So the faction "fix" is that an Itani nationalist can DOCK ON A SERCO MILITARY SHIP?!

Great job.

Seems like this post would be more useful if it was labeled as a bug and with 50% less sarcasm.

I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to be seeing. But the explosions are pretty.

I welcome bug reports in the Bugs forum, where we can maybe explore what happened and how.

I thought they were pretty too... my most favorite weapon, Prox Mines... about 40 going off at once.

What your supposed to be seeing is the Itani Nationalist who, just prior to Dying... was docked in and using a turret of a Serco military Connie during a blockade.

Given the alleged direction the faction system is supposed to be going, that seems just the slightest bit... completely fucked up. Actually... given any set of circumstances (short of conquerable cappies)... that seems incredibly stupid.

Honestly, I would have posted it in bugs... but, given the approach to "fixing" faction... I wasn't certain it was a bug and not a feature.

Honestly, I would have posted it in bugs... but, given the approach to "fixing" faction... I wasn't certain it was a bug and not a feature.

We have two places on the forums for this kind of thing. One is for gameplay that is obviously not working right, and is called "Bugs". The other is for places where we discuss changes that we think would benefit the game, and sometimes bring up issues that may or may not be intentional but have other problematic ramifications. This is called "Suggestions".

At no point is posting self-righteous, sarcastic angst to the General forum a desirable outcome. It does not "raise the profile" of the issue. It actually does the opposite, since it focuses the developer more on your acerbic tone than the actual problem.

Just keep the focus on the issue. There are a lot of things that "don't make sense" that we're going to need to correct, which are mostly all weird little special-case things (not even hinged on faction numbers) scattered throughout a massive 14-year-old codebase across several different languages and design paradigms. That's why we don't make giant faction changes, that we can't really test, right before a big and expensive marketing campaign. We do what we can, when we can, the best way that we can, factoring in limitations, unknowns, and our vast experience with codebase landmines blowing up in our faces.

An operational game with weirdness and some bizarre stupid stuff is better than a non-operational game where the newbies all get zotted by beam weapons when they undock, due to a hilarious factional oversight. Or less immediately-obvious problems that propagate slowly into the database/stats and take weeks of careful log research to correct (been there, done that).

We are still trying to fix stuff.

Thanks Inc.

DAMMIT RYAN! I was going to make this thread based on the dicussions we had on IRC earlier today about how the faction redux needs extra work and how Incarnate really needs to move that mutual exclusivity bar down a lot.

Remember, we only have a limited quota of incarnate posts!!!! Can't waste them on him rehashing how daunting the task is!!

So..

The issue is that PvP nationalist activities in greyspace have virtually no meaning because the faction exclusivity doesn't make sense. If somebody is admired with Itani, any reasonable Serco nationalist would want to shoot them for supporting the enemy, yet when they try and blockade Itani space like ryan was trying to do today, we get valkryie x1 pilots docking in serco tridents because they have respect. It makes no sense that a Serco trident would let an itani nationalist inside whatsoever.

The solution is completely developmentally simple (yes this time i'm sure).. Lower that faction mutual exclusivity so that if you are admired with Itani you are hated with serco and vice versa. Hell. i'd even support it being directly proportional exclusivity i.e. +666 with Serco means -666 with Itani and I'm sure a lot of other players would too.

Oh I'll probably post the log of that conversation because there were some interesting points raised.

Neutral parties should stay out of the battlefield.
Period.
<Mecha> Its because I'm mecha and the big bad serco
<Ishathis_Bessuni> Funy that the Serco military capships let me dock and repair when Chaos shot me...
<Mecha> and i openly hate carebears
<CrazySpence> while PA and tgft and VPR go "oh dear, empty grey has more serco i dont like it cause to me serco are my version of black people" <- how it is to those southern grey nuetral people
<ARF> Ishathis_Bessuni: that's because the game is retarded.
<Mecha> lol spence
<ARF> and Incarnate chickened out when he made the faction redux.
<Ishathis_Bessuni> That may be, but it's no secret I was against it from the beginning.
<Mecha> so what
join the itani military and not be neutral
<slime> maybe I should shoot you for conspiring with Serco, ishathis
<Mecha> don't brand me as a terrorist
<Ishathis_Bessuni> Stronger faction loss for doing Deneb stuff, I support.
<Mecha> when i'm clearly not
<ARF> Ishathis_Bessuni: I want the war convoys to attack ANYONE capable of DOCKING on the other side of the wormholes.
<CrazySpence> i think the only nation that should be able to be respect in both places is UIT, Itan and serco players the pendelum should swing point for point in oppositie directions
<draugbot> [100] <no1much> cool cool cool
<Deathzor> !Ishathis_Bessuni: you might want to report it as a bug
<Mecha> Just because I've decided to enforce nationalism where ONE has chickened out
<ARF> What good is a blockade that sits there peacefully and does nothing.
<CrazySpence> and move the prom and valks into being military member required
<ARF> ^
<Mecha> yes
i 100% support that
<slime> yes
<Mecha> it doesn't make sense to have everyone and their brother have proms and valks
<CrazySpence> atleast the x1/vigilant and the SCP's if we're going to be incarnate about it, but in my version, all proms, all valk
<Mecha> aye
i can understand why he looks at it that way, he doesn't want to scare off subbers
<Ishathis_Bessuni> You want what's good for you. I want what's good for me.
<Mecha> but its lame gameplay wise
<Deathzor> !i would like to get some blackmarket version of the valk or prom with that ( with like lower stads based on a stole design or something )
<draugbot> [100] <Mr. Chaos> I know right?
<Mecha> I'm doing what nationalist roleplayers do
<draugbot> [100] <Bismarcko> you guys should be nice to each other
<Mecha> You're making crap up as you go
<ARF> ^
<Deathzor> !making that 1 illegal in both Serco and Itani space
<slime> Ishathis: I want what makes the game better
<CrazySpence> nuetral people just wanna do whatever allows them to have space ship IRC
<Mecha> aye
<draugbot> [100] <Mr. Chaos> Nice is for pansies.
<CrazySpence> in their fancy ship avatars
<Ishathis_Bessuni> That's what pirates are for.
<draugbot> [100] <Mr. Chaos> This is Vendetta.
<Mecha> in the real world, ONE would be considered traitors and no one would harbor them
<CrazySpence> "look I have a valk! " 'I have a prom' "fight?" 'no, lets be pals' "ok" *kiss*
<Mecha> in vo I'm the terrorsit lol
<Deathzor> !CS well i'm neutral in the war, but will fight for the highst bidder ;)
<ARF> Mecha: yeah especially after a certain bribe that i was made privy to...
<CrazySpence> why are you replying throught he relay to direct irc
lol
<Mecha> a bribe?
<CrazySpence> no one else sees what i am saying
<Deathzor> o because i assumed your msg was relayed
didn't notice the lack of !
<CrazySpence> im not against like prom 1 or 2 and the shitty valk rune being public vessals as a compromise but the big daddy scp and vigilant/x1 need to be military hardware
<Mecha> SVG/IBG/Vengeance valk etc
<CrazySpence> yes
--> Mr_Chaos (~chatzilla@cloak-262B5671.washdc.east.verizon.net) has joined #vrelay
<CrazySpence> the ibg and svg are the kings of their respective ship classes, and in both cases there is a corvus and orion alternative there
<ARF> BioCom also makes a good vulture
<Mecha> the way it is now, it would be like the army letting me drive a tank because i have adrivers license
<Deathzor> i would personally say remove the cargo space from a rune ( keep the stats and add a scanner ) as a convus valk, do simular for a prom
thats a cargo scanner ;) and make you auto itani kos if you fly it.
<ARF> Mecha: it's like if the US air force was selling F-22 raptors to Delta airlines.
Oh they're a neutral party!
<Mecha> hahaha
<CrazySpence> lets give the Swiss nukes! they're everyones friend!
<Mr_Chaos> I thought we were all registered fighter pilots?
<ARF> Well, every fuckin trader in the 'verse is a registered Itani "test pilot"
<TheRedSpy> Lol i love slimes comment
<Mr_Chaos> I know right?
<TheRedSpy> "maybe I should shoot at you ish for conspiring with the serco"
<Mecha> aye ARF
<Deathzor> ARF: no but the designs are generally aviable on the 'black market', so it would not be amazing if convus had something that looks like a valk for sale ;)
<TheRedSpy> maybe we should have some diplomacy with Itan. an aggression pact towards VPR.. the vigilantes
<draugbot> [100] <Istan Tolesis> yooo
<TheRedSpy> the whole verese
<CrazySpence> lol
<TheRedSpy> its about time
<Mecha> no, VPR are terrorists
attacking a blockade
<ARF> TheRedSpy: You've got a lot of bad blood to wash off for that to happen. Better get scrubbing.
<TheRedSpy> they are ideological terrorists, they have no accountability, they brand whoever they please pirates
<Deathzor> ARF: but selling them to anybody with admired standing is crazy yeah ;)
<TheRedSpy> lol
no FAMY won't be doing anything it was just an idea
lol
<ARF> Deathzor: You won't be finding "black-market" versions of the F-22 raptor for sale in Iran either.
<Mr_Chaos> Guys I should get a valk I know I killed like a thousand itani pilots before BUT IM ADMIRED WITH YOU!
<Patterner> Not even terrorists want F-22s...
<ARF> lol not even the US wants them
too expensive

Sorry Inc... if "Honestly, I would have posted it in bugs... but, given the approach to "fixing" faction... I wasn't certain it was a bug and not a feature." came off as sarcastic, it wasn't. You've talked about fixing faction in small steps, hence my uncertainty.

I believe the main concern was fear that it might make some missions impossible to complete.

Are there any other potential problems with increasing the mutual exclusivity? I can't think of anything other than the general angst about not being able to do everything and go everywhere.

I would prefer a few mission be broken then continue on with the current faction system. If the authors dont want to fix thier missions then remove them....

+1 PaK

Ugh, now I need a shower.

The main fear is the potential second and third-level ramifications that we can't easily foresee. A few missions being problematic are not that big of a concern to me.

I am also not concerned about the inevitable trader people or whomever, who become upset by a more intensely adjusted faction system.

I am concerned that if we make the change right now, and things go awry, I have basically no resources to fix it. My guys are all pushing on important deadlines that relate to major company income or important relationships with big players. This will hopefully wrap around early June, about the time I head out to E3.

But what I can pretty easily do, is change the factional points for things like docking with capships. That could be trivially upped to Admire, without any serious concern of breaking things elsewhere in the game. The same can be true of which equipment is available at what faction levels.

There sometimes seems to be a userbase perception that the factional changes must maintain all current factional requirements, but alter the "big number" (standing) to make it meaningful. I've been working on the model that the whole system needs re-vamping, both from the "big number" aspect through to all the individual requirement numbers, relative difficulty of achieving said numbers (Trade mission, etc) and so on (including changing what it means to be "disliked" by a faction, etc). It's actually a lot easier for docking and equipment type numbers to be changed, because the prospect of unforeseen ramifications are much smaller (and because I can literally change all equipment requirements by myself, on the fly with the server up).

People interested in my original thinking should be sure to go back and read (but not post to) the First RFC thread.

10:32AM Pizzasgood

"Are there any other potential problems with increasing the mutual exclusivity?"

Yes the Master Prospector missions, they would have to be changed. thats the only ones I can think of off the of my head

the Master Prospector missions, they would have to be changed

No they wouldn't. You want to prospect the whole universe, earn HD beams, and mine everywhere? You're a neutral or you become one.

so, what we need is a quick solution.

For me, it would be 2 steps:

1. Make War Convoys cappies only accept docking from same nation.
> What a UIT neutral trader have to do in a military ship during a war mission? We can't even sell them weapons nor ammo... not to mention the enemy...

2. Raise the docking requirements for all "military" capships. Keep convoy ones as they are now.

Alloh, if the Itani rejected me, a member of their military with "Admired" standing, from docking simply for being UIT, that would be retarded.

Of course, the fact that I'm still a member of the Itani military after being KOS with them for the bulk of the last two years, and being POS with the Serco for a while as well, is equally retarded. :)

My opinion would be having the blockade convoys shoot anybody who is not hated by the nation being blockaded, and only allowing people who are both admired by the blockading nation and hated by the blockaded nation to dock with them.

"I am also not concerned about the inevitable trader people or whomever, who become upset by a more intensely adjusted faction system."

Incarnate, does "more intensely" include the possibility of changing it to the extent that UIT guilds and multifactional guilds will be forced to chose between being excluded from either the best equipment in the game or from about half of the game universe (guarded and monitored Serco and Itani space)?

A clear statement on this would end the controversy over this here in the forum which causes a lot of ugly trolling, as you must have witnessed since you were answering in one of these threads before it was moderated.

You seem to be under the impression that an entire multi-national guild will be restricted from docking if one of their members is not able to dock. This is not the case, guilds are simply collections of players. A multi-national guild will likely have some players who are able to dock at stations that others in the guild cannot. It has always been this way.
There is no recent controversy on the forums except the one you created through your apparent lack of knowledge about the game and its players.

I have explained this in detail elsewhere more then once, you may start reading here.