[Official Event] The Fall of Toulouse

[JonasHudson]

@JonasHudson Leaving storyline developments, including ones that determine the future of a faction or its assets, up to which side can gather the larger gank squad is an absolutely terrible idea. If you enjoy fighting over something lasting, you're free to organize battles over POBs with like-minded people, where all people who are affected by the outcome agreed to the terms.

Well personally, I suggested an open, visible to all players system of determining when a faction has mustered enough to challenge over a station so that it stays proportionate to the force exerted by all factions. To me, its not so good as it is. Its not about gathering the larger gank squad though. If people are so serious about how they take their space wars they can always go the extra mile to gather in fleets on their own (like armies on a battlefield) and go at it over a base, instead of a chaotic rabble or gank squad domination. I'm not saying thats necessary either. But I always wondered why we don't have battles over NPC bases where they hang in the balance in real time like a long term POB siege, and let sides organize to attack and defend as they go, and of course RP around it all to document and involve the entire community.

But I do think fighting over the NPC bases and assets is actually better than fighting over POB's. We should emulate that but more often and over the same bases and planets that are already in the middle of things.

If time was given, people could prepare. With accelerants, like when NEMP's could be used in pvp, a gank fleet might not be so tough or guaranteed its victory right at the start. We have much less possibilities here without stuff like that, and with no real objective there isn't much worth fighting for. Before you call that crazy, that did used to be considered a thing that would happen on a roleplay server.

It has become terribly DRY to try to continue pretending 'such and such station was captured' or destroyed when it wasn't, it was dev'd.

This is literally what story development is. Doesn't matter if it's in Discovery, or EVE, or Warcraft, or Poker Night at the Inventory. Someone has to write this stuff, and someone has to implement it, otherwise the story goes nowhere.

We can't literally have everyone winning all the time.

Systems can determine what happens for a lot of situations as well. I'm willing to sacrifice an artificially moving story for a slightly slower moving story based on actual commensurate in game stuff going on. There would still be a winning and losing side, and as long as the events still have 2 main sides, would be more so determined by who can bring the most force and best use it. Maybe we don't have the population for it anymore, but leaving something open usually means ranks fill on both sides for a chance to make a real win! None of those games ever had freely developing situations or battles where they let the players determine the outcomes? Haven't I heard of huge battles where thousands of actual dollars of ships would be lost in a single day. That's got to have had some kind of effect player driven effect.

Its ok though, its obvious that it probably can't be handled here, there seems to be a lot of opposition to the idea and that completely blows my mind, but majority rules.

---

Leeds Resistance Forces | Tales of a Renegade |The Freelancer

<<<TAU ENTERPRISES>>>