|
|
Post by Dmitry Molchanov on Sept 12, 2016 18:16:38 GMT
True, but the one that may possess far less problems is if we can all, together, come up with a battle system that possesses the least issues and is at least somewhat easy to understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Warzone on Sept 12, 2016 18:19:19 GMT
Another huge problem with online gaming is that the South American Pact and any future independent factions are not even present in the game. Now adding those factions in the game is possible but the huge amount of work is not worth it and the attention is better focused on actual roleplaying in Battles.
Remember, the game is just an inspiration for the roleplay. Having to play the game in order to roleplay in Battles is in my opinion regressive, not progressive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitry Molchanov on Sept 12, 2016 18:22:08 GMT
Indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sergei Varennikov on Sept 12, 2016 18:26:34 GMT
Bottom line is i oppose any form of calculating. So i suggested something easier, that i also oppose, but that is easier and obviously much more fun than math. But i'll figure out a way around whatever you people pick that i might not agree with(maybe i just give up on huge battles and take a political role instead, or limit myself on Nikola Pasic and his made up units).
Independent factions could pretty much pick the faction that is the closest to their faction. It's not about narrating the battle, it's about deciding the winner. So you can as well pick another faction in game(even enemy faction), it doesn't matter. And it's more fair than tossing a dice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitry Molchanov on Sept 12, 2016 18:37:02 GMT
And yet, this is still a roleplay. The keywords being "roleplay." This is not the actual game, nor will it ever be as such. To try and "narrow down the faction that fits your theme" for factions like the SAP, which is completely unique in and of itself, isn't going to work, and would create far more problems than solve them. From what I see, you won't be truly happy with any battle system because it doesn't reflect the reality of war. Truth be told, we aren't actual military generals, we aren't actual politicians, and we most certainly are not going to act as such.
This, as a roleplay, unfortunately needs to possess arcadey elements with enough realism to still make it fun. Unfortunately, simple percentage calculations are how we need to go about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sergei Varennikov on Sept 12, 2016 18:44:12 GMT
Well i am always acting as such.  Then pick whatever you want, it makes no diference for me. I just gave my two cents on the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Dmitry Molchanov on Sept 12, 2016 18:53:13 GMT
No matter. If you have an idea to contribute, then feel free to do so, so long as it makes sense from a roleplay-based battle perspective. As for my system, I could give out an example in the training threads so as to create a mock battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wang Xi Jintao on Sept 12, 2016 19:55:28 GMT
I rather choose for a system to determine casualties if players aren't able to do themselves.
I already given my opinion that I lack experience in both ways, system based or plain fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sergei Varennikov on Sept 12, 2016 23:29:58 GMT
Well my suggestion stays the same as the last time. It relies on people being rational and in some cases solving occasional problems(not the entire battle) with RNG. No math whatsoever, just realism and dumb luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitry Molchanov on Sept 13, 2016 0:00:34 GMT
Unfortunately, we've tried this thrice, and it hasn't worked at all. It's resulted in arguments, claims of godmodding and powerplay, and other such occurrences. If we want to be able to battle, we unfortunately have to rely on dice and basic mathematics, rather than just simple "common sense." Remember Cyprus, the 5000 hoppers that a GLA ambush took out, etc. All too easily exploitable without a proper system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sergei Varennikov on Sept 13, 2016 7:21:02 GMT
Unfortunately, we've tried this thrice, and it hasn't worked at all. It's resulted in arguments, claims of godmodding and powerplay, and other such occurrences. If we want to be able to battle, we unfortunately have to rely on dice and basic mathematics, rather than just simple "common sense." Remember Cyprus, the 5000 hoppers that a GLA ambush took out, etc. All too easily exploitable without a proper system. The main problem for those claims was that there was nobody monitoring the preparing of operational "paperwork". Some other factions also wanted to respond to it while holding weak cards(they weren't prepared). Then those same factions started accusing about powerplay, because the accused had strong cards and actualy knew what they are doing. At the end we had to "embrace and amplify" to prove a point, which as far as i can tell fixed it? We have two admins who monitor the preparation of ops now. |
|
|
|
Post by Dmitry Molchanov on Sept 13, 2016 8:13:32 GMT
Still, I doubt anyone's going to go back to a system of "common sense" and "realism," as it's unfair in their eyes. I, personally, would enjoy it. However, not everyone shares the same vision. Doesn't matter anyways though, since it's unlikely that Rohan would bring back such a system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sergei Varennikov on Sept 13, 2016 13:15:12 GMT
Still, I doubt anyone's going to go back to a system of "common sense" and "realism," as it's unfair in their eyes. I, personally, would enjoy it. However, not everyone shares the same vision. Doesn't matter anyways though, since it's unlikely that Rohan would bring back such a system. I don't get how's it unfair. But wait, you're for it too? In that case i guess we should have both options presented and voted on at the end, as it seems that more than two don't share this version either. |
|
|
|
Post by The Warzone on Sept 13, 2016 13:51:25 GMT
Well my suggestion stays the same as the last time. It relies on people being rational and in some cases solving occasional problems(not the entire battle) with RNG. No math whatsoever, just realism and dumb luck. Please elaborate on the bold ? |
|
|
|
Post by Sergei Varennikov on Sept 13, 2016 14:41:19 GMT
Well my suggestion stays the same as the last time. It relies on people being rational and in some cases solving occasional problems(not the entire battle) with RNG. No math whatsoever, just realism and dumb luck. Please elaborate on the bold ? Say a battle is ongoing, and mortars are falling all around the place(both sides of the frontline). Say one General of GLA has his soldiers out on the open running all 'alalala' towards the enemy wearing nike shoes, while the defender(CSTO/ECA/China/NAU) is dug-in, has bunkers, trenches and alike. Now let's say the two sides dissagree on litteraly everything, from number of casualties to where the mortars fall. Facts: In ROTR, GLA has worse equipment than any other faction; CSTO's artilery is stronger while ECA's artilery is more precise(NOT counting protocols and Nukes); China's artilery is slow and not very precise, but it's nuclear; NAU's artilery is... meh... but still better than GLA. Realism: GLA will have a lot more casualties than whoever is on the other side(in this scenario i'm not sure if NAU or China would have the most out of the other four). Can't decide on actual number of casualties? Who cares about numbers?! The GLA will either retreat with what little they have left or all will continue to die while killing an enemy soldier or two. Dumb luck: And if you care for the numbers, as these GLA's units are running towards an enemy in their stolen nike shoes, with a death wish, the chance that all will die in the first offensive is pretty much around 91%(element of reason= GLA General:"71%", me:"85%", him: "81%", me: "SOLD!"). So pick nineteen numbers from one to one hundred, toss a RNG and there you go. If you get one of the numbers you needed(you lucky bastard you), you get some soldiers out. As for the number of soldiers that got out, if you can't agree on that either and you absolutely must use numbers, then use RNG for that too. Pick a number from one to nineteen and and RNG it. Disclaimer: A General doesn't count. He's a uberunit who can run away or be captured on his own leisure. The most complicated thing here would be turning number of units into percents, and even then if you absolutely have to for whatever reason. |
|
