Dynaverse.net
Taldrenites => Dynaverse II Experiences => Topic started by: Julin Eurthyr on November 28, 2004, 09:39:31 am
-
One of the hardest things about making a server is the OOB / CnC rules.
I'm in the process of designing a server, and I've got a lot of concepts already designed, the biggest problem facing me is writing a "useful" OOB.
This is what I got right now, suggestions welcome:
OOB Concept:
Start with a fairly large allocation of points per race. All "Fancy" ships, such as Commando, Carrier, Escort, Conjectural, Early Prototype releases, Limited build numbers, shock, etc. are on the BP chart. Affected CAs and below are 1 BP each, BCHs 2 BPs, DNs 3, BBs 4-6BPs, +1 to the big ships if they are also limited - IE, a F-BCF, R-KHK, and H-OS would be 3 BP ships (2 cause they're BCHs, +1 for their specialty factor (BCF is liimited build of 3 vessels, KHK has shock, OS is a Carrier). No differentiation between specialty and capital. All constructions come out of this fund.
The catch: 75% of the fleets available BPs (sum of prior surviving ships and new construction, recalculated at the BP cycle) must be flown by "casual" players. The definition of "Casual" varies throughout the server...
Captain rank and below always is considered a "casual" rank.
Commodore starts as a resttricted rank. Once 25% of a race's playerbase reaches Rear Admiral, Commodore becomes a "casual" player rank.
Twoard the end of the server, at Administration's discretion, Rear Admiral may become an un-restricted rank, or a certain PP threshold in the Rear Admiral levels will be considered "Casual".
In order to prevent people taking advantage of the freeness of Captain Rank, I have a couple of measures designed:
1 (and required for my first server) - closed server with accounts based on a pre-server signup period.
2 VCs for Nutterism. Such as awarding the team who's got the highest missions run per player ratio points based on the difference between the sides. Something along the lines of: Alliance runs 150 missions per player, Coalition runs 200 missions per player. Coalition gets VCs, maybe a straight 50 VCs, or possibly 25% of a VC pool, since they ran 25% more missions, or something like that.
Things like the webmap rosters would help in determining when a race qualifies for rank unrestrictions, and those post-server reporting utilities we used to see after every CW-server would help with the nutterism totaling.
Remember, this is an early draft, so please no flaming... ;)
-
Too Complicated.
-
What does "affected CA and below" mean?
-
I like the idea of limiting the oob in some way. Here are some suggestions
1. Limiting the BCF to three ships will quickly eliminate it from play. Perhaps we should only allow three active BCF's, but I don't know how you would do that. Alternatively, just make them very expensive and rare.
2. We need to reward races with fewer players or the server will become unbalanced. How about "sneaking" some good ships from one race into another's shipyard to simulate captured ships or lend/lease. They could be stock or modified.
-
This sounds more and more like something the DIP would release ;D
-
Too Complicated.
Agreed keeping track of all the ships during GW4 was enough and more then any leader should have to deal with while they just want to have fun. Threre are generally enough issues to deal with without adding to the burdern. JMO
-
Too Complicated.
Agreed keeping track of all the ships during GW4 was enough and more then any leader should have to deal with while they just want to have fun. Threre are generally enough issues to deal with without adding to the burdern. JMO
Though with SQL, a lot could be handled behind the scenes. I theink GW4 was about as bad as we can realisticly handle withou SQL.
-
Whatever we come with should be intuitive and easy to follow...
As pointed out...with SQL...players could be presented a custom list to purchase from based on rank experience or even ships currently owned.....
IE...the game itself could enforce OOB from behind the scenes,could only sell you legal ships to what you are flying, could montior what has been purchased,what has been destroyed, what is online, and what is offline....
The game could trigger different missions based on what ships your are flying....the possiblities are only limited by our desires and ability to code them... :)
-
Absolutely, Crim, the shipyard can be completely controlled through a webpage using php linked to the SQL server. No OOB rules will be necessary, because players will not be able to buy what they cant fly. Players can be given 'access codes' to pick up assigned ships. Ships can be sold and returned to drydock available for other players to fly. Ships can be 'garaged' by players, and so on...
-
A comment on restricting escorts:
I think escorts flown solo should be restricted.
However, I think anyone should be allowed to fly an escort provided they are literally escorting another player flying a capital ship (i.e., one which would normally have escort class vessels as escorts).
Not sure how to make that work in terms of rules, but it would allow an DD sized escort to be flown, say, escorting a CVA, by someone other than an Admiral.
Perhaps the way to deal with it rules-wise would be to not allow someone flying an escort to initiate a draft, and to be required to disengage if they were drafted without the ship they were supposed to be escorting.
Just a thought.
-
To address points made:
Die Hard, in scope this system is no more complex than GW4, actually, it could be seen as "simpler", as I'm basically going to lump all CP and BP ships into one purchase system, using the same pool to buy all fancy ships.
The complexity comes into play with the "casual vs nutter" rules, and even then, something can be worked out.
As I think about this, I come up with more and more ideas. For example, in an effort to reduce RM workload, I'm contemplating a system where the entire "purchase" system moves out of RM control, and into a "requisition" system. For my server, I might start a series of threads, one for each race. I'd start the thread with the BPs available, the BPs the "nutters" can have, and the current rank that is considered casual.
If someone wants a ship, they can go in, and post "Player bought Ship for X BP, Y BP balance remaining". Then it's a trip to the shipyard in-game, and off to the races they go.
RMs are reduced from tracking down players to give ships etc. to resolving disputes if there are no more BP left.
On build cycle day, I'd check the webmap roster to see if the rank restriction goes up, how many BP are still floating around in ships, and update the availabilities with the new information.
Of course, this could be all rendered moot with a SQL system, but that could take a while...
On the subject of ship restrictions:
Why is it that as soon as someone new says OOB, everyone suddenly thinks that everything's going south?
My firm belief, and nobody's going to talk me out of this... Every ship that has been flamed on the D2, except for the I-CCZ, and even the I-CCZ if you account for I-torp issues, has been restricted in SFB by any number of rules (shock, limited builds, conjectural, commando, bombardment, escort, carrier, etc.), that are not appropriately accounted for in SFC. I am working on something that changes this small fact. I was on the DIP, with their new class system / adjusted BPVs etc., and I unfortunately have to call that system a near-failure as there has been no follow-up since LB5.
Here is another attempt by me to remedy that issue.
This setup isn't an attempt to make D2 = F&E with it's 3 F-BCFs etc. It's just an attempt to make the fancier, more powerful ships less common, and have more line ship participation. That's why I'm "charging" a BP surcharge to these fancy ships. Something possibly complicated in structure, hopefully easy to use in game, and probably something phased out with the release of SQL.
Finally, something else tells me that I might have a rule or 2 that might make the restriction list a lot thinner. Probably something that lets people fly maulers, commando-boats, and escorts under a different (Sethan-like) set of restrictions... ;)
-
Probably something that lets people fly maulers, commando-boats, and escorts under a different (Sethan-like) set of restrictions... ;)
What sort of rule would this be? Like the old rule of "No shirt, no shoes, no service", would we have a new rule that simply says, "No beard, no ship"?
Sign me up. ;)
-S'Cipio
-
Probably something that lets people fly maulers, commando-boats, and escorts under a different (Sethan-like) set of restrictions... ;)
What sort of rule would this be? Like the old rule of "No shirt, no shoes, no service", would we have a new rule that simply says, "No beard, no ship"?
Sign me up. ;)
-S'Cipio
No bat... no balls... lol
-
Probably something that lets people fly maulers, commando-boats, and escorts under a different (Sethan-like) set of restrictions... ;)
What sort of rule would this be? Like the old rule of "No shirt, no shoes, no service", would we have a new rule that simply says, "No beard, no ship"?
Sign me up. ;)
-S'Cipio
No bat... no balls... lol
But then only you could claim that, Tracey.... :P
Does a Goatee count for Beard purposes? ;D
-
Does a Goatee count for Beard purposes? ;D
Only if you are a goat.
-
Does a Goatee count for Beard purposes? ;D
Only if you are a goat.
:rofl:
-
Probably something that lets people fly maulers, commando-boats, and escorts under a different (Sethan-like) set of restrictions... ;)
What sort of rule would this be? Like the old rule of "No shirt, no shoes, no service", would we have a new rule that simply says, "No beard, no ship"?
Sign me up. ;)
-S'Cipio
Lets see...
To qualify to fly a:
Mauler, you must prove you were mauled recently...
Commando ship, you must prove you are going commando
Escort, you must prove you are ready to "escort" someone, like J'inn, Chuut or Kroma...
Who would want a system like this??? :D
Actually, if you read Sethan's post in this very thread, it may give a clue as to how my restriction rule might read... ;)
-
No bat... no balls... lol
Lots of computers,
Us,
With no uter-us.
;D