+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Role-Playing (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Forum: Official Player Factions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=60)
+---- Forum: Inter-House (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=69)
+----- Forum: A/)- Technocracy of Auxo (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=311)
+----- Thread: Technocracy of Auxo - Feedback (/showthread.php?tid=142072)
RE: A/) - Feedback - Emperor Tekagi - 05-04-2018
I don't know how you ever expect an interaction to happen when you log 4 bombers and a dread right when I show up around Cortez.
Somehow kills the drive to stay around and have more interaction with Auxesia than pews, you know. Well aware outnumbering is not "feedback".
It's just a personal statement that I feel somehow disappointed only by this move already. It gives a rough picture of the way you would have RPed anyways.
Just a bit sad, that's all. Maybe approaching Auxesia after longer to get a picture on the current situation of the faction shouldn't be done using any of my known chars, considering most of them are hostile to Aux, huh. Oh well, hopefully there will be another chance.
RE: A/) - Feedback - Vendetta - 05-04-2018
Hi werdi.
The situation you described is a rather reasonable response when a hostile warship shows up in your territory, you know? Of course we're going to bring things that are made to kill whatever we're encountering. It's pretty clear what to expect, isn't it? A little enemy pressure is to be expected. It wasn't so long ago we had a fleet of Ossies chasing us to Delta in the Omicrons.
The issue however, is not in what we logged when approaching you but rather, your response to it which was immediately negative. You didn't bother to wait for the interaction to pan out and didn't stop to see if it would end in violence or not. 90% of the time, we won't shoot unless provoked into doing so. What provokes us? Running away, for one. Flying a warship in our territory, for two. Having our allies on your tail, three. I mean, the list goes on but is it really so bad to risk getting blown up? You came all that way to interact with us, and ran at the first sign of our arrival. We roll out in force, especially when it's right next door to our home.
Hopefully next time you decide it might be worth taking a risk and potentially having to press the respawn button.
RE: A/) - Feedback - Enkidu - 05-17-2018
Now I'm no longer starving to death and have a clear head, I'd like to apologise for being a prat. I'm not enough of a prat to actually vandalise your ships but I was enough prat to fake it to see you sweat. I projected my current physical and emotional health problems on the situation, which was highly unproductive.
I'm clearheaded and looking after my body and soul again, gave the situation a rethink. I've come to the conclusion that, whilst I wasn't roleplaying Nesrin to the best of her abillities, I had logged in primarily to RP with you and help you out with patrolling the system as a path to RPing the character back into Auxesia, potentially. I doubt that's going to be on the table now; I showed my unhealthy side off with all flags flying colours like I'm Nelson at Trafalgar. I'm going to apologise for inflicting you with my psychosis and ruining your fun. That's on me. As was nearly doing something bannable. Contemplating switching your shared gunboat onto a shared ALG account that Karst had forgotten I had access to, then camera-shipping it as it didn't appear to be shiplocked, then donating the revenue to the Order| bank (I've deleted my access to both the gunboat and the transport shared), is the definition of moronic problem childishness. Equally annoying is that I ruined any chance of having a relatively nice game of CK2 with an interesting person I'd just met. Drat, and double drat. I have no-one but myself to blame, which I did, excessively, before realising two and a half weeks on a starvation diet is a great way to die. Anorexia makes devils of us.
I realise why I got mad, and that there was some sane reasons for why I lost it, despite the fact that I lost it was totally insane. Bear with me.
- The AI was totally in their rights to shoot me. They shot at me without any prefacing RP and took me down to half hull, then didn't stop firing. I had to steer out of the angle of the killshot, interrupting the RP I was attempting to type to him. I received no PM that he was testing his weapons, or anything like that. I do appreciate the quirkiness of the situation, but it's a bit absurd. Nesrin had been RP'd as essentially a representative for Gammu with the blessing of two former AI official factions. It's a bit like if Angela Corino was potshotted by a Nomad cruiser without any context, then the Church of Sirius came along and shot at her when she didn't stop shooting back. It's a bit 'eh'. Especially as I logged under the pretext of wanting to participate in the RP that both groups seemed to be there for. Suddenly I was the bad guy? Eh?
- So I fired back. I didn't necessarily expect to kill the cruiser; it was what Nesrin would have done under the circumstances.
- You told me to stop firing, but I didn't have any indicator that he stopped firing. I did halt movement again and he shot at me again. I assumed at the time you were screwing with me because I was in the discord with you.
- You shot at me so I turned back and fired on you, fired a single nova into the Reaper VHF's shield to get the message across, then shield ran, expecting you'd cease fire as I wasn't going after the cruiser. When I realised you were genuinely trying to kill the character I wondered if I could just go off seperately and RP with the cruiser. You kicked me out of group so I started to RP with the cruiser and grouped up with it, sat next to it, adopted a non-threatening stance. I was mid-line through when both you guys shot me and the cruiser without any further notice.
Throughout the entire situation all I wanted too do was ensure my ship wasn't getting shot at so I could RP with the two factions my character has strong RP reasons to be close to. That's my genuine understanding of the situation. I thought you were trolling me. I guess you wern't necessarily trying to, but you guys have probably a greater understanding of Nesrin's character than anybody else. You did kinda' derp that one up, both in communication of what your InRp and Oorp intentions were.
I assumed you were trying to troll, Nyx, Ven. Decided to screw with you in return, which wasn't the smart way of doing it.
I'm not in any way trying to legitimise my response, which was obscene. The whole situation probably wouldn't have happened if anything happened slightly differently.
Edit: I realise that this is a bit soon, and you might still be mad at me and not respond. Totally fine; I did screw up and I don't deserve answers from you, even if the situation was a basket of cats.
RE: A/) - Feedback - Vendetta - 05-17-2018
Lol.
Are you really trying to turn your inability to pay attention to the situation around on us? We told you to stop. You didn't. You got shot. Then you went ballistic and starting messing around with our faction shareds.
Shareds of a faction you're not even in. That crossed a serious line.
So drop the excuses, because this is the exact same stuff you do that gets you thrown out of the chats in the first place, and its happened enough times for me to not be willing to waste my time anymore.
RE: A/) - Feedback - Enkidu - 05-17-2018
I get where you're coming from. What I did was inexcusable. I'm not trying to excuse it, I made that clear in the above. I'm trying to frame the context behind some of the stuff I said so you can understand my thought process. To be clear, I do not agree with my own thought process there, so I'm not digging for sympathy; I myself don't sympathise with where I came from then. It wasn't a good place. It was toxic. It was dumb. I totally agree that you should think less of me after that.
That was the situation as I understood it. Context is not commiseration. I am not self-commiserating nor justifying the atrocious thing I threatened to do. I've had 50 billion in ships vandalised in december 2017; I know that feeling, and that's why I used that to get a reaction. Terrible misconduct, and I feel like a human fart for it.
To address your later point, let's make that clear:
I've left Auxesia chat twice before. First time was due to a personal difference between the two of us; I thought you haughty, crass, and beligerant, you thought I was self-indulgent, rude, and contrarian, We made up and talked the situation through, you invited me back in. That was in 2016. We have differences of personality but we've had a degree of rapport for years. Which is why I'm making this post in the feedback - this post makes me look as bad as I acted, in a public forum. I just don't want the feedback to be lost because we both feel screwed around. I feel like we've had rapport for a long time.
You told me to stop whilst I was getting shot at. The parties alternated. It makes sense for my character to shoot back. But it doesn't make any sense for who they're being shot at. The onus of the engagement is upon those that start the engagement not those being fired upon. We both know that.
Because standard RP, ID, and IFF observations wern't observed, it all went to hell. If I didn't like you, and I didn't do something infinitely worse than what the three of you did, I would have sanctioned Auxesia and the AI for the infraction. I didn't and won't, because, again, I like you, I want to RP with the AI again, I might want to RP with Auxesia again although I'm accepting that ship has left the shore by now.
I've got nothing but regret for that situation. But you need to "waste your time" by following your own RP MO. If that's all you get out of this, let it be that.
You also don't need to reply if you don't want to, Ven.
RE: A/) - Feedback - Jessitrescott - 05-21-2018
https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=161219&pid=1999815#pid1999815
if you guys can now explain how you're selling APM tech level battleship weapons that would be sweet, even Core has like only 6 battleships and limited number of Battleship Turrets.
If you could also link the RP threads about how Auxesia is Producing Core tech with 100% tech cell and how they do it, it would be great.
RE: A/) - Feedback - Lythrilux - 05-21-2018
What's going to (or will hopefully) happen is that the Core guns, turrets and equipment will be duplicated for a separate Auxesia cell in a Patch or so. These will be considred the outdated models they left The Core with. At some point in the future, the ships will undergo the same treatment once Core gets new models for their shipline and Auxesia will 'keep' the current ships minus caps as placeholders until they get their own ship-line. I believe this solution is the best course of action that can be taken without leaving one side upset, or lore/RP in a mess.
Until this happens, I would suggest not selling any equipment (and ships perhaps? Although I can understand more leniency here as this part of the solution ha no clear date) as it is technically not what you actually have, and it will allow for the smoothest transition once the equipment gets added.
RE: A/) - Feedback - Vendetta - 05-21-2018
(05-21-2018, 11:08 AM)Lythrilux Wrote: What's going to (or will hopefully) happen is that the Core guns, turrets and equipment will be duplicated for a separate Auxesia cell in a Patch or so.
I told you no. You're making assumptions based on feasibility over willingness to actually do it.
(05-21-2018, 09:21 AM)Jessitrescott Wrote: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=161219&pid=1999815#pid1999815
if you guys can now explain how you're selling APM tech level battleship weapons that would be sweet, even Core has like only 6 battleships and limited number of Battleship Turrets.
If you could also link the RP threads about how Auxesia is Producing Core tech with 100% tech cell and how they do it, it would be great.
I've answered this subject to people so many times while gaining officialdom, having officialdom, talking to lyth about it in private and publicly, he made a thread about it, the devs made an announcement about it, it's listed in our lore.
Please stop asking me to clarify this information. I've been doing it for years.
https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=142072&pid=1857571#pid1857571
https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=141175
https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=142716
EDIT: Exact quote from the Nati SRP since it won't be uninvis'd
Quote:1. Exact name of the character: A/)-ACV-Cincinnati
2. Link to the request to be amended:
http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=137373
3. What exactly do you want changed?
Rename to A/)-ACV-Arktos
Replace 4 IMG Battleship Primary turrets with 4 Core Battleship Primary Turrets
Replace 4 IMG Battleship Secondary turrets with 4 Core Battleship Secondary Turrets
Replace 2 Battleship Razors with 2 Cerberus Battleship Turrets
@Auzari now has access to the ship
4. Why are these changes necessary?
With the transition into the fleet nearly complete, the Cincinnati has seen its last days under its former Navy name. Receiving the final refit over to the Battlegroup's available tech designs, the vessel is becoming a legacy, and will be completely integrated into the fleet under its new name.
The changes are to swap the vessels turrets over to the AP line in compliance with the recent RP with the CR and in-game actions by our players.
5. Provide possible links to the relevant forum roleplay.
http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread...pid1792986 - Initial request for shipyard and production facility access.
http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread...pid1795180 - Request granted
http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread...pid1796350 - Initial logistics notice
http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread...pid1796606 - Delivery post 1
http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread...pid1796777 - Delivery post 2
http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread...pid1797287 - Delivery post 3
http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread...pid1797517 - Delivery post 4 & Name change notice
https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=147165&pid=1858181#pid1858181
+ comms included in those threads, the lore. I'm not answering this question again.
RE: A/) - Feedback - Enkidu - 05-21-2018
Independent tech patches are totally viable. RM battleships, Gunboats, and Cruisers were split into an "80 years war Rheinland vessels" techcell shared between UN and R Federal Lawfuls, at UN request and RM consent. Whilst I believe Wasser doesn't like the cell now he's the lead, Yber gave his personal approval before/during implimentation. Since the current RM lead isn't onboard with it, we've made efforts to seperate UN turrets from RM turrets to create tech distinctiveness, and a UN-specific gunboat is in the works.
However, such a split requires the consent of both parties privy to the cell at 100%, since they both have equal rights as they both have InRp manufacturing capacity/are integeral to the look and feel of the faction.
If Vendetta doesn't want to go for a tech cell split, he doesn't need to. He has ultimately equal control over the cell to the Core 1ic. Auxesia has some valid reasons to have the equipment, and I'm saying this as somebody who Aux doesn't like. Changes need the consent of both parties, either in creation, or in removal.
RE: A/) - Feedback - Lythrilux - 05-21-2018
(05-21-2018, 11:11 AM)Vendetta Wrote: I told you no. You're making assumptions based on feasibility over willingness to actually do it
You won't need to do any work for them. It's technically retroactive (you already use outdated models this is just a name change) and those will be the equipment you had all along. With this in mind, I don't understand why you'd want to be selling/using Core stuff over the chance to sell/use your own product.
Either way the current status quo is not good. Many do not feel like the roleplay and justifications for the tech is sufficient, and even if it is Auxesia's handling of a very gracious tech cell allowance still does not feel right. This solution is the best way to deal with things without taking things away, or undermining the value/RP of that tech.