Renaming systems?

[Binski]

Every time this is done they throw away an opportunity to have some event, with some healthy competition, to determine things. Too bad we don't use a battle system *coughs* because then, we could make it so that faction's/houses can rename a system if they control it. 'Control' in this case would be defined as secure militarily, and that would mean having the assets to secure a system. So for a house to do this, they should need to maintain a certain number of npc static capitals in that system. As long as they keep their objects alive and well, they'd keep the system. Holding a system would be part of the goal and reward. Not only could we be having oranized conflicts over systems for their planets, routes, resources, bases, but even just to control their name.

In the case of O-49, Bretonia has finalized its annexation of the system, but they did that pretty cheaply. One old battleship to capture the whole system? Ok fine, really, they could give Stirling an HP bar of like 1.5 billion and basically that, (ideally combined with some smaller targets too) would allow for a little war, for factions to challenge, and do things in game to provoke wars. If the ship became weak, they could order it to withdraw, move up another ship to take the beating of holding that position. There are plenty of ways to let players do their thing and still balance out situations.

The coup is nice writing, but afterwards, if it were already set up, Coalition could have launched an attack on a mortal Stirling, use NEMP's on it, put it in danger, make the bretonia player base get moving on defense and repairs.

Its insane to ignore this possible avenue for having wars and even minor temporary conflicts. People can handle it, and I'd never believe it can't be done. If they can do it for wrecks, npc weapons platforms, storage containers, why not ships? They don't even have to explode, just stop firing and letting people dock when they go dead, and they'd just stay a wreck until removed. Yes damage would have to carry over like POB's, but nailing those few things would change this whole situation. Set it up, let players fight over these issues in game, take it to the game playing field, and let the happenings do more of the determining of these decisions, instead of surprising us and not involving players, nor using it as incentive to get people moving. More to do in game = more rp.

Its true inrp there was no reason for a war, but if more could be triggered in game like that, small conflicts and incursions would happen all the time, more people would spy on each other's bases etc, violate territory, attack each other's bases.

As to Omega-3, it will always be omega-3 to me, but in a way I don't mind as long as something happened inrp and in game around it. Bretonia expanded into the system, ok so things change. But no battle system means it could never have been really challenged by those who'd want to resist that change in the game. Or, at the very least, no work in game needed to be done, which would at least make it somewhat fair. If factions do the work to annex and hold systems for minimum amounts of time, like 6 months, then I'm ok with them renaming even the oldest systems. Just connect it to in game activity, let RP tie it together, and then its not so bad, and everyone would see it coming.

---

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) ###############