(03-30-2020, 03:24 AM)Burning Wrote: This is why nobody should be in control of an NPC base, not to mention multiple ones. Now we have these two children screaming at each other about which toy belongs to whom. It also explains why faction progression is stagnant (as you say): It's because none of you is willing to give up an asset because it would be a "victory" for the other. Roleplay is all about giving and taking, you two only want to take and obviously that leads to stagnation and dispute.
I will note here that I personally wouldn't mind Order losing Dabadoru if it means that there's both a) an event to coincide with it (easy to do) and b) an event where the Order tries for Capetown as recompense.
If those can be done, then I'm all for losing Dabadoru.
Yeah that's how I am as well. Now thats what I'm talking about!
It seems that a lot of the arguing around here over who has right to what would be better sorted out in game. Let it generate activity. Something seriously needs to be applied so that its set up. A lot of bases should be made siegeable, and when they die, a number of things could occur. They could sit as unusable wrecks temporarily, or go neutral so that whoever lands a minimum of marines first can claim the station. If that were set up, whenever factions could muster numbers, they could make a serious challenge over some stations fairly. In between big battles, there would be a bunch of ways factions could make small attacks that would have some real significance. To me, those moves are exactly what it would be fun to rp around. The lack of these options is exactly what keeps me from already having put serious time into a faction.
But real fights mean folks might fight hard, use every advantage they can give themselves. I would log to defend a station though, regardless of odds, if losing it meant the area fell to an enemy faction, and be ok if we lost since it can work the other way somewhere else. nothing would be permanent, some places would often change hands while others would stabalize.
