Topic: Server Poll

[Strat]

Then all we need to do is beg and pray for SQL to work!

For so many more reasons than just this! lol

Please SQL work!  We are READY! 

[GDA-S'Cipio]

What if winning a PvP match had more effect on turing and a hex than beating the AI?

That might encourage PvP as being more helpful in hex flipping.

Just an idea, dont really know much about the Dyna mechanics.

This is the ideal solution. If we had working SQL we could make PvP victories worth more than PvAI victories, and we probably wouldn't even need a disengagement rule.

The question is whether we'll get to this point before the next server is ready.

Keltset actually had this working with SQL for his Dragon's Claw and Dragon's Tooth servers on EAW.   What are the odds people would show up for an EAW server again?

(Don't know if his success means SQL works better for EAW, or if it was just the result of lower player loads.)

-S'Cipio

[Father Ted]

I think I actually reloaded EAW a few months ago, but haven't really messed with it since. 

[762_XC]

Problem with EAW is it's 2 (3?) patches ago.

[Strat]

Isn't the SQL thing the reason we have a Beta going on right now?

Doesn't that mean we are close to having a Working SQL Dyna Server?

[KBFLordKrueg]

I know that I am getting shriller everytime I re-iterate this, but I guess I gotta do it anyway.

Any RM/ARM has to do the following:

• Play a minimum of 2 hours per night, 6 out of 7 days per week
• Read the forums on a strict daily basis
• Set up daily OP Ords threads in their team forums
• Keep in-house issues in-house, not aired out in a public domain flame-war

I know that most poeple are sensible enough to NOT volunteer for the RM/ARM job if they cannot commit to the above requirements. Any RM/ARM that still volunteers to do the job and CANNOT do the above requirements then they are most probably doing their side more harm than good, because sooner or later the players will get restless and then the destructive infighting starts which absolutely cremates any viable CnC structure.

If you go through the past dynas on both SFC2 and SFC3 and look at the leadership for the sides that win and the leadership for the sides that lose, then you will note that the winning side leaders are hitting on all cylinders of the above requirements while the losing side are not meeting the above requirements and are rapidly descending into leadership chaos and nasty infighting.

Very Good points...

[Commander Maxillius]

Problem with EAW is it's 2 (3?) patches ago.

EAW's final patch (2.0.3.6) was in 03 I believe, so if anyone's been working on SQL for a previous patch of EAW they've been locked in a basement without connectivity for 3 years.  I wouldn't be surprised of EAW's DB worked better with SQL though, since OP took sooo much effort to get it where it is, and it's still got elements that are broken (fighters v. shuttles for example).  Last I knew EAW was mostly fixed (more so than OP) apart from the Hand of Bethke.

If anyone wants to ressurect EAW for a server I still have it.

[Dfly]

I am one who flies a lot of hex flipping but loves the PvP part.  I find overall flying the PvP is actually hurting the team camp.  Reason being is this.

1-fly PvP, take 1 hour 22 minutes, win mission, enemy out of THAT hex(but good for all others) for 1 hour max.  GET 1 HEXX FLIP POINT

2-fly vs AI, take 1 hour 22 minutes, win all missions, GET 14 HEXX FLIP POINTS


Point being, the hexx flippers will ultimately win the campaign over the PvPers.  which ever team can hex flip(proper hexes that is) the most will ultimately win. 

In all the campaigns I have been involved in so far (roughly 7), this has been the case. I realize I have not got the umpteen campaigns under my belt as many have but there is definitely a trend here.  I dont care for the disengagement rule mostly, but do agree on if it happened on a base or planet it should encompass the 7 hexes.  I am all in favor of seing SQL working as stating a PvP is worth say 5 or 10 HEXX FLIP POINTS, but until then, the hexmunchers win the war.

[Hexx]

I fail to see the need to be awarding HEXX flipping points for any reason.

[KBF-Crim]

Disengagment WORKS...without it...there is simply no point is playing when outnumbered...

I remember the days before....and playing outnumbered against smaller ships that could simply jump into the next mission on your hex was a complete moral dropper...

1 hex is fine in normal space....area of operation is fine on planets.

And I DO think PvP  played a large role in SG5...without the kills we scored...we would have been routed...

[Dizzy]

Penalty box was cool too, I thought. Kept an opulent player from hoping right back in a DN after his was just popped.

[KBF-Crim]

I fail to see the need to be awarding HEXX flipping points for any reason.

Doh".....I had to read that twice to 'Get it"

 

[Bonk]

In my opinion Skull's "The Slot" was the best compromise I have seen, it allowed non-DN players to have some fun too and an effect on the campaign and for DN players to have their disengagement rule elsewhere on the map.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I have seen it said more than once that you might as well be playing the single player game. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The singleplayer game stops when you stop playing. The Dynaverse is a "Persistent Universe" first and foremost (and damn persistent at that, lol), anyway, it keeps running even if you are not there. Your actions have an effect that "persists". I think people need to remember this. It is a strategic game, not just a test of tactical prowess (though that is important too).

[C-Los]

IMPORTANT NOTE: I have seen it said more than once that you might as well be playing the single player game. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The singleplayer game stops when you stop playing. The Dynaverse is a "Persistent Universe" first and foremost (and damn persistent at that, lol), anyway, it keeps running even if you are not there. Your actions have an effect that "persists". I think people need to remember this. It is a strategic game, not just a test of tactical prowess (though that is important too).

People of the PvP mindset have a tendency to forget this.....   

My opinion has always been...."Disengagement rule Bah Humbug !"    Make the ship costs more and losing the ship 50% and no one will be replacing a ship so easily.... Plus I think for people who want PvP to run people off with the rule is at the same time saying they don't want it... Doh !!!!

Of course you all know I've felt this way ever since it was implemented.... 

[KBF-maQmIgh]

If you want a more PVP mindset then you need to go back to the old SFC Online Dennis was running. The map is NOT controlled in the game but outside the game to arrange PVP play. For example the Klingon Commander moves a D7, D6 and 2xF5s into a hex that contains a Federation CA and 2xDDs. If the fed decides to fight or cannot withdraw due to movememnt limitations then the fight is played out by the players. This can be a scheduled fight so it is all PVP. Imagine if you will using F&E to play the strategic game and then SFB to play out the battles.

This allows near puire PVP play.

[FPF-DieHard]

People of the PvP mindset have a tendency to forget this.....   

The rules have become too PvP oriented, and we wonder why casual players loose interest.

[Hexx]

People of the PvP mindset have a tendency to forget this.....   

The rules have become too PvP oriented, and we wonder why casual players loose interest.

Perhaps
But I'd still argue far more players left the game before we started the current trend
then afterwards.

With ship prices reduced on servers to keep casual players from losing interest,
no withdrawl penalty simply means you'll actually be hurting your side
in a close fought battle if you engage in PVP.
Same thing if your side is outnumbered, you'll cost your side the game if you fight PVP's.
With the (silly) claims that hex flipping is strategic, everyone is far better off
to run 2 minute missions against the AI than engage in a 20 minute (or likely longer) duel against
an enemy player.

The disengagement rule is fine, imo there should also be VP's for forcing big ships to run away or kills
(but we know how well that goes over... )

[KBF-maQmIgh]

You know what, lets try a different apporach WHO CARES! Put up a server with a set of well posted the predefined rules. I think most players here will come running...

[el-Karnak]

How did such a simple idea as the disengagement rule get so convoluted out of proportion?

Disengagement rule is vital to a dyna's survival. There's no getting around that. When you had someone like Fluf argue so forcefully for it a couple years ago for the SS2 server then there is no higher hex flipping authority that you need to consult with. You had practically the whole Romulan playerbase up in serverrevolt over the lack of a disengagement rule.  Most of them were not interested in SS2 w/o the rule and few remaining would play other races casually. ISC playerbase was in a pretty cranky mood too.  No self-respecting server admin. is going to argue with that. And, surprise, surprise, they don't.  You mess with the disengagnement rule and you may as well start shutting down the Romulan and ISC races. Lyrans won't be far behind.

But, the disengagement rule is supposed to be kept simple.  Its function is to replace the broken SQL database add-on to the dyna server kit. Basically, if SQL was working, any PvP match that results in a loss would have a MULTIPLE DV shift. What the actual DV shift should be is up for debate. I would go for something in the 10 DV shift range. Why? Cuz, on average most people do about 10 missions an hour.  But, we don't have the server kit to do this. So, we translate a 10 DV shift into an one hour banning from the hex the PvP match took place in for both fleeing an enemy or being destroyed.

That's it. Nice and simple.  To repeat:  you taco bell or die in a PvP match then you are banned to the hex for an hour. Admins. can play with the banning time, but they should not differentiate between taco belling and dying to stop any disengagement rule work-arouds. If SQL ever works, the same system will be used except it will be multiple DV shifts instead.

You can argue for waivers in cases of being heavily outnumbered in a PvP match. Just don't forget to get the missions scripters on the same page if they ever do multiple DV shifts in the scripts. GDA-Kel had the best system when he was able to shift the DVs in the server kit's middle-ware tier instead of having the functionality hard-coded in the client-tier mission scripts.

[GDA-Kel]

What if winning a PvP match had more effect on turing and a hex than beating the AI?

That might encourage PvP as being more helpful in hex flipping.

Just an idea, dont really know much about the Dyna mechanics.

This is the ideal solution. If we had working SQL we could make PvP victories worth more than PvAI victories, and we probably wouldn't even need a disengagement rule.

The question is whether we'll get to this point before the next server is ready.

Keltset actually had this working with SQL for his Dragon's Claw and Dragon's Tooth servers on EAW.   What are the odds people would show up for an EAW server again?

(Don't know if his success means SQL works better for EAW, or if it was just the result of lower player loads.)

-S'Cipio

Yep...my two servers did all that and more.  This was a post in the Gorn forums way back on July 13, 2003. 

Fellow Reptiles,

The Dragon's Teeth server is far enough along in testing that I can share with you my progress to date.

1. I have implemented a new feature called GNN, or Galactic News Network. The GNN will broadcast messages on general chat for all to see. Currently, it only broadcasts info concerning astounding victories by players and PvP wins by players.

2. Astounding victory bonus DV shift. All players get a bonus point of DV shift when they earn an astounding victory. For example, if you attack a clear enemy hex at DV 10 and earn an astounding victory, the DV will actually shift to 8, instead of 9.

3. PvP bonus DV shift. All players get 8 points of DV shift when they earn a PvP victory. For example, if you attack a clear enemy hex at DV 10 against an enemy player and win a victory, the DV will actually shift to 1, instead of 9.

4. The bonuses are cumulative, so an astounding victory against another player in a clear hex at DV 10 will lower the DV to 0 (1+ 1 + 8 ).

5. Now the bad news. The database is updated correctly with the proper DV values. However, each of our maps is NOT updated until another mission is run (or forfeited) in the hex where the astounding victory or PVP bonus was earned.

6. Shipyards. According to the D2 Server Admin forum on Yahoo, there is a memory leak in the shipyard functionality that causes the SQL D3 server to crash. Well, I suspect that this leak also exists in the SQL D2 server kit. To avoid this problem, I built my own shipayrd. The old shipyard is still active, so you can still buy ships the old way. To access the new shipyard, you must be in Gorn chat. Simply type YARD: and then the individual command. Current commands are 'show' and 'buy.' So, to view all ships in the yard, type:

The second, (and final) server, the Dragon's Claw implemented even more features such as:

Bases set to destruct ONLY when a hex changed owners, not when the first successful mission was run in the hex.  This made bases much more robust, but not indestructable. 

Built in line-of-supply.  You could only flip a hex for your empire if it could trace a LOS to a friendly supply point (base or planet).  If the hex was not in supply, then it flipped neutral and stayed that way.  This solved most of the deepstrike issues.  A player could deepstrike to his heart's content, but the best he could do would be to deny space to his opponent by flipping hexes to neutral if no LOS existed.

Players could own up to 5 ships, but only fly one at a time.  Ships could be spread out within your empire and the player could jump to any of his other ships by simply typing a command in the chat channel. 

Other than LOS (it was not completely debugged), all of these features worked correctly 100% of the time.  Everything was bug-free. 

Does anyone remember the Dragon's Claw and Dragon's Teeth servers?  I'll bet most do not, judging by the attendance on them.  At that time, the remaining community members decided to move to OP as the game of choice.  Very few stayed behind on EAW.  The OP SQL kit did not even exist, so there was no chance of moving this new functionality to OP.  when SQL became available for OP, it was more bugged than EAW I believe, so I did not choose to put the time and effort into porting my code to OP.  I actually looked more into SFC3 than OP.  Turns out SFC3 was even worse, so I retired from server developement permanently.

<ahem>  Sorry to hijack the thread....back to retirement now...