• Home
  • Index
  • Search
  • Download
  • Server Rules
  • House Roleplay Laws
  • Player Utilities
  • Player Help
  • Forum Utilities
  • Returning Player?
  • Toggle Sidebar
Interactive Nav-Map
Interactive DarkMap
Tutorials
New Wiki
ID reference
Restart reference
Players Online
Player Activity
Faction Activity
Player Base Status
Discord Help Channel
DarkStat
Server public configs
POB Administration
Missing Powerplant
Stuck in Connecticut
Account Banned
Lost Ship/Account
POB Restoration
Disconnected
Member List
Forum Stats
Show Team
View New Posts
View Today's Posts
Calendar
Help
Archive Mode




Hi there Guest,  
Existing user?   Sign in    Create account
Login
Username:
Password: Lost Password?
 
  Discovery Gaming Community Discovery Development Discovery Mod General Discussion
« Previous 1 15 16 17 18 19 … 547 Next »
Removing remaining Guard IFFs

Server Time (24h)

Players Online

Active Events - Scoreboard

Latest activity

Pages (6): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
Removing remaining Guard IFFs
Offline Shiki
05-18-2020, 06:12 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-18-2020, 06:13 PM by Shiki.)
#41
UwU
Posts: 2,754
Threads: 121
Joined: May 2015

(05-18-2020, 06:10 PM)Michael Echo Wrote:
(05-18-2020, 06:05 PM)Tiger Wrote: Guard IFFs should stay.

For example, you have secret facilities of, idk, RM, that are not accessible to the public eye.

If youre friendly with the 'front view' assets of the RM, that doesnt mean they will allow you on their secret installations just like that.

My points is, Guard IFFs have a role. And they need to remain.
+1

If you think that some areas should be restricted then log in-game and enforce it instead of using outdated relic mechanics? That makes more sense.

[Image: loyolabully.gif]
[Image: Q5rd5YU.png]
Reply  
Offline Unity
05-18-2020, 06:13 PM,
#42
Bristol Constructions
Posts: 227
Threads: 17
Joined: Apr 2017

Guards should never have been removed, i love the RP behind a secret installation for certain factions or a reserve fleet to press the attack if any groups dare to enter their systems, its not the same.

[Image: test_2.png]
Reply  
Offline Shiki
05-18-2020, 06:14 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-18-2020, 06:15 PM by Shiki.)
#43
UwU
Posts: 2,754
Threads: 121
Joined: May 2015

(05-18-2020, 06:13 PM)Unity Wrote: Guards should never have been removed, i love the RP behind a secret installation for certain factions or a reserve fleet to press the attack if any groups dare to enter their systems, its not the same.

I don't mind the end, how about that fleet attacking being players and not guard NPCs? RP behind secret installations is not being changed, just junk being cleaned out of the mod.

[Image: loyolabully.gif]
[Image: Q5rd5YU.png]
Reply  
Offline Traxit
05-18-2020, 06:15 PM,
#44
Sourdough
Posts: 1,186
Threads: 50
Joined: Dec 2012

(05-18-2020, 06:12 PM)Shiki Wrote:
(05-18-2020, 06:10 PM)Michael Echo Wrote:
(05-18-2020, 06:05 PM)Tiger Wrote: Guard IFFs should stay.

For example, you have secret facilities of, idk, RM, that are not accessible to the public eye.

If youre friendly with the 'front view' assets of the RM, that doesnt mean they will allow you on their secret installations just like that.

My points is, Guard IFFs have a role. And they need to remain.
+1

If you think that some areas should be restricted then log in-game and enforce it instead of using outdated relic mechanics? That makes more sense.
+1

[Image: eitgNHT.gif]
The best Video Game OST
Just Got Better
Reply  
Offline Unity
05-18-2020, 06:15 PM,
#45
Bristol Constructions
Posts: 227
Threads: 17
Joined: Apr 2017

(05-18-2020, 06:14 PM)Shiki Wrote:
(05-18-2020, 06:13 PM)Unity Wrote: Guards should never have been removed, i love the RP behind a secret installation for certain factions or a reserve fleet to press the attack if any groups dare to enter their systems, its not the same.

I don't mind, how about that fleet attacking being players and not guard NPCs?

Yeah if the server had the numbers for every faction, not just the main ones.

[Image: test_2.png]
Reply  
Offline Shiki
05-18-2020, 06:17 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-18-2020, 06:18 PM by Shiki.)
#46
UwU
Posts: 2,754
Threads: 121
Joined: May 2015

(05-18-2020, 06:15 PM)Unity Wrote:
(05-18-2020, 06:14 PM)Shiki Wrote:
(05-18-2020, 06:13 PM)Unity Wrote: Guards should never have been removed, i love the RP behind a secret installation for certain factions or a reserve fleet to press the attack if any groups dare to enter their systems, its not the same.

I don't mind, how about that fleet attacking being players and not guard NPCs?

Yeah if the server had the numbers for every faction, not just the main ones.

If your faction has fewer numbers then you will most likely lose the interaction. Which is fairly normal in the competitive game. I don't see a problem nor does it justify guard systems that were usually quite poorly written and executed.

[Image: loyolabully.gif]
[Image: Q5rd5YU.png]
Reply  
Offline SnakThree
05-18-2020, 06:24 PM,
#47
Member
Posts: 9,085
Threads: 337
Joined: Mar 2010

There are different ways to describe restricted locations. Good example that I know is Virginia with Trade Lane names ending in (Restricted).

Also, not all Guard reputations are on some IDs. For example, LN ID has no rephack towards KNF Guard.

So in the end, these IFFs are only confusing people, and there are alternatives, such as ID locked docking on "guarded" stations.

[Image: rTrJole.png][Image: LJ88XSk.png]
[Image: ka0AQa5.png][Image: QwWqCS8.png]
  Reply  
Offline Sabru
05-18-2020, 07:16 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-18-2020, 07:17 PM by Sabru.)
#48
Member
Posts: 2,274
Threads: 262
Joined: Jan 2012

(05-18-2020, 06:24 PM)SnakThree Wrote: there are alternatives, such as ID locked docking on "guarded" stations.
This could work for some "guarded" stations. I know it would work for Pueblo Bonito which, ideally, would be locked for docking only by zoners (due to it's very long history of being a protected and guarded holy land and headquarters of discordianism welcoming only to zoners unless invited)

[Image: 9KgNaeX.png]
Reply  
Offline LuckyOne
05-18-2020, 09:29 PM,
#49
Armed to the Teeth
Posts: 534
Threads: 15
Joined: Apr 2020

I don't think they need to be removed.

What they need to be is re-imagined. Make them a significant PvE gameplay element. Make them scary, with all kinds of top secret equipment (cloak disruptors, armor upgrades, unlimited cruise disruptors, CODENAME weapons... you name it). And increase their spawn rates significantly. Basically Discovery boss fights.

Then populate the guard systems with stations / wrecks / depots containing all kinds of contraband and quasi-legal stuff (the unused mission cargo from vanilla as commodities might be a good start), and maybe some RP based commodities such as Battleship / Battlecruiser / Prototype blueprints. Maybe some Sci-data too as an alternative for obtaining Sci-data for people who don't want to hunt for anomalies.

Then you have a nice, challenging PvE environment that can be used to RP common tropes (stealing military secrets or secret technology... or kidnapping important military personnel). Basically something that needs to be done as a build-up before you pull-up a totally bull____ story how your tiny faction managed to obtain access to highly classified technology / ships. It could be used as an alternative when there are no / very low numbers of player run Navy factions you could RP with. But it needs to be a hard alternative, requiring either specialized ships (high level cloak) and lots of luck or a major group effort.

Think the Proteus Tome mission in Tekagi's Arch but in multiplayer, with your faction's story at stake.
Reply  
Offline Skorak
05-18-2020, 09:38 PM,
#50
3x Custom User Title
Posts: 4,422
Threads: 503
Joined: Mar 2008

You sadly cannot do any of these fancy npc ideas as they'll cease to spawn once Server load reaches a certain threshold that can be reached by as little as 40 players.

[Image: 4M4UTts.png]
[Image: IDgpvpG.png][Image: T5nJFSb.png] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: dAW1eot.png111] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: OECngVP.png77] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: 7ODm3kk.png33] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: RKgpLfI.png88]
Reply  
Pages (6): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »


  • View a Printable Version
  • Subscribe to this thread


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)



Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2026 MyBB Group. Theme © 2014 iAndrew & DiscoveryGC
  • Contact Us
  •  Lite mode
Linear Mode
Threaded Mode