Sirius Wars: Suggestions for real time productive activity to help all conflicts

[Banned player t202085]

Why not, as a compromise have a new sector, 5-10 systems, which is controlled purely by player interaction? This way Discomainland story remains unchallenged but Sector X can behave as a test bed. Infact I think there are loads of systems not in use that could be easily recycled into this

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=202085
Time left: (Permanent)

[Hubjump]

Sci data? Meh just use battleship admirals
You'd have another reason for war systems and, if people weren't so kind, actual fights on the regular. Be it more faction specific tho so loot there can't be used everywhere that way we'd have GRN trying to hold down places against the BAF and vice versa as they'd want a stockpile and monopoly. IF players weren't kind enough to let each other farm that is.

Brain ain't with it atm. excuse my lack of detail 'n stuff.

same thing for RM and KU

New tech and new metas for each new war.
Maybe just mega nerf the stuff from the older wars when a new war arises to have people compete again since they can't rely on their now basically out of date stock pile.

[JonasHudson]

Some 'preliminary' choices that can be later put to a community vote. At this point simple generic pilot drops should suffice, no need to get too comlicated. Within reason, it should still be considered an exploit to farm your own faction's NPC's for pilots, so that's already covered. With that said, simply coming up with some listable choices would let us begin implimenting a pilots economy. Factions could begin storing them, harvesting them and/or buying them from 3rd parties at their own times. I'm not claiming these options must be what we go with, still open to suggestions. These numbers seem reasonable to me, and perhaps the only way to figure out how it should go will be a trial. If people think the quotas should be higher or lower, please say so.

As to Transports, if it were possible to come up with 1 new commodity item to be placed in regular NPC transports, that would allow for a bit of variety and an even softer aquireable target.

As to base sieges for NPC bases (similar to the ones in recent months like in Tau-29) I would suggest letting NEMP's cause up to 20% damage to spice things up. That way NEMP's could get some use, and may serve well as a last minute deciding factor in being able to take out a base within the given time. Time for sieges would simply run from restart to restart.

And to mitigate risk of one side overwhelming the other, we can just have an appeal process and let each situation be dealt with separately. If a base is integral to a faction it can be made exempt, etc. Also we can make non military vessel npc bases 'captureable' instead of destroyable so that the bases don't need to dissappear, only chance IFF from time to time. We can come up with some deeper process for the total destruction of a base.

Last point is on NPC zones. If we also get these pilots dropped from missions, we should make sure that certain NPC pilot items, like the heavier ones (cruiser ane battleship commanders items) should only be accessable via normal spawns or missions in 'disputed systems'. Thankfully this is somewhat already regulated since only a certain amount of and certain types even use capital ships.

Alternative 1: This option is oriented around using the Battle Points system to inititate RP countable gains. This means that it would apply to official factions. Corporate factions may gather points and sponser the same actions via an commensurate official faction for their house. Guilds and independent entities ought to have all the same access to the rewards system by earning them. Time limits have been cut, so the player base will set its pace based on how bad they want the rewards. This would mean factions could take as long or go as fast as they prefer to gather pilots and earn points as they see fit.

Pilots to Redeem:

100 gunboat commanders + 50 cruiser commanders + 10 battleship commanders = 1 Battlepoint

500 transport captains = 1 battle point

Its that simple. Earn the pilots, earn the points, the faster you earn, the faster you can do stuff. In both options cases, it is likely factions would progress, at first, at a slower rate. Meaning at first, it won't be too hectic and may take 1 - 3 months to incure points for a challenge or big reward. This way factions could set their own pace as to how important it is to them to keep working at earning rewards as 'projects'.

Battle Points rewards: (version 1)

Option 1) 4 points = Temp Siege Challenge to any enemy NPC base (or ship base) within ZOI. Cashing in 4 points would allow initiation of a 1 time 24 hour siege period on any enemy NPC base within their ZOI. If the base reaches 0 hp in that 24 hour period, it will be turned into a wreck, if a regular base, the option to capture the base is available.

Option 2) 100 sci data per cashing in of 1 battle point.

Option 3) 8 points = Free shared SRP ship of any kind (regular accessible ship)

Option 4) 4 points = CAU8, 3 points = CAU7, 4 points = Cloak Mk 2Adv , 4 points = Cloak disruptor

Alternative 2: The main difference here is that Factions get their one siege a month, and on top get the chance to have enemy NPC bases neutralized, but requires more work, and would take more time. Again, no time limits on gathering points or spending them, but there would be a maximum of up to 1 NPC base 'wrecking' per month, + 1 temp siege (for another 1 time chance to knock out a base).

Pilots to Redeem:

50 gunboat commanders + 25 cruiser commanders + 20 battleship commanders = 1 Battlepoint

500 transport captains = 1 battle point

Temp siege made a FR, at rate of 1 per month. (for ID's capable of mounting capital vessels).

Battle Points Rewards: (Verson 2)

Option 1) 6 points = Removal of any target 'ship' base upon cashing in 6 BP's,
= Capture of any target NPC base upon cashing in 6 BP's

Option 2) 50 sci data per 1 battle point

Option 3) 8 points = Free shared SRP ship of any kind (regular accessible ship)

Option 4) 4 points = CAU8, 3 points = CAU7, 4 points = Cloak Mk 2Adv , 4 points = Cloak disruptor

Additional rules: In both options' cases, other rules can be set to balance things out.

4 points for challenge, and 4 points to block a challenge. Meaning if the challenging faction has 4 points saved, and initiates a siege of an NPC base, and that faction also has 4 points, it can choose to block that one attempt. Strategy would be up to the faction, as they may instead choose to counter attack at another location at the same time, weighing their chances that the enemy may not destroy its target in the time given anyways. This also means that if the challenger has 8 points incurred, and their enemy only 4, they can continue to insist on their challenge.

In both options as well, the ability then exists for 3rd parties to also farm NPC pilots and sell them to the highest bidders. If we find this allows for factions to rake in points too fast, we can then adjust the quota levels to meet the supply.

Alternative 3: A combination of the first 2. (this will be where anyone can write their own 3rd option).

---

Leeds Resistance Forces | Tales of a Renegade |The Freelancer

<<<TAU ENTERPRISES>>>

[Felipe]

Ah, i will need be the rude, blunt guy again.

Look, its a RP server, changing outcome by ingame action (winning battles ingame) already is a no because in a certain moment, lets say H| get a bunch of butthurt kids flying it and then out of nowhere a group w no resources (inRP) eat half of Liberty.

Let alone mindless grinding on npc's at 3am.

While i think the idea *can* be useful, surely isnt for history progression.

Trying to turn everything in alternative to trade isnt desirable neither. You need cash? Go trade, pirates need traders on to have something to do. We already lacking "pierats" around. (apart from Rheinland and damm Hessians, i think i should start exporting hessians to places w low pirate pop ).

Apparently people think that some people *need to be the sacrifice cattle* (traders) and they dont need trade at all, they can just do other things considered as more fun. (Tho most ppl that say trading is thaaaat boring never done convoys, so are losing big part of Discovery fun!)

However i *think* that the idea of having some kind of "RP reward" for the effort could be considered, altho i would prefer something that involved players, instead of npc's (not kill counters, that would lead to same issues mentioned above).

Nowadays activity is its own reward, maybe that could be changed, problem is: what could players earn by actually logging to fight?
Not to just grind time on tracker as many around usually do at end of activity checks periods, but to really do something?

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2329969
Time left: (Permanent)

[JonasHudson]

Ah, i will need be the rude, blunt guy again.

Look, its a RP server, changing outcome by ingame action (winning battles ingame) already is a no because in a certain moment, lets say H| get a bunch of butthurt kids flying it and then out of nowhere a group w no resources (inRP) eat half of Liberty.

Let alone mindless grinding on npc's at 3am.

While i think the idea *can* be useful, surely isnt for history progression.

Trying to turn everything in alternative to trade isnt desirable neither. You need cash? Go trade, pirates need traders on to have something to do. We already lacking "pierats" around. (apart from Rheinland and damm Hessians, i think i should start exporting hessians to places w low pirate pop ).

Apparently people think that some people *need to be the sacrifice cattle* (traders) and they dont need trade at all, they can just do other things considered as more fun. (Tho most ppl that say trading is thaaaat boring never done convoys, so are losing big part of Discovery fun!)

However i *think* that the idea of having some kind of "RP reward" for the effort could be considered, altho i would prefer something that involved players, instead of npc's (not kill counters, that would lead to same issues mentioned above).

Nowadays activity is its own reward, maybe that could be changed, problem is: what could players earn by actually logging to fight?
Not to just grind time on tracker as many around usually do at end of activity checks periods, but to really do something?

Well I'm of the opinion we need some kind of reform, and have some equal system for some player enacted change. Lack of any kind of organized system here has been a huge cause of hard feelings and drama over the years. I know people see doom and gloom. Normal activity isn't as alluring anymore. Not to mention, when there are real consequences hanging in the balance, its always a better stimulant than simple trade for profit. But trade is always going to be a lifeblood of the server. With this system we'll have one more reason to trade and earn cash.

I did forget to include player kills. Assuming the entire premise does get more people out in pursuit of pilots, then it may cause a great deal of PVP and a PVP kill should count as more than one average npc ship.

How about something like proof of pvp kill would equal 10 npc pilots. That way even fighter ace players will be able to contribute via actual pvp by taking out gunboats and above and well documenting it.

All i can say is, I would like for the community to try out something. As far as I understand, the whole feature behind droppable pilots was originally intended for a system like this where pilots equal work, equal a form of currency worth something. Then at least we will have more value to simply trading pilots. The gains have to be a bare minimum of something to entice players to log. Why not get something more from loggin at 3am, or whenever, for a little npc battlin? The point will be that like mining, people will be extracting from the environment, a piratable commodity that has either monetary or RP'able value. There will be a whole bunch of new little things we can do because of this.

Just about anyone can log a bomber or cruiser and earn GB and/or cruiser commanders. Trial will be needed, but (personally) I think it would be pretty beneficial to the server to see how it goes with this.

---

Leeds Resistance Forces | Tales of a Renegade |The Freelancer

<<<TAU ENTERPRISES>>>

[JonasHudson]

Repair Ships:

Had a thought about sieges involving repair ships:

Are they still broken?

My main point is, why can't they be used to repair POB's? And, in the case of some theorhetical future where we had battles over npc stations where they were 'deactivateable', why not allow them to repair damage to bases under siege.

It would obviously make things even more interesting. If an NPC base was being challenged over to be sieged, either causing its permanent destruction, or allowing it to change hands, yet another job arises around the idea.

Imagine defending an important NPC base, and after driving off an enemy wave, bring in a repair ship or two to reverse the damage?

Or even better, when and if the station in question does hit 0, IF the aggressor can and will capture the station, it could also be required to repair the station to full health before it could be used. (that and/or loading marines during the combat part of the event, could be one or the other, or both)

All this from setting a few simple triggers regarding an npc station's HP bar, making it turn a base off at 0, and respond to repair ship turrets. The last part might not be necessary but these triggers seem like they can't be all that more complicated than some of the events that have run lately.

If there ever was a genuine desire to impliment some system, I'd be happy to give it a shot. I don't know coding but I know logic and the logic behind commands and necessary variables etc . I can come up with triggers easy enough, just can't code it. Implimenting a system on the forum would be the easy part. But if the devs did come up with a system to make it so they could make a base 'deactivateable', running the events would be easy, as after that its just a waiting game. Of course if it could be carried over to the next restart that would be ideal, as we could have days long siege challenges, but at worst, still get approximately 24hour sieges where we determine a winner from whoever did best. (although in that case its pretty easy as if the base stands, it stays. If the base hit 0, a faction could have the right to destroy, and perhaps have to earn and cash in on points for the option to capture). The idea is to have the same steam we often get from big POB sieges but for the npc environment, which means more battles more often than when we just go by random base sieges arising. Even when that happens, attacks are often on young bases and sieges dont last long either way, and dont allow for much strategy. We need more real time battles! And a system to govern it so people won't have to fear an instant imbalance.

---

Leeds Resistance Forces | Tales of a Renegade |The Freelancer

<<<TAU ENTERPRISES>>>

[JonasHudson]

NEMP's and NPC Base Sieges

The loss of NEMP's as a PVP weapon has eliminated a lot of options for applying tactics, and counter balancing the influence of large factions. Countless opportunities are being thrown away every day.

NEMP's possessed the ability to balance out fights and serve a role as a super weapon for base sieges, allowing them to speed up an attack on base.

Now some would be concerned that if you just saved enough NEMP's you could simply show up and blast a base and instantly eliminate it, and thats only if they were able to be used on bases in real time. Which leads me to the next point:

We need real time targets to apply ourselves towards, and to allow for less scripted events. These situations allow for real consquences, and that always entices players to get involved. Imagine a scenario:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

All NPC battleships and cruisers get an HP bar, which would vary depending on the ship class. Battleships and Carriers would obviously be the strongest as it is with player ships and NPC's.
All for players to attack, defend, and REPAIR as they can. All for NEMP's to be used to 'soften up' targets. So for factions of navies looking to siege an enemy base, they can either do it the old fashioned way, or have a 'pre strike' with an NEMP.

NEMP's then just need to be set to only deal a % of whatever the hull strength is at that current moment. Even if it was 75%, that would make it so NEMP's would not actually be able to be used to completely eliminate a base, but continue to wear it down. This would allow in some cases for a siege to be spead up. But it also means an NEMP deals less actual damage with each blow. A base at 2,000,000,000 losing 75% would lose 1,500,000,000 in the first strike, leaving 500,000,000. But a second strike would only deal 375,000,000. 2 strikes then leave 125,000,000 HP remaining. Enough for a small fleet to finish off quickly. In that scenario, NEMP's become worth working for again, and would always be prioritized around keeping for maintiaining a balance against the other side, instead of being blown every time 5 ships muster together. But the option could be there, so maybe if a critical base is under threat, an NEMP could be used to try to break a wave. Managing friendly fire against your own base would be a real thing. Again, players could really apply the strategies behind using them to augment attacking/defending, and may not always be guaranteed to work exactly as desired.

It would also give value back to the that weapon industry period. It was yet another SciData consumable commodity (although I think they should be Player made and require a little less than they have thus far from the staff, at 1200 units for a launcher and 2 bombs). In fact I believe the current NEMP value will go up again, and people would suddenly be able to plan around where and when they might want to focus them.

Initially, a bunch of attacks would occur and some sieges would knock out bases on either side, in both of the major wars we have going on. But after that, the value would have undoubtedly gone back up, and availability down. At that point, the rush would slow down and people would have a more real time activity to generate around, and a more exciting (useful) reason to grind.


Repair Companies?

In conjunction with my previous post, where if we could finally get repair ships to be able to work on those bases designated for siege, there would be an equal chance and opportunity to go to work as a repair service, either military or Freelancer/corporate.

I often wonder what it would look like if we set HP for ALL bases, something really high obviously, and contracted it out to factions to do regular maintanence (repair companies, or in military/navies, repair units or squads). A base under siege would need urgent repairs, but all other bases would only take odd hits from oddballs that just want to shoot something. That would add up slowly to 'wear and tear'. Police and Navies could actually fly around checking bases, and task out repairs based on where they're needed most. It would allow for actual faction 'missions' or jobs to maintain regular checks of all bases. This sounds terribly radical to some, I know, but how brutal could it get to trial it? Or trial it on warship stations at least. The problem people fear is too radical change too fast. But I picture situations where if a base is lost, a battleship lost, an asteroid base discovered and sieged by a navy, it not be a permanent loss. One asteroid base is lost, within a short time a faction could work to earn another in a new spot (base respaws after certain time, or simply stays undockable for a certain time, making sieges need to be repeated to deny a base from a faction)). I'd rather see more real battles, and a high overturn of bases, than our current system of keeping everything locked, and only allow change based on pre-scripted situations. It would be nice if people supported putting as much time into SYSTEMS based around the game mechanics to allow for events to flow freely, as is put into pre scripting things.

These simple changes to the current mechanics could open up an enormous amount of real time possiblities that give more reason to our actions and more sandbox capabilities to the game, by creating situations of value. Ask why online gambling games make huge amounts of money? The RISK. People like an atmosphere of risk when they play games. The sieges, superweapons, repairs, and all of the new economic possiblities around increasing activity (and therefore consumption) add that to our situation. Something real to be lost or gained adds a much greater value to this game's experience. I belive that this is an alternate approach to dealing with the low player count as well. Sieges will automatically focus activity without the need for artificial 'funnelling' of routes and mining zones. Perhaps the additional real time capabilities will entice players to log on more often? And in any war, when a siege is on, everyone can choose a side and try to help or hinder a real battle!

---

Leeds Resistance Forces | Tales of a Renegade |The Freelancer

<<<TAU ENTERPRISES>>>

[JonasHudson]

Designated warzone areas

Just wanted to add one last suggestion for future wars on the server. Being between major wars seems like a good time to re examine how space wars happen in disco.

With the Gallic war over I think we all learned a lot of lessons from how things were executed.

I'd like to suggest that the devs consider putting some of my previous suggestions in this thread to work, at least in a small designated area. This way we could have more real time (actual) conflicts but keep the situation very manageable.

There is an obvious conflict in a place like this between freely flowing situations/history, and pre scripted 'wars' and conflicts, which only serve as a backdrop for a simplified, 1 off, short term battle event. Although some events can be written around to fill in blanks, such as actions taken by characters outside of the space environment, even if we didn't completely ditch the scripting of wars, it would be interesting if we could have at least one area designated, between whatever powers may be fighting, if/when another comes, which would essentially be an open free-for-all when it comes to warfare. Basically, even if we keep scripted wars, can we also have non scripted ones?

The idea is that an area of 3-5 systems have all or most of the stations within made destructable with very high HP, and in the case of house wars, actually station battleships/cruisers near trade lanes to make using them (if red) very difficult (if the situation involved that).

So scenarios could involve a house invade an area, and send ships to 'sieze' jumpgates or lanes (Kusary vs Rheinland is probably the best example at present), or yes, even block a jumphole. The NPC ship bases are stationed accordingly, and the factions organize around the defense/offense of the targets. Don't like your jumphole, gate or tradelane blocked? Now you have something to grind for again! Imagine if you could come back in a capital ship, and start working on removing that threat.

It also means that in these designated 'war zones', they could in theory become actual 'no mans lands' after long enough conflict. Keeping the action in the war zone though prevents too radical of losses, and the high HP gives enough time for each side to have fair chances to notice and act. Worse case is by the end of the 'war' the factions themselves might have to use player carriers for bases or use POB's. Not to mention if we put in some consequences, it would motivate people to get involved even if the odds are against them, if there is still a chance to retain something of value or gain by preventing a total defeat.

I'd also suggest this could uniquely be done every so often to the odd big NPC base like shipyards when they are fought over.

All of this creates a situation where we have a few star systems designated just to wreck or fight to save. It would concentrate action in that zone during that time, which should help focus activity for all of the roles. Especially if these stations/ships could be repairable (either by repair ship or shipping repair materials). This would generate activity for those fighting, those who wish to supply or repair (help other than fighting) and those who might just want to show up and get in on the action as pirates or freelancers. It also opens possibilities like using POB's to try to establish bases in disputed territory by the navies/intel agencies themselves. Why? All we have to do, on top of the open objectives and targets, add some serious RP consequences. If a side loses its last NPC base in a war zone, it would mean losing the war (could set a time limit too, as in, they have 1 month of war, so could judge by whats still going at the end of the time period, etc), which could deny that faction important access to resources, planets, shipyards, and so on.

I think we desparately need some changes like this. Forgive me if something is already in the works. I wanted to lay out some last suggestions because I feel we really need something new breathe life into the server in the long term. I still think that creating situations like this create cyclical systems. That, in turn, becomes a reason to work and generate. I believe there are many people still here, and people that were here, that would LOVE to suddenly be needed in game. Under these situations, people would have a higher need for transports/suppliers, repair ship services, sentries/scouts/escorts. I believe if we allow for a 24/7 real time war to unfold, it will keep people on the server rather than seeking an alternative. My 'bottom line' is, why script situations, when video games were designed to be the common medium that prevents us from needing to rely on imagination. If something can happen in game, it should! Every lost base/npc battleship in the Gallic war was a real siege event thrown away!

---

Leeds Resistance Forces | Tales of a Renegade |The Freelancer

<<<TAU ENTERPRISES>>>