Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Matariki Rain]

It seems to me that Cia's comment that "The limitations and extent of  planetary interaction are a live and unresolved issue" covers all kinds of planetary interactions, not just the ones using the PI interface.

One plausible extreme:

• our ships would explode if we took them into atmosphere;
• our targetting systems are incapable of doing that sort of thing with a planet;
• our currency is an interstellar scrip used solely for trade in "capsuleer market" commodities, and does not have an exchange rate with local currencies;
• our immune systems are too delicate from our pod-time to support regular contact with baseliners and their bugs; and
• we're either limited to or strongly encouraged to remain in certain podder portions of stations when we dock (heck, we might even be isolated in our captain's quarters ).

Likely extrapolations from these:

• Faction War is a kind of capture-the-flag play war which doesn't affect the people on the planets.
• Even in null, the empires capsuleers build are space-dwelling, and sit relatively lightly on top of whatever planetary population and infrastructure may exist there.

Over time, though, the types of interactions happening between capsuleers and planets-and-their-populations seem to have grown.

Does moon-mining require interaction with ground-based populations? More than crewing your ships does? I don't know. I think it's plausible to play that it does, but I'm not convinced it's "true".

Planetary interaction itself is... a bit vexed, really. You buy a capsuleer commodity and arrange to dump it on a planet. Are there ways things get through the conceptual bubbles between podders and planets? Do the "podder bubbles" just reach out to encompass a the portion of the planet that's directly worked on? Instead, do the customs offices or whatever act as go-betweens or overseers between those "bubbles", but permit only very restricted types of activity? In what ways, if at all, does it affect the local economy?

After the regular reminders that it takes serious time and a different kind of infrastructure to land on and leave a planetary surface, and that this was not something you did in the middle of a fleet, it was a real WTF experience to find that Sansha were doing just that, in just that timescale, with their dropships. If they can, presumably in non-capsuleer ships, it should be plausible to use something similar to go home to a planet for dinner after a hard day shooting Angels, yes? Would I want that?

What's already going on with the pirates and their "empires" in null? What would the Blood Raiders have to say about Querious and who did what, where?

For now, I don't know. I could understand playing that you have the planetary populations of null terrorised, and are the drop-ship-dropping exploiters of Querious. I could also understand a view that capsuleer sovereignty and changes in it might largely wash over any baseline population except for the occasional unscheduled meteor display.

[Matariki Rain]

Long story short some of our ex-leadership made some unilateral promises to IRED that they couldn't keep when the rest of our group found out. IRED were already halfway-moving in to our area, drama bbq ensued and they (rightly) packed up and left before any more shenanigans went down.  I was put in a terrible position trying to stick up for IRED and get them in, but having to put out a lot of behind the scene fires as well. Also embarrassingly I had already written up a nice little IGS piece about them coming down, etc right when it all went to pot.

Meh.

Just noting -- rather ruefully -- that this sounds a lot like real life.

("So... you're telling me that there was a golf-course deal about giving them the implant franchise, and that Comms have been working on messaging and collateral around that for weeks, and no one even thought to check with Legal and Contracts to find out that we already have an exclusive agreement with Poteque about that? WTF!?")

[Svenjabi Xiang]

I'm going to make a stab at speaking up in this, though as you can tell in my post count here, I tend to be a lurker. 

I do think that if you make a claim somewhere as an entity in an environment, it's perfectly valid to expect someone else within that environment to check that your claim has some validity.  Much of my experince of Eve has been based on interaction between characters and thus, the third question I'm usually interested in is that of credibility, following the questions of "who are you" and "why do I care".

I notice earlier in this thread the mention of the SF outpost in Providence and it might, but probably wouldn't,  surprise some to know how long those decisions were debated within the alliance between members with respect to the roleplay foundations we set out to uphold through our playstyle.  In the end, we came to the opinion that we needed to proceed in the way that we did precisely because we needed to do in-game what we'd been suggesting for others to do.  A "put your money (and pods) where your mouth is" approach, if you will, and it was an experience that will form a brick in the foundations of SF from then on.

[Matariki Rain]

Playing devil's advocate, I think it's possible that the post which provoked this was misinterpreted. When I read it, I read 'power' as a verb, and "to power RP" as synonymous with "to drive RP" or something like that.

I dip into this forum rather than reading it thoroughly, so I've only just caught up with the Catacombed discussion which prompted this.

No devil's advocate about it: Victoria is correct. "To power RP" means, in the context it was used, "to drive RP: to give RP direction and force": "power" is a verb.

From some of the responses and the heading of this thread it sounds like some people have been reading this as "to godmode RP", or something similar, with "power" being used as some kind of adjective describing the RP itself. I'm wondering whether that misreading is "powering" the apparent misunderstanding here.

[Svenjabi Xiang]

I'm not sure what the catacombed thread was in relation to before that.  Consequently, I simply responded to the original post of this thread.

I am certain that the forum does however empower its users to create threads seeking ways to spur roleplay forward

[Seriphyn]

There's a lot of "Prove it happened" but there's no questions of "Prove it DIDN'T happen".

I'm not sure anyway, even if CCP says some things are so (Jita 4-4), players will still say "No".

For the record, I support KPV in getting nullsec territory and flowering it up. Nullsec is boring and void of character otherwise.

[Jade Constantine]

There's a lot of "Prove it happened" but there's no questions of "Prove it DIDN'T happen".

I'm not sure anyway, even if CCP says some things are so (Jita 4-4), players will still say "No".

For the record, I support KPV in getting nullsec territory and flowering it up. Nullsec is boring and void of character otherwise.

Agreed. I certainly think that having sovereignty of a star system does give the "owners" the right to add RP colour to the place.

[scagga]

What's wrong with people expressing ideas that are not verifiable/likely to be true?  It is an aspect of real life that is readily accepted, yet the solution tends to be - hang with people who are 'real'.

[Shalee Lianne]

I would agree that having sovereignty in a null sec system gives the owners a lot of leeway RP wise.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

I think regardless of how justified you are in developing your roleplay, your enemies will always seek to undermine your position in any way possible, including your claims of control in a region.  I think the point is no one can tell you you're wrong directly,  but they can develop their own claims to oppose yours. So if Silas can say she's oppressing the masses, their attackers are justified in claiming they are disrupting that activity.

It's a matter of mutual cooperation and a willingness to meet somewhere in the middle rather than having to compete over every little nuance.

[Usagi Tsukino]

• our immune systems are too delicate from our pod-time to support regular contact with baseliners and their bugs; and
• we're either limited to or strongly encouraged to remain in certain podder portions of stations when we dock (heck, we might even be isolated in our captain's quarters :) ).

Is there actually any PF examples of this? I am aware of their being capsuleer areas of stations, however I always thought of that more as an area where your money was able to buy you security and a place to get away from the riff-raff and those who would get off on being able to say they shanked an egger rather than any kind of pod-pilot quarantine.

[Silas Vitalia]

I think regardless of how justified you are in developing your roleplay, your enemies will always seek to undermine your position in any way possible, including your claims of control in a region.  I think the point is no one can tell you you're wrong directly,  but they can develop their own claims to oppose yours. So if Silas can say she's oppressing the masses, their attackers are justified in claiming they are disrupting that activity.

It's a matter of mutual cooperation and a willingness to meet somewhere in the middle rather than having to compete over every little nuance.

Null-sec is a special place in that is one of the places where the game mechanics allow for our position to be undermined directly and incontrovertibly. 

When I lost A2-V27, I lost it IC as well, and a lot of our people non-capsuleer soldiers/staff 'died' defending the station to no avail.

So if Silas can say she's oppressing the masses, their attackers are justified in claiming they are disrupting that activity.

Again I think the game mechanics in null-sec allow for an unconsentual method for determining exactly these sorts of things.

We won't own the space forever, that I can promise. When and if we are finally destroyed and removed, this will absolutely be reflected IC.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

Except you can't because the realm of influence by capsuleers is ambiguous. There's nothing to support your position beyond the limitations of game mechanics. Otherwise I'd totally agree with you...

[Silas Vitalia]

Perhaps, but I think we give leeway to each other all the time on similar issues based on IG performance, and even the live events often tailored results based on in-game performance, and success or failure in space reflecting success or failure on the surfaces of planets and elsewhere.

For example, if you blow up my ship, hang out to loot the wreck and salvage it, as far as I'm concerned you've 'earned' RP leeway with regards to that. Any surviving crew are yours to interrogate, torture, space, release to freedom, whatever, and there's not much I can do about it.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

You and I might think it's a swell idea, but one of your war targets might disagree. They might say all their pilots were accounted for, and there's no proof either way.