On the clans

Banjo

Helpful Citizen

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Jun 14, 2017
164
Terran Defense Corps
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
The problem we are running into is that no one willing to compromise to make have their faction more in line with the lore, I don't believe TDC, CPC, or GotC should be manufacturers, I think that should be the corp's jobs and visversa, I do not thing Corps should have the same level of combat staying power as TDC, CPC, or GotC. However, I think a hard coded slider system that is effected based upon policy selections, AND player interaction should have an effect on the faction, also I believe that it will allow players and their leaders to have more agency over their factions. If the faction leaders want to discourage people from ecoing to prevent them from losing combat buffs/deployables, then uncheck the box that says "Give out eco missions to faction members." You want your faction to be more Eco and less combat? Uncheck "patrol routes." However, I think it should have a deeper break down than that, for example: Lawful <> Lawless factions that are more lawful may get deployables that helps CPC do their job(like security cameras), or if they go lawless, get deployables that help they syndicate do their own job and add corruption, like Security bypass deployable.

I am not of the opinion that players should zero agency over their faction, If people want to push their faction to be more eco or more combat focus or some other focus, then they should have that ability to do so, but at a consequence of doing so in a semi reasonable amount of time(Perhaps it takes 2 to 3 months for an entire faction to beable to shift over from combat focus to Eco focus.) I'm also opinion that the mechanics should have a consequence to other factions as well, if everyone goes combat focus, then no one can build the advance stuff, you won't see specialized trauma kits, or advance weapons, if every corp goes Lawless, so that they can help sydicate, then the consequence is that CPC has a harder time enforcing the law when someone steals shit from you, but on the flip side, Your group will have to work on keeping their "crime points" low to prevent lawlessness from taking over.
I don't think there is anyone who disputes that TDC, CPC, or GotC shouldn't be focused on manufacturing. It seems to be more a problem of how it is done.
I'm having a hard time to see how your response deals with the problem of faction identity clashing with a gameplay style that I pointed out. I take it that you don't see this as a problem, and thus you suggest to throw out the unique faction identities in favour of a generic and player dynamic faction identity.
 

Meliarion

Taxpayer

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Jul 5, 2017
35
Followers of Eternity
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
Forming the goals of the factions is what game mechanics are for, and why it's important that GOTC has game mechanics to support their playstyle. The goal of Tetris is to stack as many blocks as possible, reinforced by mechanics that reward you for filling out whole rows, and punish you for being lazy with a game over. The "goal" of MMORPGs is to get stronger, reinforced by levelling systems. The goal of call of duty is to beat the other team, reinforced with match setups, killboards, points and even kill streaks. The goal of monopoly is to take all the money from the other players, reinforced by mechanics for taking money from those players when they land on your cities.
Game mechanics are what forms the goal of the game and is the way to encourage people to play certain ways. Culture is a by-product of peoples action, and people are highly unreliable as seen with FOM with endless quotes of miss management, bad leadership and community killers (true or not). FOM devolved into a power ranger faction TDM, because it was the only fundamental goal the mechanics allowed for. Without proper GM oversight, it was this state it naturally came to.
Those are games with mechanically defined and measured win states, rather than more free form sandbox games and with sandbox games the win state is more nebulous. What is the win state in Minecraft? Is someone who runs an alliance in Eve but rarely fights (and consequently few kill board entries) a loser? Why is the goal to kill people and not to collect the largest amount of money? When there is no defined game mechanically defined win state then players will construct their own and factions should be groupings of people with the same goals/ideas and given the tools the achieve them.

FoM devolved into a power ranger faction TDM because a lot of the people who had goals that involved more than just killing people left as there was no mechanical or community support for what they wanted to do. Culture may be a by-product of people's actions but ultimately it is culture that determines what is valued and what isn't. If your culture places a lot of value/prestige on being a good fighter but not so much on other skill sets then the only mechanical "win states" that will matter are the martial ones.
 

Banjo

Helpful Citizen

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Jun 14, 2017
164
Terran Defense Corps
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
Those are games with mechanically defined and measured win states, rather than more free form sandbox games and with sandbox games the win state is more nebulous. What is the win state in Minecraft? Is someone who runs an alliance in Eve but rarely fights (and consequently few kill board entries) a loser? Why is the goal to kill people and not to collect the largest amount of money? When there is no defined game mechanically defined win state then players will construct their own and factions should be groupings of people with the same goals/ideas and given the tools the achieve them.

FoM devolved into a power ranger faction TDM because a lot of the people who had goals that involved more than just killing people left as there was no mechanical or community support for what they wanted to do. Culture may be a by-product of people's actions but ultimately it is culture that determines what is valued and what isn't. If your culture places a lot of value/prestige on being a good fighter but not so much on other skill sets then the only mechanical "win states" that will matter are the martial ones.
I understand your point that mechanically reinforced goals may be ignored because of culture. However, as you say, changing the culture is hard and will require handpicking HC and GM oversight, which is a highly intrusive operation that generally is frowned upon. Therefore I believe that a solid mechanical structure is the best starting point to grow the desired culture from.
 

Meliarion

Taxpayer

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Jul 5, 2017
35
Followers of Eternity
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
I understand your point that mechanically reinforced goals may be ignored because of culture. However, as you say, changing the culture is hard and will require handpicking HC and GM oversight, which is a highly intrusive operation that generally is frowned upon. Therefore I believe that a solid mechanical structure is the best starting point to grow the desired culture from.
Slicing the game up into separate spheres only works if each sphere is equally valuable and respected by the community, otherwise the factions that are limited to unrewarding spheres will just die. I would prefer a game where it was in character consequences that meant factions did not do things, instead of game mechanic limitations. This will make diplomacy and inter factional negotiations more important, making the world potentially more dynamic.

How do you mechanically incentivize the factions to do what they are supposed to be doing? How do you incentive the CPC and TDC to do their jobs without creating a culture that is full of people that want to play cop or soldier? Likewise who is going to join the merc faction to conquer the starmap?
 

Ren Astarot

Dweller

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
May 13, 2020
15
Terran Defense Corps
Rank: Major (R5)
Service Points: 0
I don't think there is anyone who disputes that TDC, CPC, or GotC shouldn't be focused on manufacturing. It seems to be more a problem of how it is done.
I'm having a hard time to see how your response deals with the problem of faction identity clashing with a gameplay style that I pointed out. I take it that you don't see this as a problem, and thus you suggest to throw out the unique faction identities in favour of a generic and player dynamic faction identity.
I do not see the idea of allowing players(Which includes HC) to have a good deal of authority over the faction they reside in. The slider rewards don't have to be the same across all factions. Example, lets use a combat vs eco as an EXAMPLE, if both CPC and TDC go full combat on the slider, then they will potentially unlock deployable turrets. However, the turret for TDC is lethal, and the turret for CPC is non-lethal.(This is just an EXAMPLE). Ontop of that, HC should be helping with enforcing a certain culture of the group, and mechanically this can help them if they have a great deal of control over the things that influce the different sliders...Mainly through missions, but also through perhaps internal penalty points handed out by HC to those that veer wildly out of control that could lock them out of certain faction benefits, if the acquire too many internal penalty points. Also, I'm sure if the GMs or story team thinks the faction is going to wildly out of control, they can lock certain options on and off so that HC can't adjust them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Reaper

Michael Reaper

Citizen

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Aug 26, 2018
67
Followers of Eternity
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
The problem we are running into is that no one willing to compromise to make have their faction more in line with the lore, I don't believe TDC, CPC, or GotC should be manufacturers, I think that should be the corp's jobs and visversa, I do not thing Corps should have the same level of combat staying power as TDC, CPC, or GotC. However, I think a hard coded slider system that is effected based upon policy selections, AND player interaction should have an effect on the faction, also I believe that it will allow players and their leaders to have more agency over their factions. If the faction leaders want to discourage people from ecoing to prevent them from losing combat buffs/deployables, then uncheck the box that says "Give out eco missions to faction members." You want your faction to be more Eco and less combat? Uncheck "patrol routes." However, I think it should have a deeper break down than that, for example: Lawful <> Lawless factions that are more lawful may get deployables that helps CPC do their job(like security cameras), or if they go lawless, get deployables that help they syndicate do their own job and add corruption, like Security bypass deployable.

I am not of the opinion that players should zero agency over their faction, If people want to push their faction to be more eco or more combat focus or some other focus, then they should have that ability to do so, but at a consequence of doing so in a semi reasonable amount of time(Perhaps it takes 2 to 3 months for an entire faction to beable to shift over from combat focus to Eco focus.) I'm also opinion that the mechanics should have a consequence to other factions as well, if everyone goes combat focus, then no one can build the advance stuff, you won't see specialized trauma kits, or advance weapons, if every corp goes Lawless, so that they can help sydicate, then the consequence is that CPC has a harder time enforcing the law when someone steals shit from you, but on the flip side, Your group will have to work on keeping their "crime points" low to prevent lawlessness from taking over.
I support this idea. I agree it would keep balance and keep every faction from going into a war state. Will again also create a reason for factions to agree to surrender terms quicker instead of killing their faction off.
 

Hepopotan

Dweller

Jul 24, 2017
24
ya mum's hut
Civil Protection Commission
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
I consider ecoing pretty essential to the individual experience in MR, and I don't think it should be fully off-limits to any player. If they want to take part in the market to make some extra cash or just produce some simple items for themselves or the faction, they should be able too.

However, I do agree that there should be some tight restrictions in place for non-corp factions on what exactly they can/cannot produce. I'd recommend the lower tier items (i.e. simple pistols, ammo, mustard armor, tier 1 medkits, food stuffs) should all be within every players' ability to produce. You can then distribute the higher tier items among the three corp factions so that each one can produce specific items with some overlap (i.e. ballistic and energy weapons, grenades, AE should be the only ones producing their own tier 3 medkit).
 
Last edited: