Topic: J'inn: You Bastard!!!!  (Read 28537 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hexx

  • Sexy Shoeless Lyran God Of War
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 6058
Re: Deep thoughts from Hexx (Stop Laughing!!!)
« Reply #80 on: January 29, 2006, 07:46:23 pm »
If -instead of having between 5- 10 major VP hexes to fight over,a server had 30 or 40, each worth fewer VP, and having less DV in the hexes things would change.
A 3 ship fleet could knock someone out of a hex, but they'd have another 10-15 hexes to hit.

This would make the disengagement rule (and PvP) almost totally ineffective. It only has an effect now if there are bottlenecks on the server where hex flippers must go. If you homogenize the map, it just becomes a flip-fest with no strategy.

Not at all, different VP hexes can have different VP values. Different VP hexes can have different terrain features, different DV values and different
"strategic" (if anything on the D2 counts as strategic) value.
VP objective hexes can be linked ( ie hold these three hexes for VP hold these four/two whatever)

The bottlenecks are useful, but they contribute to the issue of the three player fleets dominating the necessary areas.

With multiple VP objective hexes the three player fleets can dominate any areas they wish to- but single players will also
be able to have some effect on the map without having to gather themselves into a fleet and grabbing the appropriate ships.

The disengagement rule is still effective as long as both sides fight the same way. If one side concentrates their fleets into
3 player units and the other flies as singles, the 3 player units will control whatver area they wish to control, but the single player will still
be able to achieve something other than be continously run off by the big fleets.

It presents a side with options- something completely lacking on most of the "serious" servers.
Courageously Protesting "Lyran Pelt Day"

Offline NuclearWessels

  • Evil Dave
  • Serverkit Development Team
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1246
  • Scripter and general nuisance
    • NukeDocs
Re: Deep thoughts from Hexx (Stop Laughing!!!)
« Reply #81 on: January 29, 2006, 07:57:21 pm »
I have a gf configurable PvP DV shift test ready on The Forge right now... Not sure it will work, but theoretically it should, its a bit of a kludge but I can refine it further if this works. (It would be more complicated to account for 2vs1s etc but possible, for now it should just detect PvP vs AI/Coop battles.)

Coolness Bonk!

I was just going to set a Desired_Shift flag based on the odds, then mod the InvokeGameStatus so that player numbers 1..Desired_Shift could submit results, rather than just the host.  Having it server-configurable would be even better!

dave


762_XC

  • Guest
Re: Deep thoughts from Hexx (Stop Laughing!!!)
« Reply #82 on: January 29, 2006, 10:29:20 pm »
OK, here's something that may be attainable (stems from Bonk's idea of using the split-mission bugs to attain multiple DV shifts).  Don't get your hopes up, there's not even a proof of concept yet, but it may be doable:

Winning a PvP battle with equal number (of human pilots) on each side: +/- 2 DV shift
Winning a PvP battle when you outnumbered your opponent: +/- 1 DV shift
Winning a PvP battle when you were outnumbered: +/- 2 or 3 DV shift
Winning an AI battle: +/- 1 DV shift

If it worked, would that alleviate some of the issues?

Right now only the host returns the win/loss DV claim - we might be able to rig it so that at the end of PvP battles multiple different players send won/loss claims (as happens with some of the split missions). Maybe.  If it doesn't work then the mess it creates should be pretty spectacular  ;D

EDIT: maybe I need to stick a couple more mights ifs and maybes in there ;)
dave


Dave, is this something you would have to do script-by-script? Or could it be done server-side?

What I'm really wondering if it would be possible for a server admin to use different values than the ones you specified above.

Offline NuclearWessels

  • Evil Dave
  • Serverkit Development Team
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1246
  • Scripter and general nuisance
    • NukeDocs
Re: Deep thoughts from Hexx (Stop Laughing!!!)
« Reply #83 on: January 29, 2006, 11:38:13 pm »

The way I'm talking about is script-by-script.  I haven't played with (or looked at) any of the server kit stuff, just the mission side.

dave

Offline Bonk

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13298
  • You don't have to live like a refugee.
Re: Deep thoughts from Hexx (Stop Laughing!!!)
« Reply #84 on: January 30, 2006, 12:22:46 am »
... I haven't played with (or looked at) any of the server kit stuff, ...

Ahem, I'm reasonably sure you'd be welcome to join the development team if you're interested or have the time... I don't think we're at the "too many cooks" stage yet. No pressure though, more missions is good!  ;D  Perhaps you'd be our man to update the scripting API to VC8 (as we're doing for the serverkit)? I've almost got a mission script compiled in VC8 to test, but I'm hung up on a few linking steps...

Offline FPF-Paladin

  • 'Thou shalt not CAD.' - DH
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 588
  • Gender: Male
Re: Deep thoughts from Hexx (Stop Laughing!!!)
« Reply #85 on: January 30, 2006, 02:33:34 am »
I'll be the first to just openly say,


Holy #$%@#!!  This thread has a lot of great ideas!!


(This coming from someone not known to curse, ever... well almost ever.)

Many different slants on the same problems; sounds like a matter of figuring out which slants are easiest/possible to implement to me.

Seriously, let's face whatever flames/sparks here head on and continue brainstorming.  It's worth it and I really think even the heated players manage to show respect for one another while disagreeing.  Not sure how that counts as flaming but I'm a relatively new pilot here compared to a lot of you and never saw any of these near-legendary forum brawls I've heard about.  I think I just officially wasted my first few hours at work daydreaming about multi colored maps and people screaming on voice comms to Move in, Quick!!!....

Ah, good times.  Keep 'em coming.
~Life cannot find reasons to sustain it, cannot be a source of decent mutual regard, unless each of us resolves to breathe such qualities into it. ~

Offline NuclearWessels

  • Evil Dave
  • Serverkit Development Team
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1246
  • Scripter and general nuisance
    • NukeDocs
Re: Deep thoughts from Hexx (Stop Laughing!!!)
« Reply #86 on: January 30, 2006, 09:57:47 am »
... I haven't played with (or looked at) any of the server kit stuff, ...

Ahem, I'm reasonably sure you'd be welcome to join the development team if you're interested or have the time... I don't think we're at the "too many cooks" stage yet. No pressure though, more missions is good!  ;D  Perhaps you'd be our man to update the scripting API to VC8 (as we're doing for the serverkit)? I've almost got a mission script compiled in VC8 to test, but I'm hung up on a few linking steps...

Might take you up on that Bonk (though I don't know what kind of masochist would willingly tackle the VC8 conversion ;) ;) )

There are a bunch of mission-side issues I'd like to clean up first [thanks DH for some of the ideas BTW] then I'll be looking around for some new ways to cause irritation ;D

dave

Offline MagnumMan

  • Former Keeper of the Code
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 107
  • Gender: Male
    • KhoroMag
Re: Deep thoughts from Hexx (Stop Laughing!!!)
« Reply #87 on: January 30, 2006, 03:42:33 pm »
That masochist would be me, and it was going just fine until real life took me away for a few weeks, but I'm getting myself uncovered from the pile of dog poo that built up at work.

Offline NuclearWessels

  • Evil Dave
  • Serverkit Development Team
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1246
  • Scripter and general nuisance
    • NukeDocs
Re: Deep thoughts from Hexx (Stop Laughing!!!)
« Reply #88 on: January 30, 2006, 04:28:23 pm »
That masochist would be me, and it was going just fine until real life took me away for a few weeks, but I'm getting myself uncovered from the pile of dog poo that built up at work.

LOL - cool!  Good t'see ya! 
Good luck and thanks;D

dave

Offline KAT J'inn

  • CFO - Kzinti War Machine, Inc.
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2293
  • Gender: Male
Re: Deep thoughts from Hexx (Stop Laughing!!!)
« Reply #89 on: January 30, 2006, 04:41:22 pm »
A shabby figure strolls into the conference hall.   He's wearing a dirty robe.  His hair is in tatters.  His fingernails are at least 4 inches long.  He's mumbling.  And yet, he looks vaguely feline. . . . .

The hobo stumbles up to the microphone reeking of cheap scotch and Tender Vittles.

And then . . . it speaks . . . .


<hic>

Well I've been a reading this thread.  And a thinking bout it.  and I have to say that it is the most shocking thread I have ever read in my life!!!

EVER!!!

I mean I cannot believe my own eyes.  IT'S JUST INCOMPREHENSIBLE!!!

Allow me to cut and paste . .. . . .


Yes, I'm actually asking for people's opinions  ;D 



Suddenly, the stranger passes out on the stage.


Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9433
Re: J'inn: You Bastard!!!!
« Reply #90 on: January 30, 2006, 05:44:23 pm »
Wow, who knew you could edit the names of threads  :)

BUMP
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline GDA-S'Cipio

  • Brucimus Maximus
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 5749
  • Gender: Male
  • If I took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy.
Re: J'inn: You Bastard!!!!
« Reply #91 on: January 30, 2006, 08:41:48 pm »


I think there were a couple of things that used to create more 1v1 PvPs even on servers that had epic, hotly contested battles.

1)  There used to be missions that would only draft 1v1.  Like, the patrol mission with the disable ship in the middle.  You and your carefully constructed Big Metal fleet would jump some hopeless smuck, and suddenly you'd realize you were in a one-on-one, and the schmuck no longer looked quite so schmucky.

Some people complain that they don't like this mission because it seperates you for one combat from the wingman you worked hard to coordinate with, and they have a point.  But I think these missions added some spice to the game and I think they were realistic to the source material.  A lot of good stories take place when one ship gets seperated from a fleet.



2)  As someone else already pointed out, a big fleet is killer in combat but lone pilots are more efficient on the map.  When we were behind and being left alone, the Gorn used to give orders that our pilots were NOT to get a wingman, as we could catch up better flying solo.  This behaviour could be encouraged by adding more 2nd tier VC hexs.  Big fleets would still go for the bigger hexes, but a race aced out of this competition could split up and sweep a lot of second tier hexs to break even.

-S'Cipio
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."  - James Madison (chief author of the Constitution)

-----------------------------------------
Gorn Dragon Alliance member
Gorn Dragon Templar
Coulda' used a little more cowbell
-----------------------------------------


Offline Bonk

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13298
  • You don't have to live like a refugee.
Re: J'inn: You Bastard!!!!
« Reply #92 on: January 30, 2006, 08:52:58 pm »
Wow, who knew you could edit the names of threads  :)

BUMP

Lol, and here I thought you had dug up the old one... should have noticed its way too short to be the genuine article...  ;D

Offline Bonk

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13298
  • You don't have to live like a refugee.
Re: J'inn: You Bastard!!!!
« Reply #93 on: January 30, 2006, 08:58:51 pm »
1)  There used to be missions that would only draft 1v1.  Like, the patrol mission with the disable ship in the middle.  You and your carefully constructed Big Metal fleet would jump some hopeless smuck, and suddenly you'd realize you were in a one-on-one, and the schmuck no longer looked quite so schmucky.

Some people complain that they don't like this mission because it seperates you for one combat from the wingman you worked hard to coordinate with, and they have a point.  But I think these missions added some spice to the game and I think they were realistic to the source material.  A lot of good stories take place when one ship gets seperated from a fleet.


Interesting point, but...

I have been on the receiving end of this one many times and inevitably it still ends up as a DN vs a DD and I'm screaming where is my wingman dammit! And because of the disengagement rule I end up staying to be destroyed instead of running to get the shorter penalty, it gets expensive. (especially if ships are costly)  :(

But I may have at least a partial solution: http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163364179.0.html

762_XC

  • Guest
Re: J'inn: You Bastard!!!!
« Reply #94 on: January 30, 2006, 09:18:08 pm »
I HATED that mission that split you off from your wingman/men.  :smackhead:

I think there are better ways we can encourage 1v1 flying if that's desired. The Slot idea is one, and I'm sure creative minds can come up with more. (And I mean ideas that work along with the disengagement rule.)

Mandatory mission meanness makes me mad.

Offline Hondo_8

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: J'inn: You Bastard!!!!
« Reply #95 on: February 01, 2006, 01:13:46 am »
I have some change to toss in


From how Im seeing the progresion of D2 is that the maps and VCs are becoming more PVP condusive.   The old days before the 100 pound rule books were introduced most encounters were 1v1 and the far and few were the 2v2 3v3 battles that were rejoiced over when encountered.

I think some of the issues for discouraging 1v1 is not scripting based but how we have ruled ourselves into boxes.  The bigest rule I think that started this push to pvp maps and Vcs is the line of supply...any where a line of supply it will discourage 1v1.

VC on maps tend to devolp choke points where it comes down to pvp.

I imagine space battles much like navel encounters  alot of looking around for the bad guys and only a few major encounters.

What d2 is lacking is a politcle system where if ships are not present in a system for a period of time to keep law and order then the system is lost..... 

I think that large fleet engagments should be done in gamespy  IE major Planatary hexes. starbases.  There could be a system of points that each race could accumalate with pvp kills, VC achievments to spend on a large fleet assualt for a major VC hex, or even spending points on starbase placments in controled area. Out comes of major Fleet assualts could hamper ship productions for the losing side, Or lose of a captial ship. Capital ships could be produced dependent on the economy of a race or points spent

Just some random thoughts

1AF Hondo

Offline Julin Eurthyr

  • Veltrassi Ambassador at Large
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Gender: Male
  • Back in Exile due to Win 7 - ISC RM/Strat Com.
Re: J'inn: You Bastard!!!!
« Reply #96 on: February 01, 2006, 09:13:26 am »
Glad to see that I'm not alone in beliving that we've legislated ourselves into this position.

What's bugging me some (which is understandable, in a way), is that we're calling for more legislation, ie, slot-areas etc., to fix the problem instead of addressing the causes that led us to require wingmen.  While more legislation is the "American way", we're looking at making a rulebook the size of SFB just to play one server.

Personally, I'd rather see the root causes fixed while not undoing everything we've done...

To me, there are 3 things contributing to the "wingmen required" syndrome.  I'll repost them with more details / possible fixes which won't extend our "rulebook" to a thousand pages... ;)

1.  EEK missions:  On one hand, they do work "as advertised", ie, increasing the challenge level.  For a certain ISC pilot that's fairly experienced in Fed and Rommie (yes, that's me), they are a "challenge".  Having been designed to be a challenge to an I-CCZ, I can handle them fairly regularly in the over-gunned ISC hulls, and can tough them out in Fed / Rommie hulls.  On the other hand, they might be a tad to difficult for the newbies, whether they're the true newbies we've recently attracted, or a "veteran" with no experience in a race (like the aforementioned ISC pilot who's had a tough time learning Klingon due to colorblindness vs. interface issues)...
The fixes for this are obvious, though a bit of a challenge.  We could drop them altogether, which also kills our AI-free PvPs.  We could "tone them down" from Anti-CCZ to Anti-CC (ie, Fed CC+R / Klink D7L) levels (which requires a recompilation from a retired scripter), or find a way to allow the "easier" TG / ED missions to show up in every hex.

2.  OOB / VCs.  Both of these tie together, as putting a VC price on a ship is practically as limiting as an actual rule like an OOB.  Both of them make the loss of a certain ship painful, whether it's a loss of the rights to the ship or helping the enemy score points.  Personally, and from a "watcher's" standpoint, the best servers have been the ones where the OOB / VCs covered the same thing that SFB restricts, ie, the carriers / DNs / specialty ships.  Keeping the OOB ruleset at that level would cut down on the ships being escorted, therefore freeing up more solo pilots and one-on-one opportunities.

3.  Disengagement.  This may be rendered a moot point with Bonk's recent work, as the new multi-DV shift for losing a battle might make killing / driving off a half-dozen or so of the "evil frigate-droners" that led to the disengagement rule the fastest way to flip a hex.  Otherwise, the only fix I can think of is writing a server with enough VC locations so that a driven off pilot is "immediatly useful" at another locale.

Of course, another thing that's hurt our 1 vs 1 PvPs is the lack of pilots.  When there's only a dozen pilots per side, and half of them (3-6) are in fancy-ships and the other half are escorting those fancy ships, that does cut out the 1 on 1's... :roll:

AKA: Koloth Kinshaya - Lord of the House Kinshaya in the Klingon Empire
S'Leth - Romulan Admiral
Some anonymous strongman in Prime Industries

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9433
Re: J'inn: You Bastard!!!!
« Reply #97 on: February 01, 2006, 09:42:18 am »
The 'legislation" is to make up for lack of back end features. 

If stuff can be done in the background that is transparent to the user, there is little need for legislation.
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline Hexx

  • Sexy Shoeless Lyran God Of War
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 6058
Re: J'inn: You Bastard!!!!
« Reply #98 on: February 01, 2006, 10:36:40 am »
Glad to see that I'm not alone in beliving that we've legislated ourselves into this position.

What's bugging me some (which is understandable, in a way), is that we're calling for more legislation, ie, slot-areas etc., to fix the problem instead of addressing the causes that led us to require wingmen.  While more legislation is the "American way", we're looking at making a rulebook the size of SFB just to play one server.

Personally, I'd rather see the root causes fixed while not undoing everything we've done...

To me, there are 3 things contributing to the "wingmen required" syndrome.  I'll repost them with more details / possible fixes which won't extend our "rulebook" to a thousand pages... ;)

1.  EEK missions:  On one hand, they do work "as advertised", ie, increasing the challenge level.  For a certain ISC pilot that's fairly experienced in Fed and Rommie (yes, that's me), they are a "challenge".  Having been designed to be a challenge to an I-CCZ, I can handle them fairly regularly in the over-gunned ISC hulls, and can tough them out in Fed / Rommie hulls.  On the other hand, they might be a tad to difficult for the newbies, whether they're the true newbies we've recently attracted, or a "veteran" with no experience in a race (like the aforementioned ISC pilot who's had a tough time learning Klingon due to colorblindness vs. interface issues)...
The fixes for this are obvious, though a bit of a challenge.  We could drop them altogether, which also kills our AI-free PvPs.  We could "tone them down" from Anti-CCZ to Anti-CC (ie, Fed CC+R / Klink D7L) levels (which requires a recompilation from a retired scripter), or find a way to allow the "easier" TG / ED missions to show up in every hex.

EEK mission have nothing to do with it- they do tend to make people fly bigger ships but that's it.
I can beat EEK missions solo using any race, including the plasma ones- hardly a call that a wingman is needed.

Quote

2.  OOB / VCs.  Both of these tie together, as putting a VC price on a ship is practically as limiting as an actual rule like an OOB.  Both of them make the loss of a certain ship painful, whether it's a loss of the rights to the ship or helping the enemy score points.  Personally, and from a "watcher's" standpoint, the best servers have been the ones where the OOB / VCs covered the same thing that SFB restricts, ie, the carriers / DNs / specialty ships.  Keeping the OOB ruleset at that level would cut down on the ships being escorted, therefore freeing up more solo pilots and one-on-one opportunities.

All OOb/ OOB VP's tend to do is keep the Heavy metal out of the hands of the less experienced players- while this is not always(imo) a bad thing, again it doesn't really contribute to the "fleeting" issue

Quote
3.  Disengagement.  This may be rendered a moot point with Bonk's recent work, as the new multi-DV shift for losing a battle might make killing / driving off a half-dozen or so of the "evil frigate-droners" that led to the disengagement rule the fastest way to flip a hex.  Otherwise, the only fix I can think of is writing a server with enough VC locations so that a driven off pilot is "immediatly useful" at another locale.
This is 100% the reason for the fleets- disengagement.  Jumping solo/duo players with duo/trio fleets has substituted itself for "strategy". Players flying three ship fleets have claimed (and I think t00l does here somewhere) that it's OK because you don't know what you're going to draw- perhaps, but one of the things you know you won't draw is a four ship fleet.
The disengagement rule is needed (until hopefully Bonk's work takes care of everything including someone running off the hex)
Although I still believe spreading out VP hexes with varying DV's/VP's/locations/terrain types is the way to go.





Courageously Protesting "Lyran Pelt Day"

Offline K'Hexx

  • Heir to Two Empires
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 93
  • Gender: Male
  • 1/2 Klingon 1/2 Lyran 1/2 Pint
Re: J'inn: You Bastard!!!!
« Reply #99 on: February 01, 2006, 12:41:57 pm »
Glad to see that I'm not alone in beliving that we've legislated ourselves into this position.

What's bugging me some (which is understandable, in a way), is that we're calling for more legislation, ie, slot-areas etc., to fix the problem instead of addressing the causes that led us to require wingmen.  While more legislation is the "American way", we're looking at making a rulebook the size of SFB just to play one server.

Personally, I'd rather see the root causes fixed while not undoing everything we've done...

To me, there are 3 things contributing to the "wingmen required" syndrome.  I'll repost them with more details / possible fixes which won't extend our "rulebook" to a thousand pages... ;)

1.  EEK missions:  On one hand, they do work "as advertised", ie, increasing the challenge level.  For a certain ISC pilot that's fairly experienced in Fed and Rommie (yes, that's me), they are a "challenge".  Having been designed to be a challenge to an I-CCZ, I can handle them fairly regularly in the over-gunned ISC hulls, and can tough them out in Fed / Rommie hulls.  On the other hand, they might be a tad to difficult for the newbies, whether they're the true newbies we've recently attracted, or a "veteran" with no experience in a race (like the aforementioned ISC pilot who's had a tough time learning Klingon due to colorblindness vs. interface issues)...
The fixes for this are obvious, though a bit of a challenge.  We could drop them altogether, which also kills our AI-free PvPs.  We could "tone them down" from Anti-CCZ to Anti-CC (ie, Fed CC+R / Klink D7L) levels (which requires a recompilation from a retired scripter), or find a way to allow the "easier" TG / ED missions to show up in every hex.

2.  OOB / VCs.  Both of these tie together, as putting a VC price on a ship is practically as limiting as an actual rule like an OOB.  Both of them make the loss of a certain ship painful, whether it's a loss of the rights to the ship or helping the enemy score points.  Personally, and from a "watcher's" standpoint, the best servers have been the ones where the OOB / VCs covered the same thing that SFB restricts, ie, the carriers / DNs / specialty ships.  Keeping the OOB ruleset at that level would cut down on the ships being escorted, therefore freeing up more solo pilots and one-on-one opportunities.

3.  Disengagement.  This may be rendered a moot point with Bonk's recent work, as the new multi-DV shift for losing a battle might make killing / driving off a half-dozen or so of the "evil frigate-droners" that led to the disengagement rule the fastest way to flip a hex.  Otherwise, the only fix I can think of is writing a server with enough VC locations so that a driven off pilot is "immediatly useful" at another locale.

Of course, another thing that's hurt our 1 vs 1 PvPs is the lack of pilots.  When there's only a dozen pilots per side, and half of them (3-6) are in fancy-ships and the other half are escorting those fancy ships, that does cut out the 1 on 1's... :roll:

Agree totally Julin.  But I think the lack of players is largely due to the over legislation.  Dumping the Karnak missions is likely the best first step as they force increased winging and dependence on big ships.  The light cruisers and frigates are suppossed to be the workhorses of the fleet, et with Karnak missions we rarely get a good opportunity to fly them unless they are droners or we have a wing.


K'HEXX
Alliances are formed in bedrooms as well as on paper