[Theoretical] Official Faction Challenge System

[Enkidu]

This just needs one thing - Opposing Factions leadership closely communicating and oorp cooperating, coming together for the greater good of their respective factions, house and mutual gain. Simples!

As a veteran OFL, whilst what your suggesting would be good, it's not simple. it requires over 100+ hours of time investment which could otherwise be used playing the game.

---

THE SYNDIC LEAGUES
(A co-operative of Rheinland's Shipping Unions, retired from a life of piracy.)

Information | Recruitment | Message Dump |
Feedback | Diplomatic channel

(Links pending redevelopment).

[LuckyOne]

This just needs one thing - Opposing Factions leadership closely communicating and oorp cooperating, coming together for the greater good of their respective factions, house and mutual gain. Simples!

The hardest thing in the world is getting people to agree on an opinion. The second hardest is getting them to actually cooperate. Humans have spent hundreds of thousands of years perfecting the skill, and it still happens only when both sides agree they are getting something worthwhile out of it.

Having a neutral, non biased third party, a.k.a the rules and people / mechanics enforcing them happens to be a much easier way of getting people to behave (even if the initial time/effort investment needed is comparatively higher)

[Strichev]

I have to say that I was at first extremely opposed to the idea, almost in a reflexive sort of way. Nevertheless, I did read through all the walls of text Binski posted, as well as most of the replies. After thinking about this for a few days I am no longer strictly against the proposal. To the contrary, I think that this is an idea well worth considering. Several considerations arise, though. The majority of things I came up with have already been posted, but because this is such a hot topic I can't just stand back and say nothing.

We need to be open to at least testing this idea and I agree with Relation-Ship. Doing this without involving the staff, or implementing any new mechanics should be doable. The proposed system needs to be fine tuned to prevent abuse and to correspond with the established lore, while also not being overly bureaucratic or needlessly complex. Ignoring the problems with complexity and bureaucracy, I can see a few ways to improve upon the basic concept to make it more lore-friendly. These are not well thought out, but whatever.

• Only bases belonging to a faction whose ID logged a comparable number of hours to the aggressors' ID should be fair targets. These hours could be counted for all ships at first and inside the contested system once the siege starts. The reason for counting hours inside the contested region is to give the defending faction an option to still play their favorite characters but without having to deal with the siege. In doing so we would use the desire to win to promote sportsmanship; winning by driving the opposition from the server would not be possible. A problem could be the possibility to 'win' by not playing, still, a single station could switch hands even if the opposition stopped logging after losing the first couple of fights. Such a limitation would provide balancing and prevent unpopular factions from becoming victims. Players from the larger faction would have an incentive to balance the fight and keep it fun for both sides. Indeed, even dead factions should see some 'fake' players flying with their IDs - if only to pump up the logged hours in order to open up the bases to siege. I believe such fake activity could be the core around which genuine activity forms as the players would still have to put up the appearance of proper RP.
  
  
  
• The cost of besieging a base should depend on the distance from the attacking faction's home-system.
  
  
  
• Sieges could only take place during certain hours, admittedly to the detriment of players from some time zones.
  
  
  
• Kill ratios should count towards something, perhaps increasing the cost of the next attack or outright automatically giving the initiative to the other party.
  
  

Clearly this system cannot be implemented on the whole server at once. It also needs to be limited in scope to certain agreed upon regions. There needs to be a way to limit the consequences of having a faction unpopular with players but strong in-RP. In general the system and the outcomes it generates need to be kept within what is reasonable based on lore and RP. In other words, this system needs to conform to the inner logic of Freelancer universe, else we risk extreme immersion breaking events taking place due to player grudges or just luck. The whole RP universe would then collapse under the resulting inconsistencies. This, I believe, is what drives the majority of negative comments. (Apart from the admittedly combative posture Binski decided to take).

[Binski]

We need to be open to at least testing this idea and I agree with Relation-Ship. Doing this without involving the staff, or implementing any new mechanics should be doable. The proposed system needs to be fine tuned to prevent abuse and to correspond with the established lore, while also not being overly bureaucratic or needlessly complex. Ignoring the problems with complexity and bureaucracy, I can see a few ways to improve upon the basic concept to make it more lore-friendly. These are not well thought out, but whatever.

Glad to have support! On this point though I can only say that I would prefer there be a staff overseen system. A great deal still does and can happen only on the part of the players. As far as impacting lore goes, if we go by limiting moves to within ZOI and/or bordering ZOI, a faction will really only be physically impacting its normal zone anyways. So if your faction can engage a ship or POB based on IFF without demands, an NPC base of an engageable IFF would be fair game as well.

• [b]Only bases belonging to a faction whose ID logged a comparable number of hours to the aggressors' ID should be fair targets.

I see it this way, if we do that then the best way to protect your stations is to not log at all. Instead if we give OF's the right to act, places at risk can be defended by anyone allied and especially Freelancers. It will ultimately provoke a situation where people will know they must rally under a faction to get stuff done. There will be other ways to mitigate how fast change happens. Weaker factions can be helped by independents. At some point we'll just see what happens. If it were seriously considered we could start going over scenarios in more depth.

The cost of besieging a base should depend on the distance from the attacking faction's home-system.

Well it doesn't allow for crusades. Unless a house were to have its diplomacy to another house or entity changed, engagements would be limited to ZOI. I've set the costs based on importance of the stations. Border stations being weakest and least significant are cheapest to attack. Shipyards and planets are the most expensive.

Sieges could only take place during certain hours, admittedly to the detriment of players from some time zones.

These would be really strong bases, personally I would prefer to keep it 24/7. Not every siege must be a wave of an armada. It can be trickle in and out activity like raids with small groups to score damage as long as you could before being taken out. If repairable like POB's, supply ships could be running supplies any time of day. This is what bolsters activity outside of peak hours, which in turn makes logging on during those hours better, which gets more people online all around the clock.

Kill ratios should count towards something, perhaps increasing the cost of the next attack or outright automatically giving the initiative to the other party.

I suppose kill counts for capitals could count towards something. But in this system's case, they'll already count big time. To make a siege happen ultimately caps will be the best path to success. To take them out fastest requires other caps. Kills will give bounties, and as long as one side can keep the other's caps at bay, the value of cap kills will have a literal impact.

Clearly this system cannot be implemented on the whole server at once. It also needs to be limited in scope to certain agreed upon regions. There needs to be a way to limit the consequences of having a faction unpopular with players but strong in-RP. In general the system and the outcomes it generates need to be kept within what is reasonable based on lore and RP. In other words, this system needs to conform to the inner logic of Freelancer universe, else we risk extreme immersion breaking events taking place due to player grudges or just luck. The whole RP universe would then collapse under the resulting inconsistencies. This, I believe, is what drives the majority of negative comments. (Apart from the admittedly combative posture Binski decided to take).

Ah but that's the thing, factions that have the best and most capabilities will become the most popular, meaning the strongest factions inrp will become the strongest oorp. In the case of the 4 Houses + Gallia, the presence of unlawfuls that can actually threaten lawful bases and routes will mean if anyone is actually trying to attack their bases, there will undoubtedly be opportunities in house military factions. The only factions to significantly threaten the houses and their corps not during war time are only a few unlawful factions.

The rest are smaller. They could do sieges but have lesser chances. Xenos or GC could still try to attack places, even if just to cause trouble, make a big gamble etc. The way its set up is, with a real change at stake, and a good heads up in the form of preparation RP (plus attack declaration), I believe most sieges will be balanced, and the more people try at any time, the harder they might actually get. Again, not knowing exactly how it will all work out is part of the fun! And I firmly believe that its set up well to allow for counter challenges to make sure no one feels like a loss has them stuck forever.

But, yes, it will mean that eventually the faction with less weight may be diminished a bit. After some time some changes may be permanent, some may always change back and forth regularly. I don't see any of it as likely to be out of lore, we can just limit it to ZOI, maybe make exceptions for OC's and limit them from sieging inside the houses, etc. We can make capital planets exempt, and maybe one 'command' or HQ station per faction. Personally though I doubt most factions will ever end up in that bad of shape. Any that do take losses will always have a bit of purpose, and create some purpose in trying to retake those bases. Also remember that once a base is taken by one faction, it may open it up to be taken by a competitor. Not all unlawfuls may get along. (Or it opens it up to another faction that couldn't attack it before. If OC's took Java, then anyone enemy to the OC's but not the IMG could then attack Java to capture it themselves. Someone else entirely could wind up in control of it, or IMG may lost control for a few weeks/months before winning a siege to retake it).

And to me, people look in on my threads and see me swinging the sword and shield against the trolls, and think that I'm the combative one!

[mm33dd]

Kinda good idea. But I like the game the way it is.

[Czechmate]

You don't get it Binsky - this would only work and contribute to the game if both factions agreed on a base being contested. Othewrise it would kill houses and bring even more cancer and hate to the game as was proven many many times in the past with sieges.

And for that like I said - a mechanic already exists - go out and use it.

[Binski]

You don't get it Binsky - this would only work and contribute to the game if both factions agreed on a base being contested. Othewrise it would kill houses and bring even more cancer and hate to the game as was proven many many times in the past with sieges.

And for that like I said - a mechanic already exists - go out and use it.

Well I'm pretty sure I've put a great deal of thought into this one. If you need consent on both sides then nothing will ever happen. Part of the point is to let factions thrust places into these situations and create a real need to defend it. The situation is the stimuli for action on either side. I really dont see how letting some places change things up commensurate to a huge amount of player effort and coordination would kill the houses more than population shrinking over the course of the next few years. If no one is here to percieve this place in the end, it all goes to waste. Thats killing all of the houses together.

Look at the prices I suggested to get sieges. You really think things will change over night? And like I also said, go right ahead and prove your plan should be the alternative by doing it yourself. I am specifically suggesting a staff executed system to ensure regular functioning of the events and fairness. Everyone will see when a faction has got a siege approved and see attack declarations, etc. This system being separate is exactly what we need to make these changes inrp and make sense. Again, to actually get what we could and should from disco, we need to allow for a bit more.

And no, it wont matter if a few sieges pile up at once. It will come and go. It will mean the place might get busier, and people will learn that there will be good and bad times to take action based on what is going on in the world around them.

I invite anyone and everyone to submit a theoretical scenario regarding likely factions that come to mind and things they might do based on the system in the OP. There would be exceptions in some places but I believe it will work fine server wide, faction actions will already be limited by ZOI, ship class availability, player availability, access to scidata. It would be fine!

[Czechmate]

You don't get it Binsky - this would only work and contribute to the game if both factions agreed on a base being contested. Othewrise it would kill houses and bring even more cancer and hate to the game as was proven many many times in the past with sieges.

And for that like I said - a mechanic already exists - go out and use it.

Well I'm pretty sure I've put a great deal of thought into this one. If you need consent on both sides then nothing will ever happen.

And here is why it's a bad idea - you will be forcing a faction into doing something they don't want and is not fun for them. There will be siege groups that will roll everyone over, and the other side will burn out and lose. People will hate each other. There is zero roleplay going on during a siege, this is a RP server where PVPers are second class citizens anyways, and this would mean pure PvP in game, with just forum RP.

Unless you can find a system where people would willingly want to open their NPC bases up for a siege, this is just pointless.


One way that could work I suppose. Is if the defenders will receive the entirety of Sci-Data if the siege fails. Where both sides will be gamgling on something, not defenders being able to only lose or keep what they had. But either way - this needs to be agreed by both sides

[Binski]

You don't get it Binsky - this would only work and contribute to the game if both factions agreed on a base being contested. Othewrise it would kill houses and bring even more cancer and hate to the game as was proven many many times in the past with sieges.

And for that like I said - a mechanic already exists - go out and use it.

Well I'm pretty sure I've put a great deal of thought into this one. If you need consent on both sides then nothing will ever happen.

And here is why it's a bad idea - you will be forcing a faction into doing something they don't want and is not fun for them. There will be siege groups that will roll everyone over, and the other side will burn out and lose. People will hate each other. There is zero roleplay going on during a siege, this is a RP server where PVPers are second class citizens anyways, and this would mean pure PvP in game, with just forum RP.

Unless you can find a system where people would willingly want to open their NPC bases up for a siege, this is just pointless.


One way that could work I suppose. Is if the defenders will receive the entirety of Sci-Data if the siege fails. Where both sides will be gamgling on something, not defenders being able to only lose or keep what they had. But either way - this needs to be agreed by both sides

I dont think you get the notion bud. Anyone can fill the side of the defenders, making an indie to any faction is easy. We already promote a system where we encourage any action that comes to a faction to provoke people to join. The point will be that small unpopulated factions can be used as something to fight over. And yes at some point there will be a winner one one side. The point is no one will ever want to just get up and get moving, but a siege here and there will provoke people, and especially give freelancers/BHG more work. No faction will be forced to do anything, but have the option to defend their turf.

Its not about agreement between two sides, its about one side making a move, and that will be countered by a variety of factions no doubt. Yet again you're only seeing monsters and worst case scenarios of people hating each other. We can't continue to keep the place only set up to avoid oorp fights. You cant do this stuff without a bit of forced risk, its the same premise that we base the game on, being able to destroy the other player. What you suggest is equal to only being able to pvp other ships if they consent to a fight. What you want defeats the purpose right away.

[Gardarik]

You don't get it Binsky - this would only work and contribute to the game if both factions agreed on a base being contested. Othewrise it would kill houses and bring even more cancer and hate to the game as was proven many many times in the past with sieges.

And for that like I said - a mechanic already exists - go out and use it.

Well I'm pretty sure I've put a great deal of thought into this one. If you need consent on both sides then nothing will ever happen.

And here is why it's a bad idea - you will be forcing a faction into doing something they don't want and is not fun for them. There will be siege groups that will roll everyone over, and the other side will burn out and lose. People will hate each other. There is zero roleplay going on during a siege, this is a RP server where PVPers are second class citizens anyways, and this would mean pure PvP in game, with just forum RP.

Unless you can find a system where people would willingly want to open their NPC bases up for a siege, this is just pointless.


One way that could work I suppose. Is if the defenders will receive the entirety of Sci-Data if the siege fails. Where both sides will be gamgling on something, not defenders being able to only lose or keep what they had. But either way - this needs to be agreed by both sides

I dont think you get the notion bud. Anyone can fill the side of the defenders, making an indie to any faction is easy. We already promote a system where we encourage any action that comes to a faction to provoke people to join. The point will be that small unpopulated factions can be used as something to fight over. And yes at some point there will be a winner one one side. The point is no one will ever want to just get up and get moving, but a siege here and there will provoke people, and especially give freelancers/BHG more work. No faction will be forced to do anything, but have the option to defend their turf.

Its not about agreement between two sides, its about one side making a move, and that will be countered by a variety of factions no doubt. Yet again you're only seeing monsters and worst case scenarios of people hating each other. We can't continue to keep the place only set up to avoid oorp fights. You cant do this stuff without a bit of forced risk, its the same premise that we base the game on, being able to destroy the other player. What you suggest is equal to only being able to pvp other ships if they consent to a fight. What you want defeats the purpose right away.

Have you heard of deduction? Look at the current POB sieging and put pieces of the puzzle together - defenders' side won't magically be filled by Indies. Firstly, there is nothing in for them. Secondly, it is cumbersome and not interesting for the defenders as the attackers have more ways to cheese their way to victory. Thirdly, the population is small and spread around the time zones. Me personally, if some LR would declare a siege on, say, Norfolk - I won't show up for either of the sides for a very trivial reason - I simply don't play in liberty and it will not be interesting to me. And I know a bunch of people with similar preferences.

Also, RtS you provided as examples before are quite simplistic in terms of economy and devoid of diplomacy, mostly focused on tactical control rather than strategic planning. If this kind of system is implemented without political, diplomatic, financial, administrative , technological, etc etc reasoning and gameplay, then it defeats the To purpose of this system you are praising.