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

[Rabid]

Anyway, I'm not trying to say "Nooo! nooo don't make WW3 S2K!" because obviously it was super popular. I like WW3, I had fun the few times I played on it for the day.

I just don't want the shitty backdoor politicking to be as bad as it was.

 

[Deleted member 61]

how about a lore in which all countries have decided they would sent their angry suicidal youth to in a grand proxy war thats recorded and monitored to broadcast to their citizens about the horrors of war, but that despite this, people still have a natural born desire to kill. kill. kill. and so they sign up for the military in this environment. they do not know the political reasons they fight. it was simply agreed for them to fight in a controlled warzone by the technocratic and political elites of the world, effectively preventing any major war in the future, so long as they keep this one going.

basically, what im saying is that ww3rp in some form must return.

 

[Roosebud]

how about a lore in which all countries have decided they would sent their angry suicidal youth to in a grand proxy war thats recorded and monitored to broadcast to their citizens about the horrors of war, but that despite this, people still have a natural born desire to kill. kill. kill. and so they sign up for the military in this environment. they do not know the political reasons they fight. it was simply agreed for them to fight in a controlled warzone by the technocratic and political elites of the world, effectively preventing any major war in the future, so long as they keep this one going.

basically, what im saying is that ww3rp in some form must return.

All these alternative concepts are cool and all, but I don't want to keep referring to my previous posts about the finished schema, this concept pitch and not having the time to do massive overhauls for relatively little benefit/gain

 

[Deleted member 61]

All these alternative concepts are cool and all, but I don't want to keep referring to my previous posts about the finished schema, this concept pitch and not having the time to do massive overhauls for relatively little benefit/gain

I don't think there is any reason for any massive overhauls for the current lore and script.

Frankly, if it were a take it or leave it this schema or nothing but in a more combat-focused environment, we'd be stupid not to jump at it.

I'm just dreamin'.

 

[Deleted member 3818]

how about a lore in which all countries have decided they would sent their angry suicidal youth to in a grand proxy war thats recorded and monitored to broadcast to their citizens about the horrors of war, but that despite this, people still have a natural born desire to kill. kill. kill. and so they sign up for the military in this environment. they do not know the political reasons they fight. it was simply agreed for them to fight in a controlled warzone by the technocratic and political elites of the world, effectively preventing any major war in the future, so long as they keep this one going.

basically, what im saying is that ww3rp in some form must return.

for the love of god jerry, how on earth do we recruit a generation of depressed gamers that are disillusioned with modern society? Wait, I've got an idea.

 

[Deleted member 1381]

I've still not seen anything to convince me that the main reason for going back to a modern setting is anything other than an attempt to relive the ww3 days of yore and fruitlessly try to satisfy a raging nostalgia trip

 

[Cuttsy]

I've still not seen anything to convince me that the main reason for going back to a modern setting is anything other than an attempt to relive the ww3 days of yore and fruitlessly try to satisfy a raging nostalgia trip

You'd have to ask the people that didn't play the 90s iterations but played the modern day version

Personally it makes no difference for me but surely it's clear that 90s lore has lacked the player base modern versions has on average? The reason doesn't make a difference, but the number of people or lack of for 90s versions is clear, whether it's because people don't get their nostalgia trip or because 90s is less appealing to a new player, new to the community than a modern day server. In the instance where a potential player is completely new to nebulous, they can relate to the modern setting without reading war and peace on lore. The majority of Stasiland players were veterans of WW3RP and its greatest failure was its inability to attract a new player base, relying on those from the past.

As I said, unless the server was a cyberpunk-esque/futuristic server I would be happy to play any version but the most important thing is making a decent guess on what the new player wants and I just can't see how 90s versions have achieved this, no matter the reason. This does feel a bit like a broken record though

 

[GenericPlayer]

I think the average person doesn't know what a 'Stasiland' is. I think the average person does know more about the Cold War than whatever a 'Coalition' or 'Globalist' is though.

Neither of those really matter though, because everyone knows what the concept of WW3 is.

 

[Deleted member 1381]

You'd have to ask the people that didn't play the 90s iterations but played the modern day version

Personally it makes no difference for me but surely it's clear that 90s lore has lacked the player base modern versions has on average? The reason doesn't make a difference, but the number of people or lack of for 90s versions is clear, whether it's because people don't get their nostalgia trip or because 90s is less appealing to a new player, new to the community than a modern day server. In the instance where a potential player is completely new to nebulous, they can relate to the modern setting without reading war and peace on lore. The majority of Stasiland players were veterans of WW3RP and its greatest failure was its inability to attract a new player base, relying on those from the past.

As I said, unless the server was a cyberpunk-esque/futuristic server I would be happy to play any version but the most important thing is making a decent guess on what the new player wants and I just can't see how 90s versions have achieved this, no matter the reason. This does feel a bit like a broken record though

I don't know why people seem to think Stasiland is the sole incarnation of the 80s/90s lore. The 'old' iteration with the 1983/1991 lore was immensely popular and there was little to no difference in players throughout that time. I remember the 1983 German reunification lore and the change in playercount/server sustainability was non-existent. This was also the same for the 1991 lore. Neither of these lores died a 'natural' death, they were closed down due to a multitude of reasons including people like Roosebud and other hierarchy being too busy to fully commit to the server. The small but vocal crowd will try and convince you that the 80s/90s lore is when things went 'downhill', when in actuality their issue is with the change of management that wasn't as lax on their behaviour that came hand and glove with the modern lore.

Let me tell you, I joined WW3 in late 2014, and I was consistently clueless about how I should be playing for at least a year and a half. I'm all but certain I had a British pilot character in the CIN which I only now realise wasn't correct. I'm pretty sure a new player is able to verse themselves in essentially a NATO v USSR lore much better than they would a reincarnation of the modern UGA/CIN lore.

 

[afric]

modern lore makes 0 fucking sense so to me I don’t know why people act like it’s easier to comprehend

what is the UGA? The globalists?

versus the CON?? What separates these two? Why they fight????

 

[Deleted member 1381]

modern lore makes 0 fucking sense so to me I don’t know why people act like it’s easier to comprehend

what is the UGA? The globalists?

versus the CON?? What separates these two? Why they fight????

in my years playing it the only I connection I could make was CIN = asians because I saw someone salute a portrait of mao(?) once

 

[dvn]

modern lore makes 0 fucking sense so to me I don’t know why people act like it’s easier to comprehend

what is the UGA? The globalists?

versus the CON?? What separates these two? Why they fight????

its just america vs china and russia basically
idk uhhh
oil

 

[Trains]

modern lore makes 0 fucking sense so to me I don’t know why people act like it’s easier to comprehend

what is the UGA? The globalists?

versus the CON?? What separates these two? Why they fight????

ideal ww3rp to me would be a lore that actually makes sense but set in the modern day

not that anyone gave a shit about the lore back then lmao

 

[afric]

I mean I know why nationalists and globalists would be fighting over the world

but to explain that to a player who could very well be in high school would be like running in to a brick wall

and that’s just it

In le epic modern lore people just didn’t give a fuck about the actual setting

 

[Inaudible™]

I played when it was like Globalist vs whoever and I had no idea what the fuck was going on but I enjoyed it nonetheless and it was what drew me into neb as a whole.
The lore doesn't matter. IMO as long as the general concept is grasped it's fine.
That being said.. Make it everyone versus Macedonia

 

[Deleted member 377]

The lore doesn't matter. IMO as long as the general concept is grasped it's fine.

this is it - at its core, as long as people get to s2k and get their fix of the core of ww3rp, they really will not care about the setting. modern lore doesn't make much sense, but again, that doesn't matter because people didn't come to play for lore

people will play ww3rp regardless - if it goes up, no one is saying no to it on the basis of setting because it is what it is

 

[Roosebud]

I guess what I've been trying to convey through lore talks is that I wouldn't even mind it progressing into the modern age over the course of a set of events / campaigns, just that it'd be best if it's a continuation of the lore that's been built so far. That's why we even considered having something akin to the Coalition being formed at some point.

But at the same time it mostly feels as if people are confusing 'I want modern lore' with 'I want different weapons/equipment', as most 'modern' stuff is already in the schema and we'd likely ban/retcon excessive mention of pop culture anyways.

 

[Cuttsy]

I don't know why people seem to think Stasiland is the sole incarnation of the 80s/90s lore. The 'old' iteration with the 1983/1991 lore was immensely popular and there was little to no difference in players throughout that time. I remember the 1983 German reunification lore and the change in playercount/server sustainability was non-existent. This was also the same for the 1991 lore. Neither of these lores died a 'natural' death, they were closed down due to a multitude of reasons including people like Roosebud and other hierarchy being too busy to fully commit to the server. The small but vocal crowd will try and convince you that the 80s/90s lore is when things went 'downhill', when in actuality their issue is with the change of management that wasn't as lax on their behaviour that came hand and glove with the modern lore.

I left well before then so I can't really comment, I know that I left because being an SNCO was painful dealing with some of the people on the globalist faction and it just wasn't enjoyable. I think the people that would return have matured, I may be right or wrong but if I am wrong it's simple enough to ban them before they have any significance.

Let me tell you, I joined WW3 in late 2014, and I was consistently clueless about how I should be playing for at least a year and a half. I'm all but certain I had a British pilot character in the CIN which I only now realise wasn't correct. I'm pretty sure a new player is able to verse themselves in essentially a NATO v USSR lore much better than they would a reincarnation of the modern UGA/CIN lore.

I don't disagree with you but all I care about is the number of people willing to play the server again, providing I don't get headaches from trying to lead a patrol of horny, bisexual athiests (IC that is) which was definitely the case in the past. I feel modern day is more attractive to the new player and has proven to be so but I'd be very happy in a year or so for you to say "told you so" and the server thrives on a 90s lore heavy iteration because that can offer greater RP and the fact that S2K will be more accessible than its predecessor for the average person who wants to take part after finishing work, uni or whatever

 

[Trains]

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

 

[Cuttsy]

I guess what I've been trying to convey through lore talks is that I wouldn't even mind it progressing into the modern age over the course of a set of events / campaigns, just that it'd be best if it's a continuation of the lore that's been built so far. That's why we even considered having something akin to the Coalition being formed at some point.

But at the same time it mostly feels as if people are confusing 'I want modern lore' with 'I want different weapons/equipment', as most 'modern' stuff is already in the schema and we'd likely ban/retcon excessive mention of pop culture anyways.

Yes it is well worth keeping a well written lore which can be continued to modern day providing it can bring in players in the short term. I don't blame you for not wanting to rewrite a new lore but id rather not rush a new server and waste a good lore and possibly our last chance for WW3RP if it doesn't succeed in building a sustainable playerbase