MattAtlas Posted March 17 Posted March 17 Introduction Hi, everyone! The results for the surveys are in. As was explained in the survey itself, keep in mind that these results are only indicative. Just because the majority of people said "we want a corporate setting" does not necessarily mean that the next setting will be a corporate one. These survey results underwent a cleaning process where anonymous surveys or surveys with blank/bogus names were removed (9 over 148 responses). Survey results will have the question written in plaintext over it so that you can search for it, and I'll add some of my own thoughts as well. The total surveys submitted post-cleaning are 139. Is Aurora stagnating currently? This question is fairly self-explainatory. A good amount of the playerbase seems to think that Aurora is indeed stagnating - and part of the reason behind the question being there is that I had a feeling this was the case. There are a lot of factors that could go into this - the lack of gameplay development, or the lack of lore direction - those are questions that are intertwined inextricably, in my opinion. The two go hand in hand; a lack of gameplay developmeng is also caused by a lack of lore direction, and vice versa. A significant amount of the playerbase is also indifferent, which means that the problem currently isn't as bad as the graphic might make it seem. However, it does show that this is an increasing trend, and that Aurora's stagnation, as it is, is only destined to grow. In the event of a setting change, what kind of setting would you like to see? As you can see, this question had some rather... eclectic answers. I think I was wrong in how I put this question into the survey - there probably shouldn't have been an "other" answer. In any case, most of those "other" answers are essentially divided between corporate/colony, or mixes between different answers that I won't get into too much. This question doesn't just serve as a "what would you do in your ideal world?" question, but also as an indicator of what our playerbase is interested in, and where they want to see change happen. A lot of people still seem to like the idea of a corporate setting. The important part is that on a global level, about 70% of the server would like to see a different kind of setting, although what everyone wants there is far more divided. This question is particularly interesting to me because it represents the kind of playerbase we have. We have a pretty good core of people interested in corporate roleplay, but also a lot of people that would like something that leans more to a freelancer outlook. Some people prefer a more static colony setting, while an even smaller amount prefer a military setting. If you have not voted for a mercenary/freelancer setting as your favourite, how much do you like the idea of such a setting? This one is rather self-explainatory. It seems that the freelancer setting is still quite popular even among people that didn't exactly vote for it. I think there was an error with how I set up the question here by making it mandatory, so that should be accounted for - though keep in mind that the results for "Freelancer" in the previous questions were only 36. Assuming those people all voted 5, that still makes the answers from 3 to 4 a supermajority. What do you believe Aurora is lacking the most? There is probably no surprise here for anyone. Gameplay has been Aurora's sorest spot for a very, very long time. I could write a thesis on what happened to the gameplay part of this server over the years, but the short answer is that an overreliance on antagonists for the round structure to be fun creates stagnant gameplay loops in the department themselves, which are modelled to only be relevant insofar as there is an antagonist. There are departments like Science that suffered a progressive gutting in favour of other roles, like Roboticist. More on this later. Either way, the lack of gameplay in Aurora is a massive problem. In the event that a timeskip is necessary for a setting change (with 2028 as the minimum target time), what would your opinion on that be? This is probably one of the most surprising answers. A supermajority of the playerbase is actually fine with a timeskip, with the number decreasing as you go up in years - but even a 15 year timeskip would see 75% of the server agreeing with it. Analysing this result, we can take this as a pretty good indicator that something is fundamentally not working in our current setting. If it were rock solid, I doubt anyone would be fine with a timeskip at all. I'll take this opportunity to answer some things I saw brought up in the Discord over this question - any timeskip would be an in-universe development with a lore arc tied to it, and we would stay in the same overarching universe we are in right now. Things wouldn't be disconnected. What is your opinion on the current state of Aurora and its setting? This is an interestingly polarizing question, where about 35% of the server thinks there needs to be a big change, and 65% thinks the current setting is fine. On a surface reading, that means to me that there is some sort of fundamental issue with how the Horizon was brought about and its development over the years, but it is not fundamentally broken. Based off of this, you could think the NBT was mostly a success. What is your opinion on Science being removed and integrated as parts of other departments such as Engineering or Operations? This is an interestingly polarizing question: a lot of people have strong opinions on Science, which I find is rather odd for a department that finds itself having no players most of the time. I think this is due to Science being an attractive idea in theory - most of the players would like to see Science flourish - but the reason behind this question is that I wanted to see what people's position on the department is. It's no surprise that it's a department that's been on the soft chopping block for a long time, both because its features have been siphoned off over time and also because of a lack of development. Its components being pulled out and given to other departments is a potential solution because it would refresh the idea of Science. You would be able to add new mechanics and items without having to plaster a veener of "research" / "new thing that is discovered" over it, which believe it or not, is typically a massive hurdle. Integrating it into Engineering or Operations, in my mind, is a bigger incentive to put Science squarely into that hole of "department/job that upgrades things", but that is a discussion for another day. Either way, I'll definitely take account of the results here. Is the idea of increased friction between corporate and mercenary characters enticing to you? No real surprise here. This is an alluring proposition for a lot of players. I think in general this does reflect a lack of suspiciousness between the factions on the ship, and some discontent with that. "Hostility" isn't exactly the right word, but a little bit of surface level conflict between the characters, some distrust, things like that. Do you believe that the Aurora universe (intended as Lore in its globality) is too static at the moment? Here's some good homework - try to figure out what this means! These answers are really polarizing to an interesting degree. There's an almost even split between basically all the factions, with "maybe" winning out in pure numbers, though there could be a study on its own on what exactly people meant here - maybe that's material for another survey. I think there's some discontent at the base here, though if I were to wager a guess I'd probably point my fingers at a lot of universe events happening far away from our reach. One of the biggest problems with the Horizon, in my opinion, is that when bad things happen it's often unjustified for a flagship to go there. We would fall into arguments like "but why would the most expensive prized ship ever be in [dangerous location]?" and the answer would require either some substantial suspension of disbelief (like in the Konyang events) or a huge sanitization of what the Horizon can actually do in these events - like it or not, conflict and danger are at the base of most literature for a reason. Does the idea of increased friction between player characters caused by interstellar events such as war appeal to you? Well, there's one of our answers. I think this one explains itself. People definitely want more friction between characters, and this ties back into that question from earlier about mercenary and corporate infighting. That kind of thing is good and something we definitely need to develop in the future. In any setting change, do you believe that the ship/station/etc. should be independent and largely not beholden to any particular entity? I think my takeaway from this particular answer is that there's a balance to be struck. A lot of people like playing with constraints on their characters, and I'm one of them, personally. I would have voted "no" here, but we should keep in mind that this question is rather simplistic and a surface level view of what "Independence" might represent. You can be reasonably independent while still being beholden to a particular entity. It's a matter for further discussion some other day, but I believe whatever new setting we have should try to strike a good balance between "independence" and "obligation". We should have a lot more narrative freedom in where we can go and what we can do. Ideally, we shouldn't have to suspend disbelief on why we're doing X thing for a lore arc, and we shouldn't have to limit ourselves to certain kinds of events or tasks for our ship. In general, how much does the theme of "a universe recovering from a large war" appeal to you? This is also a rather surprising answer, and I think this all makes sense if you compare it with the overwhelming support for increased friction between characters - it's a no brainer as to how such a setting would contribute to conflict between characters. A good majority definitely sees good opportunity in this kind of setting. If you could pick one department/gameplay area to receive particular focus in NBT2, which one would it be? This is another... pretty eclectic graph. Again, I really should not have added an "other" section - the answers there are mostly things like "rip off cyberpunk", "do most departments at once", "no particular opinion", "science", or derivatives of exploration. Either way, there's MASSIVE support for more exploration content - which I honestly didn't expect to see! Keep in mind that these kinds of questions often fall into pretty big tribalism. It takes a lot for someone to vote against their own department, and I can count about three departments starved for gameplay on Aurora. Exploration itself isn't really even a department (maybe you could argue it for some of Command), so the people voting for it are voting against their own department, which takes a lot. It means that exploration is definitely something we should focus on more, and people like that sort of content a lot. It has potential future as the center of a setting, if you ask me. Science is a close second - not a surprise, seeing the answers on the Science question from below. Operations is also a major winner. Behind that, Service, then Medical, and then Security. Do you believe self-defense ability should be democratized in a new setting? The implication is not that everyone would receive a gun, but rather that self-defense training and the ability to use a gun would be more widespread in the crew. Most people would evidently like to see less Security monopolization of threats. This question was intentionally pretty vague because there are a lot of ways to achieve this without being overbearing or stepping on Security's toes. I should note that this is a very "top to bottom" question - it is entirely setting dependant. You couldn't achieve something like this on the Horizon without compromising suspension of disbelief or the Horizon's main strong narrative pillars (we tried with the crew armoury and it ended up failing). One thing I brought up on the Discord about this question is that "democratizing self defense ability" doesn't necessarily mean that when a Technomancer goes "boo" you'd arm up the chef. There's still space for Security to be a first response force with the rest of the crew being on alert. However, I think focusing on the antagonist part of this problem is actually not the right way to look at it. If you look at this question from the point of view of Odyssey, it is tinted a lot more differently. It means, de facto, that more people would be able to be involved in the action in Odyssey without necessarily compromising Security's job to the degree of "I took out my gun, shot the technomancer, and the round is now over" that you might find if you accomplished something like this on a Secret-focused setting. How important do you believe phoron is to your character's life, in your opinion? This question is a massive condemnation of the failure that was the phoron scarcity. It was intended to be a massive universe event that drove the narrative forwards, and then, well... it just didn't. Just look at these answers. I'm pretty sure the people who answered 5 are all vaurca mains. Essentially, this boils down to the fact that the scarcity didn't have any mechanical consequences on the characters. We can harp on about how we're roleplayers and everything, but people need to feel things in-game for them to willingly take it as part of their characters! This applies TEN TIMES to things that are bad for their characters. That's the real, fundamental lesson that has to be taken from this - we can't afford to have big, bad events like the scarcity not affect gameplay. That's where we really went wrong - when we did the scarcity, we were very conservative with the effects on the Aurora and the Horizon, which led to it largely being ignored by the characters. How successful was the Horizon in your opinion? Despite all the criticism the Horizon gets, it's pretty evident that it resulted in some very good stories and some massive leaps forward in development and player culture. The only reason we could achieve something like Odyssey or the Konyang arcs is because we're on this ship. And this is fundamental, because the foundations we built with the Horizon are what we're carrying forward in the future for any new setting. Would you like it if phoron were to be made a fundamental part of both gameplay (thus by making many things require it in some way) and lore? There's an interesting split between ambivalence and interest here. I think this is something worth trying, although we clearly have to be very careful with the implementation. It's something I'll speak on at length some other time. To sum up my thoughts on the matter, it ties into what I said earlier. There's no phoron scarcity if you don't feel the effects in game. What is your opinion on money being a persistent and extremely important facet of the new setting and its characters? I would like to say there is no real surprise here. The lack of economic effects on characters is a pretty massive issue in a scifi setting that prides itself on having a living universe and characters that should care about socioeconomic factors. Should the Auroraverse be more fragmented in terms of its nations and entities? I left this question open ended because fragmenting a universe can be a pretty dramatic thing, and so people should take their own interpretation of it. Only then can you have a good idea of what it means to people. Either way, we have a small majority of people who think this should happen, a good amount of people who think we're fine, and more still who have no particular opinion. I think this underlines some discontent with the factions in the universe (or perhaps the staticness of it all?) although you should take this with grains of salt - my reading of this is that it highly depends on what factions you play and what characters you interact with. What is your opinion on scarcity of in-game resources as a core gameplay mechanic? It seems like scarcity as an integral part of the gameplay loop is very interesting to people - and that's good, because scarcity generates roleplay and mechanics. Things like having to ask Science to boost up the research levels so you can print your fancy antag destroyer mech is what makes Science's gameplay possible, and since that was slowly removed over the years... well, there you go, that's why Science is pointless now. The takeaway is that scarcity is something we should look into, and that scavenging is also a thing people generally like. No surprises on the last one, considering the massive success of Exploration on the earlier question about what departments should receive more gameplay. How important is off-server roleplay (such as on Discord) to you? This was the second most surprising question to me. I didn't expect so many 1s, personally, but it sort of makes sense when you think about it - those who use the Relay are a very small minority, and the people who do off-ship roleplay outside of it typically to do it in a very piecemeal/occasional way, with it not particularly forming an integral part of their gameplay. The takeaway here is that off-server roleplay is part of what makes Aurora Aurora, but it shouldn't be a ball around the server's ankle - it's clearly not what most people play for. It should be preserved with relevant opportunities, but the setting shouldn't be bent to make room for it, and it shouldn't be the main focus of development. On the open answers... Yes, I'll get around to reading all of them, trust me. I won't publish them for privacy purposes, however. 5 3 Quote
PurplePineapple Posted March 17 Posted March 17 12 minutes ago, MattAtlas said: Here's some good homework - try to figure out what this means! I'm not here all that often, but the NBT2 vote was enough to get me interested again :v As for figuring out this graph, I'm going to wildly speculate! Personally, I understand Aurora's lore to be very fluid with not as much affect on the round to round gameplay. The galaxy at large has changed quite a bit from the NSS Aurora considering the total collapse of Sol along with many other road bumps along the way, but the Horizon itself did always feel unchanging in the face of all this. The universe around our characters has changed, but there isn't all that much pressure on the game besides interactions with other characters talking about it The lore isn't static, but I personally didn't really seen the affects on how the average round goes - but that's just my thoughts as to how I would explain the even split. 1 Quote
ASmallCuteCat Posted March 17 Posted March 17 After a lot of thought, I'm realizing that I'm not too cozy with the idea of a timeskip. My roleplay style (in which I make a couple characters that I'm very attached to, and invest all my creative focus and energy in them for years at a time) doesn't jive so well with suddenly being launched in the future. There's just too much unknown, too much uncertainty, and no way of knowing just what will change. What happens to all the relationships our characters have made, and the development and progression? Personally, I feel like it'd be easier to do a large setting shift by doing some sort of calamitous event (Lii'dra invasion, Hivebots vs the Spur, and so forth) that doesn't require an entire reset on a character's existence, or floundering trying to figure out how they'll develop in the far future. 6 Quote
Fyni Posted March 17 Posted March 17 52 minutes ago, ASmallCuteCat said: My roleplay style (in which I make a couple characters that I'm very attached to, and invest all my creative focus and energy in them for years at a time) doesn't jive so well with suddenly being launched in the future. There's just too much unknown, too much uncertainty, and no way of knowing just what will change. What happens to all the relationships our characters have made, and the development and progression? The ultimate answer to this is always - will you be playing them all in 3 real life years time? If yes, will all the characters you built those relationships still be around? Add in that even if there isn't a timeskip, there is likely to be a new ship / station / colony / MAP which will effect them and the people around them too. The shift from the NSS Aurora to the SCCV Horizon saw many just make new characters to exploit the new freedom they had in character creation, and today years later you hardly see any of those who were transferred. Aurora can't stay on the Horizon forever. 3 Quote
Shimmer Posted March 17 Posted March 17 40 minutes ago, Fyni said: The ultimate answer to this is always - will you be playing them all in 3 real life years time? If yes, will all the characters you built those relationships still be around? Add in that even if there isn't a timeskip, there is likely to be a new ship / station / colony / MAP which will effect them and the people around them too. The shift from the NSS Aurora to the SCCV Horizon saw many just make new characters to exploit the new freedom they had in character creation, and today years later you hardly see any of those who were transferred. Aurora can't stay on the Horizon forever. Nor can your characters stay on it forever either. Every character has it's eventual time limit, where you explored their arcs, and played out their gimmick. Eventually, just as a person, that character will need to move on somewhere else. Especially within three years. 6 1 Quote
Captain Gecko Posted March 17 Posted March 17 (edited) Great stuff! Sort of relieved also to see some of these responses about Science. I still think it would be an utter shame to completely erase the department (and scatter some of its jobs across other departments), and not just update it- perhaps tackling the gameplay issue at the same time... Though depending on how things go, this is a conversation fit for its own thread, I imagine. Also love to see these responses about persistent money. There's really a lot of potential if we can give players things to put their character's money in, something to keep people coming and work toward as well, depending on how it's implemented. On a final note, I find these questions AND answers of stagnant lore super interesting as well. I don't know if this makes me biased as a lore deputy or not, but I'm not too sure about it myself. I do not THINK the LORE of Aurora is stagnant, whether it is OOCly (through updates to the lore and additions) or ICly (with lore events, articles and so on). Aurora being a universe that advances at the same pace as ours, it makes sense that there isn't an important planet being shaken by this or that event every day. What I think however is that some people conflate stagnant lore and stagnant PLOT. No matter how much is added or happens in the lore, while some of it might have effects on specific characters, it generally does not have any effect on the Horizon, on the story of the crew at large. Say for instance that tomorrow Fisanduh nukes the Empire of Dominia and Moroz becomes a democracy, this would have MAJOR effects on the lore, and on Dominian characters- but how does this affect the Horizon and its mission? The point is, no matter the events, no matter the place or lore, the Horizon has been following the very same mission, every shift, since its maiden flight: explore space, find Phoron, occasionally survey inhabitable planets, with even arcs occasionally breaking that up for a month or two. I think a lot of people really think of that part when they speak of things being stagnant, and that will definitely be something to address- and perhaps, easier to address too if we go with the "independant" crew idea. 2 hours ago, ASmallCuteCat said: After a lot of thought, I'm realizing that I'm not too cozy with the idea of a timeskip. My roleplay style (in which I make a couple characters that I'm very attached to, and invest all my creative focus and energy in them for years at a time) doesn't jive so well with suddenly being launched in the future. There's just too much unknown, too much uncertainty, and no way of knowing just what will change. What happens to all the relationships our characters have made, and the development and progression? Personally, I feel like it'd be easier to do a large setting shift by doing some sort of calamitous event (Lii'dra invasion, Hivebots vs the Spur, and so forth) that doesn't require an entire reset on a character's existence, or floundering trying to figure out how they'll develop in the far future. That I absolutely understand. I have created Sezrak back in 2020 (Time flies!), and have been playing mostly him since then, Ankala appearaing only a couple of years ago, and still earning plenty of attachement from me as well. Not being able to play too much, I focus on playing a single character, or two if the gameplay (mainly) gets a little too stale at times, and end up getting super attached to them as their backstories and arcs grow... But I think that it is not a reason to not give them eventual closure. As others said, 3 years is still plenty of time, especially on the scale of Aurora, so there's still a lot to do, a lot to explore, and eventually, start considering what kind of closure this character would have (assuming they don't get shredded during an event or anything). In other words, better to have your character go on an ending you roleplay out and make up with your fellow roleplayers rather than playing them forever until you grow bored or unable to play and they just fade out... Plus, since we only have few characters, this sort of reset might just be the right excuse to create new ones and explore new things! I would've been quiete upset if this came without a warning, but I actually think that this with a set (estimated) time is actually kind of a blessing. Worst-case scenario, there is also still the option of a soft-retcon, I believe, where you can just bring your previous character back through the timeskip, so long as you rework your character's history a bit to make them fit in the new, post-timeskip setting. Edited March 17 by Captain Gecko 4 Quote
OolongCow Posted March 18 Posted March 18 (edited) 2 hours ago, Captain Gecko said: [...] The point is, no matter the events, no matter the place or lore, the Horizon has been following the very same mission, every shift, since its maiden flight: explore space, find Phoron, occasionally survey inhabitable planets, with even arcs occasionally breaking that up for a month or two. [...] Hard agree. TONS of things happen all the time thanks to the lore team. But it just... Doesn't really seem to matter in rounds. Not unless a coder or mapper comes along and devotes a lot of time into implementing that thing into the actual code of the server. It has more of an impact on the forums and the Discord where people talk about it than it does on the actual server. People will yap for days on end about Sol and where it's headed, but you log into Byond, open the server, and it doesn't really change anything. Sol is still the designated badman for antag gimmicks, and everyone continues to forget that Elyra exists. There's a reason the most popular origins are the ones with tons of loadout items, presence on the ship, and presence in ghost roles. People want to play and play around things that have more presence than text in a forum thread. Edited March 18 by OolongCow 2 Quote
ASmallCuteCat Posted March 18 Posted March 18 4 hours ago, Captain Gecko said: I would've been quiete upset if this came without a warning, but I actually think that this with a set (estimated) time is actually kind of a blessing. Worst-case scenario, there is also still the option of a soft-retcon, I believe, where you can just bring your previous character back through the timeskip, so long as you rework your character's history a bit to make them fit in the new, post-timeskip setting. That's likely what I'll be doing if there is a timeskip. The prospect is just overwhelming and stress-inducing, because there's so much up unknown, and there's already leaks and rumors flying around. IMO, giant, sweeping changes aren't always necessary to freshen up a setting. Unfortunately, "fresh" is subjective, and everyone's got their own preferences as to what makes things fresh. 2 Quote
NerdyVampire Posted March 18 Posted March 18 14 hours ago, Captain Gecko said: The point is, no matter the events, no matter the place or lore, the Horizon has been following the very same mission, every shift, since its maiden flight: explore space, find Phoron, occasionally survey inhabitable planets Things are also a bit stale because we are disassociated from our missions. From the Horizon page, our mission is: "While detecting Phoron is considered the primary objective, there also exists secondary and even tertiary objectives in which the crew of the SCCV Horizon must attempt to accomplish - examples of which are investigating potential colony sites for the expansion of the Stellar Corporate Conglomerate and the Republic of Biesel, as well as analysing deep space anomalies to uncover the mysteries of the Orion Spur, and hopefully unearthing additional information on why Phoron exists and why it has such a profound impact within the regions of which it is discovered." However, we can only really do these things in canon events. We don't have a long-range-Phoron detector that crew can operate to pin-point where mining should go, and there aren't really any deep space anomalies to analyze for science, other than that single bluespace river (which is cool in itself). My head-canon for our "practical" primary objectives are: [Security/Command] Further/protect corporate interests: We are the Horizon flagship. Despite claims that our security department is only for "internal" security, we hold a responsibility to all SCC facilities, vessels and interests in whatever sector we are in. This includes sites of interest such as crashed NT/Zavoidskoi/Idris vessels, to secure assets and to keep track of other SCC vessels and protect them however we can. That IS the main mission of the Horizon as I see it, and something command/bridge crew/security should prioritize immediately after our internal security situation. [Science] Document/gather anomalies: Science and its xeno-labs are here to investigate and profit off of anything "new" that the Horizon might encounter, this could be exotic plantlife, aliens or artifacts, or grand-scale anomalies like the bluespace river. It is the second most important thing the Horizon could do - we just need excuses to do it. [Operations] Exploit/Salvage: Phoron scarcity necessitates that we have active salvage teams and active mining teams. The department is crucial to keeping the Horizon fiscally viable and well-supplied, and if ever the Horizon does encounter Phoron, it will inevitably take a place as the most important department of all. [Engineering/Medical/Service] Support SCC personnel and vessels: Neither of these departments have any real mission outside of providing their services to the SCC crew and vessels. However it is also expected that they do provide these services on request. That means allowing other SCC vessels to dock for R&R, to provide medical and engineering aid when required as well. It might not be what was originally intended for the Horizon, but they honestly seem more realistic and true to what we actually do. If we want to make rounds a bit more interesting, I'd start by looking at those and implementing some things to strengthen our mission in practice. Quote
TonesofBones Posted March 18 Posted March 18 23 hours ago, MattAtlas said: This question is a massive condemnation of the failure that was the phoron scarcity. It was intended to be a massive universe event that drove the narrative forwards, and then, well... it just didn't. Just look at these answers. I'm pretty sure the people who answered 5 are all vaurca mains. I don't think this means that phoron scarcity is a failure. It's the same as asking an average person how important are the rare earth minerals in their life. They would probably answer "not really", despite their importance to overall economy and technology. Thus I think phoron scarcity should be the force moving things "behind the curtains"; something that indirectly affects people's life. Quote
Mr.Popper Posted March 18 Posted March 18 I was going to go question by question and explain why I voted X/Y, but realized that would take too long. Here are the highlights instead: Firstly, is Aurora stagnating? I believe I voted no, although I have mixed feelings. I think the gameplay is stagnant and voted as such; the only gameplay loop that seems consistently supported is the command-security-medical trinary, reflected by those departments being disproportionately populated. And based off the survey most people agree with me, at least in the broad strokes. Lore changes won't fix this and radically reinventing Aurora's universe would just be more bells and whistles that aren't really needed. My problems aren't with the current cast of characters, setting, or lore. Aurora already has an amazing community of roleplayers and high quality lore writing to support them. As far as tackling this issue goes, there would be advantages to switching setting, or at least the map. Ignoring Horizon's mapping shortcomings, there are many great suggestions for how a new map could improve gameplay, just look at QuestioningMark's excellent suggestion to make the ship a hub for offships, or some of the ideas sprinkled throughout the survey like resource scarcity. While I'm not vehemently opposed to an independent setting—I voted a middle number like 3 iirc—I think it's missing the root of the problem, that being gameplay. It's a trap that promises "character freedom" (while likely discouraging the different corporate factions, prim and proper characters like primaries, and any other origin tailored to Horizon—essentially the opposite extreme of the current standard) and "freedom of movement" (while stripping the main characters of their powerful benefactor that allows them to go nearly anywhere) at the expense of throwing out countless corporate uniform sprites, axing corporate roleplay, and severing any continuity to SCCV Horizon or NSS Aurora. Again, it can work and I would be interested to see that version of Aurora, but I think it would be an unfortunately shortsighted choice. I also don't want to say "never" because a lot of my concerns could be addressed depending on how it's implemented—a mix between independent and corporate characters would be a good compromise, for example. But IMO most benefits of the independent setting could be achieved by simply switching to a lower profile megacorp ship. Similarly, I don't think a time skip would really fix anything. Like Cat and some others I was initially open to it, but the more I thought the more I grew opposed. At least with switching to a non-SCC faction you can potentially justify keeping your characters around, and I'm sure the staff would facilitate such justification like they did with the Aurora to Horizon change (for all the claims that the two share no common characters they were bridged together with an IC crew transfer). But to skip several years at the same time is essentially killing off most characters—there are some, mostly younger ones that could be developed through a time skip—unless players decide to massively retcon their character's history and motivation at the expense of everyone else's immersion; imagine John Sol, age 50 after the time skip, interacting with Jane Biesel, age 30, when before the time skip they were both 30. It would feel borderline LRP. Character turnover is already a massive issue in Aurora and saying "it'll be in 3 years you can wrap your characters up before then" pretends as if no more characters will be made in the coming 3 years and no new players will join. Imagine a new player putting all their effort into a character in 2027/2028 only to be told "oh yeah there's a time skip and they work somewhere completely different now". I just wouldn't play until that soft reboot. Aurora is not a tabletop game between 5 friends, it's a huge public roleplay with a fluctuating player base, each person with different goals and plans for their characters. And relishing in making everyone drop the characters they've invested time, effort, and sometimes real money into has the same energy as rooting for mass characters death events; it's just weird and counterintuitive to long term play. Some miscellaneous stuff: I voted science in the department vote, although I would be just as enthusiastic about it being replaced by an exploration team so long as there's still room to flavor yourself as a biologist, botanist, archaeologist, etc. Bay seems to have had success with a focus on exploration and I think it would be further enhanced by a shift in focus to offship/expedition activities as in Mark's suggestion, not to mention fitting with Odyssey. I'm weary of "democratizing" weaponry, as vague as the question is. While I think security is too often the focus of rounds, that doesn't mean I want to pick up an AK-47 and start smoking greimorians as a janitor; I want more solutions to problems that are diplomatic, creative, scientific. Some people have suggested making improvised weapons more viable and I think that'd be a good change, though I still would like that to be a last resort. Matt(?) I believe also rightly pointed out that guns need to be limited in accessibility for conflict to occur, otherwise Aurora turns into an action server. The perfect NBT2, to me at least, would be Deep Space 9 meets Ridley Scott's Alien. Everyone is congregated on a ship serving as a hub, with friendly/neutral offships becoming normal jobs like merchant similar to how Bay does it. Crewmembers can go out on adventurers aboard the mining ship, volunteer for the exploration team, or offer their services to one of the independent ships between hauls. All the while you're ruled by probably insane suits, themselves controlled by faceless corporations with competing interests. This would keep Aurora's megacorporate, dysfunctional tone (the 1st most voted option) while compromising by permitting more recurring independent characters (2nd most voted option), and also throw more factions against each other for that juicy conflict. TL;DR: Based off the survey most players are unhappy with gameplay rather than the lore, megacorporate setting, or character freedom (which is tied to the setting). Therefore, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel and killing off the majority of Horizon characters in the process, I think the new setting should focus on facilitating gameplay loops (exploration, offship interaction) and downgrade the crew to a less important, more diverse corporate ship with a strong independent presence as a compromise. Regardless of what direction the staff go, I'm sure they'll cook something special and I hope I get to see it. These are just my thoughts as an Auroroid mostly content with the current high quality output. 💕💕 7 Quote
dessysalta Posted March 18 Posted March 18 I think, generally speaking, letting the crew have knowledge of gun usage is a double edged sword in which I'm mostly against. My biggest concerns being echoing Popper said; janitors shouldn't be smoking grems with an AK and the like, I'd even take it further by saying it shouldn't even be a last resort. If you're working on a space ship and not either command or security (minus some exceptions like certain med workers etc. depending on background) you almost certainly don't have extensive firearms training, nor should you be willing to fire a rifle at risk of venting or otherwise damaging the huge metal death trap where a lot can go wrong. Most people who would know how to use a gun (minus veterans obviously) most likely wouldn't have used it in a real combat situation, under stress, when they're hungry, etc. and even if we do let people have a general knowledge of how guns work I would like to see a vast difference in them (the untrained joe) versus security/trained forces (people who train in high-intensity situations for a living, with some nuance again depending on corp or background etc). More civilian characters, and I mean truly, "I've only ever done desk work/clerical work/hard labor for 30 years and I value my life greatly" people should exist. Even with the removal of the crew armory there's too many characters in engineering and service that are like "Combat laser rifle? My favorite!" and manage to gun you down instead of being inaccurate or, better yet, roleplaying that out. 1 hour ago, TonesofBones said: It's the same as asking an average person how important are the rare earth minerals in their life. They would probably answer "not really", despite their importance to overall economy and technology. Thus I think phoron scarcity should be the force moving things "behind the curtains"; something that indirectly affects people's life. I didn't like the phoron scarcity because despite its potential for nuance and interesting ordeals, it turned out to be a macguffin device. There wasn't much purpose behind it aside from making an already-mythical space fuel more important and by extent normalizing a conflict that debatably had no reason to exist if not for that narrative foil. It would be fine as a background addition that only occasionally showed up, but the way it was played meant it was the single-most important thing the Horizon was and would continue to be doing. The scarcity had no effect on the players and for that reason it was an intangible, hard to understand and harder to appreciate story beat. It made for some minor interactions—obviously when you salvage a ship and find 50 sheets it's a big deal—but it had no actual persistence whether you found one sheet or ten thousand, with no real price or bonus associated with it. It opened up a couple of items if you involved the machinist or science, but those could usually already be made with their starting supply of phoron or otherwise weren't notable. The phoron scarcity if done right would involve constant changes in the economy, persistent rewards or deficits, and perhaps the most laborious, updates from the lore and gameplay side of things. It wouldn't need to be shown on ship every step of the way, but there would have to be more instances of finding or losing it and seeing real consequences from either. The pirate mini-arc we had was actually really cool in this regard, in that it represented just how serious having that much of that fuel can be, and that the Horizon isn't untouchable- but whether or not the Horizon lost it or kept it was never going to affect it, let alone the Spur outside of bad publicity and maybe a few pay cuts. 22 hours ago, Captain Gecko said: I still think it would be an utter shame to completely erase the department (and scatter some of its jobs across other departments), and not just update it- perhaps tackling the gameplay issue at the same time.. I actually think that this would make for some really interesting character concepts. We have operations already doing mechanical stuff, so if there was a way to split science among the different departments (hell even in just locations) it would both encourage some really solid roleplay as well as make things like theoretical engineers/machinists, or security weapon scientists who are in charge of gauging the rifles and making sure they're all in shape/in stock for the Warden to use, or bridge crewmen who specialize in exploration and the like. I think the biggest loss would be xenobotany and xenobiology- not sure where we'd put both of those, that and I'm not sure what the Research Director would even become, which makes it a bit of a headache. 22 hours ago, Captain Gecko said: The point is, no matter the events, no matter the place or lore, the Horizon has been following the very same mission, every shift, since its maiden flight: explore space, find Phoron, occasionally survey inhabitable planets, with even arcs occasionally breaking that up for a month or two. I think a lot of people really think of that part when they speak of things being stagnant, and that will definitely be something to address- and perhaps, easier to address too if we go with the "independant" crew idea. Being independent, or at least somewhat independent (and not the flagship for reasons that've already been stated) would definitely make for more opportunities to do whatever. Dreamy's suggestion of the Hedgemaze I think has some kinks to be worked out, but ultimately I think would be a net positive in regards to everything from character creation (to a degree) to actual gameplay and events. I do say "to a degree" because the conflict Aurora breeds and the limits you have placed on your characters is important, and seeing it lessened or even just changed would need to be done with TLC lest it become another Shiptest- something I talked about extensively in that thread and that I still like in concept, but I don't like how that server has zero nuance or character limits aside from "you can't attack anyone for the most part". Worst case scenario, we have extremists that don't feel like extremists, and characters that are a hollow shell because nothing actively threatens their livelihood (or maybe I just don't like the gameplay loop there seeing as every ship does the exact same thing and I'm not being hyperbolic). Once again echoing what Popper said about that setting; something with ties to corporate but isn't as hands-on, with an opportunity for independent contractors alongside the rest would be a perfect implementation. Some misc thoughts: Timeskips are whatever, I would rather they not put characters in their early 30s into their mid 40s, but I can't say I care that much about it outside of a few characters whom I know wouldn't be on the ship for more than a few years (see: Ungnyeo, my ZI, hell even Kira depending on what the timeskip entails and what happens to the Horizon). There are some serious concerns raised above about people making new characters over the course of the next 3 ish years and I think those are important to look at if any timeskip at all is going to occur. If a timeskip isn't inevitable, I would start planning as early as now what to do with the Horizon population and come up with contingency plans, arcs or entities that happened or existed in the background, etc. anything that makes even the biggest changes less jarring. I don't like the idea of a military setting, Bay has that covered, I don't want drill instructor characters or military LARP. Ex-military PMCs add so much more nuance and I think have the potential to be less of a powertrip. Similarly, I also don't like the idea of warring nations to breed conflict because I'll be honest man, I'm tired of seeing Solarians and Biesellites/Gaddies quip at or beat each other. If it's going to be the case, I do not want any origin restricted or disallowed for play because of it. The TCFL and Raskara cultists don't often show up or get to do anything, and Exclusionists and Universalist priests fill a niche you can't explore for OOC reasons. If we're gonna have conflict I want that conflict to actually be represented on ship with the major company (SCC or otherwise) not really giving a damn who they hire to a point so long as they do their job; this obviously implies rearranging a few things, and so if it doesn't happen I understand, but please let me play more extremists if this is going to be the case. This particular paragraph of mine was all over the place, so take it with a grain of salt please. I would also like to address this: 23 hours ago, Shimmer said: Nor can your characters stay on it forever either. Every character has it's eventual time limit, where you explored their arcs, and played out their gimmick. Eventually, just as a person, that character will need to move on somewhere else. Especially within three years. Okay, so I see your point, I'm agreeing with it- it's running up the flagpole and I'm saluting it, but this absolutely cannot be the end-all-be-all of player-driven characters or narratives. Characters have a time limit, sure, but who's to decide some arbitrary amount of time is ideal or "enough"? Characters are as much the players as they are people, and the appeal of playing those characters for long periods of time is there comes a point where they aren't just a character, they're a person, with actual years of experience, development, or even just income from their job. Sure, maybe some people would feel better about putting their character to rest either literally or metaphorically once they're out of ideas, but others will look at the incredibly, incredibly, in-cred-ib-ly diverse and encompassing setting that is Aurora, with all of its events, lore, other characters, economics, I could go on- and keep going to see how it would affect that person. This isn't a book we're writing, it's setting for a gameplay environment. Some questions are raised by this line of thinking, probably the biggest one being "why would a character with access to premium healthcare, an insane living wage, free room and board, and countless benefits you gain just by virtue of working on the flagship of the biggest megacorporate alliance in the known universe just up and leave? Oh, well I guess their 'arc' is done and they had a couple years of screentime (where they might have done nothing at all notable), time to import a fresh slate without any interactions or reason for being aside from muh new character". And also, that's a huge, huge change if you only play one or two characters. Some of these characters have existed since the Aurora and they are terrifying to be in the same room as because you just know they were there. What are you going to tell those players if it's a choice between changing their character, whom they've developed for a decade, possibly on a fundamental level to match a change they might not have rooted for, or straight up never playing them again? How about characters or even just players who knew them? "Your character's done, make a new one"? I think that your point has merit and I agree with it in broad strokes, but it being phrased in this instance as "wrap up your arcs everyone, you have [x] amount of time" is going to suck no matter what. The arcs of the characters are based on the setting that's being written and its developments, that's how it's always been- there just hasn't been an instance to my knowledge wherein a change supplied some characters with outright deletion or prevention of use. I guess there was that change in Aurora's medieval era where headcanon contractors were disallowed, but I don't think that comes close to the potential of what can be done here. Obviously no matter what, I have hope for Aurora and trust the devs and its players to make something beautiful and interesting (hell they've been doing that for what, 8 years?) and I hope the passion with which I'm writing this conveys how excited I am to see the NBT. 2 Quote
Shimmer Posted March 19 Posted March 19 6 hours ago, dessysalta said: Okay, so I see your point, I'm agreeing with it- it's running up the flagpole and I'm saluting it, but this absolutely cannot be the end-all-be-all of player-driven characters or narratives. Characters have a time limit, sure, but who's to decide some arbitrary amount of time is ideal or "enough"? Characters are as much the players as they are people, and the appeal of playing those characters for long periods of time is there comes a point where they aren't just a character, they're a person, with actual years of experience, development See- I absolutely understand this anxiety. When hush-hush about the NBT2 came down to me via the grapevine, I literally had a similar reaction as ASmallCuteCat, my exact reaction was; 'Is this necessary? This kind of change would make all of my characters unplayable! With the proposed changes I'll have to bin them or change them in such a way that they'd be grating to play!' The thing is, at least insofar as it pertains to me, I am not saying the same applies to anyone else, this was ultimately a kneejerk reaction. Every character that is made, especially one with a lot of effort, thought, and passion behind it, is in it's own unique (and deeply personal) way a lore mini-project. It's headcanon, it's a dynamic, it's themes and personality and time, and literally no one wants to see that either go entirely to waste or have to significantly alter it that changes it in a radical, only barely recognizable capacity. I understand that, I've literally felt the exact same way when I've gotten rumors about the project. The thing is- this exact line of thinking could've been applied to the NBT, the transition from a static setting and into one that goes through the 4 corners of the galaxy? Well, characters that are in some way attached to Biesel, that live there, whose arc and character are built with living on that planet or on Valkyrie or Odin in mind would just not work with our current setting. I've not been a sixth as active of a member back during KoTW, and went under a completely different identity, but I wonder; has something similar not happened before? Have these same anxieties, these same concerns, not been voiced with precisely the same reasons as here? And would you not agree, that ultimately, in-spite of that, the Horizon is a far better setting that allows for a lot more room in terms of character development, and even opening up character creation freedom as a whole? What I'm meaning to convey here is that while this kind of anxiety is absolutely understandable, and has merit- I want people to also try and see the flipside of this. To consider the possibilities that open up, think of concepts and step out of the comfort we currently have if only for a moment. 7 hours ago, dessysalta said: Some questions are raised by this line of thinking, probably the biggest one being "why would a character with access to premium healthcare, an insane living wage, free room and board, and countless benefits you gain just by virtue of working on the flagship of the biggest megacorporate alliance in the known universe just up and leave? Oh, well I guess their 'arc' is done and they had a couple years of screentime (where they might have done nothing at all notable), time to import a fresh slate without any interactions or reason for being aside from muh new character". And also, that's a huge, huge change if you only play one or two characters. As for this; my perspective on the matter? Because a character, just as a person, would ultimately want to continue their life in some other way. The Horizon is an exploration ship, it's not an airliner, it's not a static station, it's the kind of work environment that is not conductive to settling down. This doesn't apply to all characters, obviously other people will write theirs differently from mine, but I like to see my characters have some sort of end goal or a time limit. A certain point at which they settle down, have a family or similar. The Horizon is just not the environment for that. Ultimately; a change such as NBT2 is impossible to be done without stepping on many toes. Every single player will have an element or two that they'll at the very least disagree with if not outright despise. I'm not happy with all the ideas that the NBT2 proposes either, and some results of the community survey do disappoint me to a degree. But we shouldn't grind ourselves down on the tiny details because lets be honest each and every detail and point is a whole hill you can defend until you're blue in the face and die. I hope people take a step back if only for a moment; see the larger picture. Briefly set aside your anxieties and ask yourself sincerely- If this were to go through, would I enjoy this? How much fun could I have with this? What could I write with this? What could I do with this? 1 Quote
hazelmouse Posted March 19 Posted March 19 7 hours ago, dessysalta said: I think, generally speaking, letting the crew have knowledge of gun usage is a double edged sword in which I'm mostly against. My biggest concerns being echoing Popper said; janitors shouldn't be smoking grems with an AK and the like, I'd even take it further by saying it shouldn't even be a last resort. If you're working on a space ship and not either command or security (minus some exceptions like certain med workers etc. depending on background) you almost certainly don't have extensive firearms training, nor should you be willing to fire a rifle at risk of venting or otherwise damaging the huge metal death trap where a lot can go wrong. Most people who would know how to use a gun (minus veterans obviously) most likely wouldn't have used it in a real combat situation, under stress, when they're hungry, etc. and even if we do let people have a general knowledge of how guns work I would like to see a vast difference in them (the untrained joe) versus security/trained forces (people who train in high-intensity situations for a living, with some nuance again depending on corp or background etc). More civilian characters, and I mean truly, "I've only ever done desk work/clerical work/hard labor for 30 years and I value my life greatly" people should exist. Even with the removal of the crew armory there's too many characters in engineering and service that are like "Combat laser rifle? My favorite!" and manage to gun you down instead of being inaccurate or, better yet, roleplaying that out. I think a robust skills system would resolve this. Maluses to accuracy, reload speed, or other elements of using firearms should produce a substantial gap in mechanical effectiveness between the average joe and someone formally trained and experienced with shooting people. Additionally, I don't think it's unrealistic for even a majority of the crew of a ship, especially an independent one where its crew is more broadly knowledgeable about the ins and outs of living in space, to know how to fire a gun. The advantage of this being the case, especially if it were paired with shifting the armoury to operations, is that security would no longer have a total monopoly over access and usage of firearms. Security's current identity is as the department that responds to and resolves all conflict that passes through the ship. I want its grip on that to be weakened to give more of the crew more of a chance to engage with gimmicks and potentially violent situations without security perennially taking the limelight. 4 Quote
dessysalta Posted March 19 Posted March 19 39 minutes ago, Shimmer said: And would you not agree, that ultimately, in-spite of that, the Horizon is a far better setting that allows for a lot more room in terms of character development, and even opening up character creation freedom as a whole? I do agree with this. Obviously my paranoia for the future is similarly not the ultimatum, and I do agree that going from the Aurora to the Horizon was a huge change for the better (even if I wasn't there for it). I don't have much else to say on the matter of this because I really do take your point—I just feel I would be amiss not to spend as much time on the other side of things as I can, because the worst case scenario is always possible. 43 minutes ago, Shimmer said: I hope people take a step back if only for a moment; see the larger picture. Briefly set aside your anxieties and ask yourself sincerely- If this were to go through, would I enjoy this? How much fun could I have with this? What could I write with this? What could I do with this? Similar here, I agree with what you're saying and honestly can't help but reinforce it. With my skepticism out of the way, I also really want people to understand that the NBT is the NBT, and even if not the same as we have now there will still be chances to indulge in it and get something out of it, and I know I'm going to have fun with Aurora even if it turns into something else entirely. 32 minutes ago, hazelmouse said: I think a robust skills system would resolve this. Maluses to accuracy, reload speed, or other elements of using firearms should produce a substantial gap in mechanical effectiveness between the average joe and someone formally trained and experienced with shooting people. This is actually on the roadmap last I checked, which I think is (duh) a good idea. Not much to say other than that. 32 minutes ago, hazelmouse said: Additionally, I don't think it's unrealistic for even a majority of the crew of a ship, especially an independent one where its crew is more broadly knowledgeable about the ins and outs of living in space, to know how to fire a gun. My argument doesn't hinge on knowing how to fire a gun, it's being able to use it specifically in a stressful situation where your life is at risk, where in this same setting you might never actually get a chance to shoot a gun outside of that. Taking classes, owning a gun off-ship, being a hunter, etc. are all reasonable things a character can do, but there's a massive difference between someone who's only fired a gun recreationally versus someone who's done it in defense of their own life; taking a few shots at a shooting range is nowhere near as terrifying as it being the dead of night, pitch-black, seeing a figure in front of you in the darkness and barely managing to hit shots ten feet in front of you in service of that—or being on a ship that's on red alert, where people have died, and some monstrous threat is around the corner. The majority of civilian characters, I think, should be "average dimwit with a gun" and not anywhere remotely near the realm of trained, see again the crew armory etc. 1 Quote
hazelmouse Posted March 19 Posted March 19 (edited) 30 minutes ago, dessysalta said: My argument doesn't hinge on knowing how to fire a gun, it's being able to use it specifically in a stressful situation where your life is at risk, where in this same setting you might never actually get a chance to shoot a gun outside of that. Taking classes, owning a gun off-ship, being a hunter, etc. are all reasonable things a character can do, but there's a massive difference between someone who's only fired a gun recreationally versus someone who's done it in defense of their own life; taking a few shots at a shooting range is nowhere near as terrifying as it being the dead of night, pitch-black, seeing a figure in front of you in the darkness and barely managing to hit shots ten feet in front of you in service of that—or being on a ship that's on red alert, where people have died, and some monstrous threat is around the corner. The majority of civilian characters, I think, should be "average dimwit with a gun" and not anywhere remotely near the realm of trained, see again the crew armory etc. Agreed, I think enforcing some roleplay etiquette will go a long way for this. I can totally see any member of the crew being offered bonus pay to haul a shotgun about and fire it in the rough direction of a pest, but they shouldn't really be getting into a thick of a firefight. I don't think anyone is seriously pushing for everyone to be a hardened veteran that can handily tolerate the conditions of an active shootout. 30 minutes ago, dessysalta said: This is actually on the roadmap last I checked, which I think is (duh) a good idea. Not much to say other than that. It is. The problem with enforcing any standard on how effective a character can be in combat right now is that SS13's combat is essentially purely mechanical, once you're in a fight with a gun there isn't much to distinguish a character that is experienced in combat from one that isn't. Once we have mechanical maluses for inexperience I think wider access to guns would become a lot less problematic, since someone experienced with them would be actually mechanically stronger in combat than someone that is not. Edited March 19 by hazelmouse 1 Quote
NothingNew Posted March 19 Posted March 19 2 minutes ago, hazelmouse said: I can totally see any member of the crew being offered bonus pay to haul a shotgun about and fire it in the rough direction of a pest, but they shouldn't really be getting into a thick of a firefight. As often as I've seen bartenders or chefs confront Antags with the shotgun I think the same would very much bleed into the average crew member given the chance to. Letting certain crew members use guns on expeditions makes sense to me (ideally those who would have the experience such as Miners, Anomalists and Security) but the idea of crew members being in genuine peril where they would need to work together to use the best of each member's abilities is a lot more interesting than everybody having a gun and being able to confront the main antagonistic force. I think a problem that maybe I've simply been unlucky to experience (though it tends to vary, it's not always the case) is that potential expeditions or situations that could lead to Roleplay often get shut-down outright, be it originating from an off-site, the science department, the psychologist, so on and so forth. I've seen this happen only for players to then sit at a desk wordless for the majority of a round. I'll give you a recent example of this: An off-site player set up a K'ois farm and wanted people to visit it, I was playing a scientist during this round and there were others interested in the proposition - The potential idea was shut down by the captain, who stated it would be too dangerous. Nothing proceeded to happen for the rest of the round. So long as it fits the setting and falls well within the rules of the server, I think it's important to let such situations flow naturally and to be open to the idea that things might not go well and then bounce off from there. Aurora can feel stagnant as the rounds end in stagnation without any goal to drive the players forward. Bounties are nice as they provide a goal for the players within each department, but once the set-up is done departments outside of mining, Anomaly or Science are left with little else to drive interaction. 1 Quote
hazelmouse Posted March 19 Posted March 19 49 minutes ago, NothingNew said: As often as I've seen bartenders or chefs confront Antags with the shotgun I think the same would very much bleed into the average crew member given the chance to. Letting certain crew members use guns on expeditions makes sense to me (ideally those who would have the experience such as Miners, Anomalists and Security) but the idea of crew members being in genuine peril where they would need to work together to use the best of each member's abilities is a lot more interesting than everybody having a gun and being able to confront the main antagonistic force. Agreed, if everyone had easy access to firearms I do think you'd see a similar situation to how bartenders use the shotgun. So long as the new means of accessing firearms isn't trivial and requires very particular jobs to be played, similarly to Warden currently, I don't think it'd be a huge issue. I'd see guns being handed out to crew either for very particular jobs, such as pest control, for expeditions, or for a call to arms during a severe crisis - crew shouldn't have guns unless they have a good reason to have them, and similar regulations to now should apply preventing people from bandying them about on green alert. 51 minutes ago, NothingNew said: I think a problem that maybe I've simply been unlucky to experience (though it tends to vary, it's not always the case) is that potential expeditions or situations that could lead to Roleplay often get shut-down outright, be it originating from an off-site, the science department, the psychologist, so on and so forth. I've seen this happen only for players to then sit at a desk wordless for the majority of a round. I'll give you a recent example of this: An off-site player set up a K'ois farm and wanted people to visit it, I was playing a scientist during this round and there were others interested in the proposition - The potential idea was shut down by the captain, who stated it would be too dangerous. Nothing proceeded to happen for the rest of the round. So long as it fits the setting and falls well within the rules of the server, I think it's important to let such situations flow naturally and to be open to the idea that things might not go well and then bounce off from there. Aurora can feel stagnant as the rounds end in stagnation without any goal to drive the players forward. Bounties are nice as they provide a goal for the players within each department, but once the set-up is done departments outside of mining, Anomaly or Science are left with little else to drive interaction. I think trusting crew with firearms would go a decently long way towards helping foster a culture in which command trusts crew with their own safety on a general basis. I think it'd be a healthy direction for the server, I remember the exact round you're referencing and I did wish at the time that command's stringency on what they trust the wider crew with were laxer. The more situations we're allowed to get into, the more stuff can happen and the more enjoyable the server becomes. 2 Quote
Carver Posted March 19 Posted March 19 I’d be very curious to see the potential directions taken with a timeskip or setting adjustments. I’d also be wary of reeling entirely away from Corporate influence for reasons that others have mentioned prior, primarily the potential inability to comfortably play character archetypes that are enabled by the existence of a corporate structure and its influence. Such risks are why I’ve historically argued against the varying suggestions to move over wholesale to an independent ship, but I’m well intrigued by the concept of opening up more availability for independent backgrounds and roles beyond the mere smattering that we have now (aka consulars, journalists, passengers and priests). As for the potential timeskip, the only concerns that I might hold would be regarding massive retcons required within the lore to some extent if we chose to move backwards. Whilst no doubt that the foremost example, the Vaurca, could have their background adapted to some degree - it would present the potential of heavily compromising the dominant themes that colour their place within the Spur as the ‘new, alien and untrustworthy powers only granted the slightest room beneath the heels of the greats’. Maybe it might actually take them in a more fascinating direction, especially if a massive setting change gives them the chance to actually be wholly independent powers, but it could very well just make their whole situation confusing if not adequately adjusted and rewritten. That’s my ultimate concern with any timeskip, is how it would affect the greater lore and may well confuse players who are intimately familiar with the existing themes and story. On a lesser scale, I can say as someone who’s played one character through several arcs over five to six years, that so long as there’s still room for existing archetypes then one shouldn’t be terribly concerned about the effects of (thoughtfully) adjusting the power dynamic of the playable space. In short, if we don’t go entirely independent, then there’s little risk of effective character loss. Timeskips might be a bit different but I’d only be super concerned about those if we go forward 10-15 years and you’re currently playing a Vaurca that isn’t a Ta (lifespan lol). The main reason that you don’t see many recurring names from older maps and the like moreso has to do with long-term (active) player retention. Final (and wholly personal) thoughts I have, in regard to stagnancy, the main reason I’ve drawn away from playing mostly has to do with the general lack of engaging non-antagonist driven gameplay that provides good roleplay hooks or opportunities, with roleplay itself being the primary if not sole hook for my prior interest in the server. Often I had felt that there’s just not much to do, though I struggle in my ability to explain exactly barring off-topic rants about the limitations of the medium itself. Half-corp half-indie might help this, or it might hinder it, I’m not terribly sure about what might change other than one thing: The windows of opportunity for off-ship RP aren’t particularly relevant to me because, when it comes to those, where there’s a will there’s a way. It has never been difficult to employ one’s creativity in writing whatever character drama or slice of life scenes may appeal to them, even within the seemingly restrictive confines of the Horizon itself, and so a new setting is extremely unlikely to change this unless we somehow end up in the equivalent of a Vault. P.S. if we get a new ship, name it Aurora so the server title makes sense again. Never letting go that we were scammed out of that ship name with an unnecessary second poll. 3 Quote
NothingNew Posted March 20 Posted March 20 21 hours ago, hazelmouse said: I think trusting crew with firearms would go a decently long way towards helping foster a culture in which command trusts crew with their own safety on a general basis. As a player I don't think they necessarily need to trust their crew to handle their own safety, the core issue in my opinion is that people are less open to the idea that something might go wrong - The main issue we saw with the crew armoury is that it led to most antagonist rounds ending in a witch hunt, which could very well be repeated if every crewmember is given a firearm. Another issue with the crew armoury was that it would sometimes open without a single death to any crewmember. Not everything needs to go well - A story where everything goes wrong and the crew lose out is just as interesting in my opinion. Therein lies the issue really - As there isn't any such thing as "winning or losing" in collaborative storytelling to begin with, yet that's often the terms being applied. If skills are being worked on, having certain roles have higher proficiency with a gun and others having some form of debuff when using a gun (could be week aim or speed or as such) could alleviate the issue. Quote
MattAtlas Posted March 20 Author Posted March 20 On 18/03/2025 at 19:53, TonesofBones said: I don't think this means that phoron scarcity is a failure. It's the same as asking an average person how important are the rare earth minerals in their life. They would probably answer "not really", despite their importance to overall economy and technology. Thus I think phoron scarcity should be the force moving things "behind the curtains"; something that indirectly affects people's life. It is a question I could definitely have worded better, I agree (should probably have been 'what is the impact of the phoron scarcity on your character?' or something) though I doubt the results would have been different really. I think maybe there would have been one or two people voting 5, and the rest sitting at a square 1 or 2. Quote
OolongCow Posted March 21 Posted March 21 On 18/03/2025 at 14:31, Mr.Popper said: [...] The perfect NBT2, to me at least, would be Deep Space 9 meets Ridley Scott's Alien. Everyone is congregated on a ship serving as a hub, with friendly/neutral offships becoming normal jobs like merchant similar to how Bay does it. There's actually a server in SS14 whose entire concept is "a central station on which people congregate, choose from a list of preset, diverse ships that fill traditional departmental roles, and fly around helping each other/researching/mining/exploring to earn persistent money" that could be looked at as a source of what may or may not work well. On 19/03/2025 at 00:20, hazelmouse said: I think a robust skills system would resolve this. Maluses to accuracy, reload speed, or other elements of using firearms should produce a substantial gap in mechanical effectiveness between the average joe and someone formally trained and experienced with shooting people. Additionally, I don't think it's unrealistic for even a majority of the crew of a ship, especially an independent one where its crew is more broadly knowledgeable about the ins and outs of living in space, to know how to fire a gun. The advantage of this being the case, especially if it were paired with shifting the armoury to operations, is that security would no longer have a total monopoly over access and usage of firearms. Honestly? It wouldn't even be hard to link skills to specific firearms. You could democratize weaponry a bit by going "this is the idiot-proof laser rifle. If you have the lowest level of investment in guns you can use it fully and safely, and there's plenty of them for emergencies, but it's just kind of middlingly powerful in a 1 on 1 fight," while locking stuff like automatics being used to their fullest extent behind higher skill levels. Players FEELING powerful, or at least not HELPLESS, is more important than the actual power of their weapons. Someone handed a gun that's really loud and fires 5 damage bullets to fight a warform is always going to be happier than someone with their empty hands, even if they never use it, without significantly altering the course of rounds. Though I have to say, and I am very firm on this, that moving the armory to operations would necessitate the complete removal of on-ship antagonists. It becomes way, way too easy to completely declaw the people meant to protect the crew in a way you can't even suspend your disbelief over, like you can antags being warned against rushing the current armory. Either you'd have to put up so many rules and mechanics GUARANTEEING security can get their guns that it just becomes cumbersome, or you have to just accept that people will meta the guns every single round. A better idea would be putting the armory on the exterior perimeter of security, internal to the ship (to the left of the current security lobby maybe?), with a door operations can use to access the room and with a mechanic to at least warn security that someone's entering (steal the ammo storage bolt toggle code so it transmits to command AND security channels?). It's still security's room, but Ops can go in there if they need to, without needing to give them general security access. 1 Quote
hazelmouse Posted March 22 Posted March 22 9 hours ago, OolongCow said: Though I have to say, and I am very firm on this, that moving the armory to operations would necessitate the complete removal of on-ship antagonists. It becomes way, way too easy to completely declaw the people meant to protect the crew in a way you can't even suspend your disbelief over, like you can antags being warned against rushing the current armory. Either you'd have to put up so many rules and mechanics GUARANTEEING security can get their guns that it just becomes cumbersome, or you have to just accept that people will meta the guns every single round. A better idea would be putting the armory on the exterior perimeter of security, internal to the ship (to the left of the current security lobby maybe?), with a door operations can use to access the room and with a mechanic to at least warn security that someone's entering (steal the ammo storage bolt toggle code so it transmits to command AND security channels?). It's still security's room, but Ops can go in there if they need to, without needing to give them general security access. I'm not certain why this would be so disruptive to security getting their guns? I'd want any operations armoury mapped to ensure it's easy to get to from security, and preferably any department, so the only barrier to security getting their stuff would be a slightly longer walk than they currently have plus hoping the relevant operations role(s) are on instead of hoping a Warden or HoS is on. Other than that, I don't see why we wouldn't warn antagonist players for pre-emptively emptying the armoury in the same way we already do, or why the armoury would really be any less secure than it is already. The process for security would be essentially identical. The point is to emphasize that the armoury is a crew resource, not solely a security resource, even if security are the usual repeat customers. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.