| Author |
Transit System |
Diabo|ik
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 16, 2002
Posts: 327
From: Quebec, Canada
|  Posted: 2005-10-11 20:36
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-11 14:43, c0ldfury wrote:
Sorry, I should say; Revised original post to include a better 'How it Works' section, probably the first of many revisions.
And also; thanx Diabo|ik for your input, it is actually very hard to form a working idea without someone to play devils advocate.
|
|
It is my duty... and my pleasure  . But, I couldn't have done it without you, so thank you too.
_________________
Mostly Retired.
|
c0ld
Midshipman
Joined: June 24, 2003
Posts: 342
From: UK
| Posted: 2005-10-12 01:07
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-11 17:13, BackSlash *Jack* wrote:
One problem I have with the SY's...
If it orbits the star, it will be easy in some systems to capture one single planet and wait for the SY to come back around.
|
|
Well, the SY would be ineffective with just one planet owned, as it would need resources to even operate as a node. But also, capturing any single planet wouldn't reveal it's location. In fact it orbits so far away from the star that capturing all of the planets wouldn't reveal it. The only ways of finding it (or jump-gates) is to either scout by trail and error or to track an enemy to it. (That excludes the neutral gates which would be visible and useable by all factions)
Quote:
|
I think that it should orbit the planet it was built on, so it's basicly just a model that sits in space and orbits the planet (if the structure is on the planet). |
|
Imo that leads directly to the SY abuse we see in the current system, with player going in and out of SYs during a battle.
With the SY far removed from battle; it would be more akin to the old scen servers gameplay dynamics
Quote:
|
Orbiting the star, I'd have to say a no to that (appart from the homegate one, but that shouldn't orbit, just stay static). |
|
I use the term orbiting loosely so yeah, static but appearing to orbit would be fine.
Quote:
|
Wormholes, I like the idea you suggested, but, engineers with wormholes? I don't like the sound of that (if you are suggesting that).
|
|
I originally wrote that only high ranking engineers could build them, but k'luth haven't got a high-ranking drone engy, so I scraped the idea. Still, this engineer would have to do considerable work to establish a functioning jump-gate, i.e; build up several planets with functioning mining and trade systems.
[ This Message was edited by: c0ldfury on 2005-10-12 01:10 ]
_________________
|
c0ld
Midshipman
Joined: June 24, 2003
Posts: 342
From: UK
| Posted: 2005-10-12 01:16
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-11 18:04, Dominator_243 wrote:
i dont undersatnd one damn word of that, but according to other players its a good idea so i give it a thumbs up!
|
|
Heh, it's been edited so much that, by now, it's probably just a randon collection of unrelated paragraphs.
_________________
|
c0ld
Midshipman
Joined: June 24, 2003
Posts: 342
From: UK
| Posted: 2005-10-12 12:34
Hmm, it struck me today that Diabo|iks' preference for the dynamic gameplay that the current gate system brings isn't really incompatible with this system of 'networked' gates and shipyards. In fact, by [de]modifying the neutral jumpgates in my system so they are similar to the current gates, you create quite a variety of gameplay styles at once.
If you were to say that neutral jump gates were, like present; two gates in different systems with permanent connecting wormholes. But with the difference that they connected systems that were many systems apart; you could create a neutral 'inter-state' type system that can be superimposed on top of the transit system but not be part of it;
Or maybe;
I think it would favour much larger MVs though.
_________________
|
Diabo|ik
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 16, 2002
Posts: 327
From: Quebec, Canada
| Posted: 2005-10-12 21:10
Highways like this would create "shortcuts" for faster movement in the neutral gated systems, but I doubt the MV will be large enough to actually take advantage of this. We'd need a lot more systems than what we have now. This highway system is good for large scale networks like the EVE-online world. DS is a bit too small for that.
If you'd take a look at the old MV map I posted retail side in the english subforum, you'd see that even tho the front lines were far away, it never stopped oneself from actually taking the time to get from one gate to the next up to the front lines. So a one way SY trip to the front with a crawl back in case you need to ( for reasons which elude me... we have mod planets at the front too afterall and if you die, you respawn at the SY that can then send you back instantly to the front... ).
I don't think we need any faster transit than this and we certainly don't need insta travel back to the home anytime we want it simply by using a gate to shunt you there... And if we do, for what purpose? Other than having access directly to the SY and the home modding planets for possible exploiting, I don't see any. You can get infs elsewhere, you can repair elsewhere, etc etc. The insta travel to the front purpose seems obvious, but can you give me any good purpose for this functionality working both ways?
_________________
Mostly Retired.
|
c0ld
Midshipman
Joined: June 24, 2003
Posts: 342
From: UK
| Posted: 2005-10-13 01:20
I think we will have to agree to diagree on this one diabo|ik.
Fundamentily, you are saying; The reason the gate system of 1.480 was a good one was that is took time to get to the front lines. I used to think that myself.
In this system I'm saying; The gate-system of old was good because it enforced a decent front line (something the current wormholes ruined and which subsequently lead to disparate fights in random systems). The problem with the old system is it didn't appeal to the scen server crowd, who want insta action.
_________________
|
Diabo|ik
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 16, 2002
Posts: 327
From: Quebec, Canada
| Posted: 2005-10-13 10:33
You misunderstood me... Let me clarify.
Your system does adress the problem of scenario players correctly, they can log in, choose a ship and be in combat only a few minutes later. What I'm saying is, fast travel to the front lines is good, cause it takes care of this issues, but fast travel all over the MV is not needed and in fact detriments gameplay. I don't see any reason to have insta travel other than to get to the front lines.
The 1480 scheme wasn't good because it took time to travel, but because you could actually see the enemy travelling, predict it's moves, set up a trap or an ambush if you are outnumbered etc... And because travel wasn't instantaneous, all these other great strategic and tactical elements just existed peacefully along with the rest of the game. Your system partially removes that, but still keeps some of it. I don't like compromises, but we all have to do some... What do you think?
_________________
Mostly Retired.
|
c0ld
Midshipman
Joined: June 24, 2003
Posts: 342
From: UK
| Posted: 2005-10-13 18:11
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-13 10:33, Diabo|ik wrote:
Your system does adress the problem of scenario players correctly, they can log in, choose a ship and be in combat only a few minutes later. What I'm saying is, fast travel to the front lines is good, cause it takes care of this issues, but fast travel all over the MV is not needed and in fact detriments gameplay. I don't see any reason to have insta travel other than to get to the front lines.
|
|
I don't think you've given me any valid reason why a player shouldn't be able to get anywhere within his own territory quickly. The only reason you've given is that 'you couldn't follow him to finish him off'. Well, if I long jumped in a random direction you wouldn't be able to follow either. It was actually my intention give the player freedom of movement within friendly systems and restricted movement into enemy systems. Why should it be any different?
Do you think you could have gotten away with strolling down a German high-street at the height of WW2, in full American military kit? You'd have needed an army to back you up, and that's what this system enforces.
Quote:
|
I don't think we need any faster transit than this and we certainly don't need insta travel back to the home anytime we want it simply by using a gate to shunt you there... And if we do, for what purpose? Other than having access directly to the SY and the home modding planets for possible exploiting, I don't see any.
|
|
Do you not remember 1.480 clearly? You'd spend 5-10 minutes jumping to the front, maybe meet up with a few friends along the way, then you'd cap a few planets which would always attract some enemy attention. So you'd then have to change into combat in a hurry to defend. It was ALWAYS quicker to log out and wait 2 mins then respawn in the home system and that's just what everyone did.
So why shouldn't I be allowed jump from the frontline back to a home system, or from one front to another?
Why should I have to log out every time I want to just change ships?
This was what likely drove Faustus' thinking when he introduced SYs, he just didn't foresee them getting abused during planetary battles. But the theory of being able to spawn at the front is essentialy a sound one. We know this from the 1.480 scen server; which was just bloody fantastic (even with the cl2k issue). IMO Faustus just put the spawn point too close to the fighting.
Quote:
|
The 1480 scheme wasn't good because it took time to travel, but because you could actually see the enemy travelling, predict it's moves, set up a trap or an ambush if you are outnumbered etc... And because travel wasn't instantaneous, all these other great strategic and tactical elements just existed peacefully along with the rest of the game. Your system partially removes that, but still keeps some of it.
|
|
I don’t want to get into the pros and cons of the old system, but I remember some of the strategies well. How about;
- Jumping all the way to an enemy home planet, capping it, scrawling graffiti with dictor bases, then posting it on the forum.
- Lone miners camping gates close to enemy home systems by laying a pile of mines and waiting for some random ship to fly through. You could shift-M them before their client even exited the load screen: Kills +1 every time.
It's all too easy to sentimentalise the old gate-system. Fact is, it had lots of faults. It was a magnet for griefers; there were several people I could name who liked nothing better than to sit with a dictor and a few combat just preying on stragglers (whilst they weren't abusing the multiple pulse + mines exploit in scen servers that is!). The only time gates were used to the benefit of the faction was on the front-lines and that is just as possible with this transit system as it is with the current system.
Also, a lot of the predictive power players had had more to do with the 'clients per system' statistic which was removed. I don't think there's any discussion to be had over that; everyone wants it back.
PS: Original revised.
[ This Message was edited by: c0ldfury on 2005-10-13 19:20 ]
_________________
|
Diabo|ik
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 16, 2002
Posts: 327
From: Quebec, Canada
| Posted: 2005-10-13 22:34
The reason why I want gates to be one way to the front lines is simple. I don't want to see the battle/bombers shift from one front line system to the other instantaneously without having to relog. Guerilla warfare needs to stop. We need to focus the forces in specific systems to have that scenario feeling again... And you know what I'm talking about. Yes relogging is faster, but I always think twice before relogging for something. I always prefer to do it the in-game way. Maybe I'm the only one... who knows! Fixing this exploit would be quite simple, increase the timer to 10 minutes. Relogging before 10 minutes would put you back exactly where you were when your ship disapeared after the initial 2 minutes timeout. Then it would be faster to use gates and would keep the players ingame. relogging SHOULDNT EVEN BE AN OPTION. To me it's on the borderline of exploitation.
As for changing ships at the front... what if a friendly gate could let you access your garage ( old ship gets stored back in the home SY and the new one spawns at the gate where your previous ship was ). That would work right? Note, you couldn't spawn a "new" ship tho, only pre garaged ships could be "swapped" like this.
As for 1480 cheesy tactics and exploits, yes, they are issues, issues that never got taken care and are still present to this day ( or in other forms ) and aren't fixed by your proposition.
Marrying scenario's combat and gameplay with the MV's strategy and tactical aspects seems harder than what we all thought it would be. I'm out of ideas for now.
[small][ This Message was edited by: Diabo|ik on 2005-10-13 22:40 ][/small]
[ This Message was edited by: Diabo|ik on 2005-10-13 22:43 ]
_________________
Mostly Retired.
|
Mithrandir
Chief Marshal
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 1276
| Posted: 2005-10-19 07:07
Ok, I need some clarification here, I think.
First off, why did you remove the original post, c0ldfury?
Secondly, the way I understood it is that each faction controls say 20% of the MV. This is their "home country" so to speak - playing off the analogy of c0ldfury's about american military in Germany. Within this country they have freedom of movement, but enemies do not. Also, just so you perhaps better understand me, I'm picturing the 1480 MV map when I'm thinking about this.
At the edge of their home country is neutral space.. or at least regularly contested space, but neutral is shorter. If they want to travel from their home country to the neutral space, they have to take a wormhole there, which is one way. Thus, they put themselves on the front lines via a one-way ticket... and if they want to "escape" and run away all the way to the home system, they have to first off establish a fairly substantial foothold, and build a jumpgate, which is then linked in with their network.
Is this not what you were suggesting? If that is the case, the issue of guerrilla warfare is not so much an issue, because players cannot just jump around the universe at will; they have to establish ownership of at least part of a system in order to maintain their transport connections - in other words, they have to conquer another system (or significant part thereof), which makes it effectively "home country" .. and thus it isn't really fleeing the front lines any longer. You can't hop into a system, see the odds don't favor you, and then instantly warp to the other edge of your territory.
Right?
Or am I just wrong in my understanding of how you are shunted to the front lines? I thought there was a one-system disconnect in the transport system; you can go both ways in any fully-held system, but that last jump into the contested space is one-way (save with a long jump).
And yes, I just repeated the same idea three times in different ways, but I think while I'm typing, so that's how it goes.
... or is this thread dead? Its been a few days, and the original post has been removed.
_________________
|
c0ld
Midshipman
Joined: June 24, 2003
Posts: 342
From: UK
| Posted: 2005-10-20 12:47
That is generally how I imagined it would work, Mith, but theory and practice rarely coincide.
'A fairly substancial foothold' might not be quite true though. For just the engineer to get back, a transit-gate could be built on just one or two planets. But for fleet logistics, the toll system would mean the gates need the resouces of the entire star system online and functional to stay operational.
I'll put the original back, I must of been sober when I edited it last.
[ This Message was edited by: c0ldfury on 2005-10-20 13:58 ]
_________________
|
Diabo|ik
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 16, 2002
Posts: 327
From: Quebec, Canada
| Posted: 2005-10-21 00:24
With the revised proposal, I can see only one way of getting it "exploited" for guerilla warfare ( bombing multiple different systems in a very short amount of time, nullify'ing the "frontline" ).
Imagine a 3-way style MV... 1480 style. Now, imagine one system, connected to 2 others and those 2 others, to 2 more system each.
If the ressources needed to OPERATE a jumpgate once built in each system are too low, we could see what I'd call a spreadout frontline ( 1 gate of both faction in all 4 systems ). With this scenario, it could be possible to bomb multiple systems all at once, or alternately using the transit system for quick hit&run strikes. Now, if the capturable/buildable gates outside homespace wouldnt be included in the transit system, then the problem is no more. Or like I said, make them one-way once out of "homespace". Inside ICC homespace for example, gates controlled by the ICC would be both ways, but if the ugto were to capture gates in ICC home space, theyd still be treated as "neutral system" gates... only one way, to the battle...
[ This Message was edited by: Diabo|ik on 2005-10-21 00:55 ]
_________________
Mostly Retired.
|
c0ld
Midshipman
Joined: June 24, 2003
Posts: 342
From: UK
| Posted: 2005-10-21 13:02
Hmm, yes, the transit gate resource requirement is flexible. Have it too low and the front-line is spread out, have it too high and the front-line is too strict and would be very annoying as it would be difficult for a fleet to advance.
As for capturing transit-gates. I entertained the idea previously, but it does cause problems. You can't have 2 transit-gates in one system owned by the same faction, that just borks up the whole 'nodes in a network' thing; so either they shouldn't be capturable or capturing one when you already have one in that system should automatic cause it to SD. It would be simpler from a programming stand point to just allow players to destroy it (or camp it, whatever).
Btw Diabo|ik, I had it in my mind that the neutral jump-gates (just 'jump-gates' now) wouldn't be destroyable. I had some fan-fic in mind actually. The Jump-gates could have been built by an ancient alien race. They are indestructible, get their power from 'an unknown source' etc, all that mystery has to be from 'alien tech'. So you could say humans and k'luth built the transit-gates based on the jump-gates, they just advanced the idea a little.
_________________
|
Diabo|ik
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 16, 2002
Posts: 327
From: Quebec, Canada
| Posted: 2005-10-22 00:44
Ancient gates... MIR maybe? 
Good idea, I'd be all for it...
_________________
Mostly Retired.
|
Veronw
Marshal
Joined: December 13, 2004
Posts: 554
| Posted: 2005-10-23 13:36
Now i like everything except the part about the dreadnaughts and stations not being able to use some jumpgates or SY's since that would defeat the purpose of the dreadnaughts and stations in the first place as a combat feature, other than that I think it is a great idea and I can not wait to see it go up in the mv (trying to get beta to work)
_________________
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
