Serious Discussion: WW3RP 'back to basics'... sortof

[Deleted member 3818]

personally I'm just tired of cold war setting and I think if we're using this as an opportunity to bring back classic ww3rp we should go all the way with it and try and match the ww3rp which people loved the most, but in an improved way.

 

[Deleted member 61]

just change the name from globalists that sounds dumb as fuck its like some alex jones conspiracy theory

is it really a conspiracy theory?

 

[Jello]

personally I'm just tired of cold war setting and I think if we're using this as an opportunity to bring back classic ww3rp we should go all the way with it and try and match the ww3rp which people loved the most, but in an improved way.

This. But adding to this, assuming that we already have modern weapons, tanks and aircrafts in, isn't the only thing that has to be changed the playermodels and the lore? @Roosebud

 

[Roosebud]

the ww3rp which people loved the most

I still find this claim weird, as every change from modern to cold war has always been subjected to public polls and gathered a massively postive response. Perhaps that's down to 'freshening things up' at the time or w/e, but I don't think it's fair to constantly use 'everyone loved it the most' as the main argument for pushing it through when the same can be claimed for other iterations by that logic.

I'm still, still not clear on what part people exactly loved so much. We already spoke about 'being able to relate', as the modern lore at the time had almost nothing to do with the current real-life history. We've also taken the same freedoms lore- and event-wise as we did back then. The equipment/weapons are pretty much the same, aside from a bunch of makeshift/historic shit being added.

Is it the nostalgia of the gameplay/people at that time? It feels like that's the main thing, but that's not really gonna come back no matter what anyone does.

This. But adding to this, assuming that we already have modern weapons, tanks and aircrafts in, isn't the only thing that has to be changed the playermodels and the lore? @Roosebud

As I've been saying, literally all 'modern' equipment aside from the stuff we wouldn't be using anyways is already being used, so there'd be little to no change on that front by progressing into the 'modern age'. Same goes for playermodels really.

I don't see what would need to be changed about the lore aside from literally editing the year counter from 1992/1995 to 2020 and filling the gap between the years with some background lore that would likely be very unrealistic and nobody is going to read.

I've yet to come across a solid, concrete argument on what benefit that would bring considering the player-built lore and additional time/work we'd be sacrificing.

Edit: I feel like I should also mention the recurring sentiment/claims that people won't care about the lore anyways, and since the lore would be divergent from real-life history even if set in the modern age, why would it matter if we're 'in' the modern age or close to it? I certainly don't see the added value of it if it means we're gonna have to sacrifice people being able to continue/bring back their characters or reference player-made events, as they'd suddenly be 30+ years in the past.

 

[Deleted member 3818]

I still find this claim weird, as every change from modern to cold war has always been subjected to public polls and gathered a massively postive response. Perhaps that's down to 'freshening things up' at the time or w/e, but I don't think it's fair to constantly use 'everyone loved it the most' as the main argument for pushing it through when the same can be claimed for other iterations by that logic.

I'm still, still not clear on what part people exactly loved so much. We already spoke about 'being able to relate', as the modern lore at the time had almost nothing to do with the current real-life history. We've also taken the same freedoms lore- and event-wise as we did back then. The equipment/weapons are pretty much the same, aside from a bunch of makeshift/historic shit being added.

Is it the nostalgia of the gameplay/people at that time? It feels like that's the main thing, but that's not really gonna come back no matter what anyone does.

Well the way I see it it's a case of differentiating it from stasiland, otherwise I feel that people are just going to see it as being stasliand v2 with more s2k rather than a return to classic ww3rp. It's the same reason as why you don't see a call of duty game use the same setting twice in a row, people want something different. As for why people loved the modern setting I don't think there really needs to be some grand reasoning behind it, it's just a cool setting that people like. Saying that people are just on a nostalgia trip is sort of like saying they shouldn't have made call of duty modern warfare 2 because people were just nostalgic of the first one and it could never provide the same experience.

 

[Deleted member 1381]

It's the same reason as why you don't see a call of duty game use the same setting twice in a row

and we know how well that went lol

 

[Roosebud]

Well the way I see it it's a case of differentiating this it from stasiland, otherwise I feel that people are just going to see it as being stasliand v2 with more s2k rather than a return to classic ww3rp. It's the same reason as why you don't see a call of duty game use the same setting twice in a row, people want something different. As for why people loved the modern setting I don't think there really needs to be some grand reasoning behind it, it's just a cool setting that people like. Saying that people are just on a nostalgia trip is sort of like saying they shouldn't have made call of duty modern warfare 2 because people were just nostalgic of the first one and it could never provide the same experience.

I disagree on the topic of having to change it just because 'it'd feel like stasiland 2', and 'it's just a cool setting' just doesn't make much sense to me if people can't tell me what'd be different from what we're doing now aside from the date in the tab menu. It's still a roleplay server and I feel like sacrificing player-built events, lore and the opportunity to continue characters doesn't weigh up to the reasons being put forward to change it all so far.

But if that's your firm opinion, that's fine. I'm also probably just tired of going in loops page upon page without really getting to the core of what people actually want, as I feel there's always some underlying thing not being spoken about.

 

[Trains]

I disagree on the topic of having to change it just because 'it'd feel like stasiland 2', and 'it's just a cool setting' just doesn't make much sense to me if people can't tell me what'd be different from what we're doing now aside from the date in the tab menu. It's still a roleplay server and I feel like sacrificing player-built events, lore and the opportunity to continue characters doesn't weigh up to the reasons being put forward to change it all so far.

But if that's your firm opinion, that's fine. I'm also probably just tired of going in loops page upon page without really getting to the core of what people actually want, as I feel there's always some underlying thing not being spoken about.

maybe its because modern day is a lot more relatable for people, i dunno
i dont think there's many people here that remember the cold war

might not have anything to do with it but thats just my two cents i guess

 

[Deleted member 3818]

I disagree on the topic of having to change it just because 'it'd feel like stasiland 2', and 'it's just a cool setting' just doesn't make much sense to me if people can't tell me what'd be different from what we're doing now aside from the date in the tab menu. It's still a roleplay server and I feel like sacrificing player-built events, lore and the opportunity to continue characters doesn't weigh up to the reasons being put forward to change it all so far.

But if that's your firm opinion, that's fine. I'm also probably just tired of going in loops page upon page without really getting to the core of what people actually want, as I feel there's always some underlying thing not being spoken about.

at the end of the day it's just my opinion yeah, whatever this new server will be it's most important that you as the creator are passionate about it yourself and have a vision for it. But I think just having a different setting, a different aesthetic, a different vibe is more important than people give it credit for, it can go a long way in captivating and interesting people and just providing variety when it's needed.

 

[Roosebud]

maybe its because modern day is a lot more relatable for people, i dunno
i dont think there's many people here that remember the cold war

might not have anything to do with ht but thats just my two cents i guess

Right, I don't really want to be rude so sorry if I come across as such. But scroll back a couple pages and read up on the discussion(s) we already had about that topic.

In (very) short, it boils down to;

• The 'old' modern lore was so far away from reality it was near impossible to actually portray a fully realistic character that'd be imaginable in real life.
• People would be as able to identify with a 90's soldier fighting a cold war gone hot as a modern/near-future soldier man fighting in a third world war that would've likely never taken place to begin with.
• 'It's more relatable' often means being able to reference modern events and origins, which would be changed in the lore regardless, especially since we'd likely use the cold war lore as a basis.
• Knowing the above, people haven't been able to provide concrete reasons as to why we should sacrifice a solid lore basis and the ability to continue events/characters other than vague remarks such as 'its relatable' when it wouldn't really be.

 

[Trains]

Right, I don't really want to be rude so sorry if I come across as such. But scroll back a couple pages and read up on the discussion(s) we already had about that topic.

In (very) short, it boils down to;

• The 'old' modern lore was so far away from reality it was near impossible to actually portray a fully realistic character that'd be imaginable in real life.
• People would be as able to identify with a 90's soldier fighting a cold war gone hot as a modern/near-future soldier man fighting in a third world war that would've likely never taken place to begin with.
• 'It's more relatable' often means being able to reference modern events and origins, which would be changed in the lore regardless, especially since we'd likely use the cold war lore as a basis.
• Knowing the above, people haven't been able to provide concrete reasons as to why we should sacrifice a solid lore basis and the ability to continue events/characters other than vague remarks such as 'its relatable' when it wouldn't really be.

ah fair

sorry yeah i hadn't bothered reading the whole thread in all honesty but yea i get that

 

[Deleted member 1381]

maybe its because modern day is a lot more relatable for people, i dunno
i dont think there's many people here that remember the cold war

might not have anything to do with it but thats just my two cents i guess

relatable just seems to be being used as another word for being able to reference current world events, which is moot as the majority of them will be retconned anyway and even if they weren't they'd be in game meme fodder as people make cheap quips about trump, anime, or other shit that simply doesn't belong in the middle of a world war or battlefield

 

[Deleted member 3818]

relatable just seems to be being used as another word for being able to reference current world events, which is moot as the majority of them will be retconned anyway and even if they weren't they'd be in game meme fodder as people make cheap quips about trump, anime, or other shit that simply doesn't belong in the middle of a world war or battlefield

i mean you could say the same thing about a soviet soldier going cheeki breeki or cyka blyat all the time, it's a matter of leadership maintaining a high standard of quality.

 

[Deleted member 1381]

i mean you could say the same thing about a soviet soldier going cheeki breeki or cyka blyat all the time, it's a matter of leadership maintaining a high standard of quality.

by that logic we can't have a character from any nationality in case it gets stereotyped

 

[Dallas]

speaking as someone who helped write the "classic" ww3rp lore

as in, worked with powley in 2014 to write the first LP version
that lore sucks a fat one and literally anything is better




how about a "2028 lore" that just starts in the near future

an expanded NATO-Pacific Alliance (Aus/NZ/SK/Japan) vs an authoritarian coalition/anti-US pact (China and its belt and road nations in its orbit, Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, etc.)

kick it off with the invasion of the baltic states and then you wing it from there

 

[GenericPlayer]

Old lore was a mess. You had East Germany still as a thing, but Russia was the Russian Federation (or most said and RP'd it as such, though some said it was still the USSR so fuck if I know), who were in kahoots with the Chinese despite the Sino-Soviet split still happening, who were all at war with the USA and NATO who formed the UGA because of reasons(?), and on top of all that you had folk going around using Snapchat ICly.

You can't say with a straight face that's more relatable, because you can't truthfully know what the hell was even going on half the time.

 

[Jello]

relatable just seems to be being used as another word for being able to reference current world events, which is moot as the majority of them will be retconned anyway and even if they weren't they'd be in game meme fodder as people make cheap quips about trump, anime, or other shit that simply doesn't belong in the middle of a world war or battlefield

People say it's more relatable because I wasn't alive in the 90's, the world has changed, countries have come and went, things have happened. New things were invented and other things that were used back then aren't being used nowadays. I know what it's like in 2021, I don't know what it was like in 1991.
People don't say it's more relatable for a gag, and to say as such is just stupid, they say it's easier to relate to a modern soldier because, it is.

 

[Dallas]

Old lore was a mess. You had East Germany still as a thing, but Russia was the Russian Federation (or most said and RP'd it as such, though some said it was still the USSR so fuck if I know), who were in kahoots with the Chinese despite the Sino-Soviet split still happening, who were all at war with the USA and NATO who formed the UGA because of reasons(?), and on top of all that you had folk going around using Snapchat ICly.

You can't say with a straight face that's more relatable, because you can't truthfully know what the hell was even going on half the time.

argh now you've just made me think of cunts walking around roleplaying TikToks on base

fuck no

 

[Jello]

speaking as someone who helped write the "classic" ww3rp lore

as in, worked with powley in 2014 to write the first LP version
that lore sucks a fat one and literally anything is better




how about a "2028 lore" that just starts in the near future

an expanded NATO-Pacific Alliance (Aus/NZ/SK/Japan) vs an authoritarian coalition/anti-US pact (China and its belt and road nations in its orbit, Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, etc.)

kick it off with the invasion of the baltic states and then you wing it from there

Sure, I think the whole point was people don't want to play a pre 2000's era soldier, cause half the server wasn't even alive back then, I'd settle for anything from 2000-2030, cause I know it'll be modern looking, and semi-realistic. Do the 2028 lore if you want, random year but sure, but don't do 2050 lore where it's getting into hypothetical weapons.
As I said earlier, modern weapons are already being used, modern vehicles are already being used, the only thing that isn't being used is models and lore, so if you're going to 'restart the server', as you're proposing you will do, you might aswell do it right, at a time you want to stick with. Don't pick a time just because 'it's ready to go' or 'we'll transition later'.

argh now you've just made me think of cunts walking around roleplaying TikToks on base

fuck no

People didn't walk around roleplaying Vine back in 2015, or watching the new episode of yogscast

 

[Roosebud]

People say it's more relatable because I wasn't alive in the 90's, the world has changed, countries have come and went, things have happened. New things were invented and other things that were used back then aren't being used nowadays. I know what it's like in 2021, I don't know what it was like in 1991.
People don't say it's more relatable for a gag, and to say as such is just stupid, they say it's easier to relate to a modern soldier because, it is.

I can understand that, but if we were to do the modern lore we'd either base it on the events that took place during the cold war lore or have to fundamentally change world history to the point where WW3 would make sense. Both of which would drastically affect the setting so much it wouldn't be relatable in the way you described. And most modern technology would be nerfed or banned for the sake of gameplay/balance/seriousness

Which is why I keep asking if it's really worth sacrificing continuing characters and events over, especially if nothing changes in regards to equipment and such.