+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+--- Thread: Renaming systems? (/showthread.php?tid=175608)
RE: Renaming systems? - Binski - 12-22-2019
Every time this is done they throw away an opportunity to have some event, with some healthy competition, to determine things. Too bad we don't use a battle system *coughs* because then, we could make it so that faction's/houses can rename a system if they control it. 'Control' in this case would be defined as secure militarily, and that would mean having the assets to secure a system. So for a house to do this, they should need to maintain a certain number of npc static capitals in that system. As long as they keep their objects alive and well, they'd keep the system. Holding a system would be part of the goal and reward. Not only could we be having oranized conflicts over systems for their planets, routes, resources, bases, but even just to control their name.
In the case of O-49, Bretonia has finalized its annexation of the system, but they did that pretty cheaply. One old battleship to capture the whole system? Ok fine, really, they could give Stirling an HP bar of like 1.5 billion and basically that, (ideally combined with some smaller targets too) would allow for a little war, for factions to challenge, and do things in game to provoke wars. If the ship became weak, they could order it to withdraw, move up another ship to take the beating of holding that position. There are plenty of ways to let players do their thing and still balance out situations.
The coup is nice writing, but afterwards, if it were already set up, Coalition could have launched an attack on a mortal Stirling, use NEMP's on it, put it in danger, make the bretonia player base get moving on defense and repairs.
Its insane to ignore this possible avenue for having wars and even minor temporary conflicts. People can handle it, and I'd never believe it can't be done. If they can do it for wrecks, npc weapons platforms, storage containers, why not ships? They don't even have to explode, just stop firing and letting people dock when they go dead, and they'd just stay a wreck until removed. Yes damage would have to carry over like POB's, but nailing those few things would change this whole situation. Set it up, let players fight over these issues in game, take it to the game playing field, and let the happenings do more of the determining of these decisions, instead of surprising us and not involving players, nor using it as incentive to get people moving. More to do in game = more rp.
Its true inrp there was no reason for a war, but if more could be triggered in game like that, small conflicts and incursions would happen all the time, more people would spy on each other's bases etc, violate territory, attack each other's bases.
As to Omega-3, it will always be omega-3 to me, but in a way I don't mind as long as something happened inrp and in game around it. Bretonia expanded into the system, ok so things change. But no battle system means it could never have been really challenged by those who'd want to resist that change in the game. Or, at the very least, no work in game needed to be done, which would at least make it somewhat fair. If factions do the work to annex and hold systems for minimum amounts of time, like 6 months, then I'm ok with them renaming even the oldest systems. Just connect it to in game activity, let RP tie it together, and then its not so bad, and everyone would see it coming.
RE: Renaming systems? - Groshyr - 12-22-2019
I'd like to have such skill in writing a wall of text
RE: Renaming systems? - Capt. Henry Morgan - 12-22-2019
As systems become more settled, it makes sense that they'd lose their catalog designations and gain proper names. Other systems probably got that over the past decades and centuries as well. Changing names makes sense when the political situation changes, too. Different nations can have different names for the same patch of real estate, just as they do in the real world. Altogether, I think these sorts of small and functionally inconsequential changes make Sirius feel just a bit more alive.
RE: Renaming systems? - Thunderer - 12-22-2019
Aquitaine will forever be Edinburgh for me. (Though I'll accept to call Gaia Bordeaux, just to annoy Gaians)
RE: Renaming systems? - Hubjump - 12-22-2019
(12-22-2019, 01:56 AM)Binski Wrote: use NEMP's
NEMP's aren't cannon
RE: Renaming systems? - Hubjump - 12-22-2019
(12-21-2019, 06:17 PM)Hubjump Wrote: Iran and Persia.
Germany and Deutschland.
England and Angelstan.
Hmmm... Franks and Gauls?
My point is you can continue to call it Omega-3 there is literally nothing saying you can't.
It's like how New Amsterdam was made New York by the British in 1664.
If all vanilla assets are never touched ever than the mod will remain stagnant.
We have to accept things will change in time. The core worlds and such will change little by little compared to edge worlds sure but without change this mod would be far more bore some.
Gallia can be changed drastically with little protest because it isn't vanilla. Imagine we had a strong Gallic playerbase. They'd probably hate change as much as you do.
We still call Aquitaine Edinburgh because our BAF roots and also for RP purposes. Gallia should have a different name for Leeds imo. Nations always enjoyed renaming conquered lands.
(12-21-2019, 10:03 PM)Thunderer Wrote: Kyushu was probably called Tau-Something when it was discovered. Dresden Omega-Something, and so on. No idea what nomenclature Liberty used, though, as all of those systems have already been colonized and renamed during early Sirius history.
I don't think that good RP is necessary, but it is, well, good RP.
(12-22-2019, 02:01 AM)Capt. Henry Morgan Wrote: As systems become more settled, it makes sense that they'd lose their catalog designations and gain proper names. Other systems probably got that over the past decades and centuries as well. Changing names makes sense when the political situation changes, too. Different nations can have different names for the same patch of real estate, just as they do in the real world. Altogether, I think these sorts of small and functionally inconsequential changes make Sirius feel just a bit more alive.
RE: Renaming systems? - Charo - 12-22-2019
Not as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be tbh, if you hate it so much just continue to use the old name
RE: Renaming systems? - Binski - 12-22-2019
(12-22-2019, 03:05 AM)Hubjump Wrote:(12-22-2019, 01:56 AM)Binski Wrote: use NEMP's
NEMP's aren't cannon
Doesn't need to be for cannon though. If some bases took damage, and NEMP's did a % hit, like 15% of the total hull strength, they could be used in both normal pvp, and to hasten sieges. Then at least they could be used, have a real use and when a headline goes out that a ship/base was NEMP'd it would be accurate. If that was allowed though, I'd expect people to save them for base sieges, both for offense and defense.
In that case NEMP's could be used in the battles, help augment a side, but not really be the hinge for cannon changes, it would still mostly come down to the overall outcome of the battle. NEMP's would be used, mentioned, but not be the only deciding factor. They wouldn't be able to take out a base alone, but be a wild card to help with an organized attack, or let small lone attacks be made to do big hits at high cost.
And that's also why I have raised the issue of repair ships. They would be crucial to a situation like that staying balanced. That way these bases could be repaired as well as attacked, and it would slow down the situation. To really cause a victory, groups of players would have to organize group attacks. NEMP's could be used for times like that, which would make thing's interesting.
If all sides had real time target bases, inrp wise. factions would have to consider the consequenses of taking a war to the NEMP level. In Coalition vs Bretonia's situation, Coalition could NEMP the Stirling in a big attack, but also likely provoke a counter NEMP attack by Bretonia. Maybe it would backfire on a faction, it would come down to the outcomes of the battles. If we did this, I'd say a bunch of NEMP's would be used over a few weeks, the useless stockpile we have would deplete in some cases, and it would stimulate some grind again. Back during the first part of the year, I ground like crazy for NEMP's when I figured there was a chance in using them to help our side. Its crazy not to use this stuff and the opportunities they create!
RE: Renaming systems? - NixOlympica - 12-22-2019
I don't mind and I think it makes sense but I'd appreciate if the old name was in parentheses at least for a while. Sounds like a sensible thing.
RE: Renaming systems? - Reeves - 12-22-2019
(12-22-2019, 06:33 AM)The Ghost of Pilgrim Wrote: I don't mind and I think it makes sense but I'd appreciate if the old name was in parentheses at least for a while. Sounds like a sensible thing.
+1