As far as smuggling goes, I agree. I already mentioned that it would be prudent to have some backdoor entry points for smugglers to offload their contraband so that the situation you mentioned won't happen.
But to the rest of what you said there, I have to say no. While I somewhat can understand that for gameplay reasons you want things to be homogenised and fair and equal for all, but it just wouldn't make sense for a pirate to harass you right outside of Manhattan without getting blasted instantly by the law enforcement patrols or a corporate ship to fly unmolested around Crete's orbit.
(06-11-2020, 10:12 PM)Archaetherial Wrote: As far as smuggling goes, I agree. I already mentioned that it would be prudent to have some backdoor entry points for smugglers to offload their contraband so that the situation you mentioned won't happen.
But to the rest of what you said there, I have to say no. While I somewhat can understand that for gameplay reasons you want things to be homogenised and fair and equal for all, but it just wouldn't make sense for a pirate to harass you right outside of Manhattan without getting blasted instantly by the law enforcement patrols or a corporate ship to fly unmolested around Crete's orbit.
It might not be fair, but it shouldn't be.
Yes, the law enforcement patrols that I said you assumed are omnipresent. You denied that assumption, and now you are carrying it out full. Hypocrite.
You also missed the nuance where I want there to be danger, but I don't want there to be an imminent guarantee of death.
Thanks for strawmanning my entire argument. I'm talking about decreasing the disparity, not making it a completely equal. If you're going to ignore everything I say, why bother responding at all?
A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.
(06-11-2020, 09:51 PM)Grumblesaur Wrote: And why shouldn't they happen there? What is so intrinsically bad about having a big fight in a planet's orbit? The owners of the planet and their friendlies already have the benefit of being able to dock to escape a blue message. They already know that reinforcements will be able to undock straight away. The pulse weapons flying from stations and docking rings are already a significant advantage. Why do we need super strength NPCs there too? All that does is take the difficult and foolhardy and make them intractable, and at times, even impossible.
Because it takes out immersion if a pirate can just walk up with his loaded cruiser to the most guarded place in the House and start shooting without any consequence. It's the equivalent of me driving a tank into the White House and demanding to "duel" the President. Same thing for Navy to walk into a pirate stronghold.
(06-11-2020, 09:51 PM)Grumblesaur Wrote: The strength of NPCs reinforces our ideas about the power projection of factions, and the disparity between small, usually unlawful factions, and large, usually lawful factions has been on an upward climb since I first played Discovery. This disparity is not just a lore thing, it's a gameplay thing too. And we as a community love to call it "realistic" when being a law-abiding citizen or a kickass Navy ace is the easy mode and being a dirty, scummy criminal on the run is hard mode. But this "realism" only comes from the assumption that lawful factions are omnipresent and omnipotent, or nearly so.
This seems to me more like a perception / faction balance problem. Of course players will flock to the "easy mode" when alternative is
slow grind with bad trade routes
always being out-gunned because lawfuls have easier access to caps due to first point
can't really do anything as an unlawful to change the state of the game. Shoot a lawful ? He'll just respawn in an hour and be back to hunt me. At least if I play lawful and stop a smuggler / pirate I can be happy I saved some poor soul getting robbed / denied the smuggler his credits.
(06-11-2020, 09:51 PM)Grumblesaur Wrote: As things are, there's no reason for lawful players to patrol, that is, seek targets for interaction, if all of their stations and planets are strongholds. The role of establishing system security that they could be playing is obviated by NPC gunboat patrols with CDs and full-power weapons. High-level VHFs that are able to swarm and overwhelm even well-equipped player vessels. Why bother to go even sweeping the trade lanes when any threats can get sweeped up or scared off by an NPC patrol? Why bother going out to engage anything when you can wait for a distress call and go out to drag the fight to the nearest base for the support of its defenses? These may be "realistic" actions, but they don't produce interesting gameplay.
(Never mind the hard counter to smuggling that is "sit at the sellpoint with /nodock and a cruise disruptor ready, but that's another thread. Nevertheless, it is an expression of the belief that lawful powers have, or should have, infallible security technology.)
But that has more to do with the planets and stations being indestructible and smugglers being actually a bit hard to locate / catch? Why would I patrol anywhere when I can just wait for the smugglers / pirates to come to me to sell or gank. If anything the players should actually be taking advantage of NPCs disrupting players as a force multiplier / diversion so they can pirate / smuggle easier... Agreed on the smuggling point, but that's a discussion for another time
(06-11-2020, 09:51 PM)Grumblesaur Wrote: Furthermore, the role of pirates and terrorists actually being able to antagonize lawful installations is taken away. In the vanilla campaign, we see a flight of Bloodhounds harassing Pueblo, and damaging it severely. Nowadays it's almost considered suicidal (and often OoRP, by some players) for a pirate (in a much better ship than a Bloodhound, mind you) to be anywhere near a lawful-aligned object that isn't just a trade lane ring.
Same as above, no point in "harassing" a lawful installation when you can't actually do anything to it. Ok, maybe a POB, but POBs currently are a little more than private garages for rich players.
(06-11-2020, 09:51 PM)Grumblesaur Wrote: There are fewer ways for unlawfuls to force an interaction because of the NPC concentration near lawful installations, and the only reason this is the case is because so many people believe that's the way it should be. But why should pirates and smugglers in lawful zones (or in your reverse case, lawful traders or navy scouts in lawless zones) need to assume not only all of the player and topological risks and consequences, but be subject to harassment by NPCs as well?
When players are present, their power projection is felt. When they are absent, they have left a hole. NPCs do not have to fill that hole.
Where you see harassment, I see immersion. Though in principle I'd agree the trade lanes should be less guarded, but the current NPC trade lane patrols are usually more annoyance than danger.
Anyway perhaps the devs should look into alternative solutions. It's a stretch but IIRC when you start a mission everything but the mission objectives turn neutral to you. If you could tie that into a console command you could "pause" the NPCs annoying you during interactions.
Another option could be to duplicate all factions into "neutral" version so they only respond to hostilities when engaged (maybe you can add cargo scanning back to them to activate the hostile mode if a player is smuggling). But as I seem to remember there is a faction number limit ?
(06-11-2020, 09:51 PM)Grumblesaur Wrote: And why shouldn't they happen there? What is so intrinsically bad about having a big fight in a planet's orbit? The owners of the planet and their friendlies already have the benefit of being able to dock to escape a blue message. They already know that reinforcements will be able to undock straight away. The pulse weapons flying from stations and docking rings are already a significant advantage. Why do we need super strength NPCs there too? All that does is take the difficult and foolhardy and make them intractable, and at times, even impossible.
Yes big battles should be able to happen there but they are the most populated areas in the world. This is also arguing that human players should be able to go camp Nomad bases without any opposition under the argument it is to promote rp.
(06-11-2020, 09:51 PM)Grumblesaur Wrote: As things are, there's no reason for lawful players to patrol, that is, seek targets for interaction, if all of their stations and planets are strongholds. The role of establishing system security that they could be playing is obviated by NPC gunboat patrols with CDs and full-power weapons. High-level VHFs that are able to swarm and overwhelm even well-equipped player vessels. Why bother to go even sweeping the trade lanes when any threats can get sweeped up or scared off by an NPC patrol? Why bother going out to engage anything when you can wait for a distress call and go out to drag the fight to the nearest base for the support of its defenses? These may be "realistic" actions, but they don't produce interesting gameplay.
Yes but the answer the entire time to this was to put in mortal NPC bases for players to protect, that would result in lost territory or access if lost in battle. That would give players on both sides plenty to do, all we needed was a system to work out what is fair or not. But that would give reasons to get out and secure areas, wouldn't it? Imagine if to maintain control of a junction, a house needed to maintain a battleship cap in that area that could be sieged in real time like a POB? The answer was not to pull npc's but add more stuff to do in the game and not be afraid to give it value like territory lost (even temporarily, or with plenty of options for counter attacks/moves).
(06-11-2020, 09:51 PM)Grumblesaur Wrote: Furthermore, the role of pirates and terrorists actually being able to antagonize lawful installations is taken away. In the vanilla campaign, we see a flight of Bloodhounds harassing Pueblo, and damaging it severely. Nowadays it's almost considered suicidal (and often OoRP, by some players) for a pirate (in a much better ship than a Bloodhound, mind you) to be anywhere near a lawful-aligned object that isn't just a trade lane ring.
Ah they can't antagonize lawful installations anyways. What can they do? Camp outside safe zones and taunt? That's what is so important to do without NPC's bothering us? One day folks in charge will realize we just needed bases that matter to protect/attack to keep everyone busy. Even if that did happen, we'd still need to deal with npc spawns near populated junctions. Thats the advantage you get from it being home territory. When players are low, they'd come in handy for bases that built in those areas for that very reason.
(06-11-2020, 10:16 PM)LuckyOne Wrote: Because it takes out immersion if a pirate can just walk up with his loaded cruiser to the most guarded place in the House and start shooting without any consequence. It's the equivalent of me driving a tank into the White House and demanding to "duel" the President. Same thing for Navy to walk into a pirate stronghold.
Frame challenge:
1. What about immersion is intrinsically valuable? Or reprhased, why is it so necessary for a game to engulf the player?
2. Immersion is not the same as realism. You can be immersed in (that is, wholly preoccupied and engaged with) a game without that game being realistic. People get immersed in Tetris. People could be immersed in Disco if a pirate cruiser wandered up to you and picked a fight in Manhattan orbit. The resulting fight would probably be very preoccupying and engaging. It just wouldn't be realistic.
3. Like @Archaetherial, you are simplifying my argument to make it easier to attack. I'm not talking about pirates and smugglers taking over the game and removing all threatening NPCs, but the fact that you think any adjustment to the balance of power in favor of unlawfuls at all is indicative of the exact cancerous mindset of "lawfuls should be easy to play and pirates should be hard to play" that has gotten us to where we are in the first place.
A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.
What I'm getting out of this is that the new server is so beefy (or as the kids say, "chad") that the number of NPCs is actually where it should have been in the first place, and that I need to go back and rewrite a chunk of PvEController to handle the intended NPC count under standard load.
(06-11-2020, 05:42 PM)Relation-Ship Wrote:
Oops. We might have to tone down the raw credit output of patrol NPCs until I can get this sorted out properly.
1. What about immersion is intrinsically valuable? Or reprhased, why is it so necessary for a game to engulf the player?
Well if your game is about a universe grounded in our dimension / world it better be immersive if you want people to actually be interested in it, and stick to it. It is exactly the immersive universe with consistent lore that attracts people to Freelancer to this day.
(06-11-2020, 10:27 PM)Grumblesaur Wrote: 2. Immersion is not the same as realism. You can be immersed in (that is, wholly preoccupied and engaged with) a game without that game being realistic. People get immersed in Tetris. People could be immersed in Disco if a pirate cruiser wandered up to you and picked a fight in Manhattan orbit. The resulting fight would probably be very preoccupying and engaging. It just wouldn't be realistic.
I never did say immersion is the same as realism. Talking about realism in a universe as comically built as Freelancer's is a moot point.
But it is about suspension of disbelief. We do have a couple of reference points from the single player game of how the life of an unlawful should be in the Freelancer universe (hint: hard). Namely the mission where Juni and Trent flee Manhattan and the period of being chased / harassed by Bounty Hunters wherever you go that comes after.
(06-11-2020, 10:27 PM)Grumblesaur Wrote: 3. Like @Archaetherial, you are simplifying my argument to make it easier to attack. I'm not talking about pirates and smugglers taking over the game and removing all threatening NPCs, but the fact that you think any adjustment to the balance of power in favor of unlawfuls at all is indicative of the exact cancerous mindset of "lawfuls should be easy to play and pirates should be hard to play" that has gotten us to where we are in the first place.
You are twisting my words now. Yes, I started my example with a pirate flying his cruiser into the center of a House but immediately followed it with an equal counter-point of Navy patrol venturing into lawless territory. The result should be the same: trespassers end up dead unless they significantly outnumber the NPCs.
If you had bothered to read my post to the end maybe you would have noticed I proposed some alternative solutions that could be looked into too...
Oh, and another point that might be looked into. If a NPC base is disabled, will the patrol NPCs continue to spawn on it?
Again, you are presuming too much and rolling out with unfounded accusations and insults, Grumblesaur.
If this is how you conduct discussions then I am afraid I will have to end this one soon, because I will not stand for that much longer.
Show some respect.
You are yet again mistaken. I pointed out your assumption is wrong, because it was wrong. I do not think law enforcement should be omnipresent. They should however maintain heavy presence in certain central areas and those are the areas I was talking about.
I will correct myself and clarify that you do not want to make it completely equal, but to decrease the disparity.
It was not an attempt at strawmanning your entire argument, but an extrapolation and maybe certain oversimplification of your stance. I stand corrected.
What difference does it make, though?
I agree with that disparity and believe it is logical, valid and should remain.
Unlawfuls should have a hard time in central, heavy traffic areas of House space. They should be harrassed by NPCs.
Also, what I omitted in my previous post despite you finishing with it and emboldening it. I think NPCs should serve precisely that reason to fill out that power vacuum that you claim they don't have to fill.
And last, but not least, why are you treating this discussion like a fight and attempt to undermine people with different opinions than your own?
You present certain views and I present others. I'm not making pitiful attempts at undermining the logic of your arguments and forcing accusations of strawmanning or hypocrisy like you are trying to do. I simply disagree.