Pending WW3RP: Summer Flavors

Just gauging interest, these votes will not decide anything

  • Concept 1, Stasiland: Task Force Europa

  • Concept 2, Stasiland: The Lost Battalion

  • Concept 3, WW3RP: Red Dawn

  • Concept 4, WW3RP: 'Classic'

  • I'd rather do something else like hl2

  • Fuck you roosebud


Results are only viewable after voting.

Thood74

Molecule
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2019
Messages
4,056
Nebulae
3,622
can you elaborate? tryna figure out what makes people like/dislike and how they'd see things moving forward
The idea of one side built around light RP while the other is considered the one where the vast majority of actual roleplay over combat goes down. Alongside all the militia groups that'll take away from boths rosters without offering a civilian perspective beyond that of the independent paramilitary man.

I'd prefer if both factions were held to the same standard of roleplay with differences being only found in structure and equipment. And maybe a different setting, but that's a more personal dislike.
 
Last edited:

Roosebud

Administrator
Head Staff
WW3 RP Server Director
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
5,274
Nebulae
21,301
The idea of one side built around light RP while the other is considered the one where the vast majority of actual roleplay over combat goes down. Alongside all the militia groups that'll take away from boths rosters without offering a civilian perspective beyond that of the independent paramilitary man.
Alright ye fair. The main thing to overcome in the red dawn concept is balancing the factions player-wise, as well as keeping the 'action crowd' satisfied without forcing the 'RP crowd' into stuff.

As for civilians, in this concept they're effectively left completely free to venture out into the world and interact with it. Ofc there'd be rules of engagement like "visibily armed civilians may be fired upon" for the Soviets or something similar. But aside from that I intend to micro-manage the civs as little as possible. If they want to claim a building and do something with it, fine, as long as they accept the army might do stuff there as well.
 
Reactions: List

Thood74

Molecule
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2019
Messages
4,056
Nebulae
3,622
Alright ye fair. The main thing to overcome in the red dawn concept is balancing the factions player-wise, as well as keeping the 'action crowd' satisfied without forcing the 'RP crowd' into stuff.
I think a fair balance of both won't utterly ruin roleplay or combat for either crowd, and will be better for people who entirely enjoy both.

Ofc there'd be rules of engagement like "visibily armed civilians may be fired upon" for the Soviets or something similar.
Oh yeah, this is another thing.

Locals should be entirely neutral. Stuck between the Soviets and NATO. Probably another reason I dislike the setting in the US of A.

Also going to emphasise the points I edited into my original post. Differences in factions are fine, but they should be more in equipment, structure and how they operate instead of the roleplay standards for faction members.
 

Roosebud

Administrator
Head Staff
WW3 RP Server Director
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
5,274
Nebulae
21,301
Also going to emphasise the points I edited into my original post. Differences in factions are fine, but they should be more in equipment, structure and how they operate instead of the roleplay standards for faction members.

My main concern is that we tried this countless times in the past.

The result has always been that if we make two factions completely 'the same', as in, same amount of weapons and stats, armor, vehicles etc. It turns into a pissing contest and shit like who dominates in s2k becomes the main aiming point.

When we make factions assymetrical.. We had a period where the 'coalition' was supposed to be low-tech but superior in numbers. Except it wasn't because nobody wants to be weaker on purpose in s2k. We had complaints out the ass about stuff 'not being fair'. I guess we came close to it with Stasiland in the later stages before we introduced NATO, with civilians armed with rifles and IEDs versus the Soviets. But that also came very close to people getting upset by being overpowered. It's the same old tale of people wanting this hardcore survival experience until they actually play it and realize it means being shat on and losing your shit on a regular basis.

I guess the concept of making one cater more to more heavy rp enthusiasts and the other focus more on the action under a different set of guidelines would capitalize on things we've seen in every iteration of WW3RP, while at the same time not alienating either side. Hopefully a sideeffect will also be avoiding the pissing contest by giving each type of player their niche in a dynamic relationship with the other side.
 
Reactions: List

Thood74

Molecule
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2019
Messages
4,056
Nebulae
3,622
My main concern is that we tried this countless times in the past.

The result has always been that if we make two factions completely 'the same', as in, same amount of weapons and stats, armor, vehicles etc. It turns into a pissing contest and shit like who dominates in s2k becomes the main aiming point.

When we make factions assymetrical.. We had a period where the 'coalition' was supposed to be low-tech but superior in numbers. Except it wasn't because nobody wants to be weaker on purpose in s2k. We had complaints out the ass about stuff 'not being fair'. I guess we came close to it with Stasiland in the later stages before we introduced NATO, with civilians armed with rifles and IEDs versus the Soviets. But that also came very close to people getting upset by being overpowered. It's the same old tale of people wanting this hardcore survival experience until they actually play it and realize it means being shat on and losing your shit on a regular basis.

I guess the concept of making one cater more to more heavy rp enthusiasts and the other focus more on the action under a different set of guidelines would capitalize on things we've seen in every iteration of WW3RP, while at the same time not alienating either side. Hopefully a sideeffect will also be avoiding the pissing contest by giving each type of player their niche in a dynamic relationship with the other side.
Guess I'm at odds with everyone else then?

I think asymetrical warfare is far more interesting a setup than some generic 'two somehow entirely the same armies fight eachother'. Though I think the idea of one faction being a more 'pure action' one while the other is 'the one that actually does shit' is an entirely negative perspective as it will inevitably, without fail end up skewered towards the roleplay heavy faction while the other remains the one dimensional antagonist. The setting of Russia somehow fucking over the US military against all odds doesn't exactly provide an interesting narrative to carry this setup either.

Again, this is all just my perspective. If people prefer an empty narrative of one big bad versus one faction with actual depth that's their choice. I just think that setting is something I wouldn't entertain.
 
Reactions: List

Chester

custom title
WW3 RP Senior Administrator
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
1,025
Nebulae
3,403
omg!!!!!!!!!!! ww3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me preface this by being 100% honest and saying that I'm most definitely instantly biased towards option 4... and I'll explain why, but I'm also going to address some issues with the classic server concept so that I'm not a total shill.

I don't think this is true, in WW3's case, because of the inherent us vs them S2K.

You slap a WW3 server up and I can guarantee people would keep that shit going for months and months.
Correct; but only in certain circumstances... it depends on a lot of factors. @Shapok is correct in referencing past attempts over the last couple of years (since 2018 I believe?) in bringing back the "classic formula" WW3, a few of which I have been involved in, in varying capacities!!!

Probably the most successful (despite being very short-lived) of these attempts was the August 2021 revision at a different community. A lot of hard work went into that from myself, the staff team and the players despite having very little to work with from the get-go, as well as struggling with debilitating issues (namely inexperienced upper management for one, who spawned some of these issues of their own accord, communication breakdowns between my temporary replacement whilst I was on LOA with COVID and the staff team, development issues that proved elusive and so forth).

The metrics from this revision were, when we were full steam ahead and I wasn't busy coughing my lungs up with COVID, 35 player average during peak times (6pm-11pm for us, roughly) keeping in mind we only had 40 player slots. And this was starting off from an incredibly lacklustre launch two weeks prior... I think we managed a 15-17 player peak during the first launch week, which then steadily grew as we learned where/what our strengths and weaknesses were and made a plan of action.

We held that 35 player average for a month, then I caught COVID, went on LOA (whilst still doing what I could in an advisory role, when I could) and the rest is history. Such is life. Some things were not handled the best way, and that includes me and some of my day-to-day decisions as well, and things could've been done differently but at the end of the day it's all a learning experience. We learn and we move on to the next thing.

edit: My point is, the interest for WW3RP is still 100% there, most definitely. And that month of going from strength to strength showcased that. If that can happen in a community where I had minimal resources to work with from the very get-go, then it can most definitely be pulled off here. Nebulous remains an active community and the staff are no strangers to launching servers here, and the community also has the benefit of having resources to work with.

I'd want to find the balance between it becoming a toxic mess ánd the shitshow where people felt like some sort of elitist just because they RPd. Big shock, the kind of RP we've done on Nebulous, be that HL2RP or WW3RP or w/e, it wasn't exactly the super duper serious RP you'd see in purist servers, so lets stop pretending.
Always an issue in the main, open servers... one end of the spectrum where you have people that want to just fuck around, not RP (or just do the bare minimum of RP) and be toxic and the other end being the people who thought they were God's gift because they do paragraph RP and max out the 1024 character limit of the chatbox with their /me's that are mostly just filler. That being said, they both bounce off each other, and I personally haven't found a way to get people to just be nice to each other without tedious micromanagement and mediation a lá being a babysitter.

It should not be the staff's job to micromanage petty conflicts between players, which plays into the next branch of the same issue... the varying attitudes across the playerbase. You'll have toxic cliques, elitist cliques and every other kind of clique in between; people who just wanna play the game, to name one. One thing I've noticed is that people are very easily wound up on WW3RP, and GMod in general, over the littlest things and this has been a consistent issue with WW3/GMod for a number of years/iterations, now. Unfortunately, it is pack and parcel of an open server, as everyone who plays will have differing maturity levels and skin thickness. It iz what it iz, literally. It's something you can mitigate, but it's not something you can eliminate.

This is where closed-off servers that require a whitelist to play are more enticing in this instance— players can be vetted and vouched for (some would call this circlejerking?) and they will more than likely all be similar-minded. It doesn't remove the issue entirely, but it lessens it as a whole.

Furthermore, the inherent nature of option 4's concept is a breeding ground for taunting and banter that goes too far. People need thick skin to play the gamemode and can't be wound up as easily as they usually are. Staff will obviously do what they can to keep it under wraps, but they can't be there watching everything 24/7. It's a shame because the gamemode is genuinely fun, but this whole us vs them mentality and general toxicity across the board just ruins the experience for a lot of players, and generally speaking too.

I don't see why we couldn't try and combine some of the options together? Do the fourth option as the permanent server with the "fully serious" act dropped, but then occasionally organise whitelisted events a la the first option for proper, serious roleplay hours.
I like this idea. I'm sure this has been a part of the classic concept since its first inception back in 2011/2012 (BnT?) as "operations", which were originally just S2K fests with respawn waves given to either side until the Neb 2016 iteration where @Roosebud and co turned operations into a hybrid of the classic S2K fests with heavy roleplay elements, most notably during the Armenia campaign on rp_pripyat.

It worked pretty well, but that's probably just my rose-tinted glasses speaking. I imagine it was more than likely a nightmare to manage behind the scenes from time-to-time. I'd like to see more of these operations with more focus given to RP whilst also retaining the classic respawn-wave-deathmatch-the-enemy malarkey to some extent... there's a time and place for both, and I'm sure we can work out which is which when/if it comes to it.

I think it'll end up better if we simply try to accommodate the two supposed "types" of WW3RP players instead of forcing everyone to focus on roleplay and then constantly complaining that the faction that has shown a clear interest in the other side of the server doesn't like the main focus being shoved down their throats. Much better to accommodate that from the very beginning.
The devil you know, some people just aren't in the mood for heavy RP 24/7 and that's OK. I'd rather accommodate both sides and have a "lighter" experience whilst still being able to engage in the serious, heavy RP with people who actually want to. Compromise rather than force, it's a game after all, we're all adults now... the majority of us OGs are, anyway. People are a lot more receptive to change and ideas when you sit down with them in a level-headed manner and just discuss them, instead of stomping on their neck and insisting that they must engage in mandatory 24/7 heavy serious roleplay. That's not how it works, and it never will work that way. Just my two cents. I welcome people who may have different opinions to discuss this with me.

Personally speaking? I have a lot going on in my life, adult responsibilities, work, yada-yada. A plug-and-play experience like option 4 where I can just log in and play the game with the homies keeps things nice and simple. Never been too much of a fan of closed-off event servers... mainly because my shit work schedule means I can never make them and my FOMO kicks in :sob:. Closed-off event servers need a lot of work and dedication from the staff and playerbase, and if the dedication isn't there, the execution isn't going to be there either. Players might not wanna play/can't make it, same for staff, staff might get burnt out... the same can be said for main, open servers, but the latter is usually more forgiving in how much you can salvage and recover from a shitty launch.

Furthermore, it's less of a headache for staff to manage. All you need is faction leads, branch leads, COs/NCOs and staff; with some oversight, you're good to go. Minimal reliance on the playerbase, which is another key point to bring up... look at FrundTech, look at Stasiland. Numerous "key" players applied for businesses and whatnot for the Stasiland launch, got them, and then just never logged on... or interacted with their businesses. Hype does a lot to a person. I want to be optimistic and say that wouldn't happen again, but I don't particularly like eating my words.

I'll have more detailed feedback on the actual ideas themselves in a later post.
 
Last edited:

dvn

Atom
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
2,563
Nebulae
6,097
omg!!!!!!!!!!! ww3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me preface this by being 100% honest and saying that I'm most definitely instantly biased towards option 4... and I'll explain why, but I'm also going to address some issues with the classic server concept so that I'm not a total shill.


Correct; but only in certain circumstances... it depends on a lot of factors. @Shapok is correct in referencing past attempts over the last couple of years (since 2018 I believe?) in bringing back the "classic formula" WW3, a few of which I have been involved in, in varying capacities!!!

Probably the most successful (despite being very short-lived) of these attempts was the August 2021 revision at a different community. A lot of hard work went into that from myself, the staff team and the players despite having very little to work with from the get-go, as well as struggling with debilitating issues (namely inexperienced upper management for one, who spawned some of these issues of their own accord, communication breakdowns between my temporary replacement whilst I was on LOA with COVID and the staff team, development issues that proved elusive and so forth).

The metrics from this revision were, when we were full steam ahead and I wasn't busy coughing my lungs up with COVID, 35 player average during peak times (6pm-11pm for us, roughly) keeping in mind we only had 40 player slots. And this was starting off from an incredibly lacklustre launch two weeks prior... I think we managed a 15-17 player peak during the first launch week, which then steadily grew as we learned where/what our strengths and weaknesses were and made a plan of action. We held that 35 player average for a month, then I caught COVID, went on LOA (whilst still doing what I could in an advisory role, when I could) and the rest is history. Such is life. Some things were not handled the best way, and that includes me and some of my day-to-day decisions as well, and things could've been done differently but at the end of the day it's all a learning experience. We learn and we move on to the next thing.


Always an issue in the main, open servers... one end of the spectrum where you have people that want to just fuck around, not RP (or just do the bare minimum of RP) and be toxic and the other end being the people who thought they were God's gift because they do paragraph RP and max out the 1024 character limit of the chatbox with their /me's that are mostly just filler. That being said, they both bounce off each other, and I personally haven't found a way to get people to just be nice to each other without tedious micromanagement and mediation a lá being a babysitter.

It should not be the staff's job to micromanage petty conflicts between players, which plays into the next branch of the same issue... the varying attitudes across the playerbase. You'll have toxic cliques, elitist cliques and every other kind of clique in between; people who just wanna play the game, to name one. One thing I've noticed is that people are very easily wound up on WW3RP, and GMod in general, over the littlest things and this has been a consistent issue with WW3/GMod for a number of years/iterations, now. Unfortunately, it is pack and parcel of an open server, as everyone who plays will have differing maturity levels and skin thickness. It iz what it iz, literally.

This is where closed-off servers that require a whitelist to play are more enticing in this instance— players can be vetted and vouched for (some would call this circlejerking?) and they will more than likely all be similar-minded. It doesn't remove the issue entirely, but it lessens it as a whole.


I like this idea. I'm sure this has been a part of the classic concept since its first inception back in 2011/2012 (BnT?) as "operations", which were originally just S2K fests with respawn waves given to either side until the Neb 2016 iteration where @Roosebud and co turned operations into a hybrid of the classic S2K fests with heavy roleplay elements, most notably during the Armenia campaign on rp_pripyat.

It worked pretty well, but that's probably just my rose-tinted glasses speaking. I imagine it was more than likely a nightmare to manage behind the scenes from time-to-time. I'd like to see more of these operations with more focus given to RP whilst also retaining the classic respawn-wave-deathmatch-the-enemy malarkey... there's a time and place for both, and I'm sure we can work out which is which when/if it comes to it.


The devil you know, some people just aren't in the mood for heavy RP 24/7 and that's OK. I'd rather accommodate both sides and have a "lighter" experience whilst still being able to engage in the serious, heavy RP with people who actually want to. Compromise rather than force, it's a game after all, we're all adults now... the majority of us OGs are, anyway. People are a lot more receptive to change and ideas when you sit down with them in a level-headed manner and just discuss them, instead of stomping on their neck and insisting that they must engage in mandatory 24/7 heavy serious roleplay. That's not how it works, and it never will work that way. Just my two cents. I welcome people who may have different opinions to discuss this with me.

Personally speaking? I have a lot going on in my life, adult responsibilities, work, yada-yada. A plug-and-play experience like option 4 where I can just log in and play the game with the homies keeps things nice and simple. Never been too much of a fan of closed-off event servers... mainly because my shit work schedule means I can never make them and my FOMO kicks in :sob:. Closed-off event servers need a lot of work and dedication from the staff and playerbase, and if the dedication isn't there, the execution isn't going to be there either. Players might not wanna play/can't make it, same for staff, staff might get burnt out... the same can be said for main, open servers, but the latter is usually more forgiving in how much you can salvage and recover from a shitty launch.
monkey nuts, was it?
 
Reactions: List

Antloin

Molecule
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
5,344
Nebulae
9,039
I like Concept 1 because I know that it will definitely not get abandoned by players, will run pretty well and be fun for everyone. Unlike the main server, which requires way more care, coordination and people to run it.

I also highly doubt that, with HL2RP being down, WW3RP will get more players - it's just such a simple logic that it doesn't seem likely. Neb players can always play a diff. game/server other than neb, they're not confined to playing just neb servers.
 
Reactions: List

Andrew

Atom
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
2,777
Nebulae
3,639
i like all of them
i really like three because there's a lot of USA maps on workshop as you said
whatever you do i'll apply/join the server so i'm not really worried about what the end option is
closed server during the week is an idea to keep kicking around but only really if people want it
 

Northgate

:D
WW3 RP Senior Administrator
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
1,380
Nebulae
3,525
To give a more detailed post in regards to my thoughts and hopes for this:

I believe Concepts 3 & 4 would be best overall: allow players who want to fight to fight, while allowing interaction to occur between the factions and Citizens too. An occupation scenario similar to Stasiland would be interesting in my opinion, I still remember the first weeks in Frankfurt: the Stasi were an omni-present threat, with informants in all ranks! Having two factions hiding in plainclothes among civilians to gain counter-intelligence on the other side is a really cool concept.

My only concern is how it'd be handled. I remember that during hectic S2K, many fighting characters went by the principle of "S2K first, roleplay second". On one side this is understandable due to the very crazy nature of Shoot to Kill, however I think the thought of shooting to kill should be more complex. Venturing into non-controlled areas would be dangerous for Civvies, with S2K risk. While inside their settlements though, they should be allowed to roleplay and killing them should be prosecuted in-character, before it devolves into the funny warcrimes joke.


Overall though, I'm optimistic. People want to try something else, something like WW3RP. I believe now is a great time to introduce it again, so whatever and whenever it comes: count me in!
 

'77 East

`impulse-approved
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
10,127
Nebulae
22,836
can we ignore votes from the fuckers who haven't been here since before stasiland and have now come back out of the woodwork to vote for option #4? you had your chance when stasiland was dying, voted for a similar system (WW3RP TDM) then didn't bother to show up

some of you even whinged back then about how it wasn't handled "how you wanted it" and now you're voting yet again for what you had before & promptly shat on

unbelievable
[doublepost=1655126512][/doublepost]
Can you specify what would make it high maintenance in your eyes? We'd likely be working with somewhere between 20-30 people but the event(s) would be scaled and as time progresses people will die out. I guess I could see the issue being enough opposition?
I think he means since the majority of pop are the battalion with admins, 'event helpers' or whoever forming the enemy squads & manning opfor vehicles, conflict is heavily staff driven and without their active presence there's not much to do besides RP or /me rote tasks like digging defenses, etc.
 
Reactions: List
D

Deleted member 1405

Guest
I think having an open server would be cool, especially since some of us may not be able to commit to playing to set dates and time.

Also can u bring back the spacerace program :)
 
Reactions: List

Roosebud

Administrator
Head Staff
WW3 RP Server Director
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
5,274
Nebulae
21,301
it'd be cool if everyone reading the thread could vote so I can get a feeling for what kind of audience I'm working with
 
Reactions: List

Goopy

Molecule
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
4,049
Nebulae
5,892
I voted Option 4 because I'm high on the nostalgia of LP-era WW3RP and the amount of dumb fun it bought to me as a teen but maybe as an adult it may not work anymore! Either way I think having it there as the main server, and then a second server dedicated to those closed off events where character development can happen would fit the niche for I think both types of players.
 

Nova

Proton
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
295
Nebulae
300
WW3RP: Ukraine v Russia edition.

But in all seriousness Option 4 looks the best imo. I miss the days of old WW3RP where I would roleplay and pewpew with my mates. I believe this option will fill up the hole years without ww3rp left in my body.
 
Reactions: List

Northgate

:D
WW3 RP Senior Administrator
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
1,380
Nebulae
3,525
Mixing Concept 3 & 4 would perhaps be ideal: the main attraction is, and always will be the combat. In Stasiland, almost everyone was alligned with the Soviets / Federalists, and that's alright!

but keeping a fine addition of roleplay sprinkled over it can provide for more unique interactions, rather than point, aim and hopefully - kill. However I also understand that a lot of us are older now, not everyone has as much time as we did then - so providing roleplay but not enforcing it for those who just want to give in to their urges. plus, we're all older now, so I believe we're all mature enough for it. it is, imo the best mix to get everyone interested.

can we ignore votes from the fuckers who haven't been here since before stasiland and have now come back out of the woodwork to vote for option #4? you had your chance when stasiland was dying, voted for a similar system (WW3RP TDM) then didn't bother to show up

some of you even whinged back then about how it wasn't handled "how you wanted it" and now you're voting yet again for what you had before & promptly shat on

unbelievable
[doublepost=1655126512][/doublepost]
I think he means since the majority of pop are the battalion with admins, 'event helpers' or whoever forming the enemy squads & manning opfor vehicles, conflict is heavily staff driven and without their active presence there's not much to do besides RP or /me rote tasks like digging defenses, etc.

while i think it's worded harshly east isn't entirely wrong, the OG WW3RP guys want their style back. I still remember when people voted for an early NATO appearance and didn't bother, that was just super sad. still i think what we learned from Stasiland shouldn't be thrown out of the window, it should simply be given a secondary, less supervised position in the server.

citizens should be able to acquire goods and such more easily than your average soldier, i.e ciggies & food which they can then sell to either faction. vendors as you mentioned should still be kept (relying on citizens with the current ideas isn't the best) but perhaps with higher prices and only with access to basic goods?


in short to cut my ramblings off, I think we could have an interesting dynamic and I'd love to look into one, which ties citizens in without forcing it upon the average war enjoyers. i'm excited to see what's next and I think this could go somewhere :D
 
Reactions: List