What is the community vision for discovery?

[Cannon]

I've been wondering for a long time what the community vision for Discovery is. One source of tension is related to conflicting ideas of role play:

Idea 1: Discovery is built around a mod defining the role play environment. Players play within this somewhat static environment and cannot change it quickly or easily - devs do this. This is a dungeon master style of game where the master sets the rules and boundaries and everybody plays within it.

Idea 2: Discovery is built by the players. Their actions change the role play environment. This means that the actions of some players will definitely hurt other players. For an extreme example, should the outcasts overrun Liberty the LN and Liberty factions will cease to exist. This idea is a kind of mini-EVE.

I believe that Idea 1 is what we do now and have done for a long time. I think many admin decisions are guided by this idea.

Item 2 is rather interesting and we are starting to experiment with it. Things like faction-right 5, in a small way, support this sort of play. Ultimately idea 2 is technically very hard to implement. The devs cannot keep up with the current requests for change much less a totally dynamic role play environment. We'd need something completely automatic and this might be too hard to do.

I suspect many players want idea 2 but don't realise that we use idea 1 thus we have a conflict and many upset people. I do wonder if players are ready for the consequences of idea 2 - i.e. the total destruction of your bases and faction.

So my question of the day: what is the community vision for discovery? Is it idea 1 or 2 or something else?

Your answers may, probably will, influence both developers and admins. Go to it.

EDIT: Just a note, I've invised a few +1 posts.

---

Proud member of "the most paranoid group of people in the community"

Old Avatar #2 | Old Avatar #3

[kingvaillant]

[12:45:53 AM] David - King: MO, 1 is better unless players learn to be reasonable in their RP changes (some want extremely drastic changes)
[12:45:59 AM] David - King: too much "personnal" agendas I believe
[12:46:15 AM] David - King: More consultations between faction leaders and dev would be a good thing
[12:47:25 AM] David - King: ex:
What do you think should happen with the RMvs.Lib war next mod?
Lib leaders and RM leaders reach a consensus, present it to dev, find compromise. The end, everyone is relatively happy.

1.5

---

Director of the Liberty Security Force: Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity

The Amundsen Zone-21 Restrictions

[masternerdguy]

stability is lame. Make the mod as dynamic as possible to keep it fresh and keep people from slacking off.

---

Send the fat kid in to see if its a trap

[Thexare]

I'd favor something in between. In an unrestricted server with rather limited player counts, we can't allow player actions to control everything, but I'd like if a little more were possible and a little more freedom were available and I think there should be room for reasonable player-based developments.


But then I'd also favor a return to the time when the tech chart didn't rule everything and "illegal" ships were handled more often in-RP than by sanctions. So yeah.

[Tenacity]

I'd prefer a mix of the two. There are some things that should not change, because they would have too drastic an effect on the community as a whole. Your example of the outcasts overrunning liberty is one such example. I dont think any faction should ever be forced out of existence, and especially not a major faction like a house military or police group.

Similarly, while progress might be made in the little rebellion wars we have going on (like the mollies vs bretonia, bundschuh vs rheinland, dragons vs kusari, etc. etc.), I dont think that either side should ever really 'win', because it would put an entire faction of players out of the picture.

I do think that players and their RP, both in game and on the forums, should have a bit more of an effect on how things pan out though. I'd like to see the occasional base change ownership if one side does well in planned events, but it would have to be a base that is not critical to the functioning or existence of the original controlling faction. I think that territories should be flexible and ever changing, with each patch the effectiveness of players in pvp events should change what faction controls what space - but once again, it should never put a faction entirely out of the picture.

One such example is what we're doing with the order/keepers/bhg in this recent event - the order lost their homeworld and are having to move. While toledo was a very, very critical planet (and minor an equally critical system) to the order's existence, a new system was added that could serve in the same capacity while allowing the story and game environment to change and progress.

I'd like to see these territorial changes, these alterations of who controls a base or an area, done more often with regards to major wars going on in disco. More events like what we saw with kusari-bretonia, where kusari took over several bretonian bases and even half of a bretonian system. That was a major change that heavily effected many players, but did not stop their faction from playing entirely, and made things more fun for both sides.

---

[Turkish]

I see it more as a combination of #1 and #2.

While we do have a restrictive system in which devs and admins control large aspects of what develops and happens I've always seen their (your) role as being more of a guiding hand. Many factions and players have experienced the ability to create reasonably and with often fun outcomes, while others haven't.

Players have interacted and caused negative and positive outcomes between each other, some have been resolved with character and play, other haven't. So I guess my thoughts culminate to the effect that with our current system admins either should, or do act as a means to prevent one from overstepping into lunacy and unfair (usually).

Or atleast if not entirely that system now, that is what I would like to see in future.

---

I have a fetish for all things Norse.

[BaconSoda]

I've always believed that Discovery is 1. Igiss is the dungeonmaster, and we take our roles, adjusting them to the way the environment evolves. It's been this way for the same reasons we don't make a "perfect" ship and I like it that way.

---

[8:32:45 PM] Dusty Lens: Oh no, let me get that. Hello? Oh it's my grandma. She says to be roleplay.
[12:49:19 AM] Elgatodiablo: You know its nice that you have all that proof and all, Bacon... but I just don't believe you.

[RonG777]

Hmm . . That is a tough question there man in the trash can . . .

Option 2 (Eve style) would be the most realistic approach to the RP here (All actions of players influince the world in which we play in)

However, I personnaly feel that this community is not ready for that drastic of a change in our RP . . I feel that many here hold a higher standard to the level of RP beliefs compaired to differnent MP games out there and that drastic of a change can be devostating . .

I would just cautiously say; "Be carefull what you ask for here" before we dive head first into a change . . .

---

--- " I might not be much help, but by God, I'm all the help you got" ---

EFFIN' ROLEPLAY GUYS ... off to flood we go for that - Hoodlum

[Cannon]

I should add, if you recommend Idea 1.5 could you try to describe what might be changable and not changable.

---

Proud member of "the most paranoid group of people in the community"

Old Avatar #2 | Old Avatar #3

[masternerdguy]

I dont think that either side should ever really 'win', because it would put an entire faction of players out of the picture.

so? they clearly were the weaker faction.

---

Send the fat kid in to see if its a trap