+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: Alliance vs Coalition (/showthread.php?tid=75)
Alliance vs Coalition - Denier-of-Soup - 07-25-2005
Since the pirate thing didn't work out with the traders, I thought of another great idea. There would be two sides, the Alliance and the Coalition (from the FL storyline).
The Coalition fights for control over systems, while the Alliance defends them. If the Coalition wins a battle, the system is theirs. However, the Alliance can fight them again to free that system of their control. The Coalition starts out from Omicron Alpha in the border worlds and tries to spread towards the major colonies and achieve their goal of galactic domination. They can only attack the systems connected to the ones they already control. The systems the Coalition controls will be posted in a pinned thread inside the Discovery Freelancer forum.
Traders will not be affected at all. They'll buy their own ships when they have the money and will eventually join one of the two sides. Us pirates got to trade without the threat of piracy around, lets give them a chance as well. So... what do you think?
edit: By the way, the BS Terrors faction will be the Coalition.
Alliance vs Coalition - Shadow_killer05 - 07-25-2005
:) sounds good
Alliance vs Coalition - Circadian_Lupine - 07-25-2005
Interesting idea, but probably not feasible as is. Anyone who manages to kill someone in another system will try to claim it, while excuses fly back and forth about how the kill was made. Counterattacks will be launched immediatly (probably by the person who just died), and systems will be changing hands on a by-the-minute basis at times. The forums couldn't hope to keep up with who owns what.
It may be possible to still impliment the Coalition vs Alliance on a smaller scale though. Maybe require [AL] and [CO] tags at the beginning of all char names for people who want to participate, and have special PvP rules for those with tags. (rules like anyone with opposing tags can fight at any time, regardless of level or ship class). if that's too harsh for some people we could designate 2 systems close together (not new tokyo or new berlin though for obvious reasons) as opposing home base systems. In these systems anyone from the opposing faction is fair game for any class or level opponent.
These PvP scenarios would be a breech of the existing rules, but it should still be totally acceptable since noone in thier right mind will make a [AL] or [CO] tag unless they expect to be shot at at any time, and have the freedom to engage anyone from the opposing faction whenever they want to.
You're definitly on to something big here. This would create to co-existing environments on the server. The traders could keep putzing around unmolested while the fighters could still get thier blood fix. Neither group would be infringing on the disposition of the other.
That's a strong vote "Yes" for me
Alliance vs Coalition - Denier-of-Soup - 07-25-2005
The battles for systems are not 1 vs 1, they are organised team battles (think clan fights). If all goes well, both sides will get new recruits and the battles for each system will get bigger and bigger by the week. Lets face it, everyone loves to see huge fleets taking on each other. :)
If all the BS Terrors agree with me, we'll form the Coalition and wait for the Alliance to build up their fleet.
Alliance vs Coalition - Circadian_Lupine - 07-26-2005
Well you can count me in. I'm not sure how we'll be able to organise enough people to get much of a battle going, but i'm in. When i finish pimping out my fighter i might use him against some battleships.
Alliance vs Coalition - xit - 07-26-2005
Actually sounds like a good idea. :)
Then the poor traders or loners could get alone, whilst there would still be some fighting for everyone else. :)
Besides it could also be cool just to spectate on the fights.
Hmm, has anyone thought you actually might earn money on spectators?
Let them pay a small sum to get through to see the fight.
And afterwards let the winners get the money?
But then again how would you stop them (i.e. the spectators) from just "accidently" being in the same region of space? Without blowing them up and annoying them... :P
Alliance vs Coalition - f2k - 07-26-2005
Sound like a fun idea
If, and only if, people are allowed to declare neutrality, and that neutrality is respected
Alliance vs Coalition - Trajan - 07-26-2005
sounds good to me :D
Alliance vs Coalition - Igiss - 07-26-2005
Idea of a war sounds good. However I agree with Denier that it should be a war for systems, not just fighting.
How to prevent systems from changing sides too often? First of all, not allow the attackers to land on any bases or planets within the target system. Second, not allow anyone who dies to participate in battle any longer, this player should either flee (if he was defending) or remain where he is or go to some other place (if attacking).
Next, we might update the system status once a day, the time we'll decide. This will make usage of forum much easier for tracking changes. So the faction who controls the system by the end of the day is winner. If defenders were drawn out of the system, then it changes its owner.
As changing names is not really that easy even using Ioncross, I don't know how to apply tags to players. However, alignment might be posted on forums as a player list for each faction. A player will have a right to change sides no more than twice or maybe with some timeout, a week for example.
Alliance vs Coalition - xit - 07-26-2005
How about another simple rule: it's only allowed to attack one system one time (or more) per day.
That would make it alot easier to update how things are going.