| Author |
Suggestions regarding Scenario server |
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
|  Posted: 2008-11-03 19:28
Quote:
|
On 2008-11-03 18:53, ThunderCat [USF Andromeda][VoB] wrote:
I take it you`ve never played a scenario back in the old days, nor have you read my first post.
|
|
No, I don't think I played scenarios in the "old days", but the shipyard issue isn't the only problem with the scenario server. Unless you begin all games with fully built planets right at the start, somebody is still going to have to mine and build for most of the game in order to protect a planet or two from transport blitzkreigs. Making structures cheaper to build is something of a slippery slope, since the ultimate evolution is to simply do away with the planets and have a featureless deathmatch arena where you can slaughter to your heart's content.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]
|
Kaine Darkheart -SO-
Grand Admiral
Deicide
Joined: March 30, 2002
Posts: 458
From: Oshkosh, Wisconsin
| Posted: 2008-11-03 20:43
which is why thundercat suggested the old way of ships at the jumpgate instead of planets which is exactly the way it was back in the day
and jack you need to quit getting pissed off about a server. It comes down to personal preference not jacks personal preference. some days i wana get something done in the mv some days i wana sit back and wait an hour or so for a battle to happen in the mv.
or some days i wana go in build up a planet *which you cant do effectivly in the mv unless theres a reset* and run around in a dessy/cruiser (with the new way implimented)
and seeing as how i pay my money to play this game along with many others im glad we can branch out and have a broader play base. not im in a ugto fleet so i MUST be ugto at all times no matter what because there is no other alternative.
There is once again 0 harm in having this server up. you can say yeah new version is more suited for the mv. yeah it is ill admit it flat out. it doesnt mean that we shouldnt have the choice or right to choose other things.
Name something that having the scenario server HARMS the game. besides its "too like counterstrike" which is outlandish. zomg 3 hour timers with rotating maps. whoop de. little variety never hurt anything
_________________
|
Mithrandir
Chief Marshal
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 1276
| Posted: 2008-11-03 21:28
Mostly I'd say its the time required to make it useful without harming the way the MV works. Everything runs off the same code base, and splitting to have scenario objects and metaverse objects not only increases the complexity significantly, but takes a lot of time. That'd be the main trade-off.
Also:
I take it you`ve never played a scenario back in the old days, nor have you read my first post.
These aren't the old days. The code has moved on, as Jack pointed out. We're not opposed to the scenario server, but its not the direction we're interested in moving and thus we're not going to adapt the code to suit the old scenario game play style. I'll grant you it was fun. But its also gone. Personally I'd recommend coming up with suggestions to make the MV better suit what it is you want from the scenario setup - having a real front line, for example, so that there is a definite zone of combat with relatively easy access (hey, like a scenario server).
[ This Message was edited by: Mithrandir on 2008-11-03 21:34 ]
_________________
|
Lark of Serenity
Grand Admiral
Raven Warriors
Joined: June 02, 2002
Posts: 2516
| Posted: 2008-11-03 21:35
ive always been kind of split on scenario servers as they are now. but i would generally support the creation of one, despite the fact i would probably never use it personally (nor can play at all currently. anyone ever gonna help me fix that?)
if it were at all possible to make a scenario map with a single fully built planet by each factions jumpgate and the rest of it otherwise barren, i think i would get behind that. capping its rank somewhere low, rear admiral or whatever is below that, would stop the vets from abusing it while letting newbie players have a general sense of what full combat feels like, with a few cruisers floating around.
as it stands now id say its still useful. whats wrong in an engi spending the whole map trying to get a planet running? if they have the patience to do that, they will be excellent engineers in the MV, so more power to them. also, frankly, getting your team a dreadnaught in scenario is awesome. ive been the dread before and thought it was pretty cool for a variety of reasons. a single dread cant take on an entire fleet of smaller ships, so they get to see a dread, maybe damage a dread or chase it off. etc.
_________________
Admiral Larky, The Wolf
Don't play with fire, play with Larky.
Raven Division Command - 1st Division
|
Lark of Serenity
Grand Admiral
Raven Warriors
Joined: June 02, 2002
Posts: 2516
| Posted: 2008-11-03 21:39
in reply to miths call for suggestions:
maybe have the newbie portion of the MV extend into the real MV a bit, but again with a cap on who can enter it? so one of the actual important systems in the MV that everyone will want can only have cruisers and below in it?
blame some sort of natural tachyon disruption that starts large objects from jumping through the area.
_________________
Admiral Larky, The Wolf
Don't play with fire, play with Larky.
Raven Division Command - 1st Division
|
Kaine Darkheart -SO-
Grand Admiral
Deicide
Joined: March 30, 2002
Posts: 458
From: Oshkosh, Wisconsin
| Posted: 2008-11-03 21:43
See my whole thing from a personal view is. When you hop in the mv theres a 50/50 shot of something going on whether it be bombing or combat. the other 50% being. oh lets wait for more. we need this we need that blah blah.
When people wana play a game, they wana do just that. I know I don't wana wait for something to happen. and givin current game play minus bombing you cant really start anything every time. which is for me where i would enjoy the *permanemt* creation of a scenario server. To me, it was always something i could jump into and enjoy playing a game. And I realise that the game is now ment to be played in the mv.
But until different ideas are thought up and put into motion about the mv *like the AI combat faust mentioned to me* the mv is very slow paced. And for the newer people a daunting tasks of trying to figure out a game all at once.
_________________
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2008-11-03 21:58
Well see that's sort of the problem. In scenario as it currently is, "playing the game" requires other players, which there aren't a lot of (in general, but especially in the scenario server). I sympathize with the waiting game complaint, but I don't think scenario would per se fix that... at least not without a lot of code/game changes. You'd have to find some way to spawn all ships immediately, which isn't supported. Or change gates to spawn everything - but gates are shared by the MV, so that makes that a bit of a problem. Or have shipyards easily and quickly and cheaply built - but again, MV spillover effects.
Basically, the problem boils down to scenarios not being worth much at current, and making them worthwile would require a lot of code splitting and tweaking and changing and make the place that much harder to balance.
There's no harm in having a server up, I agree. I just don't think there's much benefit at present either.
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
| Posted: 2008-11-03 22:19
Quote:
|
On 2008-11-03 21:39, Lark of Serenity wrote:
in reply to miths call for suggestions:
maybe have the newbie portion of the MV extend into the real MV a bit, but again with a cap on who can enter it? so one of the actual important systems in the MV that everyone will want can only have cruisers and below in it?
blame some sort of natural tachyon disruption that starts large objects from jumping through the area.
|
|
I like that idea. Have special jumpgates that launch ships to another, mineral-rich region of the universe. The energy requirement is so great that the gates can only send small ships, but all three factions want those resources so they're sending raiding parties anyway.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]
|
Hellza - Dark Master
Fleet Admiral
Praetorian Wolves
Joined: June 06, 2004
Posts: 498
| Posted: 2008-11-04 03:31
Quote:
|
On 2008-11-03 21:58, Shigernafy wrote:
Or have shipyards easily and quickly and cheaply built - but again, MV spillover effects.
|
|
Well, I had a idea last week. that alot of people thought was pretty awesome.
why not have 3 ranks of SY's. maybe a 4th for Stations and the "Elite" dreads.
---------------------
Now this is a rough idea. I myself, have not built in this version. only a quick build in something. but thats it.
So if we -would- choose four ranks.
Quote:
| Alpha Stage - Rank 1 Shipyard
Requires - 30 tec, 40 Power, 15 pop.
Ship spawns:
Engineers, all the frigates, Transports, Extrator.
Beta Stage - Rank 2 Shipyard
Requires - 50 tec, 50 power, 20 pop
Ship spawns:
All the above, Destroyers, Support ships.
Delta Stage - Rank 3 Shipyard
Requires - 80 tec, 60 power, 25 pop
Ship spawns:
All above, Cruisers, and the Dreadnoughts. (excluding, EAD, AD, siphion, Krill)
Omega Stage - Rank 4 Shipyard
Reqiures - 100 tec, 80 Power, 30 Pop
Ship spawns:
All above, and the EAD, AD, Siphion, Krill as well as the stations.
|
|
Hope this might help out.
also we can-dev- can decide on the resouce it costs for the Ranked SY's.
_________________
I am watching you in the dark shadows
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2008-11-04 04:48
I don't think you guys understand just how much work would be required to make scenario work...
@Kaine, I'm not getting pissed over the server. I'm getting annoyed at the fact it keeps going away, then coming back, then going away, then coming back. Each, and every time, it's proved that it's a dead donkey - there is no use, or fun in it anymore and the vision you have of it is really in your head.
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash *Jack* on 2008-11-04 04:50 ]
_________________
|
Hellza - Dark Master
Fleet Admiral
Praetorian Wolves
Joined: June 06, 2004
Posts: 498
| Posted: 2008-11-04 05:15
Quote:
|
On 2008-11-04 04:48, BackSlash *Jack* wrote:
I don't think you guys understand just how much work would be required to make scenario work...
|
|
this isnt just for Scenario, this is also for MV.
_________________
I am watching you in the dark shadows
|
ThunderCat [USF Andromeda][VoB]
Fleet Admiral
Pitch Black
Joined: October 30, 2007
Posts: 22
From: Tarn Vedra
| Posted: 2008-11-04 08:13
How about you modify the jumpgate code,for both MV and scenario servers, so that they "evolve" according to credits.For example:
Each planet has a credit value which,if im not mestaking, was used in the past for ship spawning.Now, lets take 4 values, 1k, 10k, 50k, 100k.For each of those values the jumpgate upgrades to a better level which lets the faction get bigger ships (kind of like what hellza suggested).This means that, for MV, those gates will only be able to spawn (floated or fresh) ships according to its level.Which in turn, means that the faction would need not just 1 planet for ammo and fuel and they can run arround the system,but they need more planets which produce credits in order to spanw a dread for example in that system.As for the scenario server, it means fleets will have to battle it out in frigs and scouts at first (engies to upgrade other planets in order to get more credits), then in dessies and so on.It would be a battle to who can get the next jumpgate upgrade to get better ships.
Comments ?
_________________
|
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
| Posted: 2008-11-04 16:07
Woah woah woah woah. This is starting to head into wild speculation territory. There's already a system that restricts ship spawning from shipyards: Resources and technology. Shipyards themselves aren't exactly top-tier technology; you can build one without anywhere near as much effort as it takes to build level three defences all over a planet. It's the technology and resources that really restrict ship construction, at least in my experience.
What's with all this need to completely change the system for building ships?
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]
|
Kaine Darkheart -SO-
Grand Admiral
Deicide
Joined: March 30, 2002
Posts: 458
From: Oshkosh, Wisconsin
| Posted: 2008-11-04 16:53
well. with whats been said already out there. it seems there are the 2 sides both trying to get their voice out there.
Frankly. There is a flaw with the metaverse for those who either do not have the time for something to happen. or just plain wont wait for something to happen.
And with the way the game is currently set up the scenario server is partially to mostly worthless.
both which are making players not get the experiance they want or rather getting the full experiance they want. I am in this bracket as well.
Oh and for the record. IMO there is nothing wrong with the way the game is going, its just this middle point that is frustrating to so many players. when this AI combat part launches im sure some of these problems will be lifed.
But until then...
I hope the scenario server at least stays to partially open up an option for others. when the game is fully and completely in the mv where action always happens or theres always something to do minus orbit a planet. then id more or less change my vote to taking it down. *again minus a few things*
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2008-11-04 17:38
What would make the MV fun for people who enjoy/enjoyed Scenario then?
Can't really do the faction-swapping thing though(but then you can go fleetless for that, so hey!).
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
