| Author |
The Metaverse vs Scenario Server |
Reason
Cadet
Joined: April 14, 2002
Posts: 156
|  Posted: 2007-09-05 10:48
The Metaverse
The "MV" is a persistant universe with several systems all linked together. Rather then starting over every time objectives are met it is an ongoing battle that never ends. All aspects of the game are able to be accomplished, however, some not as easily as others. Usually a person joins the metaverse when they have more time on their hands to accomplish something.
The Admiral Server
This is the place you come to for "quick action" and combat. When you first start this is where you gain your ranks once you graduate from the Newbie Server. One of the other added benefits to a "Scenario Server" was that you were not restricted to one side to play. A person usually would come here when they only have a limited amount of time to play.
Metaverse versus the Scenario Server
One of the fundamental problems with this game today is where Darkspace came from and where it is going.
Darkspace was centered around the "Scenario Server" type of gaming and the code represented such. With this type of focus the Metaverse suffered because of it. Everyone played in the Fleet Admiral server and was playing Darkspace because of this type of gameplay. You could join whenever and instantly be in the action. Every once in awhile the action would spill over into the Metaverse because Clan A would attack an area owned by Clan B and carnage would ensue. Once the battle was over everyone went back to the FA server.
Moving forward, the "Development Team" (Formed during the Universe Server Patch) was given a decision to make, Continue focusing on the Metaverse style of gameplay or the Scenario Server type of gameplay. At the time, it was viewed the future of Darkspace would be with the Metaverse server, but while that needed to happen we also had to recognize the value of the Fleet Admiral server.
I am sure those of you still following along can begin to see the problem developing. The inaffective merger of the two types of gameplay has contibuted to the decline of this game.
So, how do we fix this problem?
Past Ideas
Darkspace Mapping History (Beta-1.481)
Just something to take into consideration when developing future map variations for the MV as to where things have been. Keep this in mind when developing MV Conceptual Layouts to help support what you are developing for the MV as a whole.
Shipyards (Current Form)
Benefits: Can get to the action almost at once.
Downside: Takes away from strategy and renders flight-time obsolete.
Wormholes -A Spawned wormhole would pop-up in the Home System of the faction that would lead directly to the current battle going on. Several could pop-up depending on how many battles were being waged.
Benefits: Would allow the players to get to the action
Downside: Same as Shipyards, unless you actually survive the battle.
Suggestions
How can we incorporate the "quick action"/"limited time" scenario servers into the concept of the persistant Metaverse?
This is where the community comes in. Think up some suggestions and help out the current Development Team. Please use this thread to post your ideas and suggestions to help answer this question.
- |2eason -
[ This Message was edited by: Reason on 2007-09-26 05:56 ]
_________________
- |2eason -
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2007-09-05 11:00
Just before everyone starts making suggestions, a couple of notes to be made:
1) We're limiting wormholes to inner-system travel only.
2) The number of shipyards capable in the MV is being drasticly reduced.
Draf and I were talking on ways of drawing attention to objects in the MV so that two or more factions could possibly see a minature event, and be drawn to that, causing battles and such to occure, adding to the "instant action" apeal that admiral has.
I'd love to hear some suggestions that wouldn't be counter productive to what we're trying to do. And try to understand that we're players too, and of all people, I more than anyone, want to be able to jump in-game, and within minutes end up in a battle. That apeals to me heavily, but I know some people want more than that. They want to be able to jump in, do something, and to have an effect on the metaverse, and the factions that play in there.
In a way, both types of play apeal to me - it just depends on what sort of mood I'm in, and I expect this goes for many people.
So, whilst trying to come up with ideas, try not to just go all out in one direction, as we don't want this. We want something that pleases both sides.
- Jack
_________________
|
Veronw
Marshal
Joined: December 13, 2004
Posts: 554
| Posted: 2007-09-05 11:42
Heres a small list of ideas i brainstormed slightly,
1.Perhaps the Dev team could try to incorporate less planets in the systems so that there are overall fewer planets in the metaverse.
2. Reduce the active number of resources in the systems that will limit the ability of the players to fully construct the planets unless they expand and gather more resources (NOTE: having the universal resource kinda killed this idea, but i thought id put it up anyways.)
3. Maybe keep the size of the systems over all smaller? like in the scenario servers how a good sized fleet would take up a large portion of the map which might attract more battles due to the smaller size.
4. Since shipyard numbers are going to be limited, why not have them in a pre-built cluster with an above 32 structure count and to be static planets. By static i mean have them be like the old scenario flag planets. Their big, their important, u take one out and the enemy is permantly crippled? (tossing this idea back and forth)
5. Why not make all ships available in the homegate, that way if a faction loses all their shipyards, they wont be totally helpless and stuck with only the usual newbie ships.
6. My last idea is to have small 'event's happen in the mv, like how u guys had the Mir script running in the metaverse a while back, how all three factions would go to that planet, wipe out the mir, then turn on each other...
My ideas are centered around system battles and increasing their strategic importance. Kinda wanted to incorporate at least two ideas that would
bring back the old strategy DS used to have. Wormholes have been fixed IMHO, by being reduced to inner system travel. Shipyards could just be used as all-important planet bases.
I think that having a Flag planet system added to the mv to ID shipyards might promote more combat and a more...contested metaverse instead of the typical mirv it and move on we see today.
Just my two cents.
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2007-09-05 14:21
Quote:
|
On 2007-09-05 11:00, BackSlash *Jack* wrote:
They want to be able to jump in, do something, and to have an effect on the metaverse, and the factions that play in there.
- Jack
|
|
What else is their to do in this game besides combat?
Planet Building? No, thats not developed enough. In fact, it's being even more dumbafied.
Planet Bombing? Also no skill.
Tell me backy, what do people do in this game besides combat? Theirs Tactical Combat against enemies, Capturing Systems to expand the glory of your empire (which, also, is not implemented at all), and flaming people on the forums.
Thats about it.
_________________
|
Kanman
Grand Admiral
Pitch Black
Joined: August 26, 2005
Posts: 1017
From: Virginia, United States
| Posted: 2007-09-05 18:24
I would like to suggest making the MV smaller, but we have done that twice now since I registered and the lag is no more or less than it was originally.
So, I would suggest a Large, but nearly empty MV. Make it like this: Condense the systems to be smaller. Let's face it, a planet across the system that is a 10 second jump is the same as a planet with a 30 second jump and so on. So long as it is at least 7000-10000 away (outside detectable range with room for combat in the middle). There is no need for planets to be WAAAaaaayyy over there.
However, I would like the individual systems to be VERY far apart. Make those invasions of new territory a real campaign, where there are stops along the way for fuel and slowly depleting reserves (reloads). It would make every shot (with limited ammo) important.
Yeah, I might be rambling a bit here, but the point I am trying to make is: Make the systems smaller and farther apart. Also, avoid planet clusters with 4-6 moons. Those tend to lag more than they are worth, especially with bombing as hard as it is supposedly going to be in 484.
_________________
|
Supertrooper
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: March 18, 2004
Posts: 1895
From: Maryland, U.S.A
| Posted: 2007-09-06 03:27
Before we go into the 'Omg make systems smaller' issue, let's try and remember that ALOT of code has been re-worked to help with this lag issue. Yes, code has been changed in previous versions, but as far as I know it, this would be the biggest ammount worked on, and the biggest change.
There wont be as many items clogging up the server to register them, so it'll take off stress from the server.
Let's see how .484 handles the current map (Or wich ever one is there at the time) before we go off spouting on how the map lags and such, because the codes running .483 and .484 are different.
_________________
|
Drafell
Grand Admiral
Mythica
Joined: May 30, 2003
Posts: 2449
From: United Kingdom
| Posted: 2007-09-06 10:33
One thing that we will be looking at introducing (providing the server code is robust enough) will be NPC scripting, so that selected systems will see a likelihood of AI invasions or takeovers. The scripts we are designing are intended to scale according to the opposition, so that any active spawns will automatically adjust in numbers and difficulty, based on the players in that system and the ships they are using.
There is also the opportunity for some other types of challenges to be introduced, such as rebel bases which may need to be tracked down and destroyed in order to pacify a system over which you have just gained control. This would give an incentive for players to capture entire systems in order to trigger such events.
[ This Message was edited by: Drafell on 2007-09-06 10:38 ]
_________________
It's gone now, no longer here...Yet still I see, and still I fear.rnrn
rnrn
DarkSpace Developer - Retired
|
Smartin
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 04, 2005
Posts: 1107
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2007-09-09 12:23
Quote:
|
On 2007-09-05 14:21, Fattierob (x2 Weeks™) wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2007-09-05 11:00, BackSlash *Jack* wrote:
They want to be able to jump in, do something, and to have an effect on the metaverse, and the factions that play in there.
- Jack
|
|
Planet Building? No, thats not developed enough. In fact, it's being even more dumbafied.
|
|
And all this time you lead me to beleive i was at the top of my game.
_________________
DarkSpace Community Website
|
Drafell
Grand Admiral
Mythica
Joined: May 30, 2003
Posts: 2449
From: United Kingdom
| Posted: 2007-09-10 07:01
Planet building isn't being dumbed down.
We are streamlining some of the content to make it more intuitive and easier to learn, and also to help ease future expansion. Adding complexity to a game is all very well, but it must not be necessary for every player to learn these intricate systems and relations in order to be competitive.
With regards to planet construction, we are considering ways to implement and upgrade feature for buildings.
The simplest method will likely be to use the same code as we do for the new ship modding system when in the F3 Planet Management menu. When right-clicking on a structure, you would see a list of alternatives that it can be upgraded (or downgraded) to. Structures that are available would be indicated by white icons, and grayed/red icons would indicated that the Resource flags or Technology levels are not currently sufficient to enable the upgrade to that structure. Upgrading structures in this manner would NOT give any prestige gain by default, and the structure being upgraded would be inactive until it is fully completed. To gain prestige, players would need to manually target and activate their drones on the structure to accelerate construction.
There is potential for us to go beyond tier three buildings, up to and including structures which take several days to complete, although there are potential abuse issues with AFK builders just camping a single structure for two days, and gaining a few thousand prestige in the process. This could be potentially remedied by adding a timer to the build device, so that it only activate for one to two minutes at a time before automatically switching off to recharge.
These are just a few thoughts on where we could go... nothing is set in stone as yet.
_________________
It's gone now, no longer here...Yet still I see, and still I fear.rnrn
rnrn
DarkSpace Developer - Retired
|
Axianda The Royal
Fleet Admiral
Terra Squadron
Joined: November 20, 2001
Posts: 4273
From: Axianda
| Posted: 2007-09-10 11:15
Well we got Pirates but as Draf said the AI script needs to be improved before we can get it to give some good action... we could try flooding the MV with dumb AI but that only makes lag.
_________________
- Axi
|
Axianda The Royal
Fleet Admiral
Terra Squadron
Joined: November 20, 2001
Posts: 4273
From: Axianda
| Posted: 2007-09-13 08:37
okay my idea for the Shipyard issue is as followed.
make the shipyard only buildable on certain planets, do not make it insane high with manpower or such but make it linked with certain planets, for us humans that would be a terra type. the bugs might wanna settle with someting else.
this 1 makes it easy in any map design to implement strategic locations because you decide where shipyards will be possible and 2 givs you the very effective tool to limiting the SY's
now if that doesnt work we could always try *heaven forbid* orbital shipyards. *platform style*
they would either work as a planet with only 1 purpose *no builds* and can be capped using INF. or they would orbit a planet switching sides when said planet is captured.
what needs to be done is bring back some of the power of designing a stable battlfield back to the DEV's currently you can make SY anywhere you want thus making it a pain to ballance.
_________________
- Axi
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2007-09-13 10:39
We have to make it insanely high with manpower if we want to limit it. We can create new planets with higher population by default and such, which would mean it's just as easy to build (maybe more waiting involved), but you can only build on those planets.
_________________
|
Sixkiller
Marshal
Courageous Elite Commandos
Joined: May 11, 2005
Posts: 1786
From: Netherlands
| Posted: 2007-09-13 11:01
but that way we get planets that SHOULD have a SY, but dont, and instead have tons of defense.
And since we have resource tags for buildings (i think?) couldnt we just limit a specific resource to SY planets?
_________________
|
Axianda The Royal
Fleet Admiral
Terra Squadron
Joined: November 20, 2001
Posts: 4273
From: Axianda
| Posted: 2007-09-13 17:29
but wont the rescource be spread to all the planets with the starports?
perhaps the "platform" stationary type of SY's are better since they can be build/destroyed and are set in place when the map is being designed.
maybe use a big Roid for em.
_________________
- Axi
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2007-09-13 18:50
Quote:
|
On 2007-09-13 11:01, Sixkiller wrote:
but that way we get planets that SHOULD have a SY, but dont, and instead have tons of defense.
And since we have resource tags for buildings (i think?) couldnt we just limit a specific resource to SY planets?
|
|
There's still a 32 structure limit (limit to be discussed). So although they can be built up slightly better than normal planets for defence, they can't be build up for death-star-ism.
Even if you wanted too, not putting a SY on a SY planet would mean that you would have to trek extra far through the MV to get to where you want to go - and no-one wants that.
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash *Jack* on 2007-09-13 18:51 ]
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
