› ›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

Star Citizen - should planets change hands politically due to player actions ?

ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,297
in Star Citizen
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/341464/should-planets-change-hands-politically-as-a-result-of-player-actions

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/6920673/#Comment_6920673

Interesting (ongoing) question asked by CIG to the backers in the official forum.

*********************************************************************************************
"Will there be huge events like a vandull attack?"
That's a pretty big question. The Vanduul are a pretty serious faction and race in the galaxy, and the actions of factions will be part of the simulation of the galaxy. The big part about that as an idea, is do we allow planets to change hands politically as a result of player actions. I'd definitely like to hear your thoughts on this one forum dwellers. As to whether a planet can be outright destroyed in the game, particularly as part of the simulation, would be a matter for some serious discussion.
*********************************************************************************************

What do you think ?

I would say "Definitely yes!"  But hey, I am biased ;-)  .... Operation "Pitchfork" FTW !


Have fun

Comments

  • DaikuruDaikuru Member RarePosts: 797
    Yes. :D
    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    - Albert Einstein


  • OriphusOriphus Member UncommonPosts: 467
    Change hands politically a big yes. Total destruction based on player actions, not so sure about that. If players can destroy something they will. Wouldn't total transformation be more fitting? 
    :)
    "Trump is a blunt force, all-American, laser-guided middle finger to everything and everyone in Washington, D.C." - Wayne Allyn Root 
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,766
    edited August 2016
    Let the players influence things that could end up on a planet destroyed on the MMO? O.o

    I would like to see the actual programmers face when seeing the designers coming up with these discussions, man that can't be easy to pull off. :anguished:


    I'm all for it but after release ofc, they already have much to work on by then.
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,766
    But there's a big point towards this:

    One of the big reasons EVE has stayed around for so long is because of players ability to wage war and control regions/areas of the universe. 

    Witch is true, fights back that "static" game world MMO's usually have.
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 4,407
    I would say yes but only go from political factions scripted in game.   IE the "Goonies" faction should not be able to politically own a planet etc.

       ED does this with the BGS and it's a huge clusterfudge and is also the reason why they say they can't do an offline mode.


    Also no destroying planets either.

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.





  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,297
    I think the "destroying of planets" part refers more to Vanduul Harvesters destroying a planet (or big parts of it) in case players are not successful in defending the planet against a large scale Vanduul attack.

    I can imagine that the "changes hand politically" part might refer more to the way Elite:Dangerous handles its political system. If many more players do missions successfully for Faction 1 compared to a smaller amount of players working for Faction 2, then over time the political power in that system shifts over to Faction1. Until dominance is achieved. And Faction 1 might even spread its influence to neighboring systems.


    Have fun 
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,766
    Asm0deus said:
    I would say yes but only go from political factions scripted in game. 

    I'd say much is possible but it should be driven by "GMs", that is the devs themselves managing the whole way everything performs, on events that can possibly drive major changes to the game world.

    So it can be more of global events kind of thing on witch the players playing through them can impact the outcome of a planet that was attacked and was successfully defended, or lost.
  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member EpicPosts: 3,396
    Erillion said:
    I think the "destroying of planets" part refers more to Vanduul Harvesters destroying a planet (or big parts of it) in case players are not successful in defending the planet against a large scale Vanduul attack.

    I can imagine that the "changes hand politically" part might refer more to the way Elite:Dangerous handles its political system. If many more players do missions successfully for Faction 1 compared to a smaller amount of players working for Faction 2, then over time the political power in that system shifts over to Faction1. Until dominance is achieved. And Faction 1 might even spread its influence to neighboring systems.


    Have fun 


    That sounds good.  And if you are on the winning side, you should get the equivalent brownie points for you work.  


    Otherwise you will end up with a pain-in-the-ass goon-griefer base.

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

Sign In or Register to comment.