Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 22, 2008, 09:03:33 am

Login with username, password and session length
Have you ordered your copy of Dynaverse.Net Updated OP Strategy Guide? Order here : LULU.COM
690558 Posts in 49470 Topics by 2951 Members
Latest Member: mothra
* Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
Dynaverse.net  |  Taldrenites  |  Dynaverse II Experiences  |  Topic: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign? 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3  All Print
Author Topic: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?  (Read 1384 times)
FPF-DieHard
MILF hunter
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7401



Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« on: June 30, 2008, 08:04:14 am »

Through our hours of BSing on AOTK4, we came up with an idea of a pseudo-turn based ISC conquest campaign that might actually work.   This could be run on a Dyna that wouldn’t be 24/7, it would be up for a few hours a night and would primarily be a PvP server.

A “real” ISC conquest campaign could never work in the traditional D2 model because of hex-flipping and player numbers.   It would simply be retarded to try.  The ISC’s strong point is PvP, they are MONSTERS in that regard, especially in a fleet battle.  A turn-based game could work but is too slow to run and would never get off the ground.

So how do you get around this?  One simple, yet off the wall, rule.  Nobody is ALLOWED TO ATTACK ISC HEXES.  You can raise your DVs, you can defend the space the ISC is attacking, but you cannot counter-attack.  The Victory conditions for the ISC would be simple, conquest of the GW races.    The GW races victory would simply be to stop this from happening.

The idea behind this is to get PvP and lots of it.  Consider this a fun server, not a serious one, but try to win anyway.  In a serious D2 server, even ones like AOTK3/AOTK4 where we’re pretty much fighting over a 10x10 area it’s still often the best strategy to avoid PvP and attack where your opponent isn’t.  We all do this so nobody take offense to it.  The idea behind this is a simple slugfest, the only way to stop the ISC is to attack them where they are.

I’m thinking late era, 2283 start so we all have our cheese and the GW races have a prayer against the ISC.  Probably use a full, yet small OOB so killing something big will really matter. F&E style production model for re-building ships or we can just say F’it and not.  The fleeting rules will need to be adjusted and play-tested so this can get close to fair.

Is this worth pursuing?  Is there enough interest in this style of campaign?  Please post questions and comments as this hasn’t been fleshed out yet.
Logged

What do you call a femal Klingon?  A Klunt!

The shortest path between 2 points is a straight line . . .

FCM-Corbomite-XC
Director of Tactics and Strategy
XenoCorp® Member
Lt. Commander
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1158


"What The Hell Is An Aluminium Falcon?!"


Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2008, 08:49:46 am »

Whats this "we" stuff? I made one comment (as a joke) and you went off like a rocket!

People need to keep in mind that this would mean once a hex was ISC DV=1 that they could not attack it any more and the ISC would have no need to boost it. A system would have to be worked out for multiple missions at once resulting in the ISC flipping the hex, then Galactic Powers flipping it back to Neutral, then to an Empire color, back to Neutral etc.... Who owns it at that point? Perhaps a time frame of ownership like "The ISC must posses the hex for at least one turn" or something.

An on line player cap for the ISC would seem in order for something like this. If a majority of ISC are on the Empires have no hope as the ISC can attack where they aren't with no reprisal. Perhaps incredibly hard AI missions for the ISC only (if possible) could alleviate that issue somewhat.

It would seem that there would be no need to have VC's given to the ISC for PvP kills and disengagements, only for territory gained, but definitely PvP VC's for Empire kills and disengagements on the ISC. That way they can fight the bullies without having to worry about getting their bikes stolen. The same might be done for the Disengagement Timeout Penalty.
Logged


                  When Failure Is Not An Option:
                     Xenocorp® Shadow Works
FPF-DieHard
MILF hunter
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7401



Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2008, 09:06:32 am »

Whats this "we" stuff? I made one comment (as a joke) and you went off like a rocket!

Come on, since when have I ever gone off on a tangent . . .

People need to keep in mind that this would mean once a hex was ISC DV=1 that they could not attack it any more and the ISC would have no need to boost it. A system would have to be worked out for multiple missions at once resulting in the ISC flipping the hex, then Galactic Powers flipping it back to Neutral, then to an Empire color, back to Neutral etc.... Who owns it at that point? Perhaps a time frame of ownership like "The ISC must posses the hex for at least one turn" or something.

Maybe once it's above DV2 ISC it can be considered "Pacified."

An on line player cap for the ISC would seem in order for something like this. If a majority of ISC are on the Empires have no hope as the ISC can attack where they aren't with no reprisal. Perhaps incredibly hard AI missions for the ISC only (if possible) could alleviate that issue somewhat.

We'll throw in a Kroma rule, players can go both ways.   If the ISC number gets above X people need to sign in as GW?   Maybe, need to flesh this out.

Tack a BPV increase (to be determine by playtesting) to all ISC ships and give the GW races AI real fighters and PFs.   That will slow the ISC down a lot.

It would seem that there would be no need to have VC's given to the ISC for PvP kills and disengagements, only for territory gained, but definitely PvP VC's for Empire kills and disengagements on the ISC. That way they can fight the bullies without having to worry about getting their bikes stolen.

That's a great idea.   The empires are fighting for their lives, if the ISC isn't.  "Optional wars" kinda don't sit well with democracies once the cost gets too high.  Most anit-ISC tactics require you to be suicidal anyway so you just have to yell "Leroy Jenkins!!!!" and charge.

I think the run-off points on AOTK4 were a failure.  We didn't get what I hoped we'd get out of it and all it did was piss people off.
Logged

What do you call a femal Klingon?  A Klunt!

The shortest path between 2 points is a straight line . . .

FCM-Corbomite-XC
Director of Tactics and Strategy
XenoCorp® Member
Lt. Commander
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1158


"What The Hell Is An Aluminium Falcon?!"


Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2008, 09:47:58 am »

People need to keep in mind that this would mean once a hex was ISC DV=1 that they could not attack it any more and the ISC would have no need to boost it. A system would have to be worked out for multiple missions at once resulting in the ISC flipping the hex, then Galactic Powers flipping it back to Neutral, then to an Empire color, back to Neutral etc.... Who owns it at that point? Perhaps a time frame of ownership like "The ISC must posses the hex for at least one turn" or something.

Maybe once it's above DV2 ISC it can be considered "Pacified."



You could literally have ten players running independent missions in one hex. Until people are caught in PvP and kicked out the hex will not stabilize. You need something unambiguous so the Empires know when to cut and run, even if it means running off the map in a mission just to save time.

Logged


                  When Failure Is Not An Option:
                     Xenocorp® Shadow Works
Lieutenant_Q
Lt.
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 957


Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2008, 09:58:43 am »

I wouldn't worry about it until the next day.  Let the General War Powers run missions in hexes that flip that day.  When you take the server down at the end of the day, boost the DV of the hex to something like ten.  After that, then restrict their ability to run missions.
Logged
FPF-DieHard
MILF hunter
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7401



Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2008, 10:04:02 am »

I wouldn't worry about it until the next day.  Let the General War Powers run missions in hexes that flip that day.  When you take the server down at the end of the day, boost the DV of the hex to something like ten.  After that, then restrict their ability to run missions.

Too much work, seriously it's pain in  the ass to do DB edits.
Logged

What do you call a femal Klingon?  A Klunt!

The shortest path between 2 points is a straight line . . .

FCM-Corbomite-XC
Director of Tactics and Strategy
XenoCorp® Member
Lt. Commander
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1158


"What The Hell Is An Aluminium Falcon?!"


Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2008, 10:05:25 am »

Good idea, but that could involve a lot of hexes.

The ownership at the end of the day thing might work though.
Logged


                  When Failure Is Not An Option:
                     Xenocorp® Shadow Works
FCM-Corbomite-XC
Director of Tactics and Strategy
XenoCorp® Member
Lt. Commander
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1158


"What The Hell Is An Aluminium Falcon?!"


Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2008, 10:10:43 am »

Oh, and maybe no X-Ships for the ISC.
Logged


                  When Failure Is Not An Option:
                     Xenocorp® Shadow Works
FPF-DieHard
MILF hunter
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7401



Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2008, 10:28:00 am »

If we went SQL, it wouldn't be that bad.   Heck, this type of war SCREAMS for it.  And our player population shouldn't cause the server to barf when we get less than 20 at the most.

With SQL we could do a real OOB and production as well.   I expect there to be a lot of attrition and high PvP with this model of server.

One thing that could cause concern is that lack of use for smaller ships.   With this type of a setup people's best bet would be to grab the biggest legal fleet possible and hammer away or sit rock when defending.  Non-stop heavy metal fights can get a little tedious.  I'd love to see K-D5LR, K-D5DR, K-D5KR (or if you're feeling "Blue" F-CLC, F-NCDR, F-NCLR) versus I-CSP, I-CLZ, I-CLZ  at once point in the server.  I'd like to come up with some kind of way for this to happen without being artificial.

Perhaps if a "small ship" fleet is kicked out of a hex they are allowed to return in larger ships (once)?  Maybe "small" ships must be the first to attack a  hex, kinda like a scouting party for before the main fleet arrives?     
Logged

What do you call a femal Klingon?  A Klunt!

The shortest path between 2 points is a straight line . . .

FPF-DieHard
MILF hunter
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7401



Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #9 on: June 30, 2008, 10:31:59 am »

Oh, and maybe no X-Ships for the ISC.

I was thinking the only X-ships could be the F-CX and K-DX like they had in the original SFB.  Neither of those ships are OTT and interestingly enough cost 12 EP to building in F&E.  The same as an I-CCZ . . .

Rules for partial X-refits in SFB just came out, I need to order that book . . ., some of that might make sense here. 
Logged

What do you call a femal Klingon?  A Klunt!

The shortest path between 2 points is a straight line . . .

FCM-Corbomite-XC
Director of Tactics and Strategy
XenoCorp® Member
Lt. Commander
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1158


"What The Hell Is An Aluminium Falcon?!"


Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #10 on: June 30, 2008, 10:46:39 am »

Perhaps if a "small ship" fleet is kicked out of a hex they are allowed to return in larger ships (once)?  Maybe "small" ships must be the first to attack a  hex, kinda like a scouting party for before the main fleet arrives?     


It would be unrealistic to try and coordinate this. Perhaps there should be no loss of points or time if killed or chased off in anything smaller than a CA (for both sides). I know the Disengagement Rule was initially intended to keep small Droners at bay, but on this type of server they won't matter as much and if they keep dying they won't have enough to buy a ship after awhile (especially if you keep the replacement ship small and useless). You just have to make sure all missions count a Disengagement as a loss and correctly shift the DV.

Logged


                  When Failure Is Not An Option:
                     Xenocorp® Shadow Works
Lieutenant_Q
Lt.
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 957


Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #11 on: June 30, 2008, 10:55:01 am »

perhaps make it so that small ships killed by small ships are worth more points?
Logged
FPF-DieHard
MILF hunter
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7401



Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #12 on: June 30, 2008, 12:23:13 pm »

Perhaps if a "small ship" fleet is kicked out of a hex they are allowed to return in larger ships (once)?  Maybe "small" ships must be the first to attack a  hex, kinda like a scouting party for before the main fleet arrives?     


It would be unrealistic to try and coordinate this. Perhaps there should be no loss of points or time if killed or chased off in anything smaller than a CA (for both sides). I know the Disengagement Rule was initially intended to keep small Droners at bay, but on this type of server they won't matter as much and if they keep dying they won't have enough to buy a ship after awhile (especially if you keep the replacement ship small and useless). You just have to make sure all missions count a Disengagement as a loss and correctly shift the DV.



That could make sense.   Also, if we use full F&E OOB/production 80% of the ships built will be smaller than 1 move cost.

It also makes sense Killing ISC ships is worth VCs but dying isn't.  3 CWs on a suicide run might be able to nail a smaller escort ship before dying.
Logged

What do you call a femal Klingon?  A Klunt!

The shortest path between 2 points is a straight line . . .

el-Karnak
Serverkit Development Team
Lt. Commander
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1214



WWW
Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2008, 12:26:22 pm »

If we went SQL, it wouldn't be that bad.   Heck, this type of war SCREAMS for it.  And our player population shouldn't cause the server to barf when we get less than 20 at the most.

With SQL we could do a real OOB and production as well.   I expect there to be a lot of attrition and high PvP with this model of server.

One thing that could cause concern is that lack of use for smaller ships.   With this type of a setup people's best bet would be to grab the biggest legal fleet possible and hammer away or sit rock when defending.  Non-stop heavy metal fights can get a little tedious.  I'd love to see K-D5LR, K-D5DR, K-D5KR (or if you're feeling "Blue" F-CLC, F-NCDR, F-NCLR) versus I-CSP, I-CLZ, I-CLZ  at once point in the server.  I'd like to come up with some kind of way for this to happen without being artificial.

Perhaps if a "small ship" fleet is kicked out of a hex they are allowed to return in larger ships (once)?  Maybe "small" ships must be the first to attack a  hex, kinda like a scouting party for before the main fleet arrives?     

I would use SQL. Cheesy
Logged

el-Karnak

Addled SFCOP/SFC3 Mission scripter.

Hankism
"Trees get sap on you.  You have to rake their leaves.  They fall in the forest and you can't hear them.  You can't trust them."
Lieutenant_Q
Lt.
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 957


Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #14 on: June 30, 2008, 12:32:15 pm »

Anyway you can make a certain mission a pre-requisite for any missions?

For example, you can't run any missions in a hex until a scout mission is run?
Logged
FPF-DieHard
MILF hunter
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7401



Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2008, 12:42:50 pm »

Anyway you can make a certain mission a pre-requisite for any missions?

For example, you can't run any missions in a hex until a scout mission is run?

Not possible with this version of SFC, good idea for SFC4.

people, this is a peanut gallery post, a fishing expedition.   All ideas are welcome, even if you think this sucks please tell me why.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2008, 12:58:21 pm by FPF-DieHard » Logged

What do you call a femal Klingon?  A Klunt!

The shortest path between 2 points is a straight line . . .

Lepton
Lt. Commander
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1411



Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2008, 01:23:49 pm »

Well, you know that I have suggested an all PvP dynaverse server since time immemorial and have been roundly shouted down.  "This won't work".  "You suck".  "We hate that idea."  If one of the dynaverse illuminati can suggest it and make it work, then I am all for it.  Just take every criticism that has been leveled at my suggestions in the past and figure out how to counter them.  That's all that was required of me when I made such suggestions.  So if you can do that, people will be on board.  If not, then you suck.

My one stipulation would be that DH and Corbo cannot be stacked up on the ISC side as this whole thing will be no contest.

Essentially, you are suggesting that we use the dynaverse as a game-matching service in lieu of GameSpy with the dynaverse database backend keeping track of things.  If it can be done, I am all for it.  At this point, I don't think that I will ever be participating in a standard dynaverse campaign again, so if we can get a PvP campaign going then that sounds great to me.
Logged



System Specs:

Dell Dimension E521
AMD64x2 5000+
2G DDR2 RAM
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB GDDR3
250GB SATA HD
FPF-DieHard
MILF hunter
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7401



Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2008, 02:05:01 pm »

Well, you know that I have suggested an all PvP dynaverse server since time immemorial and have been roundly shouted down.  "This won't work".  "You suck".  "We hate that idea."  If one of the dynaverse illuminati can suggest it and make it work, then I am all for it.  Just take every criticism that has been leveled at my suggestions in the past and figure out how to counter them.  That's all that was required of me when I made such suggestions.  So if you can do that, people will be on board.  If not, then you suck.

To be honest, it's because nobody suggested Corbo's idea of not being able to counterattack the aggressor.  I simply never thought of it, nobody else had either.  I don't think this rule would work for most campaigns either, but for an ISC invasion it's perfect.

There's nothing wrong with a hex-flipping server either, this is just something a little bit different we can try for a 2 week diversion.  People should look at it as PvP training/practice.

My one stipulation would be that DH and Corbo cannot be stacked up on the ISC side as this whole thing will be no contest.

This is negotiable.  As I stated earlier we will have to tweak the fleeting rules so this can be fair for all sides involved. 

Essentially, you are suggesting that we use the dynaverse as a game-matching service in lieu of GameSpy with the dynaverse database backend keeping track of things.  If it can be done, I am all for it.  At this point, I don't think that I will ever be participating in a standard dynaverse campaign again, so if we can get a PvP campaign going then that sounds great to me.

Cool, that's one skeptic sold, next!
Logged

What do you call a femal Klingon?  A Klunt!

The shortest path between 2 points is a straight line . . .

Leto Atreides
Ensign
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 61



Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2008, 03:08:30 pm »

i only see one problem. if it's based on a few hours per day, that's great for people in that timezone. there are people worldwide that play.

how about 2 shifts to alleviate the other side.
Logged
KBF MalaK
Just Another Target
Lt.
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 653



Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #19 on: June 30, 2008, 03:17:31 pm »

Fishing eh ?

Back in the day when I had time to play SFB I spent most of my time practicing convoy raids/convoy defense and battling monsters in vanilla Fed cl/ca's until I moved on to pirate ships. Since there's no 'real' pirate ships in OP (as well as no Tholians) I'm back to thinking about convoys-

If you're ISC hexes can't be flipped back to another race, where's the battles going to be ? The front.

I'm not thrilled with that situation as the frontline ships need supplies and repair and thats where I'd prefer to hit them. One may not always KNOW there are ships on the front but surely there's ships in the shipping lanes between the held planets, bases, distribution depot's, etc. I have yet to see a convoy escort mission in a D2 campaign and I think it has lots of possibilities for PVP action. What if you could starve a base hex or planet for a few weeks (in SFC:OP time), would the hex be abandoned by the ISC and revert back to neutral ?? Maybe capture a few cargo ships with supplies the non ISC races could use ?? maybe a diplomat or 2 ?? Capturing a few gucci weapons would be nice but as pirate ship option mounts aren't implimented in OP they'd be useless- unless you could sell them on the black market for PP points. These cargo ships are going to REQUIRE escorts manned by live players, and live players are going to raid these convoys as well as fight the heavies at the front lines. That should be enough to maintain a good balance of heavies and 'wolf pack' raiders.

Some editing will need to be maintained on the map to define the shipping lanes between captured facilities as well as some custom mission creation (I hope to be able to help with that) but I don't think much new content will need to be created (c'ept maybe a random cargo manifest for the convoys).

Just an idea.
Logged

"May fortune favor the foolish"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
FPF-DieHard
MILF hunter
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7401



Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #20 on: June 30, 2008, 03:24:02 pm »

i only see one problem. if it's based on a few hours per day, that's great for people in that timezone. there are people worldwide that play.

how about 2 shifts to alleviate the other side.

Completely up to negotiations between the ISC Supreme Commander (ISC, who' of thunk it) and the Galactic Overload-Dictator(GOD, best I could think of off the cuff).

The entire point of this experiment is to NOT attack when your opponent isn't there, it's why I mused about the non-24/7 nature of the server.  Seriously, what's a GW race member supposed to do when no ISC show up?
Logged

What do you call a femal Klingon?  A Klunt!

The shortest path between 2 points is a straight line . . .

FPF-DieHard
MILF hunter
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7401



Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #21 on: June 30, 2008, 03:31:09 pm »

Fishing eh ?

Back in the day when I had time to play SFB I spent most of my time practicing convoy raids/convoy defense and battling monsters in vanilla Fed cl/ca's until I moved on to pirate ships. Since there's no 'real' pirate ships in OP (as well as no Tholians) I'm back to thinking about convoys-

If you're ISC hexes can't be flipped back to another race, where's the battles going to be ? The front.

I'm not thrilled with that situation as the frontline ships need supplies and repair and thats where I'd prefer to hit them. One may not always KNOW there are ships on the front but surely there's ships in the shipping lanes between the held planets, bases, distribution depot's, etc. I have yet to see a convoy escort mission in a D2 campaign and I think it has lots of possibilities for PVP action. What if you could starve a base hex or planet for a few weeks (in SFC:OP time), would the hex be abandoned by the ISC and revert back to neutral ?? Maybe capture a few cargo ships with supplies the non ISC races could use ?? maybe a diplomat or 2 ?? Capturing a few gucci weapons would be nice but as pirate ship option mounts aren't implimented in OP they'd be useless- unless you could sell them on the black market for PP points. These cargo ships are going to REQUIRE escorts manned by live players, and live players are going to raid these convoys as well as fight the heavies at the front lines. That should be enough to maintain a good balance of heavies and 'wolf pack' raiders.

Some editing will need to be maintained on the map to define the shipping lanes between captured facilities as well as some custom mission creation (I hope to be able to help with that) but I don't think much new content will need to be created (c'ept maybe a random cargo manifest for the convoys).

Just an idea.

Everything you presented above is good and hopefully we'll be able to see all of this implemented in SFC4.  I would love to see a Dyna where stuff like that has a reall affect on the game.   Could you imagine if a base had a stockpile of parts/drones/etc . ..  and if you cut off the convoy's the players couldn't supply?  That would be awesome and I'd love to see stuff like that implemented.

Raiding convoys and other behind the scenes mayhem works in the sense of a grand war but it's kinda out of scope for this idea.   In this idea, the GW powers win simply by STOPPING the ISC.  it's a simple slugfest.
Logged

What do you call a femal Klingon?  A Klunt!

The shortest path between 2 points is a straight line . . .

FCM-Corbomite-XC
Director of Tactics and Strategy
XenoCorp® Member
Lt. Commander
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1158


"What The Hell Is An Aluminium Falcon?!"


Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #22 on: June 30, 2008, 04:03:09 pm »

My one stipulation would be that DH and Corbo cannot be stacked up on the ISC side as this whole thing will be no contest.

Yeah DH and I ruled so much together that our side lost  Roll Eyes

Now your going to start telling people what they can fly and who they can fly with? We're to be punished for being too good? Why not just have DH and me as the entire ISC force?
Logged


                  When Failure Is Not An Option:
                     Xenocorp® Shadow Works
FPF-DieHard
MILF hunter
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7401



Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #23 on: June 30, 2008, 04:59:57 pm »

My one stipulation would be that DH and Corbo cannot be stacked up on the ISC side as this whole thing will be no contest.

Yeah DH and I ruled so much together that our side lost  Roll Eyes

Now your going to start telling people what they can fly and who they can fly with? We're to be punished for being too good? Why not just have DH and me as the entire ISC force?

We'd need a 3rd . . .  Cheesy
Logged

What do you call a femal Klingon?  A Klunt!

The shortest path between 2 points is a straight line . . .

KBFLordKrueg
Commander
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3179


KBF CO


Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #24 on: June 30, 2008, 05:53:14 pm »

*deposits 2 cents*

One problem I see already with having the server up only for a few hours at a time is it restrict our player base even more...
I know DH is on Eastern time, but many are not. I know we have a significant number of west coasters who don't even get on line until the wee hours for the eastern coast.
Not to mention several players from the UK and Europe. It is still a global game, not just a local deal.  Wink

RE: The comment "we're so good our side lost"...
Your side massacred us in PvP (well, a good portion of that was the disputed Run-off thing) but your side, specifically DH gained the most points in PvP.
Your side lost due to the complete lack of map points in round 2, period.
Had you had even 3 planets, it would have been a different ball game, you would have won easily.
Obviously, "hex flipping" is a part of any campaign if there are any points to be gained by territory possesion.
That takes time, again, having limited server time is going to be problematic for these objectives.

Guys, face it, this is not the player base of old, when you kept refreshing to look for an open spot on a server and 80% of players lived for PvP.
If that was the case today, we'd have a helluva lot more players on campaign servers looking to fight and server admins wouldn't feel the need to make rules about giving points for mere disengagement.  *jab, jab*  Tongue Wink
IMOHPO, I believe any server revolving around scoring based solely on PvP will have an ultra-low population.

The question is, do you want to make a server appealing to a very small group, or do you want to make a server for the entire community to try and keep interest in this game alive...?
« Last Edit: June 30, 2008, 06:46:24 pm by KBFLordKrueg » Logged
FPF-DieHard
MILF hunter
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7401



Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #25 on: June 30, 2008, 06:21:35 pm »

*deposits 2 cents*

One problem I see already with having the server up only for a few hours at a time is it restrict out player base even more...
I know DH is on Eastern time, but many are not. I know we have a significant number of west coasters who don't even get on line until the wee hours for the eastern coast.
Not to mention several players from the UK and Europe. It is still a global game, not just a local deal.  Wink

This would be a turn-based game PvP game that happened to take place on a Dyna.  NOT a hex-flipping contest.  There would be ZERO point in flying when your enemy isn't there, leaving the game up 24/7 would make no sense.  Yeah, not everyone would be able to make it but so what?  If you want to fight AI play single-player.

The "open" window would be I'm thinking 6 PM eastern to 2 AM.  Again this can be negotiated between whoever is running the sides but I seriously see no point in leaving a server up 24/7 when there is no point in one side attacking the AI.

It gives us a chance in to have PvP in a strategic context.  GSA is dead and with OP was stupid anyway with all the 450 ADV m00ks.  A true-turn based campaign won't fly either as it is too much work to coordinate.   This would be easier, you set production, assign ships using the OCI (or a spreadsheet and the Honor System if Flatfile), meet on the dyna for X-amount of hours to fight out the round.  Rinse, repeat.

The question is, do you want to make a server appealing to a very small group, or do you want to make a server for the entire community to try and keep interest in this game alive...?

If the majority of the the community wants to flip hexes, I honestly don't care anymore.   If I can get 3 players on each side for this, it's a go.

I'd rather poke my eye out with a rusty screw-driver than run/play on another hex-flipping server.  Having to fly 8-14 hours a day flipping hexes so my side doesn't get wiped off the map is a collasal waist of time and I will never do it again. 

Logged

What do you call a femal Klingon?  A Klunt!

The shortest path between 2 points is a straight line . . .

FCM-Corbomite-XC
Director of Tactics and Strategy
XenoCorp® Member
Lt. Commander
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1158


"What The Hell Is An Aluminium Falcon?!"


Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2008, 06:46:32 pm »

RE: The comment "we're so good our side lost"...
Your side massacred us in PvP (well, a good portion of that was the disputed Run-off thing) but your side, specifically DH gained the most points in PvP.

Poor rules design and poor judgement by your pilots (i.e. failure to see the writing on the wall and disengage) does not make DH a one man VC machine. They seemed to have enough sense to disengage most times when I met them.


Quote
Your side lost due to the complete lack of map points in round 2, period.
Had you had even even 3 planets, it would have been a different ball game, you would have won easily.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. The point is we didn't and we lost. That just proves my point that two good pilots don't make a whole lot of difference either way.
Logged


                  When Failure Is Not An Option:
                     Xenocorp® Shadow Works
FPF-DieHard
MILF hunter
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7401



Re: Pseudo turn-based ISC conquest campaign?
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2008, 06:54:58 pm »