I suggest that DSB negotiates to move to TW

[Seriel Killer]

nuke the fucking emails already :/

[Entr0py]

Ok, the goal of Sim City is to build a city that can last forever and survive disasters.

Ok, the goal of DSB is to get better at killing people and then kill them lots without dying. I don't see your point. You're defining "objective" to be a goal that would end the game once achieved, and then trying to claim that Sim City has an "objective"?

[Eridu]

No to tw, we will take a backseat there.

Everyone who says dsb is dead needs to join ?chat=dsb so you know when to show up.

[Tembest]

Ok, the goal of Sim City is to build a city that can last forever and survive disasters.

Ok, the goal of DSB is to get better at killing people and then kill them lots without dying. I don't see your point. You're defining "objective" to be a goal that would end the game once achieved, and then trying to claim that Sim City has an "objective"?

I've never played Sim City but I believe Sever means that in Sim City, for example,
you will have to start from scratch if you die but in DSB dying affects you in no
way; you wait for 3 seconds and are back in game. It makes your statistics look
bad but the thing is, no one cares about pub kills / deaths.

I agree with both though. In my opinion games with goals are most fun, but I also
think a game can be succesful without a clearly defined goal.

[jim the chin]

Ok, the goal of Sim City is to build a city that can last forever and survive disasters.

Ok, the goal of DSB is to get better at killing people and then kill them lots without dying. I don't see your point. You're defining "objective" to be a goal that would end the game once achieved, and then trying to claim that Sim City has an "objective"?

How ridiculous. Anything you do repeatedly is for the goal of getting better at it. That's not an objective. You get better at rowing by going to the gym and using the machine all the time. You get better at fighting by getting into bar room brawls all the time. You get better at lighting your farts the more you try it. Finally, you get better at building cities on Sim City by playing SIm City.

But wait, that's not the objective of Sim City is it? If you took the objective of Sim City and put it in the context of DSB you'd have ways of improving your ship by greening and killing. However, subspace can't make this objective appealing like Sim City does because there are far fewer varieties of threat to your improved ship. If there was inter-player trade of ship components; more threats like meteorites, black holes with useful supplies in orbit around them, harsh alien worlds and so on, then we could make the Sim City objective of improvement appealing.

[Super Duper]

DSB is already dead, this could a valiant last desperate attempt of revival :/

Agreed!

I think reviving this zone can only happen in this order:

1.revive league
2.revive prac areas
3.revive pub

Pub and prac areas are dead because league is dead. Most of the players that played this game for year after year did so because of league. Sure, they played pub as well, just for the fun of it. But the competitive and intense elements of league were the most fun of all.

So if we were to make a 'valiant last desperate attemempt of revival', it should be an attempt to revive league. If league flourishes, people will start practising again, reviving the prac areas. In between pracs people will start playing pub again, for the fun of it, and pub will flourish again.

How to revive league? I think it's all about promotion. I think there's a LOT of players who still long for 'the good old days'.

nuke the fucking emails already :/

Indeed! E-mail every e-mail adress from the league database. This e-mail shouldnt just say: 'Please come back to DSB, the zone is dead and needs new players'. It should promote a big, full blown league, promise it will be HUGE, motivate squadcaptains to gather the old players, dare players to put their rusty skills to the test, it should make you long for the gameplay of league again. Ofcourse a neat-looking promotion movie would be te most effective. If you host a new league, and make everybody think it will be awesome, it will become awesome by itself.


Here's what I suggested before:

-Pick a date, 4-6 months from now for the start of League 14, a full blown 12vs12 league. (because 12vs12 obviously is the most fun)
-Make a good looking, fancy promotion movie, e-mail it to everyone who has ever played league to spark interst of the inactive playerbase (this is probably the most important thing, it should look cool and give you the feeling that winning that league would actually be worth trying your best for.)
-Move DSB to TW (optional)
-To spark some interst, give the winners a cashprize

[Entr0py]

I didn't say the goal of DSB was just to get better. I also said the goal of DSB pub is to kill people. Skill plays a huge role in that, hence
the improvement aspect. But improving for the sake of improving isn't the point. It's to kill people. Similarly, with Sim City, the goal is
to build a city that can survive. But the game doesn't end. Neither does DSB.

An even better example of a wildly successful game with no goal is Cow Clicker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_Clicker
Just look at that, and then tell me that a game can't be successful unless it has a goal. There are plenty of other examples.

The point is, different people prefer different kinds of games. Maybe YOU prefer games with a game-ending "objective". Ok, fine. But
don't tell everyone else what they should think is or isn't good.

[Seriel Killer]

Super Duper, you're thinking small.

I was talking about nuking everyone in the world emails

[jim the chin]

Killing people isn't an objective or even a goal. Imagine if counterstrike had no hostages, no bombs, and people just respawned when they died. It would be exactly like DSB... and a whole lot worse for it. That game would be goal-less, like DSB is.

Wildly successful games shouldn't need wikipedia links. I never heard of it. Besides, finding a few examples in a world of games doesn't really make your point. The point is, having goal-oriented games with objectives is a crucial element in why many games are successful (including zones like TW).

Whatever though, be defiant, make ridiculous arguments. It sounds to me like you want to keep dsb exactly the way it is. Why is that?

[Entr0py]

Killing people isn't an objective or even a goal. Imagine if counterstrike had no hostages, no bombs, and people just respawned when they died. It would be exactly like DSB... and a whole lot worse for it. That game would be goal-less, like DSB is.

Wildly successful games shouldn't need wikipedia links. I never heard of it. Besides, finding a few examples in a world of games doesn't really make your point. The point is, having goal-oriented games with objectives is a crucial element in why many games are successful (including zones like TW).

Whatever though, be defiant, make ridiculous arguments. It sounds to me like you want to keep dsb exactly the way it is. Why is that?

1) Killing people is a goal, and counterstrike would probably still be fun. But counterstrike isn't ss; it's like comparing apples and oranges.

2)
a. All wildly successful games have wikipedia links. I linked to wiki so you could read about it, but just google cow clicker, and you can find it easily. Or, if you insist on being an ass, consider Farmville. QED
b. Finding a few examples in the world of games DOES make my point in refuting your statement that "ALL successful games have an objective, and ALL games that don't have an objective would be better if they had an objective."

3) You're ignoring everything I've said in being open to an objective. If you want one, make it, or stfu