Notice: Roleplay Canonization Requests

[Binski]

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.

---

The Further Exploits of Captain Antares (August 2015) │ (alt) JonasHudson
*Argo | Special Operative ID (Approved Request)* | Argo Compilation Video
################ *Proposed OF Challenge System* ################
############### The Book of Piracy (Piracy Tutorial) ###############
############### Binski Alamo (Youtube Channel) ###############