Main Battles Moving Forward

[argutator]

@Commissar Brett

 

[Commissar Brett]

I'm curious, how will NPC numbers in ground battle be affected? Will there be limits and stuff, or will it be like many of the recent battles where anyone using an NPC for anything gets like hella-disqualified. I like playing ground-tactician and I was curious. Naboo on the ground was rather entertaining.

 

[Green Ranger]

I'm curious, how will NPC numbers in ground battle be affected? Will there be limits and stuff, or will it be like many of the recent battles where anyone using an NPC for anything gets like hella-disqualified. I like playing ground-tactician and I was curious. Naboo on the ground was rather entertaining.

We strongly want to move away from this sort of, as you put it, ground tactician approach in terms of battles. NPCs are generally being abused in the RP at the moment as stand-in PCs, or are generally being used to give an unfair advantage to the person who uses large amounts of NPC forces over using a PC character. In all honesty, using NPCs like that feels like cheating to me, since you gain an advantage and mitigate risk to your PC character.

The full details of the roles of NPCs will probably be a matter for the think tank, since it's a fairly involved discussion, but the general direction we're looking at is significantly nerfing their ability to affect the outcome in a battle. We want PCs to be responsible for that.

 

[Raydo]

When you add NPCs into the mix you intensify the conditions for why these rules were created in the first place. Also, I think its worth mentioning that NPCs (Non-PlayerCharaters) are just not playable by their very definition. In my opinion, they should be used as an indicator to the capabilities of a faction but the story should always fall on the Player Characters themselves. An example of using NPCs as an indicator would be if your faction had 10 people in it, it is not plausible that your faction could engage in a one on one battle with an army and capture significant territory. However, a player battle could be fought to determine your faction attacking the army and diminishing its capabilities.

Obviously, I am not an admin have no real authority on any of this. Just the ramblings of a fellow player.

Edit: Getting ninja'd by a power ranger feels right somehow

 

[Commissar Brett]

Oh right, I get what you mean. I wasn't meaning using NOCs like they have been used recently (stand in PCs). I'm just imagining that a force versus another one 10 times its size had little chance of willing, regardless of the ability of the PC.

 

[Green Ranger]

Oh right, I get what you mean. I wasn't meaning using NOCs like they have been used recently (stand in PCs). I'm just imagining that a force versus another one 10 times its size had little chance of willing, regardless of the ability of the PC.

Well, that's more of a case by case scenario really. If the player of the smaller force does an absolutely stellar job and runs rings around their opponent, then it's not like we'd say 'oh well they have more NPCs so you still lose LOL. sux2bu.' Those are the kinds of scenarios whereby a victory is achieved against all odds, or a heroic last stands in fact survives the assault or the forces manage a retreat. It's somethign that would, realistically, be negotiated after the battle once the thread is concluded and the specific details are there to analyze. At the end of the day, the PC victor will be the primary influence determining the outcome.

 

[Commissar Brett]

Oh okay. I honestly just like writing the NPC experience, but I would figure the PC still does affect things. But they don't matter as much is what you're saying. They are still present, they just don't influence the battle too much.

 

[Outlander]

Oh okay. I honestly just like writing the NPC experience, but I would figure the PC still does affect things. But they don't matter as much is what you're saying. They are still present, they just don't influence the battle too much.

I think it comes down more to fluff, where as the outcome of the PCs affects the battle, while the NPC battle around them changes as a result.

 

[Green Ranger]

I think it comes down more to fluff, where as the outcome of the PCs affects the battle, while the NPC battle around them changes as a result.

Basically this.

 

[Commissar Brett]

I think it comes down more to fluff, where as the outcome of the PCs affects the battle, while the NPC battle around them changes as a result.

Well said, thank you. You put into words what I was trying to but failing to.

 

[Black Noise]

Finally got around to reading this thread.

Haven't fought under manaan rules, so I can't comment on them. However, I will say I am BEYOND excited for space battles. I have engaged in more, or as many, large vessel space battles than anyone else on this site. I love them. Possibly my favorite kind of combat, but it's so rare to do it because of the massive amount of resources necessary.

That aside, I can't wait to get back into those. Definitively will be making a rebel admiral next timeline. This is possibly the most excited I've been. Screw trying to not be hyped, screw any and all of my disagreements with the story, I'm excited for space combat.

 

[Vulpes]

Still a bit of a firm believer that ships should have 'attributes' and stats more akin to a pen and paper roleplay, where depending on the ship class [Fighter, Bomber, Corvette, Destroyer, etc], you get a certain number of points you can contribute towards certain stats [Speed, Hull, Maneuverability, Modularity, tbd] and depending on the ship class determines how many points the said ship gets. So you could make something like a TIE fighter that is agile and fast, but has a fair weakness in defense, or whatever have you. It'd give more of a Rock, Paper, Scissors effect to space combat, which can be good if implemented right.

So anyways, should we expect battles more often in this timeline? I like the changes to the rules that were made here, since the OOC threads were way too much bickering, and there was a general lack of haste in posting.

 

[Commissar Brett]

Still a bit of a firm believer that ships should have 'attributes' and stats more akin to a pen and paper roleplay, where depending on the ship class [Fighter, Bomber, Corvette, Destroyer, etc], you get a certain number of points you can contribute towards certain stats [Speed, Hull, Maneuverability, Modularity, tbd] and depending on the ship class determines how many points the said ship gets. So you could make something like a TIE fighter that is agile and fast, but has a fair weakness in defense, or whatever have you. It'd give more of a Rock, Paper, Scissors effect to space combat, which can be good if implemented right.

So anyways, should we expect battles more often in this timeline? I like the changes to the rules that were made here, since the OOC threads were way too much bickering, and there was a general lack of haste in posting.

Despite having already laboriously written the living shit out of new tech for next timeline and balanced all of my numbers, I actually like this idea (even though it'd mean I'd scrap the shit out of all my current write-ups)

 

[Vulpes]

Despite having already laboriously written the living shit out of new tech for next timeline and balanced all of my numbers, I actually like this idea (even though it'd mean I'd scrap the shit out of all my current write-ups)

Thanks. I may have been playing way too much X-wing miniatures when I came up with this idea.

 

[Commissar Brett]

Thanks. I may have been playing way too much X-wing miniatures when I came up with this idea.

I'm an Armada man myself, but that's more money I really shouldn't be spending.

 

[Mr.BossMan]

I do have a question for all y'all Admins out there.

Will these rules be in place for all future battles? Or will there be exceptions?

For instance what if we wanted all of the BA people to go up against the soldiers of Ziost or whatever the hell their called?

Kind of like the battle of naboo.

 

[Black Noise]

Still a bit of a firm believer that ships should have 'attributes' and stats more akin to a pen and paper roleplay, where depending on the ship class [Fighter, Bomber, Corvette, Destroyer, etc], you get a certain number of points you can contribute towards certain stats [Speed, Hull, Maneuverability, Modularity, tbd] and depending on the ship class determines how many points the said ship gets. So you could make something like a TIE fighter that is agile and fast, but has a fair weakness in defense, or whatever have you. It'd give more of a Rock, Paper, Scissors effect to space combat, which can be good if implemented right.

So anyways, should we expect battles more often in this timeline? I like the changes to the rules that were made here, since the OOC threads were way too much bickering, and there was a general lack of haste in posting.

While I completely understand where you're coming from in streamlining and making space battles cut and dry, that contradicts free-form writing and tends more towards a pen and paper RPG(or video games, much worse, but I won't stoop to that low of a comparison). Perhaps some battles, if agreed upon by both sides, could be run that way. But I for one would prefer a more free-form, open interpretation standpoint like what we have with normal battles, even with the strife it causes on occasion.

Simply put, enough lasers and a tie fighter, or what ever have you fighter, ceases to be able to dodge a larger vessel and is hit. Smaller vessels, well used, could remove larger vessels out of play through superior maneuverability. Enough fighters operating in the correct fashion, and a capital ship is hit hard. Hell, even a 2v2 or 3v3 in space battles could work, 1-2 players on each side piloting fighters/bomber to take down the capital ships, 1 player on each side calling the shots for the fleet itself. That way, we put the actual destruction of the player operated capital ship directly in the hands of another player character, as it should be. Either way, hot DAMN I am excited.

Ah, but yes, I expect there'll be much more battles. I for one will be making sure of indie factions battling very often ^_^

EDIT:

I do have a question for all y'all Admins out there.

Will these rules be in place for all future battles? Or will there be exceptions?

For instance what if we wanted all of the BA people to go up against the soldiers of Ziost or whatever the hell their called?

Kind of like the battle of naboo.

Unless agreed upon beforehand and within the parameters of the admin's rules, all BATTLES will be within Manaan rules. NOW! Skirmishes, 1v1s or 2v2s between players, organized by players, with no impact on the story, I'm sure can operate however the hell they like. Though some rules will carry over regardless, such as the report rule.

 

[Mr.BossMan]

EDIT:



Unless agreed upon beforehand and within the parameters of the admin's rules, all BATTLES will be within Manaan rules. NOW! Skirmishes, 1v1s or 2v2s between players, organized by players, with no impact on the story, I'm sure can operate however the hell they like. Though some rules will carry over regardless, such as the report rule.

View attachment 2270

 

[Black Noise]

View attachment 2270

Get with the program mayne.

But yeah, I don't think admins will attempt to rigidly regulate EVERY fight that characters get into, only the ones that effect territory, the main story, ect. very important ones. Though I do see exceptions being made if people make two(or one really ridiculous) reports, or at least examples being made of if fights following their own rules screw up and blame time/posting speed as an issue. Hah.

 

[Mr.BossMan]

Get with the program mayne.

I'm sorry okay! Do you know what it feels like? What it feels like to be on the line all the time. And watch people post these funny gifs and pictures and fancy boxes. And...and you don't know how?

*Sobs in corner*

I don't belong here....