Roosebud
Molecule
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2016
- Messages
- 5,447
- Nebulae
- 21,886
Some folks have asked me to make this a seperate thread, rather than it being relatively unseen at the bottom of my previous thread.
As many of you have seen or ignored in my in-depth rant on the topic of Stasiland (Link), we've (I've) moved on from the initial idea of Stasiland and its in-depth RP focus. Long story short, we've had several flaws and a large portion of players just didn't want to invest in the scenario.
Time has passed, during which I've on-and-off kept toying around with ideas. The core of these ideas always included the following philosophy based on a variety of things:
A) The RP/S2K hybrid is what makes WW3RP unique, and provided a good and balanced alternative to the more passive HL2RP. Though Stasiland did provide this, it wasn't as accessible as people seemingly wanted.
B) The faction v faction setting essentially provided all the direction needed, staff intervention only being necessary to enforce rules, oversee certain situations and provide non-essential events from time to time.
C) Whilst the whitelisting of the 'main' army factions did improve quality, it also made the gamemode less accessible, with the largest faction still being civilians that were more or less clueless and did not want to invest.
Obviously, people refusing to take the time to fill out a character application for an army faction, and people not wanting to invest in a character before rushing into combat are really, really bad things from an RP-perspective.
However, perhaps we do need to take into account that some people want s2k with an rp coating (otherwise they wouldnt be looking for rp army servers) whilst others want to rp with an s2k coating, which should be fine if we want to embrace the server being the action-oriented alternative to HL2RP.
Moving on, what I wanted to do sometime, somewhere, was the following:
1) "Classic" WW3RP in the sense that there's two main factions opposing eachother in combat with a clear structure and access to weapons and equipment, with both sides being open to new players and the priority being the conflict between them.
2) Actual, noticable differences between factions. In previous iterations these differences were mostly limited to lore, not actual gameplay. Stasiland tried to change this up by shifting the focus to assymetrical warfare and counter-insurgency, though this wasn't as accessible due to the other things in play. I feel that having the two factions be vastly different instead of copy-pasted reskinned factions would provide the ability to change things up and keep things fresh from time to time.
3) Loosening up on the focus on hardcore seriousRP and embracing the s2k/rp hybrid formula. Obviously, people will always have issues with "too much s2k focus" and "too much rp focus", though the combination of the two is what worked. People usually compared it to battlefield or other shooters, though these do not over the rp structure surrounding the patrol-based combat.
4) Allow people more freedom to approach their characters. I will outline how this'd work in the factions below, but I'd always like to include the ability to step away from the main factions and be a neutral / side party to it all.
With all of the above in mind, I thought of a concept I figured would be pretty cool to see played out:
The setting
We continue the setting we've run with over the past couple of years, simply because it gives us plenty to work with (considering we already vastly differentiated from the historic timelines) and because it allows us to continue the story that players created over several years of gameplay.
Some major events that happened during Stasiland (e.g. full-scale NATO invasion) are retconned, the timeline is brought back to the direct aftermath of Frankfurt being re-taken by the Soviet forces and the insurgencies scattering out into the rural areas.
Germany descends into full-on civil war, with the fire spreading to other occupied European countries as well. NATO, still tied up in fighting around the globe, supports these developments through support and clandestine action, but does not launch a full-scale invasion simply because they're unable to at this point.
The factions
1) The 'Warsaw Pact' (name subject to change)
Soviet and allied forces fighting to keep control over the territories they annexed and occupied after the events of the wars of 1983/1990.
Standard military force consisting of the main infantry fighting force, with a return of detachments such as engineering (vehicles/aircraft/emplacements), medical etc (or keep them as specialisations like it worked on Stasiland)
The faction would no longer be whitelisted and accepts characters of Warsaw Pact origin.
The Stasi, KGB etc would be a sub-faction similar to the Military Police of old, but with a heavier focus on information gathering, prisoners, infiltration and internal affairs such as loyalty, politics and counter-espionage. I imagine they'd get special rules about moving out of base without a patrol / being able to go undercover etc.
2) The 'Organized Insurgency' (placeholder name)
Organized and disorganized groups of freedom fighters, mercenaries, army remnants and other parties fighting the Warsaw Pact in Europe.
The way I imagined it was that it'd be a non-whitelisted "military" faction where character origins were less restrictive and things wouldn't be as uniform. Allowing foreign mercenaries a lá the international brigade / foreign legion for example.
The structure of the faction would work differently, with ranks being vastly different, obviously we'd still have leadership positions for gameplay and management purposes.
Specialisations could/should still be a thing, but more focused on civilian skills (actual doctors being medics, mechanics in charge of makeshift vehicle pools etc) and a larger emphasis on gathering materials from the battlefield to use in crafting / stocking supplies.
NATO, as 'Task Force Europa' would be a semi-detached part of this faction. They'd consist of specialists such as aircraft pilots, intelligence operatives, leadership/training officers and others (skills that wouldn't be as present in civilian groups) sent by NATO to assist their efforts. Think the MACV-SOG during the vietnam war and western special forces mixed with the mujahideen in afghanistan.
I'd very much like to see this faction consist of 'regular' fighters and player-made specialised groups all under the same faction, as opposed to the pre-determined and uniform detachments of the Warsaw Pact.
The equipment
As stated previously, equipment would no longer be as scarce or dependent on crafting/gathering. However, there should still be distinct differences between factions and heavier/more powerful equipment should be somewhat locked behind progression.
Vendors will make a return, with basic weaponry being able to be retrieved free of cost. Looted enemy equipment, scavenged supplies etc can all be turned in for additional supplies/requisition. I'd prefer to have both sides use completely different ammo, so people that want to use the opposing side's equipment will be able to, as long as they can scrounge together the ammo for it.
For the Soviets it'll likely be surplus bolt-action and some semi-auto rifles considering their state in the lore and balancing purposes, with automatic and specialised weapons costing requisition or w/e we decide to name the currency.
For the insurgency it'd be homemade, crude and outdated weaponry such as pipe rifles, civilian-grade hunting equipment, muskets and patched-together scavenged stuff. With a huge armory of different weapons such as WW2 equipment, scavenged NATO weaponry and higher-tier stuff such as attachments, anti-tank rifles etc costing requisition.
As for vehicles, both sides will have a vehicle pool. Though not the final idea, I can imagine both sides will have to rely on a limited stock of the 'key' items we introduced in stasiland, with players managing the spawning of these vehicles themselves. Perhaps additional vehicles can be added through crafting for the insurgency side, though their equipment is less effective and maintained than the Soviet side, forcing them to focus on other tactics and concealment.
Since stasiland we also have systems for deploying emplacements such as heavy machine guns, mortars and fixed artillery. I'd love to use those in regular combat, and perhaps should be made into specialisations for both sides.
Gameplay/combat
Most of it will be similar to the combat/style of old ww3rp, both sides will have a base as relative 'safe' area, and go out to meet eachother in combat or perform different tasks.
I'd like to mostly stick to the patrol-based combat for the Warsaw Pact army faction, as they're a functional military force. To mix things up I'd like to brainstorm different rules for the insurgency faction, perhaps have them be able to go out in smaller groups or solo in 'plain clothes' as long as they meet certain requirements (no visible military equipment such as protective vests, no visible weapons etc), to bring a bigger sense of danger to the playing field and allow the 'civilian' army more freedom to approach situations.
I'd also like to incorporate fighting over supplies/stockpiles and crafting into the mix, seeing as both sides are low on logistics from a lore-perspective and the country has been ravaged by war for several decades. I imagine we can keep the itemspawners to allow special groups/patrols to go out on supply runs to feed the faction stockpiles. Crafting should be a big part for the insurgents, with the ability to focus on crafting crude weapons as opposed to spending requisition on them.
Perhaps even designate map areas as having special benefits, for example needing to capture a neutral helipad to be able to deploy helicopters or ammunition stockpiles to be able to fire artillery weapons.
Players that want to approach the conflict in a more neutral way should be able to do that, organisations such as the red cross, firefighters etc etc should be given room to do so, and allows the intel branches / insurgents to blend in with local population. As such, rules of engagement should be very present for both factions.
NATO TFE will fill the role of specialised detachments within the insurgents, flying their aircraft, providing support through sniping / information / training etc and I (though this isnt anything final) even considered having the NATO officers be the ones leading patrols into the field.
All in all I feel like combat should be less restrictive and a tad more hardcore. Frequent use of vehicles, combat helicopters, artillery etc shouldn't be an issue, combat should be more deadly and emphasize the utility of using good countermeasures (alternative tactics, blending in, AA-missiles, counter-sniping etc) for maximum effect.
The usage of the stasiland radio system should also include a better challenge of battlefield management.
FAQ
I imagine we can do the smaller stuff such as raids / surgical strikes etc more regularly as smaller-scale and closed server events. Perhaps we'll slowly develop the insurgency faction into becoming more organized and powerful. The addition of a relatively small NATO task force to their ranks should help with that.
Instead of taking countries in 2-3 events like we did on old WW3RP we can have it be focused on capturing cities, regions, ports, bases etc to steadily conquer areas and perhaps even create a new country.
I believe I mentioned this but we even had that one scenario where the Coalition of Independent Nations would be formed through player actions.
Questions and discussion please, I'd love to talk about it.
As many of you have seen or ignored in my in-depth rant on the topic of Stasiland (Link), we've (I've) moved on from the initial idea of Stasiland and its in-depth RP focus. Long story short, we've had several flaws and a large portion of players just didn't want to invest in the scenario.
Time has passed, during which I've on-and-off kept toying around with ideas. The core of these ideas always included the following philosophy based on a variety of things:
A) The RP/S2K hybrid is what makes WW3RP unique, and provided a good and balanced alternative to the more passive HL2RP. Though Stasiland did provide this, it wasn't as accessible as people seemingly wanted.
B) The faction v faction setting essentially provided all the direction needed, staff intervention only being necessary to enforce rules, oversee certain situations and provide non-essential events from time to time.
C) Whilst the whitelisting of the 'main' army factions did improve quality, it also made the gamemode less accessible, with the largest faction still being civilians that were more or less clueless and did not want to invest.
Obviously, people refusing to take the time to fill out a character application for an army faction, and people not wanting to invest in a character before rushing into combat are really, really bad things from an RP-perspective.
However, perhaps we do need to take into account that some people want s2k with an rp coating (otherwise they wouldnt be looking for rp army servers) whilst others want to rp with an s2k coating, which should be fine if we want to embrace the server being the action-oriented alternative to HL2RP.
Moving on, what I wanted to do sometime, somewhere, was the following:
1) "Classic" WW3RP in the sense that there's two main factions opposing eachother in combat with a clear structure and access to weapons and equipment, with both sides being open to new players and the priority being the conflict between them.
2) Actual, noticable differences between factions. In previous iterations these differences were mostly limited to lore, not actual gameplay. Stasiland tried to change this up by shifting the focus to assymetrical warfare and counter-insurgency, though this wasn't as accessible due to the other things in play. I feel that having the two factions be vastly different instead of copy-pasted reskinned factions would provide the ability to change things up and keep things fresh from time to time.
3) Loosening up on the focus on hardcore seriousRP and embracing the s2k/rp hybrid formula. Obviously, people will always have issues with "too much s2k focus" and "too much rp focus", though the combination of the two is what worked. People usually compared it to battlefield or other shooters, though these do not over the rp structure surrounding the patrol-based combat.
4) Allow people more freedom to approach their characters. I will outline how this'd work in the factions below, but I'd always like to include the ability to step away from the main factions and be a neutral / side party to it all.
With all of the above in mind, I thought of a concept I figured would be pretty cool to see played out:
The setting
We continue the setting we've run with over the past couple of years, simply because it gives us plenty to work with (considering we already vastly differentiated from the historic timelines) and because it allows us to continue the story that players created over several years of gameplay.
Some major events that happened during Stasiland (e.g. full-scale NATO invasion) are retconned, the timeline is brought back to the direct aftermath of Frankfurt being re-taken by the Soviet forces and the insurgencies scattering out into the rural areas.
Germany descends into full-on civil war, with the fire spreading to other occupied European countries as well. NATO, still tied up in fighting around the globe, supports these developments through support and clandestine action, but does not launch a full-scale invasion simply because they're unable to at this point.
The factions
1) The 'Warsaw Pact' (name subject to change)
Soviet and allied forces fighting to keep control over the territories they annexed and occupied after the events of the wars of 1983/1990.
Standard military force consisting of the main infantry fighting force, with a return of detachments such as engineering (vehicles/aircraft/emplacements), medical etc (or keep them as specialisations like it worked on Stasiland)
The faction would no longer be whitelisted and accepts characters of Warsaw Pact origin.
The Stasi, KGB etc would be a sub-faction similar to the Military Police of old, but with a heavier focus on information gathering, prisoners, infiltration and internal affairs such as loyalty, politics and counter-espionage. I imagine they'd get special rules about moving out of base without a patrol / being able to go undercover etc.
2) The 'Organized Insurgency' (placeholder name)
Organized and disorganized groups of freedom fighters, mercenaries, army remnants and other parties fighting the Warsaw Pact in Europe.
The way I imagined it was that it'd be a non-whitelisted "military" faction where character origins were less restrictive and things wouldn't be as uniform. Allowing foreign mercenaries a lá the international brigade / foreign legion for example.
The structure of the faction would work differently, with ranks being vastly different, obviously we'd still have leadership positions for gameplay and management purposes.
Specialisations could/should still be a thing, but more focused on civilian skills (actual doctors being medics, mechanics in charge of makeshift vehicle pools etc) and a larger emphasis on gathering materials from the battlefield to use in crafting / stocking supplies.
NATO, as 'Task Force Europa' would be a semi-detached part of this faction. They'd consist of specialists such as aircraft pilots, intelligence operatives, leadership/training officers and others (skills that wouldn't be as present in civilian groups) sent by NATO to assist their efforts. Think the MACV-SOG during the vietnam war and western special forces mixed with the mujahideen in afghanistan.
I'd very much like to see this faction consist of 'regular' fighters and player-made specialised groups all under the same faction, as opposed to the pre-determined and uniform detachments of the Warsaw Pact.
The equipment
As stated previously, equipment would no longer be as scarce or dependent on crafting/gathering. However, there should still be distinct differences between factions and heavier/more powerful equipment should be somewhat locked behind progression.
Vendors will make a return, with basic weaponry being able to be retrieved free of cost. Looted enemy equipment, scavenged supplies etc can all be turned in for additional supplies/requisition. I'd prefer to have both sides use completely different ammo, so people that want to use the opposing side's equipment will be able to, as long as they can scrounge together the ammo for it.
For the Soviets it'll likely be surplus bolt-action and some semi-auto rifles considering their state in the lore and balancing purposes, with automatic and specialised weapons costing requisition or w/e we decide to name the currency.
For the insurgency it'd be homemade, crude and outdated weaponry such as pipe rifles, civilian-grade hunting equipment, muskets and patched-together scavenged stuff. With a huge armory of different weapons such as WW2 equipment, scavenged NATO weaponry and higher-tier stuff such as attachments, anti-tank rifles etc costing requisition.
As for vehicles, both sides will have a vehicle pool. Though not the final idea, I can imagine both sides will have to rely on a limited stock of the 'key' items we introduced in stasiland, with players managing the spawning of these vehicles themselves. Perhaps additional vehicles can be added through crafting for the insurgency side, though their equipment is less effective and maintained than the Soviet side, forcing them to focus on other tactics and concealment.
Since stasiland we also have systems for deploying emplacements such as heavy machine guns, mortars and fixed artillery. I'd love to use those in regular combat, and perhaps should be made into specialisations for both sides.
Gameplay/combat
Most of it will be similar to the combat/style of old ww3rp, both sides will have a base as relative 'safe' area, and go out to meet eachother in combat or perform different tasks.
I'd like to mostly stick to the patrol-based combat for the Warsaw Pact army faction, as they're a functional military force. To mix things up I'd like to brainstorm different rules for the insurgency faction, perhaps have them be able to go out in smaller groups or solo in 'plain clothes' as long as they meet certain requirements (no visible military equipment such as protective vests, no visible weapons etc), to bring a bigger sense of danger to the playing field and allow the 'civilian' army more freedom to approach situations.
I'd also like to incorporate fighting over supplies/stockpiles and crafting into the mix, seeing as both sides are low on logistics from a lore-perspective and the country has been ravaged by war for several decades. I imagine we can keep the itemspawners to allow special groups/patrols to go out on supply runs to feed the faction stockpiles. Crafting should be a big part for the insurgents, with the ability to focus on crafting crude weapons as opposed to spending requisition on them.
Perhaps even designate map areas as having special benefits, for example needing to capture a neutral helipad to be able to deploy helicopters or ammunition stockpiles to be able to fire artillery weapons.
Players that want to approach the conflict in a more neutral way should be able to do that, organisations such as the red cross, firefighters etc etc should be given room to do so, and allows the intel branches / insurgents to blend in with local population. As such, rules of engagement should be very present for both factions.
NATO TFE will fill the role of specialised detachments within the insurgents, flying their aircraft, providing support through sniping / information / training etc and I (though this isnt anything final) even considered having the NATO officers be the ones leading patrols into the field.
All in all I feel like combat should be less restrictive and a tad more hardcore. Frequent use of vehicles, combat helicopters, artillery etc shouldn't be an issue, combat should be more deadly and emphasize the utility of using good countermeasures (alternative tactics, blending in, AA-missiles, counter-sniping etc) for maximum effect.
The usage of the stasiland radio system should also include a better challenge of battlefield management.
FAQ
I imagine we can do the smaller stuff such as raids / surgical strikes etc more regularly as smaller-scale and closed server events. Perhaps we'll slowly develop the insurgency faction into becoming more organized and powerful. The addition of a relatively small NATO task force to their ranks should help with that.
Instead of taking countries in 2-3 events like we did on old WW3RP we can have it be focused on capturing cities, regions, ports, bases etc to steadily conquer areas and perhaps even create a new country.
I believe I mentioned this but we even had that one scenario where the Coalition of Independent Nations would be formed through player actions.
Questions and discussion please, I'd love to talk about it.
Reactions:
List
