(12-15-2019, 08:34 AM)Kazinsal Wrote: This has always been the case. The idea of canonizing RP wasn't a thing until the third or fourth shot of adrenaline wore off and the acute heart failure patient started shutting down again. For years the policy on writing lore was "never include anything players caused". That's why the mod has no acknowledgement of major player encounters that left their mark on community lore, like the eight-way war in Omega-3, or the battles of Tau-23, or the Hogosha-Junker wars, or the Libertonian terrorist and his seven dwarves in a Kusari Explorer.
The dubious nature of the Player Request system and the Faction Perks system were the first thing players ever got to try to change that. But how those really work internally was never actually given to the community, and the usage of them suffered. The only people who ever managed to consistently get everything they could out of them were the people who were either part of the dev and/or admin teams, or had faction 2iCs/3iCs who were. Then we got FCRs, which... no one really knows how they work. Because no one's ever managed to pass one yet. Now we've got these, which are so ill-documented and yet another thing being operated as a "pay money, maybe get a thing in an indeterminate amount of time" scheme that I genuinely expected it to have its price in United States dollars instead of Sirian credits.
It's like Star Citizen, except instead of paying real money for the privilege of funding a game that may never come out, you're playing a dying game to make money in it to pay that back to the game for the privilege of maybe having your name in it.
All of what you said and to be honest, what I loved about this mod is all the hidden GOOD RP on Wiki which almost never made it into the mod.
~The eyes that only see prey. An instinct to act on~
~The bloodlust and it’s just, Not enough... Not enough.~
~But that’s the chain of command, And now we know we must not hide~
Xalrok Wrote:By submitting this request, you agree that the Development Team reserves the right to decline your RCR and that the Development Team is under no obligation to approve your RCR. The primary reasons that an RCR would be declined are as follows:
1. The RCR is deemed incompatible with Discovery’s narrative. (An example would be if Liberty had attempted to canonize an attack on Leeds before the end of the Gallic war, thereby preventing the planet from being glassed. Players are not expected to know this information, which is why contacting the Development Team first is highly recommended.)
2. The RCR is deemed harmful to gameplay. (Examples include the removal of bases important to gameplay or alteration of diplomacy that may lead to one or more factions declining in activity.)
It is strongly recommended that players consult with the Development Team before proceeding with roleplay that the player intends to request canonization for. The Development Team does not accept any responsibility for wasted time and effort should players decide proceed with extensive, time consuming, ambitious and/or radical roleplay that is subsequently rejected because they did not consult with Development initially to see if it was possible in the first place.
Here's my problem with this situation:
There's no physical need to pre-script major changes years in advance, and no need to stick to such actions as if they're mandatory. Part of the allure to here always was the perception that player actions and efforts would realistically plausibly count towards situations. The irony is laid out in this example, as the mod shoots itself in the foot by not utilizing these situations to drive player activity, and produce more accurate situations that aren't imbalanced by the fact that major changes are decided by a tiny amount of people relative to the players involved.
No one in Liberty would have bothered trying an attack to save Leeds because they already knew it was futile, when that very situation is exactly what people want here. The opportunity to conquer or save a planet and participate in a systemized battle over the issue is exactly the fuel the fire needs here. Closing off so many options beforehand keeps the power in the Dev's hands alright, but wastes so much potential.
If they'd known thing's weren't so locked maybe they would have tried! Maybe a lot more people would have tried. It could have easily been set up, the battles could have been more managed by staff like refs of a game instead of fixed outcome events that everyone has to tip toe around. If things had been different from the start maybe this system would have worked. Within even a system like this, that is the very thing people look for, and instead it's shut out.
In regards to the story, who cares if they had never made it to NL? Or if they never got to 'glass' Leeds? That situation isn't even one that should require 'canonization requests', it should already be set up in advance going into it that all the factions involved have the same equal outlet to try to apply force and make realistic changes. In each situation there was rarely equal opporunity for both sides. The Gauls didn't really have a chance to win, and Bretonia's side never had a chance to save Leeds. Why? What was so romantic about this? We threw away the chance to have a more measured conflict with a more realistic end, a more player desired end, no matter how it went. There's nothing wrong with a story being determined as we go along, it should always be like that here! Or we need extensive systems to pre script everything! Under the battle system I suggested, the war would have had shifting front lines in some place, and stay the same in others, but player activity would have been the driving factor behind the changes, and that would have made for good motivation for the factions involved.
In regards to the RCR's, what we need is an outline for what can be done and what is expected. Maybe it should be broken down into pre determined options so less time goes into things the staff won't tolerate.
~Adding planetary base (adding atmopsheric entry point,docking ring and/or mooring fixture) to a planetary body
~Constructing a shipyard
~Creation of new ships
~Altering (adding/removing) faction MO's (like adding new ship classes to existing ID's, or new capabilities, or 'radical' diplomacy changes)
~Consructing capital ship bases
~Constructing outposts
~Adding systems or parts of systems to faction territory/ZOI, claiming territory, intiating conquests/wars
That's a few to start. Perhaps the team could compile a literal list of options of what will be acceptable, and then in each case a more standardized template could be expected for each situation, and players will know what's an option and what to expect. Then in theory perhaps as well players could simply submit normal player requests to have new options added to the list, which would get a normal staff vote.
But the truth is this system does seem like it will limit actions on the server period. The example given talks about canonizing an attack during a war. Again, that's the sort of thing that, the situation should't even exist unless going into it it will be set up so that the players can do most of that in the game. Adding bases or changing faction lore is a totally different situation than war's or territory conflicts. The very point of a place like this is that we have the technology in the game to make it so more can be determined there. In the case of Leeds, especially when it came to the point of the siege cruisers being put in orbit, they could have simply been given really high HP bars and the factions involved could have actually gotten to work out real plans. If the situation had not been neutered by the dev team from the start, it would have made more sense by that point. Would it have been so terrible if players got motivated to try to save Leeds? And terrible to open it up for a week, let the Gallic side try to defend them, (find a way to make them repairable, we do have repair ships don't we? can't figure out how to make them work on mortal solars?), and let there be a little battle over it. The pre scripted will of the devs loomed over every situation in the Gallic war like a dark cloud. In the future this place could have some epic space wars still, and if they're ever allowed to happen, please consider ditching script and put that same effort into a system to govern a player driven conflict.
Which leads me again to my usual point, that in conjunction with this system, we get a battle system for the war stuff, like capturing stations, territory, planets, etc. With all of the rules about not doing anything to threaten this or that, when is anyone ever going to be able to get 5 people together to capture a station for themselves? Or attack an enemy base at all? Most faction bases could be considerd crucial. I really don't see anyone being able to do much there. As much as this is an RP server, it is also a shooter game, so when it comes to the issues of controlling stations and territory, its crazy not to try to put the work into using the game medium to both generate player activity, guide the roleplay, and let players sort out battle outcomes. If factions knew in advance that the can sort out the desire to capture stations or territory, fight wars over sandbox systems etc, and it was systemized in game, using the actual game, you'd see less requests and more action in game!
I wonder why so many things can't change? Why can't Outcasts go moderate? Why can't a house turn belligerent and wind up at odds with others? Once we know these options would be possible in an organized fashion, I think we'd see some interesting changes here. Otherwise the dev team succeeds in preserving Discovery, but it may also be the root of the stagnation here too. Where are we in 5 years? 10 years? Will we have a server exactly laid out like it is now but with no players left? Or is it insane to consider allowing more 'radical' changes as a way to keep players interested?
If the head of the issue is that there isn't enough staff to do it all, well what's the answer to that? Put out notice that more people with appropriate knowledge/skill are needed to help facilitate changes and keep the ball rolling, and word might spread to the appropriate people who can help. I was on www.mmorpg.com the other day looking around. Someone (thought about doing it myself) from the staff would do well to go there and drop a thread an appropriate forum simply advertizing the game. You see threads there about players looking for mmo's, rpg's, and I'm sure we could find both potential players and helpers in places like that.
(12-15-2019, 09:06 AM)Binski Wrote: No one in Liberty would have bothered trying an attack to save Leeds because they already knew it was futile, when that very situation is exactly what people want here. The opportunity to conquer or save a planet and participate in a systemized battle over the issue is exactly the fuel the fire needs here. Closing off so many options beforehand keeps the power in the Dev's hands alright, but wastes so much potential.
Leeds is a good example of the futility of the advertised player impact on the world. There is some truth to what you've said, but at the same time there's little that can actually be done to provide such an experience given the severe lack of gameplay mechanics to facilitate such a conflict. If we tied things to a kill counter, we'd see deplorable behavior in the fights. If we decided according to the roleplay being done then both sides would be acting invincible as compared to their opponents. In the end the only thing being done is deciding on an outcome beforehand and telling people to contribute if they want to.
Your proposal for adding a system to govern conflict is well-meaning but cannot realistically be implemented as the current outlook is to limit Staff involvement in the gameplay environment as much as possible and instead have gameplay features stand in as the deciding factor for what really happens. That just isn't possible right now, and if we were to really put your idea in practice we'd need to get more hands on deck and that would just lead to more bureaucracy in an environment where people want less, which would then ultimately result in a good idea resulting in more dissatisfaction.
(12-15-2019, 07:34 AM)Anton Okunev Wrote: So. Guys. Lest make this question easy at once. Do you ready do it yourself? Read everything what posted in story section, in messagedumps. Disregard how its english will be broken, disregard how dull, edgelordy, cringy it can be. AND then compare it to really happening things, compare with in-canon faction resources, manpower, time borders. Constantly. Day to day. And write story out of it.
Do you want it? Can you do it?
Die is cast.
Yes, I am ready to do this, because I almost always monitor such things in the House in which I am interested. If there are a few more people who are ready to do the same and build a single story from this, then why not?
As for the actions of the factions and their real resources, this can also be rebuilt for the option when both parties will be interested and everyone will like everything.
(12-15-2019, 04:30 AM)Kazinsal Wrote: So basically what we're seeing here is this:
1) you pay a billion credits, non-refundable, to maybe get someone to look at your thing and determine whether or not they like it enough to make it real
2) that request can be anything ranging in scope from "pls make that time i cybered with someone for an osiris canon" to "takin' over a system lol"
3) the whole process is completely hidden behind closed doors from the community so only the dev team can see what's going on while they maybe think about voting on it
I can already see certain requests being approved in minutes flat while others stall out for a year or more before being answered with a "No."
Christ, guys. The community hates you enough already. Why the hell would you post this?
This more or less sums up my thoughts on this. I applaud the attempt, but this one missed the mark.
(12-15-2019, 09:06 AM)Binski Wrote: No one in Liberty would have bothered trying an attack to save Leeds because they already knew it was futile, when that very situation is exactly what people want here. The opportunity to conquer or save a planet and participate in a systemized battle over the issue is exactly the fuel the fire needs here. Closing off so many options beforehand keeps the power in the Dev's hands alright, but wastes so much potential.
Leeds is a good example of the futility of the advertised player impact on the world. There is some truth to what you've said, but at the same time there's little that can actually be done to provide such an experience given the severe lack of gameplay mechanics to facilitate such a conflict. If we tied things to a kill counter, we'd see deplorable behavior in the fights. If we decided according to the roleplay being done then both sides would be acting invincible as compared to their opponents. In the end the only thing being done is deciding on an outcome beforehand and telling people to contribute if they want to.
Your proposal for adding a system to govern conflict is well-meaning but cannot realistically be implemented as the current outlook is to limit Staff involvement in the gameplay environment as much as possible and instead have gameplay features stand in as the deciding factor for what really happens. That just isn't possible right now, and if we were to really put your idea in practice we'd need to get more hands on deck and that would just lead to more bureaucracy in an environment where people want less, which would then ultimately result in a good idea resulting in more dissatisfaction.
Then this place is screwed, and no offense, but its the same old argument I've always heard, yet the way it is isn't exactly keeping people happy.
As far as I'm concerned, we do have the mechanics to facilitate the conflict. There's no work going into that stuff though, it all goes into weapon power balance and cosmetic changes. Every time you shoot out a trade lane or a wreck, it proves we do have the mechanics within the game engine to set up capture the flag events that work just fine. If every one of the siege cruisers had been given 800 mil HP, and the battle be allowed to rage for a 7 day period, the winner could have easily been determined by how many ships were knocked to 0. If more than half were taken out, it could have made Leeds not a total loss, and if all, then the attack would have failed in the final hours story wise as the allies finally mustered a break through to save the billions stranded just a little bit behind the lines. That avenue is always best to motivate players to get involved anyways, especially over long term. This is also perfect since both sides can RP all they like but its the physical situation in the game that determines who can put their money where their mouth is. Not to mention, if they had put the work into figuring out how to make NEMP's work on those ships in that situation, a turn around would have been more realistic. Or, if the Gauls whipped them out and managed to knock down some of the waves of Bretonian side at the right times, they may have got their victory more fairly. Maybe the outcome would have been the same, but personally I'd have swallowed it much easier simply because the system would have actually been fair.
So I'll never buy that there is no other way than to pre-determine things in advance and then say everyone can participate if they want. The mechanics are certainly here, and I could care less about deplorable behavior when wars often are nothing but. That's what we simulate, so it makes sense. If server rules are broken, they get caught, its always been that way, only few tricks in big situations slip through. Personally I never cared about kill counters anyways, every object could be like a POB. The most epic battles over POB's were of strong bases, which made them well balanced. When people fight over objects where the loss is actually significant, it can create the same type of situation, except no one's work is lost, instead its consequences of lost territory or a lost NPC base at risk. That is perfect for determining the winners/losers of battles like the ones in the Gallic war.
You're second paragraphs completely underscores my main issue with the server in general and as far as I'm concerned is the biggest cancer killing the server all this time. We need staff who want to get online and ref the events, events that I described where we have organized battles with measurable objectives. The winning philosophy lies in making things most influenced via gameplay, with GM's overseeing the implementation of these systems in the game, and staff carrying out major changes after they're determined. So for that, if we need more hands on deck, then its time to find them. With systems in place, beurocracy gets removed for deferring to the systems, and voting comes in for when exceptions must be made. Once the systems are in place and everyone must follow them, everyone can get to work on changes that need to be made rather than continue to debate them on case by case basis. So take in staff, give them a vote, but change it so stuff is just happening and voting is done if really necessary.
![[Image: rTrJole.png]](https://i.imgur.com/rTrJole.png)
![[Image: LJ88XSk.png]](https://i.imgur.com/LJ88XSk.png)
![[Image: ka0AQa5.png]](https://i.imgur.com/ka0AQa5.png)
![[Image: QwWqCS8.png]](https://i.imgur.com/QwWqCS8.png)
![[Image: G38aJ6J.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/G38aJ6J.jpg)
![[Image: GAy6bGA.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/GAy6bGA.gif)
![[Image: pyBjInU.png]](https://i.imgur.com/pyBjInU.png)
![[Image: OFPpYpb.png]](https://i.imgur.com/OFPpYpb.png)
![[Image: N1Zf8K4.png]](https://i.imgur.com/N1Zf8K4.png)
![[Image: LnLbhul.png]](https://i.imgur.com/LnLbhul.png)