(03-23-2019, 05:39 PM)JonasHudson Wrote: Why are people so afraid to push the devs for a BATTLE SYSTEM, so if you do have more or better players, it shows, as it should.
Look man your proposal doesn't solve the problem that's discussed and in addition creates even more. You're wrong, it's not the faction with more and/or better players who should win. Those are ooRP numbers. Making them the only factors when it comes to determining a win or lose in a roleplay environment causes a lot of trouble.
I fully understand the players who want to take part in the story development, but I also understand the developers who tell the story, because once a storyline is written, it is often hard to squeeze in story development done by the players. The devs lack an immediate platform for communication with the players and the players lack understanding for the fact that not everything they imagine is compatible with the planned storyline.
The point is at least its a start, and something to work with. My main point on that is still, that if the server were being run right, the largest factions inrp would be the largest oorp as well. Besides not every faction has ZOI against all others.
we shouldnt have to live the disconnect and assume whatever we're doing is pointless or wrong.
I never knew why its seen as a story to tell by a designated person. in an open ended game, it can write itself. bottom line, we need systems both in game and on forum to govern large moves. something the players can access and the devs can see all of whats happnening, and the players can see what has been brought to the table.
Too much requires dev permission or dev negotiation or dev management.
What would the end of the world be if for the Aland situation, there would have to have been even an NEMP attack, or simpy set an HP bar and let sides fight over it for a day. Honestly if we cant do that by now, its gotta be for lack of desire to go outside the box, not because there's an actual reason.
If its tooooo hard for those events, let NEMP's be the balance tipper. I mean there could have been something simple and realistic rather than an elaborate story.
And sorry but Durandal's argument that we should basically kinda give up hope on caring for the details of changes (and only live in the moment) isn't what I'd be hoping the lead developer of a game like this would be sayin. There's literally no reason we can't be having WEEKLY npc base sieges in NL, and everwhere there is conflict. The OF's can hold the reigns to make sure its only getting applied as needed. Let an OF designate a target station for siege. See how this could work? In Aland Shipyard's case, if we allowed OF's at war designate 1 enemy target a week (probably most reasonable), we could justify big changes and everyone would have the chance at least to participate. Things here do not need to be pre scripted, devs just need to think differntly and establish systems to help them keep it a fast and easy process. To do that, it would have to be tried!
Heck even open up the same target for a week and average out the damage to determine a winner etc. Let people attack in real time a target of value. The more we do this and leave it open to have real effect, the value fought over entices players to get more involved over time.
Also in Aland's case, for a house like Bretonia to pull attention away from other things, that would count as perhaps their weekly siege attempt (which pulls away from a chance to move in NL etc). MRG might use its one attempt to make a gain in NL or establish itself in Cambridge, BUT what if then the Council uses its one siege target to throw them off? See how all that would undoubtedly lead to good story to tell, and even if no targets are destroyed or captured, we also have a reason why the lines didnt change, and it wont seem like stagnation.
Niether Aland nor Gran Canaria even had a SUPPLY event. Could have had to do like 10 freighter runs of marines within 1 hour to call them ,'captured'. Make a mini game of it, so defenders can try to deter and make you take too long, So if you couldnt get your minimum in that hour (the actual assault) then you'd have to start over. This prevents an inevitable win by the attackers who would need to get in there in the timeframe instead of just waiting it out.
Sadly I see many places we could take in game action to act out these conflicts. Do devs really want to avoid the dissonance, or do they want the place running smoothly? Is the refusal to do things the other way come down on simply not wanting to let go of personal story control? I believe more can be player driven, devs should really only have to step in to fill the blanks. It used to be like that more in the past, now those blank spaces to fill have gotten pretty wide.
Take Leeds for example. It seems to me that for a long time its like it was being killed, but not openly, through pier pressure. It wasn't and isn't that players don't want to or that inrp among the billions on Leeds there would be no will to keep fighting, it seems more like players were afraid to anger someone else's story, when it shouldn't be like that. Most seemed to assume trying would be pointless, or perhaps are afraid of angering someone in charge. the point is to ensure a reason for it to be there in the future, and I wonder what people might do when we find out how the war ends. Will it be necessary? or arbitratily squashed?
Also there is the small fact that:
- ALG, IMG got -rephack due to the fight with Bret Gov and their RHA alliance: This is a player driven consequence, a direct result of the in game RP
- Aland was taken over by Bret Gov despite not a single Bret ship coming close to it: This is Story dev forced, "part of the bigger picture"
and not the result of in game RP.
This gentlemen is bias & hypocrisy in their truest forms.