Government Roleplay And Transport Rework Feedback

[Antonio]

I'm writing this as a concerned community member rather than a developer.

With the launch of update 5.2, several new POB-buildable ships were introduced, including two transports: the Bulwark and the Longhorn. These ships follow the recent balance theme, as part of a transport rework that began a year ago with the Amaterasu and Frigate changes in update 5.0 and continued with the Bustard, Dunlin, Hegemon, and others. The purpose of this rework is to make transports more comparable to combat ships of similar size (e.g., a battletransport is roughly the size of a battlecruiser and thus has comparable stats), while ensuring they don’t outperform actual combat ships. Why? Because throughout Discovery’s history, particularly in the age of new balance, transports would auto-lose to any competent combat ship with a viable loadout. The goal, then, is to make transports viable in PvP. However, this rework has led to these transports gaining significant firepower, prompting governments to begin banning or restricting them due to their new classification as capital ships. This, unfortunately, penalizes players who want to fly these transports and overlooks long-term solutions.

The first obvious issue is that, given the balance team’s stance on the transport rework, all other transports will eventually receive similar adjustments. 5k transports might receive battlecruiser weapons, battletransports might receive BC or cruiser weapons, and so on. This means governments would either need to ban or restrict all transports - a daunting task to say the least - or review and adjust the inRP sanctions placed on these ships before the situation escalates. The Bulwark and Longhorn were merely the first two. It is unprecedented for transports to have such high firepower, which is why I understand the initial reaction can be more volatile. This is exactly why I'd like to have a community discussion on this matter.

The second issue is that these restrictions negatively impact player roleplay, resulting in an overall net loss for the community. Consider the example of Bristol’s Bulwark, the new 4300 cargo heavy explorer. Bristol builds a new shipyard on their PoB, hauls materials, and begins constructing the ships. As word spreads, governments notice the Bulwark’s battlecruiser-level firepower and impose restrictions on it (in Kusari, Liberty, and Rheinland, for instance). Suddenly, Bristol, a minor lawful corporate faction, is no longer allowed to use the ship in the primary territories where it operates unless it’s willing to risk fines, getting shot, or eventually being rephacked hostile. This could also mean its PoBs might face sieges from these houses, further discouraging Bristol from using or building the Bulwark.

Bristol player base gets discouraged, presented with two options: either only fly the Bulwark in border and independent worlds, relying on jump drives, or go against their faction’s lore and eventually become hostile with the houses as they get caught more often. The first option is difficult, given Bristol’s primary operations being in Bering and Galileo, while the second is unappealing, given all the prior invested roleplay and having to do a 180. Neither option is attractive, which explains Bristol’s recent inRP post. This post was essentially a cry for help, expressing the lack of motivation to build or roleplay around the Bulwark. And I get them.

Now, sure, Bristol could wait for governments to respond to their license requests. Worst case they wait about a month, and pay the required fees to use the ship. That in itself sucks, because governments coupled with staff supervision tend to take very long to reply to requests, but long term it's not that big of an issue. However, this still doesn’t address the future of transports as a whole. Will every faction or ship need to register each transport they own in every house? This would not only create an overwhelming amount of paperwork for the requesting players but also be unfeasible for the governments themselves. My proposal, then, is to recognize that while these new transports indeed have impressive firepower, they are still transports and have deliberate disadvantages due to their cargo size. Therefore, they shouldn’t need restrictions for the general, neutral, law-abiding population. While you can make the restrictions make sense inRP, they ultimately lead to unnecessary frustration and administrative nightmare for the player base overall. This can also be staff-enforced, but honestly it's healthier if it's government (player)-enforced, because having to supervise governments even more isn't going to help the already-overburdened mods and admins.

---

SNAC Montage Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Thruster SNAC