Alliance vs Coalition

[Igiss]

Another idea - tags only for Coalition, all other non-transport ships enemies of Coalition. This would be realistic as Coalition should be hostile to all Sirius military forces (traders don't count, we decided to leave them in peace right?).

[Wrath]

We wanted tags for everyone who wanted to play along...

some people want to remain neutral

[Igiss]

Ok agreed... [C] and [A] tags seem fine to me.

[Denier-of-Soup]

Yes. Like I was saying on MSN, there are two groups within the Alliance, the tagless citizens and the [A] navy. The Coalition is only allowed to attack the navy. :>

---

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."
--Sir Peter Ustinov

[daedalus]

Mmm, sorry to be throwing in another negative post, because I love this mod and GC, we're all friendly players on the server.

But has anyone considered that this type of thing alienates new players? I've seen it happen on other servers, just my latest thought.

I'm worried that only 13 have voted up until now - are there only 13 active players?

But good luck. I'll watch with interest.

Just be warned though that I'll be attacking anyone showing as hostile regardless of whether it's a [A] or [C] tag. I'm guessing most of you will be hostile to my pirate character, sadly.

Denier, thanks for pointing out earlier that it's not quite like H and X, as long as I don't have to subscribe I'll be happy.

---

Role-played characters:
daedalus - Liberty Navy
bandersnatch - Ruthless criminal possessed by a (huge) alien
Shredder - Small-time Kusari pirate, looking to join the Blood Dragons

"Bounty Hunters. We don't need that scum." - Admiral Piett

[Denier-of-Soup]

But has anyone considered that this type of thing alienates new players? I've seen it happen on other servers, just my latest thought.

Since neutral players aren't affected, they won't even notice there's a war going on.

---

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."
--Sir Peter Ustinov

[daedalus]

Since neutral players aren't affected, they won't even notice there's a war going on.

[snapback]950[/snapback]

Maybe true, but some players won't want to gen up on unusual server ettiquette in order to work out they can be neutral.

I hope I'm wrong though. A and C is certainly a better idea than hunters and pirates which through pirate activity affects everyone regardless.

---

Role-played characters:
daedalus - Liberty Navy
bandersnatch - Ruthless criminal possessed by a (huge) alien
Shredder - Small-time Kusari pirate, looking to join the Blood Dragons

"Bounty Hunters. We don't need that scum." - Admiral Piett

[Wrath]

I've encountered at least 25 people....... I'd say only 12 or so read the forums :P

wtb more alliance people to blow to bits!

[Denier-of-Soup]

We just need one more Alliance member, and we can start the battles. :>

---

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."
--Sir Peter Ustinov

[Wrath]

I was thinking, what if we assign fighters to a particular battleship and allow them to respawn indefinately until its mother ship is destroyed? They should still have to fly at least 5k to rejoin the battle, and this would make the battle more dynamic. Not to mention it would give fighters a very specific role. It would also help to level the playing field in that while fighters lack the defensive capabilities of a battleship they can make up the difference with maneuverability and the ability to respawn as long as they protect their base ship.

Or maybe we let fighters respawn indefinately as long as that team has a battleship in the warzone grid. After all of one side's battleships have been destroyed their fighters may not respawn, however any fighters that spawned before the destruction of the last battleship may rejoin the battle.

Normally I suspect no one would wish to bring a fighter to a battleship armada fight, in the same way that no one would bring a knife to a gunfight. This would make fighters viable in such an arena.