was going to happen and assumed that it would be ignored or criticized if it was done by devs, so we tried to do it before them ourselves, and now you say this despite our work...
Alright fair enough, but its still artificial. But if the factions involved want to do that its up to them. The situation would be more intersting as a live scenario though. The problem is Bretonia would have to take a risk in order to also risk some gain! Too bad Stirling isn't like a POB and can't be attacked/defended in real time, or that there aren't a few other static caps around the system to be attacked/defended to maintain the claim on the system and planet. The same could be done in Coalition territory, give more to do on those 'punitive expeditions'. But maybe they'd be keeping you guys too busy in Omega-49 defending the 'frontier'?! Let other factions get invovled to join sides and see how it all goes! That would generate activity. Same goes for Aquintaine, or smaller areas like Aland shipyard vicinity. If we had a system using mortal npc bases for 'king of the hill' style scenarios, factions would just make moves and counter moves, and actually play against each other when it comes to their in game goals. That would be actually...exciting! Then just wait for the headlines to roll in!
System renaming like that is one of the biggest retardation that is happening. Putting new name is insignificant but removing old name is significant piss and shit on long lasting cartography inRP and long lasting community as a whole ooRPly.
(12-21-2019, 09:25 PM)SnakThree Wrote: System renaming like that is one of the biggest flower that is happening. Putting new name is insignificant but removing old name is significant piss and ***** on long lasting cartography inRP and long lasting community as a whole ooRPly.
@Binski Both the SCRA and the BAF wanted to go at the other's throat ooRP, the problem was there was no RP reason for that. The Coalition was inRP content because they got a piece of land for free with the Sydney Accords, Bretonia was content because it wouldn't be disturbed by the Coalition while it's still weak. Everyone wanted war ooRP, but inRP there was no reason for it, and then Con had this idea of a Coalition coup, which seems to have actually worked. We were told earlier by the devs that the SCRA and the BAF were absolutely going to war, but since we knew the devs haven't shown awesome skill at starting wars excitingly so far, we decided to do it ourselves.
Think it went okay?
PS:
(12-21-2019, 07:59 PM)Durandal Wrote: 49 is Exeter, a dev chosen name.
3 is Nottingham, which was voted on in by the BAF|
Yes, sorry, my mistake. And 3 was indeed voted on by the BAF. I made the proposal myself, actually. It was 8 votes for Nottingham, 7 for New Zealand, 1 for Sherwood, 1 for Gibraltar. Bombay and Snowdown got no votes.
(12-21-2019, 09:46 PM)Thunderer Wrote: The Coalition was inRP content because they got a piece of land for free with the Sydney Accords, Bretonia was content because it wouldn't be disturbed by the Coalition while it's still weak.
IRP if not Coalition there wouldn't be 2 million of soldiers.
Precisely, which is why Bretonia was content and had no reason to declare war. It wasn't easy to find a reason, and it was the faction leader of the Coalition who came up with one, not a Bretonian player. Kudos to @conmann35 for the good RP.