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

[ddæ]

im not advocating that at all

im saying ww3 should try something new or be something else entirely like any of the other discussions in this general section

got u

yeah i mean im not personally opposed to an entirely new take on the whole thing but personally between cold war and modern lore? it's the latter for me if we have to stick to what we know

 

[Dallas]

And that's why this is an altered concept based on the formula people wanted, instead of just being a copy-paste of old ww3rp

but it fundamentally tries to mirror 2014 era ww3, or 2016/17 iterations

it is the same server and this is why i don't believe it's worth all the effort that i know you personally invest in it, because we've been there before and it's always ended in server death

 

[Deleted member 61]

Please try explaining this to millions of gamers world wide, it is a game as I stated before, people are bound to get heated and those that take it too far will get banned. Resolutions between players were often seen and they soon realised it was a video game after the fabled gamer rage lost its effect.

No. I disagree. There was still a fair amount of newer old members that talked shit on WW3RP Stasiland launch and feedback threads, acting like the same children they were a few years ago. They were petty and childish back then and I doubt they really changed much. Mind you, you aren't one of them. A lot of them are still bitter and petty over old news.

 

[Roosebud]

but it fundamentally tries to mirror 2014 era ww3, or 2016/17 iterations

it is the same server and this is why i don't believe it's worth all the effort that i know you personally invest in it, because we've been there before and it's always ended in server death

You mean mirroring as in, faction v faction squad-based warfare with guns in vendors?

Because we tried something completely different, which was met with a lot of positivity at the time, only to have it die out in record time because people did a 180 and decided they didn't want anything else other than faction v faction squad-based combat

 

[Rabid]

These problems are a result of the game being a GAME. Not a mishap with the games core mechanics.

Yes but also no imo.

On WW3 everything you do (bar a few exceptions in certain branches) hinges on how well you S2K - including the outcome of events and your advancement in the ranks. If you're shit at patrolling and S2K you're probably never going to get very far, your faction certainly isn't gonna win and literally the entire lore can change because of that fact.

That's a big part of why when the Coals became the go-to S2K faction they absolutely fucking steamrolled the Globs to the point it was laughable, and then just sad. You're going to want to win if it means you're actually winning on a large scale - especially when the impacts are routinely felt server-wide.

HL2RP's faction conflicts are viewed as petty squabbles to be mocked on both sides because they're not a central theme of the server. WW3 doesn't have that benefit and that bred the toxicity, the coups and everything else on a level that went beyond unhealthily and into manipulative and downright damaging for the server.

 

[GenericPlayer]

still think we ought to try an asymmetrical approach, it's clear folks don't wanna RP as regular civilians ala HL2RP, but at the same time the old formula is a snooze-fest after a while, while we're at it we might as well try out a new setting instead of beating the dead 'east vs west' horse

if folk really want to go back to modern lore, why not explore what's going on with the METF, the coalition and globalists are already expanded upon enough and it's not as if a middle eastern setting would be hard to pull off, last lore ended with both sides declaring war on 'em right?

or hell, use an entirely different setting, there's a lot of ideas we could explore, from completely different games, books, movies etc, we don't need to be stuck between cold war and modern settings

 

[Jello]

That bred the toxicity, the coups and everything else on a level that went beyond unhealthily and into manipulative and downright damaging for the server.

You keep bringing up coups and OOC server avoidance, I can only remember one case of this, and the reason the server was being avoided was a pretty decent reason.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you the story, I'm sure everyone here knows, someone was banned by a certain admin when they realistically didn't deserve the ban. It wasn't a case of "we lost the firefight, let's all quit the server" or "fuck roosebud, let's just all leave so he gives into our demands", we simply just didn't feel the person deserved the ban and so we up and left, as we knew that if they were being targeted like that, we were likely going to be next.

 

[Codfather]

On WW3 everything you do (bar a few exceptions in certain branches) hinges on how well you S2K - including the outcome of events and your advancement in the ranks. If you're shit at patrolling and S2K you're probably never going to get very far, your faction certainly isn't gonna win and literally the entire lore can change because of that fact.

I very much disagree with this, lots of faction leads and higher ups were absolute shit at s2k, so that's a complete lie.

The outcome of events were to surplus the s2k side of the game mode which was a major part of it, they're not going to neglect it. Noone ever forced you to participate, noone ever forced you to patrol, it didnt matter if you were good at shooting cause you could sit at base and rp. You're acting like you understand the concept but repeatedly show lack of understanding for the balance the server had in the earlier stages.

, the coups and everything else on a level that went beyond unhealthily and into manipulative and downright damaging for the server.

I remember one coup, and that was a shit attempt by felgroove who got exiled by the community, so that's pretty ironic you bring it up

That's a big part of why when the Coals became the go-to S2K faction they absolutely fucking steamrolled the Globs to the point it was laughable, and then just sad. You're going to want to win if it means you're actually winning on a large scale - especially when the impacts are routinely felt server-wide.

Well yes, the coals were winning a war and there is a winning side. People often switched sides to make it more fair and it did result in the globs winning a few times toward the end of the modern run.

 

[Jello]

still think we ought to try an asymmetrical approach, it's clear folks don't wanna RP as regular civilians ala HL2RP, but at the same time the old formula is a snooze-fest after a while, while we're at it we might as well try out a new setting instead of beating the dead 'east vs west' horse

if folk really want to go back to modern lore, why not explore what's going on with the METF, the coalition and globalists are already expanded upon enough and it's not as if a middle eastern setting would be hard to pull off, last lore ended with both sides declaring war on 'em right?

or hell, use an entirely different setting, there's a lot of ideas we could explore, from completely different games, books, movies etc, we don't need to be stuck between cold war and modern settings

I don't want to see us go into futuristic lore, and Roosebud said he didn't want that either, cause then you're getting into the hypothetical with weapons et cetera, plus you can't relate, changes in everything. Just a bit too much of a clusterfuck. I don't think Cyberpunk or anything like that would work either, again, hypothetical weapons and it'd be impossible to balance them.
Also it's usually just East vs West cause, as you know those are basically the two main powerhouses of the world. I can't really see us straying to far away from that regardless of what timeline we set it in.

 

[Roosebud]

You keep bringing up coups and OOC server avoidance, I can only remember one case of this, and the reason the server was being avoided was a pretty decent reason.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you the story, I'm sure everyone here knows, someone was banned by a certain admin when they realistically didn't deserve the ban. It wasn't a case of "we lost the firefight, let's all quit the server" or "fuck roosebud, let's just all leave so he gives into our demands", we simply just didn't feel the person deserved the ban and so we up and left, as we knew that if they were being targeted like that, we were likely going to be next.

I don't really want to turn this thread into a discussion on the ins and outs of player management 'back in the day', but if you're talking about the person I think you're talking about, the ban turned out to be entirely justified after the server closed and just about everything was admitted on the confessions thread.

I do recall at least two instances where people grouped together to actively avoid the server to force a map change because we had changed to a map they felt was balanced against their faction.

I don't want to see us go into futuristic lore, and Roosebud said he didn't want that either, cause then you're getting into the hypothetical with weapons et cetera, plus you can't relate, changes in everything. Just a bit too much of a clusterfuck. I don't think Cyberpunk or anything like that would work either, again, hypothetical weapons and it'd be impossible to balance them.
Also it's usually just East vs West cause, as you know those are basically the two main powerhouses of the world. I can't really see us straying to far away from that regardless of what timeline we set it in.

That, and I guess the same argument we have against a vietnam or middle eastern setting, being people don't particulary want to play the vietnamese / jihadist organisations for anything other than downright racist stereotypes.

All in all, I guess I've already posted about 3 times that I don't have any particular interest in dedicating a lot of personal time and effort into re-writing/working the already existing and finished schema, unless there's a massively overwhelming good reason as to why it'd be better.

The only thing that is relatively easy to change is just having it be NATO vs Warsaw without the insurgency angle, but I'd rather make full use of everything we've developed for Stasiland and make way for new situations/scenarios/events/characters to be explored by having a faction comprised of mercenaries, freedom fighters, operatives and other irregulars.

 

[GenericPlayer]

I don't want to see us go into futuristic lore, and Roosebud said he didn't want that either, cause then you're getting into the hypothetical with weapons et cetera, plus you can't relate, changes in everything. Just a bit too much of a clusterfuck. I don't think Cyberpunk or anything like that would work either, again, hypothetical weapons and it'd be impossible to balance them.

Doesn't need to be. There's a lot of material you can work with between the timeframe of 1970 - Now/Near Future. Or even a universe that mimicks that whilst being completely different, Ace Combat exists right?

Also it's usually just East vs West cause, as you know those are basically the two main powerhouses of the world. I can't really see us straying to far away from that regardless of what timeline we set it in.

A little creativity is all it takes. Seeing a NATO/CSTO invasion of a unified Ba'ath Arabia could be pretty kino, some Gulf War tier stuff. There's already assets we could use for that and that's just one example, but at the end of the day, it's a change of flavor. The real meat and bones of any change is the dynamics between factions and equipment, and technically we don't even really need to change lore/setting to do that.

 

[Deleted member 3818]

still think we ought to try an asymmetrical approach, it's clear folks don't wanna RP as regular civilians ala HL2RP, but at the same time the old formula is a snooze-fest after a while, while we're at it we might as well try out a new setting instead of beating the dead 'east vs west' horse

if folk really want to go back to modern lore, why not explore what's going on with the METF, the coalition and globalists are already expanded upon enough and it's not as if a middle eastern setting would be hard to pull off, last lore ended with both sides declaring war on 'em right?

or hell, use an entirely different setting, there's a lot of ideas we could explore, from completely different games, books, movies etc, we don't need to be stuck between cold war and modern settings

I think a revised modern setting could be the best way forward, it'd appeal to the people who want that classic ww3rp experience whilst also trying new things.

i had an idea where instead of just having globs vs coalition those sides are broken down into more realistic national militaries, for example

globalists would have US unit, UK unit, French unit and an auxiliary unit
coals would have Russian unit, Chinese unit, Middle eastern unit, auxiliary unit

You can select what unit you want upon character creation and each would have their own unique models, weapons and structures, with the auxiliary units being made up of people from more minor nationalities.

 

[Rabid]

You keep bringing up coups and OOC server avoidance, I can only remember one case of this, and the reason the server was being avoided was a pretty decent reason.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you the story, I'm sure everyone here knows, someone was banned by a certain admin when they realistically didn't deserve the ban. It wasn't a case of "we lost the firefight, let's all quit the server" or "fuck roosebud, let's just all leave so he gives into our demands", we simply just didn't feel the person deserved the ban and so we up and left, as we knew that if they were being targeted like that, we were likely going to be next.

There were also faction coup attempts where people tried to oust leads or people got pushed into resigning so someone else could take over (again, thank you confessions thread).

I also never once (to my knowledge?) mentioned server avoidance, I've brought up the numerous other issues though.

My overall point is they need to be acknowledged as actual issues that happened. Not just brushed off with "oh I didn't see them ahah they weren't that bad guys" given multiple staff team members, the SD, players and people with access to the archives have all said these things were not only common, but imbedded in certain aspects of the server.

You don't get much more confirmation that it was a problem than that, regardless of your individual perspective as a rank-and-file player.

I like WW3. I do not like everything I saw personally and was told by people who saw more than I did, and I do not want to see those things return again.

You're acting like you understand the concept but repeatedly show lack of understanding for the balance the server had in the earlier stages.

Earlier stages? Sure, at launch in 2016 the server was balanced.

By the time I quit SD six months in it came to light (via the confessions thread) that SF was a viper's nest and a personal weapon of the lead and people had already admitted to beginning to oust roleplayers in favour of promoting their S2K buddies because they knew they could win and RP didn't do much.

It only got worse from there, with slight give-and-take regarding balance before it became a massive slippery slope.

Well yes, the coals were winning a war and there is a winning side. People often switched sides to make it more fair and it did result in the globs winning a few times toward the end of the modern run.

I don't doubt that and yes, obviously there'll be a winner.

But it eventually hits a point where the balance tipped out of whack and it only reinforced the underhanded and shitty OOC stuff people used to stay on top.

 

[Merlinsclaw]

I haven't read all 27 pages of this thread, but I honestly want something like this. If the server could slowly ease into aspects of what stasiland was supposed to be after getting a stable playercount, I think that'd be kinda epic.

 

[GenericPlayer]

globalists would have US unit, UK unit, French unit and an auxiliary unit
coals would have Russian unit, Chinese unit, Middle eastern unit, auxiliary unit

Ehh I dunno man, I don't see Russians, Chinese and the vast majority of Middle Eastern nations getting along.

If we're revising modern lore, let's do it in a way that makes more sense than the mess of the UGA/CIN.

You can select what unit you want upon character creation and each would have their own unique models, weapons and structures, with the auxiliary units being made up of people from more minor nationalities.

This sounds cool though.

 

[Deleted member 61]

I don't want to see us go into futuristic lore, and Roosebud said he didn't want that either, cause then you're getting into the hypothetical with weapons et cetera, plus you can't relate, changes in everything. Just a bit too much of a clusterfuck. I don't think Cyberpunk or anything like that would work either, again, hypothetical weapons and it'd be impossible to balance them.

Cyberpunk's 4th Corporate War is current year, 2021.


Debunked.


edit:
Cyberpunk 2020 is retro-futurism. It guessed what 2021 looked like. We have 2021. Just add more sci-fi elements in terms of exo-skeletal soldiers, modern experimental weapons (i.e. F2000).

Basically turn war into a TV CSI investigation in terms of tech. Google glasses and shit. Brand it with Cyberpunk paint.

It would basically be modern combat but with cool sci-fi social/roleplay features. Face-to-face transmissions possible, etc.

You can definitely customize the lore to fit what's capable in garry's mod. Gives a variety of maps never able to be tried before.

 

[Jello]

Ehh I dunno man, I don't see Russians, Chinese and the vast majority of Middle Eastern nations getting along.

@Clokr brought up the counter-argument that it would be too political, but that's why we made the 'Globalist' and 'Coalition' in the first place, simulated modern-era, not realistic modern-era.

Doesn't have to be overly-realistic, delving into the politics of each nation, as long as it's feasible there's no reason to exclude it from being a possibility
[doublepost=1613078510][/doublepost]

Cyberpunk's 4th Corporate War is current year, 2021.


Debunked.

Victor's about to hook the Coalition up with a new batch of mantis blades

 

[GenericPlayer]

Doesn't have to be overly-realistic, delving into the politics of each nation, as long as it's feasible there's no reason to exclude it from being a possibility

Yeah but the nations in there just wouldn't cooperate, it ain't just unrealistic, it's a fever dream.

Modern lore can be done correctly, but Globalists and Coals just weren't it chief.

 

[Deleted member 61]

Doesn't have to be overly-realistic, delving into the politics of each nation, as long as it's feasible there's no reason to exclude it from being a possibility
[doublepost=1613078510][/doublepost]

Victor's about to hook the Coalition up with a new batch of mantis blades

Tell me it would've be sick to see a player in heavy armor, charging into a room with mantis blades and dermal skin flailing at a bunch of recent hired corporate thugs

 

[Oxy[Morons]]

the concept of coalition and globalists was more about east vs west and letting people be like any nationality they wanted, I feel like
server was never meant to adhere to realistic and modern conventional politics