Topic: Evil Dave mission feedback thread

[762_XC]

Overall the mission pack was very good! Stability was excellent and the missions themselves were enjoyable for the most part.

The difficulty level was very high. I suspect this must have intimidated more than a few n00bs. Most of the newer players were not happy with the idea of taking solo missions. The 1v1 and 2v2 basic patrols should comprise about 2/3 of the missions drawn imho. The difficulty on the fleet actions can be left where it is as long as the basic patrols show up more often.

I DID like the fact that everything shows up as "patrol" so you can't cherry pick. I like that a lot.

Priority should be given to ensuring that all patrol missions strip for PvP and all missions draft 3v3. MetED10PatrolEnemy will only draft one wingman. Not sure if there are others.

Did notice a few cases of timewarping, but the frequency was bearable.

There is one mission (sorry don't have the name) where you will defeat one group of enemies and then have a lone enemy ship fighting a pirate just out of sensor range. This is too much like the runner mission imho as you spend two minutes just trying to reach your next target. Kind of annoying.

The Doomsday Machine is absolutely ridiculous and should never be seen again. I assume that can be handled via shiplist.

Planet assaults could be made a little harder but not to the scale of the old 45-60 minute Evil Dave one. Maybe just add a base station (not a BATS).

Base assaults were good - I like the extra AI generated. Bases should be hard.

Thanks again Dave for putting together an enjoyable pack 

[NuclearWessels]

Thank ya sir - glad to get the feedback.

I'm pasting some of Chuut's thoughts here as well, just so we've got this all in one place.

My major criticism would be that there were too many missions vs ai with multiple ships, this wasn't kind to non-aces and wasn't so fun for vets either.

Additionally I think that having all the patrols have the same mission names was good, but Planetary and base assaults should have their own names as the target of the mission would be known and they aren't really patrols.

Also, I think having the Orion base in some patrols was kinda unneeded.

Also freighter ai help on the patrols where you get control of an ai ship is kinda silly.

...
The planetary assault missions were good too, making it very difficult for a solo droner to pull them off alone.

[NuclearWessels]

Well, the good news is this server allowed us to identify a lot of time warp, ship placement, and drafting issues across the various missions.

One of the unfortunate side effects was that a lot of the buggy scripts got pulled, leaving things a little on the dry side variety wise.  Apologies for that!  Hopefully with the kinks ironed out we should see a better mix of 3/2/1 AI opposition fleets (pre-stripping)

I believe (we'll see how well this stands up of course) that I've fixed all the time warp and drafting bugs we caught during the server (unfortunately a couple of those fixes were last night, so they aren't on the current Forge pack, sorry Bonk!)

I'll go though the pack over the next few days, addressing things folks bring up here
 - assault missions will be given an appropriate name to distinguish them from the patrols
 - the monsters are getting pulled from the patrol missions (but a new monster mission is added, see below)
 - the pirate base should appear MUCH less frequently in missions
 - I'll fix the ship placement issues folks bring up, though I'll probably miss a couple just because of the number of maps to check

Right now there is a core of 4 friendly-space and 4 enemy-space patrols that do 3v3 drafting + AI stripping, plus the collection of assault/defense missions and a handful of specialty items.

Just to run down what we've got, here's a core set of missions that [should] now handle 3 v 3 drafting.

(The default sides shown below are the sides before any drafting of humans and AI stripping takes place).

3v3 Drafting, AI stripping in effect

Friendly space:
 ED17Patrol - defaults to 1 v 1
 ED10PiratesInTheMiddle - defaults to 2 v 2 plus pirate
 ED5PlayerFleet - defaults to 3 v 2
 ED10Patrol - defaults to 3 v 2 plus pirate

Enemy space:
 ED17PatrolEnemy - defaults to 1 v 1
 ED6Patrol - defaults to 2 v 2
 ED5FleetAction - defaults to 3 v 3
 ED10PatrolEnemy - defaults to 3 v 3 plus pirate

3v3 Drafting, NO AI stripping

Assault Missions
 The 3 standard base assaults: NW7BaseStationAssault, NW7BattleStationAssault, NW7StarbaseAssault
 The standard planet assaults:  NW9PlanetaryAssault, NW18HomeworldAssault
 The SG planet assault versions, with orbiting installations: DizzyAssault, DizzyHvyAssault
 A time-limited, damage-only planet assault:  NW9TimedAssault
 The standard shipyard and asteroid base assaults: NW8ShipAssault, NW26AsteroidAssault

Defense Missions
 NWBasePlacement: a draft-friendly version of starbase construction
 NW16ShipDefense: the usual shipyard defense
 NW16PlanetDefense: a 3v3 planet defense with orbiting shipyards, the defender can take spares off the FRDs
 NW27AsteroidDefense:the usual asteroid base defense mission

Patrol Missions
 NW2HoldingAction: the usual holding action/data gathering mission
 NW7CourierIntercept: the one where the attacker is out to kill/cap the courier ship

New Missions

There are also a collection of new missions ready, all of them handle 3-v-3 drafting:

 ED10Monster: unlike the std version, this monster mission does impact the DV of a hex and allows 3v3 drafting.  It parallels the SFB scenario in that you can close to point blank range, scan the monster, and you might learn an alternative technique to kill the beastie or establish communication with it.  This mission strips AI ships but not the monster.

 NW7Scout: more of a survey mission, this has you scanning a collection of enemy asteroids/moons + handling the enemy

 NW7ConvoyRaid: like the traditional convoy raid, but handles 3v3 drafting

 ED10Colonization: this one has a neutral planet, hostile to both sides, who are racing to capture/hold it.  This mission strips AI ships but not the colony.

 NW7OutpostSweep: here you're charged with wiping out a collection of enemy listening posts along the border, and of course dealing with the enemy defender

 NW7Gauntlet: this one might not be appropriate for a server, or might be restricted to a very narrow set of hex types: in this the map is VERY long and VERY narrow, and you're tasked with clearing a path for a future assault.  This involves flying down the length of the map wiping out scattered enemy defsats and ships.

 ED10FleetAssault: This is a massive engagement, all 6 teams are padded to 5 ships each, plus a group of pirates are thrown in, giving 15 ships versus 15 ships versus the pirates.

[762_XC]

Dave needs karma!

[762_XC]

Question Dave - Do some of the missions draft based on the combined BPV of the players in mission? It seemed small ship drafting large ship would get a heavier draw than 2 small ships.

[NuclearWessels]

Question Dave - Do some of the missions draft based on the combined BPV of the players in mission? It seemed small ship drafting large ship would get a heavier draw than 2 small ships.

That was the case in the SG pack, but I've had to ditch that and go back to more conventional drafting because of the out-of-era problems.  I'd love to have the drafting based on the combined bpv to avoid the little-ship-drafts exploit, but the $#%@ time warp issue makes it impractical so far.

dave

[762_XC]

Good, I like the little ship draft exploit. 

[NuclearWessels]

Good, I like the little ship draft exploit. 

Lol - a pet peeve of mine, but I can cope 

dave

[el-Karnak]

Good, I like the little ship draft exploit. 

Lol - a pet peeve of mine, but I can cope 

dave

Actually, I encourage the little ship draft exploit in EEK missions because the whole intent is for players in big ships to grab a wing. Just like in RL navy where a big ship would not go off into battle without an escort.

Those navies that sent off big ships into a combat zone without an escort, like the Bismark in May, 1941, usually did not make it back home. 

[NuclearWessels]

...
Actually, I encourage the little ship draft exploit in EEK missions because the whole intent is for players in big ships to grab a wing. Just like in RL navy where a big ship would not go off into battle without an escort.

Those navies that sent off big ships into a combat zone without an escort, like the Bismark in May, 1941, usually did not make it back home. 

I like the concept -- ideally I'd like a time-warp-free way of setting it up so that flying with a wing makes life a lot easier but not a cakewalk, and so that it doesn't matter which of you actually pushes the draft button.  Ah well, I'll probably never be totally happy with the beasts 

Now let's get the EEK missions back into the mix!  That'd be the best way to boost mission diversity IMO.

dave

[Hexx]

~ Bismarck had an escort,(Prinz Eugen) thanks for playing..  

The small ship draft is annoying, but really not a big deal, certainly not worth changing missions over.
Really just means if you can jump that ship they're at a disadvantage.

[el-Karnak]

~ Bismarck had an escort,(Prinz Eugen) thanks for playing..  

The small ship draft is annoying, but really not a big deal, certainly not worth changing missions over.
Really just means if you can jump that ship they're at a disadvantage.

When Bismark had an escort they ganged up on HMS Hood and blew it up.

Then, they split up and the RN ganged up on Bismark and sank it.  What the Bismark really needed was a completed Graf Zeppelin w/ BF109s to fly air CAP.

[KBFLordKrueg]

Nice Dave...
It would be GREAT if we could get those missions on the Forge for testing.
I'd even do another download...

[NuclearWessels]

Nice Dave...
It would be GREAT if we could get those missions on the Forge for testing.
I'd even do another download...

Slightly older versions of the  new Scout, Gauntlet, Outpost Sweep, and Convoy Raid missions are included in the latest Forge download pack (just had a peek in it), so at least some of them are covered.  I think Bonk heads/headed out today, so not sure how Forge updates will be handled?

dave

[NuclearWessels]

Oh yeah - would anyone be heartbroken if I turned off the AI cloaking for Romulans?  Or at least made it less common...

dave

[FPF-DieHard]

Oh yeah - would anyone be heartbroken if I turned off the AI cloaking for Romulans?  Or at least made it less common...

dave

Oh PLEAAAASSSEEEE do!!!

[KBF-Crim]

Oh yeah - would anyone be heartbroken if I turned off the AI cloaking for Romulans?  Or at least made it less common...

dave

Two edged sword.....for wingmen...they suck cloaked.....as AI in enemy missions when they are on the attack.....well....aggravating the enemy is a good thing ...right?

[Hexx]

I think ideally they
should not cloak when used as an AI ally against AI
should cloak (sometimes) when used as an AI ally against humans (though maybe not...)
cloak when used as an enemy AI. (especially if opposed to Lyran)

[KBFLordKrueg]

Nice Dave...
It would be GREAT if we could get those missions on the Forge for testing.
I'd even do another download...

Slightly older versions of the  new Scout, Gauntlet, Outpost Sweep, and Convoy Raid missions are included in the latest Forge download pack (just had a peek in it), so at least some of them are covered.  I think Bonk heads/headed out today, so not sure how Forge updates will be handled?

dave

He said he was dumping it in your lap...
He just used more words...

[NuclearWessels]

He said he was dumping it in your lap...
He just used more words...

<visualize evil dave running screaming for the hills>

[Dfly]

I do have some reports witht he ED17Patrol_Enemy mission.  I had multiple times noted that particular mission for not drafting your 2 wingmen.  It often drafted only 1 guy along, not the 2 that were there.  The ED10Patrol_enemy also did the same often enough.

PS: I never flew a mission with that planet eater monster the whole server, but did do Alien Encounter dozens of times. and I was in a lot of missions.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I personally like the variety od ai help in some of the patrols, it helps out a guy who gets jumped by multiple foes or bigger ships and makes for more interesting fights.  That being said, I think it is a hinderance to redrafting missions when players drop.  Perhpas we could have one mission specially marked PvP which is offered in friendly space and will strip ai.  Then when a redraft is necessary, a defending player can pop off on on a hex until they get that mission to ensure a viable redraft.

[762_XC]

Why just one mission? Every mission needs to strip for PvP and draft 3v3.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Why just one mission? Every mission needs to strip for PvP and draft 3v3.

Draft for 3v3 agreed, strip ai I don't agree.  I like ai in the mix on occassion and am in favor of some stripping and some non-stripping missions.  I just think for redrafting purposes one mission should be easily identified as a stripping mission.

[762_XC]

Could not disagree more strongly. PvP should be based on skill, not luck.

[Hexx]

Could not disagree more strongly. PvP should be based on skill, not luck.

Unfortunately the skill it's currently based on is who's the best at assembling 3 ship killer fleets

I'd agree with Chuut- the AI adds some unpredictability(good thing) but missions should be able to be identified for
the all important redrafts.

[762_XC]

What happens when you have a classic 1v1 matchup, say Z-CC vs K-D7C, and one side gets two heavies and the other gets a freighter?

No frakking way. AI in PvP missions is pure crap.

P.S. That's still skill Hexx.

[Hexx]

P.S. That's still skill Hexx.

I'm assuming you're joking as it would actually be complimentary fleet lists,
at least I hope you don't regard the ability to match plasma PF tenders with DNs and an escort as some kind of
vaunted skill set...

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Unfortunately the skill it's currently based on is who's the best at assembling 3 ship killer fleets

Or the biggest baddest ship in the case of 1 v 1

Nice to see the loner who gets jumped by 2-3 live pilots get a chance at a more even fight with ai included, it might not be much sometimes. but better than nothing.

[762_XC]

Why is that nice?

Part of the strategy of the game is in asset allocation. If you homogenize all ships with uneven AI draws you remove or reduce a stategy element in the game.

What's even worse is an even matchup which is made uneven by a frakked up draw, and a player who should be fighting it out has to disengage because he got the short straw. 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Why is that nice?

Part of the strategy of the game is in asset allocation. If you homogenize all ships with uneven AI draws you remove or reduce a stategy element in the game.

What's even worse is an even matchup which is made uneven by a frakked up draw, and a player who should be fighting it out has to disengage because he got the short straw. 

Yes PART of the strategy, it shouldn't be the overwhelming part in my view.  That why I'm for a mix of stripping and not stripping.  Say 50/50.  Then you get roughly 50% no ai, 16 2/3s% where ai is equal for both sides (in a 1 v 1) 16 2/3% ai favors attacker and 16 2/3% ai favors defender.  So in an equal match you get roughly a 67 2/3% chance of a basically equal fight in a 1 v 1.  The 33 1/3% chance of an totally unbalanced fight is more than offset IMHO by the chance at a better fight if gangbanged by a foe or jumped by an unequal ship class.  Not everyone likes to fly big ships and not everyone likes to fly in groups.  Chances are the bigger ships and groups will still prevail but it makes for better combats and greater fun, despite the bitching about ai.  Also there can be a certain amount of skill in using your ai to its best advantage, not always so but I've found it to be frequently the case. 

I would like to see the ai marine count bolstered a bit however, as captures shouldn't be so easy when ai is used in PvP.  I'd also like to see the ai always start behind the player so that it wouldn't run out and get killed before the player has a chance to arm his ship and defend it.  If the ai started far enough behind a player can tractor it and make it wait before charging ahead into certain early death,

For example: Your match with Warsears and Duck was much more challenging due to ai involvement, you still won but it made for a much better fight.

[Dizzy]

Oh yeah - would anyone be heartbroken if I turned off the AI cloaking for Romulans?  Or at least made it less common...

dave

There was great consideration taken on where the romulan empire was going to be placed on the sg6 map because the AI always cloaks. If you could setup a third of your missions where they dont, or have every second ship in the misssion not cloak... somthing like that, that'd be good.

[TraumaTech]

Why is that nice?

Part of the strategy of the game is in asset allocation. If you homogenize all ships with uneven AI draws you remove or reduce a stategy element in the game.

What's even worse is an even matchup which is made uneven by a frakked up draw, and a player who should be fighting it out has to disengage because he got the short straw. 

Yes PART of the strategy, it shouldn't be the overwhelming part in my view.  That why I'm for a mix of stripping and not stripping.  Say 50/50.  Then you get roughly 50% no ai, 16 2/3s% where ai is equal for both sides (in a 1 v 1) 16 2/3% ai favors attacker and 16 2/3% ai favors defender.  So in an equal match you get roughly a 67 2/3% chance of a basically equal fight in a 1 v 1.  The 33 1/3% chance of an totally unbalanced fight is more than offset IMHO by the chance at a better fight if gangbanged by a foe or jumped by an unequal ship class.  Not everyone likes to fly big ships and not everyone likes to fly in groups.  Chances are the bigger ships and groups will still prevail but it makes for better combats and greater fun, despite the bitching about ai.  Also there can be a certain amount of skill in using your ai to its best advantage, not always so but I've found it to be frequently the case. 


For example: Your match with Warsears and Duck was much more challenging due to ai involvement, you still won but it made for a much better fight.

i am sorry but i disagree whole heartedly......if the ai's are to be involved in a pvp match.....they should be "even "in every respect and not balanced unevenly.where is the fun in that??The challange is to beat a live player,not be frustrated becasue u have to run,becasue your opponent has a slightly better ship and an ai helper too. Now if it is a hex flipping mission,then sure,as the ai's are easy to beat up ,so u need(shipwise ) to unbalance it to make it interesting.u also stated"despite the bitching about ai. " what more proof do you need than basically most of the community saying "NO". I PREFER THE PVP MATCHES BECAUSE I WANT TO FIGHT THE PLAYER...NOT THE AI.I also can't count the number of times either a set up 3v3 or just plain getting jumped by the other side in which one of my wings wasn't drafted,which usually meant we say "we lost a wing",then we'd have to leave the map giving both points and a dv shift to the other side because the mission wanted to give u an ai helper(usually a stupid one) and leave your other wing on the sideline(now that's frustration).i think it is safe to say re: PVP players   we r there to fight real players,not the ai's,they have no place in a pvp match except maybe when it involves a 2v1 or 3v2,then you get a chance to show your skill with an ai as a helper ......just my 2 cents worth

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I have no problem with equal ai given to each side, just not sure if that is programable.  Of course if one side has players that fill a slot that would be taken by an ai they would get one less ai.  In no circumstance should an ai ally bump a live wing.

[FPF-DieHard]

What t00l said, the "AI Lottery" has ruined more potential great fights than I can remember.

All PATROLS should strip AI.   Other misisons, assaults for example, should leave them in.

[Riskyllama]

I'd like to see patrols that are different and random like now, but say maybe one or two misions in the list entitled Fleet engagement that are guarenteed to strip all AI for pvp or throw you at a big fleet(in order to prevent people from taking it over patrols when not necessary).

[el-Karnak]

I think ideally they
should not cloak when used as an AI ally against AI

I think this is right.

should cloak (sometimes) when used as an AI ally against humans (though maybe not...)

I would keep all allied ROM AI as un-cloak in both PvAI and PvP missions.

cloak when used as an enemy AI. (especially if opposed to Lyran)

 

Well, there's 2 school of thoughts here. In PvAI missions, ROM enemy AI that cloaks is a real pain except for Lyrans. But, I'm pretty sure that we can detect if the drafter is a Lyran so that can be fixed so that enemy ROM AI is uncloaked. This creates a racial flavor that drives strategy similar to sides planning how they can avoid ISC AI.

Or, just make all the ROM AI un-cloaked under all circumstances.  Cloaking device may be best utilized as a PvP tool anyway.

[Lieutenant_Q]

I don't mind it when ROM AIs cloak.  But I HATE it when static installations cloak.  SBs, FRDs, BSs...should not be able to cloak.  If you think about the cloaking device it's trying to emulate here.  Its the one that was shown in Balance of Terror, which is why we can still "track" the Romulans.  Cloaking a stationary facility makes absolutely no sense.  The defense officer of an attacking ship would likely be saying, "huh, I wonder where it went?" before hitting it yet again.  A Cloak should provide no defense for a Static Facility.

[NuclearWessels]

Well, frankly guys, I'm going to take the cop-out approach on the AI stripping:  I'll have some missions that stip 'em, some missions that don't, land let the admin of each server decide what kind of a mix they want.   My inclination is to leave the 8 listed patrols as the AI strippers, since the bulk of the others are assault/defense missions where the key target is a major ai element anyway.

I can add an asterisk or something to the mission names for those that strip AI, so folks can identify an appropriate one for redrafts.

dave

[el-Karnak]

Well, frankly guys, I'm going to take the cop-out approach on the AI stripping:  I'll have some missions that stip 'em, some missions that don't, land let the admin of each server decide what kind of a mix they want.   My inclination is to leave the 8 listed patrols as the AI strippers, since the bulk of the others are assault/defense missions where the key target is a major ai element anyway.

I can add an asterisk or something to the mission names for those that strip AI, so folks can identify an appropriate one for redrafts.

dave

Yeah, that's what I do. No server admin. takes the whole mission pack to start with.

They just cherry-pick what they want.  

[Dizzy]

I don't mind it when ROM AIs cloak.  But I HATE it when static installations cloak.  SBs, FRDs, BSs...should not be able to cloak.  If you think about the cloaking device it's trying to emulate here.  Its the one that was shown in Balance of Terror, which is why we can still "track" the Romulans.  Cloaking a stationary facility makes absolutely no sense.  The defense officer of an attacking ship would likely be saying, "huh, I wonder where it went?" before hitting it yet again.  A Cloak should provide no defense for a Static Facility.

Sgo6 installations cant cloak. You cant kill romulan bases that cloak thats why on sg list they dont.

[NuclearWessels]

There is one mission (sorry don't have the name) where you will defeat one group of enemies and then have a lone enemy ship fighting a pirate just out of sensor range. This is too much like the runner mission imho as you spend two minutes just trying to reach your next target. Kind of annoying.

OK, finally found where this was hiding - the straggler group has been brought back within reasonable range of the rest of the scrap.

The Doomsday Machine is absolutely ridiculous and should never be seen again. I assume that can be handled via shiplist.

It has been eliminated scriptside now (except for Tracey's AlienEncounter mission, but I haven't got the source for that), so should no longer be a problem even if it is in the shiplist.

dave

[KBFLordKrueg]

I can add an asterisk or something to the mission names for those that strip AI, so folks can identify an appropriate one for redrafts.

dave

That would be an acceptable compromise to not having AI stripping on every mission.  

[762_XC]

There is one mission (sorry don't have the name) where you will defeat one group of enemies and then have a lone enemy ship fighting a pirate just out of sensor range. This is too much like the runner mission imho as you spend two minutes just trying to reach your next target. Kind of annoying.

OK, finally found where this was hiding - the straggler group has been brought back within reasonable range of the rest of the scrap.

The Doomsday Machine is absolutely ridiculous and should never be seen again. I assume that can be handled via shiplist.

It has been eliminated scriptside now (except for Tracey's AlienEncounter mission, but I haven't got the source for that), so should no longer be a problem even if it is in the shiplist.

dave

Woohoo! Thanks Dave.

[NuclearWessels]

...
I would like to see the ai marine count bolstered a bit however, as captures shouldn't be so easy when ai is used in PvP.

I'll leave that one for the admin to bolster in the shiplist -- resetting ship stores is a bit more kludgy, though it can certainly be done.

I'd also like to see the ai always start behind the player so that it wouldn't run out and get killed before the player has a chance to arm his ship and defend it.  If the ai started far enough behind a player can tractor it and make it wait before charging ahead into certain early death,
...

Actually I'd intended to go through the maps and set it up so the majority start out this way -- this is probably as good a time as any to do it.  <takes deep breath and looks at the map list >

dave

[Dizzy]

There is one mission (sorry don't have the name) where you will defeat one group of enemies and then have a lone enemy ship fighting a pirate just out of sensor range. This is too much like the runner mission imho as you spend two minutes just trying to reach your next target. Kind of annoying.

OK, finally found where this was hiding - the straggler group has been brought back within reasonable range of the rest of the scrap.

The Doomsday Machine is absolutely ridiculous and should never be seen again. I assume that can be handled via shiplist.

It has been eliminated scriptside now (except for Tracey's AlienEncounter mission, but I haven't got the source for that), so should no longer be a problem even if it is in the shiplist.

dave

Whoah, the doomsday machine is in a mission that spawns monsters or pirate bases or pirate ships or an enemy freighter convoy. I LOVE THIS  MISSION! The doomsday machine is a monster and will be removed and a few new more balanced monsters added. I dont want to see this mission get ditched, although I'd like to see it have 2x of these AI spawn points one each near each opposing side.

On a seperate note, there are several missions that start each side out in excess of 100k which is too far. And one that starts you as close as 45k. Both are bad. Optimal starting ranges are between 80 and 100k for the lead player starts and any other spawn points behind those.

Map size... Small maps go the way of the Dodo bird. Medium maps are ok, but increase the legth or width by 50% for a rectangular map instead of square. Do this with the larger maps as well. Varied terrain is nice. Dust clouds are cool. Have you played TG missions? Some of her maps are very cool. I dont know how much you plan to get into map making, but I'd also like to see some asteroids in nebulas... that'd be neat. Most tof the default ED maps are fine, just the sizes need be adjusted. As a side note, Karnak invented a unique random terrain feature, but strangely, suns sometimes DO NOT show for one of the opposing sides. I do not know why. This has been confirmed on many occasions. So beware of random terrain generation!

Hrmmm... I'll really need to get into this another time... how much time do i have to come up with a list of suggestions for you b4 u get into editing mode?

[NuclearWessels]

Whoah, the doomsday machine is in a mission that spawns monsters or pirate bases or pirate ships or an enemy freighter convoy. I LOVE THIS  MISSION! The doomsday machine is a monster and will be removed and a few new more balanced monsters added. I dont want to see this mission get ditched, although I'd like to see it have 2x of these AI spawn points one each near each opposing side.

The mission itself hasn't been ditched, but what gets randomly generated has changed somewhat -- more emphasis on pirate ships/convoys and less emphasis on monsters/bases.

On a seperate note, there are several missions that start each side out in excess of 100k which is too far. And one that starts you as close as 45k. Both are bad. Optimal starting ranges are between 80 and 100k for the lead player starts and any other spawn points behind those.

Yeah, I'm going through this, but the map editing is a major pain in the hindquarters.  Picture 10-20 maps per mission, for each of a couple of dozen missions, trying to remember which letters of the alphabet correspond to which ship start points, where the maps look like this:

   "// Met_10Patrol Map -- Asteroids",
   " +____1____2____3____4____5____6+",
   " |..............................|",
   " |........<.................,...|",
   " |..............................|",
   " |.................]............|",
   "1|..[.....*..............[......|",
   " |.................h.i..........|",
   " |.......*...[.....g.......*....|",
   " |....<....>....................|",
   " |.....>.......<.....[..........|",
   "2|...[......*...................|",
   " |......[.....X..Y..............|",
   " |.....[...>....W.......[....[..|",
   " |.........<..[.*...............|",
   " |................<..*...<......|",
   "3|.......[..Z.>.]......]....]...|",
   " |...*.........[...*>.z.........|",
   " |..........>.[.[...*...........|",
   " |.....]...<....].[..*.]........|",
   " |..]....]........[..>....<.....|",
   "4|..........G[..............]...|",
   " |.............I......].........|",
   " |.........]....................|",
   " |......*...H.........[...<.....|",
   " |...........................]..|",
   "5|..................>....*......|",
   " |..........x w.....[...........|",
   " |......<....y..................|",
   " |..................>...........|",
   " |........................*.....|",
   "6|..............................|",
   " +------------------------------+",
   "      1    2    3    4    5    6",
 

Map size... Small maps go the way of the Dodo bird. Medium maps are ok, but increase the legth or width by 50% for a rectangular map instead of square. Do this with the larger maps as well. Varied terrain is nice. Dust clouds are cool. Have you played TG missions? Some of her maps are very cool. I dont know how much you plan to get into map making, but I'd also like to see some asteroids in nebulas... that'd be neat. Most tof the default ED maps are fine, just the sizes need be adjusted. As a side note, Karnak invented a unique random terrain feature, but strangely, suns sometimes DO NOT show for one of the opposing sides. I do not know why. This has been confirmed on many occasions. So beware of random terrain generation!

Hrmmm... I'll really need to get into this another time... how much time do i have to come up with a list of suggestions for you b4 u get into editing mode?

Well, as I said, map editing is a major pain.  (Especially since if you screw up a character someplace you don't get any kind of error message, the mission just never gets offered, so testing is a pain as well.)

The semester kicks off in earnest Thursday, so tomorrow will likely be my last big day of editing for awhile.  I'll slowly work my way through them for size fixes after that, but it'll be mostly when the mood is right

dave

[KBFLordKrueg]

Is there a way to rotate maps more often?
I've in case where you're pounding out mission in one hex, the map, and usually the entire mission seem to be the same.
Over and over and over and over......
Any way to get more mission and/or map variety more often?

[NuclearWessels]

Is there a way to rotate maps more often?
I've in case where you're pounding out mission in one hex, the map, and usually the entire mission seem to be the same.
Over and over and over and over......
Any way to get more mission and/or map variety more often?

No and yes -- a script will always pick the same map in the same hex, since the map choice is based on what kind of hex the server says it is. 

The only way to add variety within a single hex is to generate some/all of the terrain on a map pseudo-randomly, but you have to be very careful doing this to avoid having ghost terrain in multi-player situations.    (The built-in pseudo-random number generator in the API can generate different values for the drafter than the draftees, so their maps visually look different, but the drafter's random terrain is treated as the "real" terrain for everyone, leading to the ghost terrain problems.)

It can be done, just a matter of putting together a pseudo-random generator of our own (based on things like the bpvs and metaids of all the drafted ships).  In fact I do that for a couple of custom scripts Hexx requested where black holes and other terrain randomly spawn during the course of the mission.  I should get around to applying it on a larger scale, but want to be sure it's fairly bug free before then.

EDIT: the alternative is to ensure more missions get offered in each hex, and that the maps for different missions are very different, so at least you're rotating between them.  But even there, the art of controlling/predicting which missions actually get offered when isn't very well understood.


dave

[_Rondo_GE The OutLaw]

Overall missions were good except for AlienEncounter, not sure what substance was being abused when that little number was written up.

I'm not sure what the Doomsday machine actually did here.  I thin in SFC1 it actually killed you if you got too close.  But it was a thrill to see it again.  The AI's mostly ignored it.

I'm all for stripping out AI's in PVP.  Don't need the Keystone Cops cavorting around space when a serious battle is about to happen.  It's too bad the "mulitiple tractor" bug from SFC1 still isnt in effect.  Might be fun to tractor a few ships and roll around like a tumbleweed.

And THAT too would get old...

I think we need a Frylock monster...y'know...a giant floating cup of fries with twin andro beams coming from its eyes...

errrr

[FPF-DieHard]

Big maps are good, they make the Post-2280 "Cheese and Chase" fights last longer 

Too bad we can't change the map size to match the Era . . . or can we? 

[NuclearWessels]

Big maps are good, they make the Post-2280 "Cheese and Chase" fights last longer 

Too bad we can't change the map size to match the Era . . . or can we? 

Theoretically it could be done:
  - have each mission use different size maps for different terrain subtypes, e.g. maps for asteroid1 are smaller than for asteroid2, which are in turn smaller than asteroid3, etc
  - start out using the small terrain subtypes on the dyna map, then use DB edits during a cleaning to switch to the next subtype up

I've already tested and confirmed that an individual mission script can store maps of multiple sizes, so this should work, it just means editing all the maps appropriately (dave runs away screaming again)

Actually, Met_ED17PatrolEnemy does this (well, in the opposite direction) already.  As the subtypes go up the map sizes go down - so for asteroid/blackhole/nebula hexes of subtype 6 the maps are actually tiny, whereas at subtype 1 they're normal sized.


dave

[NuclearWessels]

Heh, I've found my cop out!

All you need to create mission maps is a text editor or browser and a quick rundown on the formatting rules, so I've posted a thread to request folks take a stab at creating the maps they'd like to see!

Dunno if anyone will take me up on it, but all attempts are HUGELY appreciated!

thanks!
dave

[Dizzy]

Karnak, post our SGODev maps. Your maps rock. I wanna see em.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I can add an asterisk or something to the mission names for those that strip AI, so folks can identify an appropriate one for redrafts.

dave

That would be an acceptable compromise to not having AI stripping on every mission.  

A good compromise.  the gangbang crew could get their choice of offered missions as could redrafters and those seeking 1 v 1 with no ai, but they aren't guarenteed an easy gangbang.  If a redraft or challenge is the case both sides can wait until the appropriate mission is offered.

[762_XC]

Who exactly is the "gangbang crew"?

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Who exactly is the "gangbang crew"?

Just about everyone myself included.  Not a criticism against any individuals, just pointing out an aspect of the current style of play.  Players will use what is effective for the most part and there is nothing wrong with that, but if you want to make the enjoyable for other styles of play, you have to facilitate it by making it effective. 

I was never a big fan of the disengagement rule, but I've come to realize that it is essential to have it in some form on most servers to facilitate a style of play of many in the community, but by the same token we must try and work around certain aspects that take other styles of play away.

Under the current style there is still an advantage to hex-flipping, even with a radius, but there isn't as much advantage for a pilot who is seeking out 1 v 1 PvP, I've been racking my brain to come up with ideas to this dilema. 

[762_XC]

No wingmen allowed in the Mosh Pit.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

No wingmen allowed in the Mosh Pit.

Disagree I think an area with smaller ships only is where I'd be most tempted to fly with a wing for 2 reasons:

#1 any base assaults would definately need more than 1 pilot

#2 If my wing is in a small ship I have a better chance of killing him with T-bombs 

[el-Karnak]

Who exactly is the "gangbang crew"?

Just about everyone myself included.  Not a criticism against any individuals, just pointing out an aspect of the current style of play.  Players will use what is effective for the most part and there is nothing wrong with that, but if you want to make the enjoyable for other styles of play, you have to facilitate it by making it effective. 

I was never a big fan of the disengagement rule, but I've come to realize that it is essential to have it in some form on most servers to facilitate a style of play of many in the community, but by the same token we must try and work around certain aspects that take other styles of play away.

Under the current style there is still an advantage to hex-flipping, even with a radius, but there isn't as much advantage for a pilot who is seeking out 1 v 1 PvP, I've been racking my brain to come up with ideas to this dilema. 

We can have a couple missions that only draft one on one and denote them with special symbol in the mission name. 

[Hexx]

Who exactly is the "gangbang crew"?

Just about everyone myself included.  Not a criticism against any individuals, just pointing out an aspect of the current style of play.  Players will use what is effective for the most part and there is nothing wrong with that, but if you want to make the enjoyable for other styles of play, you have to facilitate it by making it effective. 

I was never a big fan of the disengagement rule, but I've come to realize that it is essential to have it in some form on most servers to facilitate a style of play of many in the community, but by the same token we must try and work around certain aspects that take other styles of play away.

Under the current style there is still an advantage to hex-flipping, even with a radius, but there isn't as much advantage for a pilot who is seeking out 1 v 1 PvP, I've been racking my brain to come up with ideas to this dilema. 

We can have a couple missions that only draft one on one and denote them with special symbol in the mission name. 

Won't work --> You could have a group of 3 defending a hex, have a solo pilot jump in to pull one of the defending group then have a group of three jump the group that now has two people.

Simply set up an area of the map where you can't have wings seemes easiest.
(make it 15 hex asteroid field that is worth vp to whomever controls the most of it)
Which would allow you to avoid planet assaults as well.

[el-Karnak]

Who exactly is the "gangbang crew"?

Just about everyone myself included.  Not a criticism against any individuals, just pointing out an aspect of the current style of play.  Players will use what is effective for the most part and there is nothing wrong with that, but if you want to make the enjoyable for other styles of play, you have to facilitate it by making it effective. 

I was never a big fan of the disengagement rule, but I've come to realize that it is essential to have it in some form on most servers to facilitate a style of play of many in the community, but by the same token we must try and work around certain aspects that take other styles of play away.

Under the current style there is still an advantage to hex-flipping, even with a radius, but there isn't as much advantage for a pilot who is seeking out 1 v 1 PvP, I've been racking my brain to come up with ideas to this dilema. 

We can have a couple missions that only draft one on one and denote them with special symbol in the mission name. 

Won't work --> You could have a group of 3 defending a hex, have a solo pilot jump in to pull one of the defending group then have a group of three jump the group that now has two people.

Simply set up an area of the map where you can't have wings seemes easiest.
(make it 15 hex asteroid field that is worth vp to whomever controls the most of it)
Which would allow you to avoid planet assaults as well.

We could have the 1v1 only mission set to trigger on only one specific terrain type. Then the dyna map designer can pick and choose which hexes are suitable for such missions. You can have the mission set to highest priority to make sure it comes up the most in the specified hexes.

[NuclearWessels]

I've got a collection of strictly 1v1 missions that show the public mission name "Investigation" and a collection of strictly 2v2 that show a public mission name of "Escort".  They could easily be made terrain specific, though if we wanted to keep the rest of the pack from also getting offered in those regions they'd need to be retooled a bit as well.

From the point of view of keeping the mission packs reasonably generic a server rule seems the easier approach, but I'm known for laziness

dave

[NuclearWessels]

El demento idea here (been up most of the night with crying baby syndrome, so I might not make much sense today)

What if one of the 3v3 missions used a map that effectively turned it into 3 seperate 1v1 battles?  Player A from team 1 faces player A from team 2, then a big distance away from them B is pitted against B, and a big distance further along C is pitted against C.

The theory being that the attackers split up along three different paths, and the defenders couldn't let one of them slip through unopposed while they focused on the others, so the defenders split up as well.

It's not something I'd want to see frequently, but could be interesting

dave

[NuclearWessels]

...
Under the current style there is still an advantage to hex-flipping, even with a radius, but there isn't as much advantage for a pilot who is seeking out 1 v 1 PvP, I've been racking my brain to come up with ideas to this dilema. 

I like the idea of a region of exploratory space "where no man has gone before" containing VCs or other goodies and a no-wings rule based on the idea that the various empires can't afford to divert entire fleets into the area while there's a war going on.

It might be a shrinking zone as the war progresses and more and more of the territory gets explored.

Hell, maybe even say no wings in any neutral hex until it's DV has been dropped below X, on the basis that we're not sending a valuable fleet into a region until it has been adequately explored.

dave

[Hexx]

El demento idea here (been up most of the night with crying baby syndrome, so I might not make much sense today)

What if one of the 3v3 missions used a map that effectively turned it into 3 seperate 1v1 battles?  Player A from team 1 faces player A from team 2, then a big distance away from them B is pitted against B, and a big distance further along C is pitted against C.

The theory being that the attackers split up along three different paths, and the defenders couldn't let one of them slip through unopposed while they focused on the others, so the defenders split up as well.

It's not something I'd want to see frequently, but could be interesting

dave

I was actually thinking about this... weird (and I don't have crying baby syndrome either..)
Only thing I was thinking of was- can you keep the ships "balanced"
ie so teh DNH/CB/PFT end up fighting their opposite?
If it can't- all I think is really going to happen is a longer fight as the fleets try and reassemble themselves.

[NuclearWessels]

I was actually thinking about this... weird (and I don't have crying baby syndrome either..)
Only thing I was thinking of was- can you keep the ships "balanced"
ie so teh DNH/CB/PFT end up fighting their opposite?
If it can't- all I think is really going to happen is a longer fight as the fleets try and reassemble themselves.

That's the problem I forsee too - I don't think I can determine the individual's player's strength until they've been created/placed, but I'll look into it.

dave

[762_XC]

If it can't- all I think is really going to happen is a longer fight as the fleets try and reassemble themselves.

That will happen anyway.

[FPF-DieHard]

Spreading out VCs is the only way to get 1v1s again without retarded "atrifical" ways of doing so. 

[NuclearWessels]

Spreading out VCs is the only way to get 1v1s again without retarded "atrifical" ways of doing so. 

  Means fewer rules and less work for everyone but the admin, how much better can it get 

dave

[NuclearWessels]

OK, I think all the various changes/corrections/tweaks that people have requested over the past couple of weeks have been applied now.  In particular I've tried to go through the drafting and the maps fairly carefully, hopefully everything has been caught.

The updated pack is in the usual location: http://www3.telus.net/NuclearWessels/sfc/downloads/NWPack.exe

Next time someone feels like running a test server ... hint hint...

dave