2013 active members
  160 are online







Message CenterRPG CenterQuestion Center
Archives » Why isnt there war of the factions
Page 1 2
I suppose this topic had been talked and talked and talked about many times.
If someone knows where those threads please but their address here.

But for now Ill ask, why cant there a time of war where factions (not individuals who arent in those factions) can go to war with other factions?
I figured this will be useful to:
1. Get people to play more.
2. Get people to spend money in war and rebuilding.
3. Having deaths they can enjoy and complain about.

We're working on it.

any action towards this in the last six months? I think six months ago when I saw a similar post about war.

If you would take the time to read the latest Sim News post, which is an update about the progress made in the recent server sync, you would also see a few paragraphs from one of our administrators regarding our game design philosophy and development targets.

The simple answer seems to be- there is. Just because there are no hordes of troops or space vessels clashing (which I understand there was in the days of Red Scenarios) does not mean there is no war. In a post-modern sci-fi setting, I would imagine a true battle would be rare indeed- the major powers, rather than confront each other directly and thus wasting resources (and allowing a third party to swoop in and collect the spoils), would likely engage in 'turf wars' and economic sanctions, using dummy factions as props, as happens in SWC and other games with advanced economies on a near daily basis.

Consider, as a proportion of life in the galaxy, what a minor skirmish the Battle of Yavin or Hoth might be perceived. Only years later could the relevance to galactic politics and economy be discussed and debated. True war is economic in nature and this has been the case since around the development of industry and modern technology, if not even since the proliferation of agriculture many, many millennia ago.


"The stars in your eyes are just shattered glass. And those dolls on the shelf become the men in the gutter. Never asked no one for life, but here you are in someone else's world. Sleep, little one sleep. I'll never sleep that way again until I die."
I like what Mikel says, they are working on it and why. Okuna explanation seems like he is blowing smoke up my ass and saying it's foggy.

A space nation, a galactic nation could have ships that could just teleport through space. Or they could use whatever science finds to make the speed of light be like the small steps of a baby. Or make the destruction of one planet like a grenade explosion on Earth today.
Whatever sentient kind is in a galaxy war can make their as destructive on a galaxy as a full scale war would be on Earth, I believe George Lucas dumbed down the technological power of his galaxy so people could enjoy the movie. The destruction of a planet in a galaxy would be like stepping on an ant. The Death star should have been able to destroy 1-3% of the galaxy to generate the fear that the senate had for such a weapon.

The question has been answered as far as I concerned, thank you.

Edited By: Ebenezzer Saxon on Year 15 Day 325 21:57
The destruction of a planet in a galaxy would be like stepping on an ant. The Death star should have been able to destroy 1-3% of the galaxy to generate the fear that the senate had for such a weapon.

- Ebenezzer Saxon

Except that Alderaan was a pretty major planet in the galaxy, so it'd be comparable to a flock of ICBMs or some superweapon wiping out real-world China, Russia, or the United States. There'd be quite an impact felt, especially considering the Empire used its destruction as major and widespread propaganda. Not to mention that in canon (or SW Legends, whatever), the destruction of Alderaan caused survivors (who were off-world) to join and become some of the most hardcore and dedicated members of the Rebel Alliance.


Governor, Sevetta Sector
Marshal, Blue Star Dominion

Holocron - CPM Profile - TFM Profile

GNS Flashnews Archive
I recommend reading The Art of War and browsing the wiki for the cold war. In present day "modern" war waged between "advanced" (I use these terms loosely) rarely takes place with conventional weapons. Conventional weapons of war are instead used between and against lesser developed sections of the world, at least for the most part.

For example, one of Russia's chief export is oil. Recently the price per barrel of oil has dropped significantly threatening to destabilize the Russian economy. There are currently discussions between major oil producing nations to collectively slow down production to keep the prices up but this is less of a concern for most other nations with largely oil driven economies because unlike Russia most other countries have a smaller population and fewer people thriving off the profit. Economic warfare, or maybe just coincidence following the events in Crimea, who knows.


Whom always wins.
I recall pointing out the lack of combat makes for the lack of weaponized war in the previous attempt you made at posting this. Instead we've got arrest/execute "wars" where factions kill off other factions' leadership/members and build "wars" where factions fight over land on a planet by executing builders and trying to get their own buildings complete to take ownership over the planet.

Just because there's no weaponized warfare doesn't mean there isn't warfare at all.

"Saxon made a solar system into glowing rocks and caused hundreds of billions of bodies to float in space and called his work a small war, a really small war."

Cold war is war where the nations were afraid to fight a real war.
Causing economic hardship on a nation who is doing a hot war does not keep them from having a hot war and makes that aggressive nations black market big. The aggression still goes on.

I lived in the age of Detant and I thought that America and Europe should have went and destroyed the USSRs government and then turn to China and destroy their government. American would have probably lost 35 million people of a population of 260 million but the world would have been Pax Americana for a while.

We did not see that Aldaraan was a major planet except for Leia trying to be surprised that Papa Darth was going to destroyed it. Carrie Fisher should have been trained to actually act like a emotional woman in those movies.

There should be hot war in this game, but to avoid people from leaving the game if they get killed or screwed to many times then the war should be factional.

Losing 35 million people is a small price to pay to achieve global domination for a while -_-


*sigh* (I knew ttis would happen)

Yes it is world domination at a cost of 11% of the population is a worthy loss.

Edited By: Ebenezzer Saxon on Year 15 Day 326 11:22
Trying to keep this combine related, instead of locked...

The movies were made as such- films. Combine is much more similar to RL politics- finance, allies, popularity are far more important in the long run. It's not as exciting in the short run, but has its moments.

There are people who have considered this in much deeper context- the designers and veterans of the game. I suggest following their plan- Research [so sharp factions have a fighting chance to catch up the the Empire], ground combat, repair [vital if your ship is to be getting shot up], than space combat. If they can hit that goal within a couple years of the end of episode nine, it should be an interesting game for many, many years. It's just too bad they are not being paid for their work.

Small steps towards combat can be seen and it's really nice to see more syncs no matter how small. The combine is actually more like RL as Okoya said. These are big features that can not be added quickly since they could break the game if done wrong. Sure we all wish it could move faster, but with an unpaid dev team this game has come and long way.



Full Bio
That's why I suggested reading the Art of War, one must use all means at his disposal when at war. I desire full fledged combat as much as you do but I want it as realistic as possible, the more realistic it is the less any individual will be able to cope with the scope and the better I will fair. Before combat is fully released I want it to be well developed otherwise this turns into a game of Risk (boardgame which has almost no strategy to it). Sure I'd like to have the developers spend more time developing and coding but they're not paid.

Personally I think we should put together a fund to pay the developers so they can take time off from work, I'd donate.


Whom always wins.
Also to note, just because there is limited combat in Darkness doesn't mean this is a "cold war" or we lack combat.

in the RP of the game past and present most militaries are active and many many people are dying.

Alories Tanus
Alories Tanus
Inronkini Wanneng Alani , I would highly support a fund being made for the admins. A donation for their years of service, and creating a text-based game matched by none. Arguably, this game also keeps my interest in longer intervals than any graphical based MMO could.

I would definitely donate, and hope some of the other players feel the same way (Keeping in mind your own personal finances).

I do believe that one of the reasons Combine has been allowed to exist is that because nobody actually profits from running it. Paying developers to work on it might cause Disney to shut the game down.


Governor, Sevetta Sector
Marshal, Blue Star Dominion

Holocron - CPM Profile - TFM Profile

GNS Flashnews Archive
You can already donate some money to help run the servers via PayPla more information can be found here

Kendall Holm
Kendall Holm
They do not care if we pay people to develop because that costs us money and doesnt affect them. They are more concerned about us making money off their IP which is a no no. But we just dont have the money to pay someone to develop. we pay a ton just to keep the servers going. I pay 130$ a year to keep my server up and register my domain. From my understanding with Sel we pay well over a 100 times that to keep this server running. Not only that Devs cost a lot of money. On average a Web Developer gets around 62K a year salary the lowest being around 33K a year. We dont have the money to keep the servers running and pay professional web developers


Page 1 2