Quote:Again, its like clinging to an old way of thinking that somehow no one ever realized is exactly what keeps the place limited and falling behind. At the moment with no major story developments active, houses (bretonia) being left with no reason to be active, how is a projected continuation of the shrink worse than finally allowing some sieging of important solars? Roleplay is already mostly frozen,, I see a lack of fun because the place is suppressed by people that change the game to suit themselves and their factions. This system also essentially forces everyone to go through the game to make changes happen. I guarantee that if we made these changes it would spread and begin to contribute to keeping the place more lively. We either have competitions with some risk and allow more freedom or we keep the place neutralized to avoid theoretical butthurt. Its not worth it, without opening things up this place is kept way smaller than what it has to be. People really prefer that? Not willing to support any significant changes to try to see that change?
I am a new wave of players actually- love the game, you often see me ignoring and poking at the "old way" of thinking and vets that live in the past and often am getting into trouble for it You can call me many things, but someone who doesn't have ideas that actively generate in-game activity would be the last thing even those that dislike my style the most would call me.
You can take the case study of Bretonia - I talked to many people, and apparently years ago before the wave of sieges it was a house where opposing factions helped each other, logged the other side often to keep sides balanced, and there both wasn't much hatred and people kept logging just because.
Sieges changed that, people hate each other, they win at all costs, and besides sieges the activity is non-existent. We tried to work on that, got both sides together even got Bretonia to boldly goto get swarmed in Coalition system, and Coalition Counter-raided, some of their players logging BAF even to balance sides! There was a dialogue started, potential for mutual events etc. Until a base was put up in Dublin too close to mining field that had to be sieged. It started a wave of sieges. People Logged for them Started hating each other again, not talking. Eventually, they burned out. Even a WP base on top a solar nobody wants to go against, or log Bretonia for that matter after that short burst of activity.
Same happened in Liberty - Colorado siege was a short burst of activity, but saw people get burned out, the at least quantity of RP (in B4 subjective people say liberty RP doesn't count) went down after that, people started logging just one side instead of balancing...
This idea can be good but Not for existing important solars. In terms of events S-17 is a clear example, where people cancerously tried hard so much one faction got reported and sanctioned right out of officialdom.
You shouldn't go for a situation where people Lose something but where they can only Gain - I know GMs are planning something like this for the weekend, this could be new little inconsequential PoB solars, extra rewards etc.
Again this is not coming from someone who lives in the past, but from a new and currently active player who learned the hard way about what sieging things that people care about does.
You can call me many things, but someone who doesn't have ideas that actively generate in-game activity would be the last thing even those that dislike my style the most would call me.