Topic: Poll/discussion: mission naming policy

[NuclearWessels]

Yes, I'm spamming the boards with polls, sorry about that. (OK, I'm not really sorry.)

On the one hand I like not knowing exactly what I'm getting going into a "Patrol", but there are certainly times when you want to know if your drafting options are limited by one of the two mission choices you're presented with.

I'm totally happy with any of the four options listed - so will let you folks choose (i.e. dave passes the buck)

dave

[Riskyllama]

As long as there's at least ones that tells us when we have the right mission for 3v3 AI free capabilities, Patrol works for me I guess.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

I like it with every patrol style mission simply being called "patrol", and you don't know what you are getting until it launches.

I reall wouldn't mind a sever where *ever* mission has the same name -Convoy Raids and all -- and you didn't know what you were getting until you started it.

I guess I'd make exceptions for planetary and base assaults if we could ensure that simpler missions never cropped on on planet or base hexs.

-S'Cipio

[762_XC]

I also like having generic names. Having the occasional fleet battle mixed in there keeps things spicy. No one ever picks them voluntarily because they are worried about mission times.

Another thing it does is even out the supply dependency of different races.

However, I believe EVERY mission should draft 3v3. Being involuntarily separated from your wingman/men happens often enough without missions making the problem worse.

[KBF-Kurok]

 Im thinkg that as long as all missions are capable of drafting 3v3 the stock mission name "patrol"s fine. The only reason that i like it the way it is now  with some coming up with teheir own names is bacause i can tell wich one arew gonne give me the best shot at drafting my allies and enemies in a mission that will  work. If these issues are worked out patrol is fine. Planet assults and such i think should still have their own names.
Kurok

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I like the idea of all missions of the same name having the same drafting specifications.  I also like having some missions that draft less than 3 players, but think the naming of these should be different.

This way the person jumping in a hex and drafting where a gangbang squad is "sitting rock" has a chance to get a mission that will only draft an equal number of foes, of course he never knows which one he will get but at least he knows he might not be outnumbered even if he is outgunned.

[FPF-DieHard]

Patrols should be random, the names should be the same

[Bonk]

I like unique names as it allows for error reports even when mission names are no longer on. Issues tend to turn up the most long after the server has gone live.

I like some suprises but missions should be easily distinguishable.

And by no means are these polls spam, I couldn't be happier to see them.     

[Hexx]

While I'd like patrols to pretty much be random and have the same name, I'd also like
some that have an indication if tehy draft 3v3 or what

And I don't see any need to have every patrol draft 3v3, it would be best if the majority of them do
but I also think that some should only draft 1v1 (and be recognizable) and 2v2 if possible.

[Dizzy]

Folks, there are only so many variations of a 3v3 patrol. Variety is what we are after here. But the point Dave is trying to make is with other mission choices that arnt a 3v3 do we want to know what we are up against?

Yes. All 3v3 patrol variants should be random and named patrol. Any of those that do not draft 3v3 or are special for some other reason, and yes every mission pack should have a FEW of those, they need to show up as something other than a patrol. This way when that pvper gets a mandatory mission choice, you want to know what to expect.

[762_XC]

Folks, there are only so many variations of a 3v3 patrol.

Oh what baloney. There are more variations that can be scripted than we have now, that's for sure. And we've been living with these missions for how long?

MISSIONS SHOULD NOT BREAK UP FLEETS.

[Dizzy]

Folks, there are only so many variations of a 3v3 patrol.

Oh what baloney. There are more variations that can be scripted than we have now, that's for sure. And we've been living with these missions for how long?

MISSIONS SHOULD NOT BREAK UP FLEETS.

only when drafting in enemy territory should u not get less than a 3v3.

missions can also be set to priority

u can also hex seed a mission. Imagine a 'slot' area of the map where only 2v2 missions showed up. Easy to do.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Folks, there are only so many variations of a 3v3 patrol.

Oh what baloney. There are more variations that can be scripted than we have now, that's for sure. And we've been living with these missions for how long?

MISSIONS SHOULD NOT BREAK UP FLEETS.

You don't want to break up the fleet take the initiative and draft rather than sitting rock, if your guys drafts he has a better choice of selecting the mission, you play rock and you give up the initiative and suffer the consequences if any.  Getting a fleet broke up represents a foe striking while the iron ius hot, ie catching the fleet when one ship is away on patrol, or away for some other reason.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

I like the idea of all missions of the same name having the same drafting specifications.  I also like having some missions that draft less than 3 players, but think the naming of these should be different.

This way the person jumping in a hex and drafting where a gangbang squad is "sitting rock" has a chance to get a mission that will only draft an equal number of foes, of course he never knows which one he will get but at least he knows he might not be outnumbered even if he is outgunned.

Now there's an idea.

Call the mission "snipe attack" or something, to represent your trying to catch one enemy ship away from his brethren.  Of course, like you say, you never know which one you'll get.

-S'Cipio

[NuclearWessels]

Cool - interesting discussion!

So what about something along the lines of (just making up names for now, insert something more meaningful later)
 - all missions that can only draft 1v1 get named Investigation
 - all missions that can draft 2v2 get named Escort
 - all missions that can draft 3v3 get named Patrol

As a further suggestion [and crossing over a bit with the other thread] missions that draft less than 3v3 are never mandatories (so the drafter can't be forced to break up their fleet) but tend to give an advantage to any outgunned draftee, since they could be involuntarily seperated from their fleet.  That way you're rolling the dice a bit if you try to split someone off from a triad.

Keep the thoughts rolling!
dave

[Dizzy]

How do u do that dave, have the script know not to offer a 1v1 in a hex where there are 2 enemy players from each side?

[NuclearWessels]

How do u do that dave, have the script know not to offer a 1v1 in a hex where there are 2 enemy players from each side?

no, I meant the scripts would be named based on their generic draft capability.  We can't prevent the 1v1s/2v2s from being offered in a hex where more allies/opponents are present (well, except by not having them at all of course), but if the 1v1s/2v2s weren't mandatories then one of you could simply pop out and in until you got a mission with a high enough draft capacity.

Just eyeballing the common missions, right now it looks like about a 60/20/20 mix of 3v3/2v2/1v1s for the server admin to choose from.

dave

[762_XC]

Folks, there are only so many variations of a 3v3 patrol.

Oh what baloney. There are more variations that can be scripted than we have now, that's for sure. And we've been living with these missions for how long?

MISSIONS SHOULD NOT BREAK UP FLEETS.

You don't want to break up the fleet take the initiative and draft rather than sitting rock, if your guys drafts he has a better choice of selecting the mission, you play rock and you give up the initiative and suffer the consequences if any.  Getting a fleet broke up represents a foe striking while the iron ius hot, ie catching the fleet when one ship is away on patrol, or away for some other reason.

That is NOT what it represents. It represents an artificial constraint to give an undue advantage to the single ship player. The team who fields a superior force should have the option of deciding how best to employ it tactically, and not be FORCED into a futile chase by limitations artificially induced by the script.

[Dizzy]

How do u do that dave, have the script know not to offer a 1v1 in a hex where there are 2 enemy players from each side?

 We can't prevent the 1v1s/2v2s from being offered in a hex where more allies/opponents are present

Hex seed.

[Nemesis]

I like the generic name.  Can't the end of mission report be made to give the actual name?  That way if a particular mission is bugged then you get that last moment reminder of what mission it was so that you can record it when needed.

[K'Hexx]

That is NOT what it represents. It represents an artificial constraint to give an undue advantage to the single ship player. The team who fields a superior force should have the option of deciding how best to employ it tactically, and not be FORCED into a futile chase by limitations artificially induced by the script.

Sometimes a superior force is due to intelligence and creativity of the pilot and not the concentration of heay metal, I like this as an option. 

[762_XC]

 

Step 1) Move on hex
Step 2) Pick non-3v3 mission

OMG, that's brilliant! teh win!!!11!!!1!!!

[FPF-DieHard]

 - all missions that can only draft 1v1 get named Investigation
 - all missions that can draft 2v2 get named Escort
 - all missions that can draft 3v3 get named Patrol

I'm going to be honest, the "investigation" and "escort" missions will not be used. 

[Dizzy]

unless u put terrain requirements in the script and hex seed the map.

[FPF-DieHard]

unless u put terrain requirements in the script and hex seed the map.

Possibly

[K'Hexx]

Step 1) Move on hex
Step 2) Pick non-3v3 mission

OMG, that's brilliant! teh win!!!11!!!1!!!

That would be one step more than Move onto hex with 2 other  heavy metal ship aces and await draft  

+1 anyhow for semi-clever retort  

[Hexx]

That is NOT what it represents. It represents an artificial constraint to give an undue advantage to the single ship player. The team who fields a superior force should have the option of deciding how best to employ it tactically, and not be FORCED into a futile chase by limitations artificially induced by the script.

Weren't you one of the one's complaining (along with DH oddly enough.. ) that my rules for forcing PVP while being drafted by a bigger fleet was penalizing the side with less numbers/inability to put together 3 ship fleets? ie that the team who fielded a superior force was taking advantage of it?
You're advocating exactly the same thing- different methodology (as of course most servers don't use PVP VP's) -you're claiming that a side that can field 3 ship fleets should be allowed to completely dominate any areas they choose- and since (oddly enough) very few three ship fleets decide to hang out on non VP hex areas you're giving them control of the game.

I'm going to be honest, the "investigation" and "escort" missions will not be used.

And again Why Not? (aside from the fact you don't feel like it  )
A single player jumping into a hex with 3 guys sitting rock is never going to know what missions he'll draw until he's in the hex, assuming the above missions each seed at even odds, he'll still have a 66% chance to draw a misison that will have him outnumbered, but he's got a chance to pick one that will pair him off with a (hopefully)decent fight rather than obliteration.

~ Honestly,if people flew balanced three ship fleets I'd still not like it, but at least I'd admit they're balanced. Right now "strategy" is getting the three biggest /meanest ships that work well together (ie Hydran with fighters, couple of Gorn casual/PF tenders // ISC with as many PPD's and plasma fighters/PFs as you can legally cram in) and sitting on hexes waiting to be drafted or jumping solo players and driving them away from the important hexes.
-And of course then complaining when one player can't hold a connection with 6 ships, asking said player to stay away from the battle areas..

I don't think drafts should always be 1v1, I also don;t think 3 players together should always get drafted. If you want to do wither go play GSA all night.
By having missions with 1v1,2v2,3v3 you're at least introducing some randomness to the process. Not guaranteeing the game goes to whoever can put togetehr the most 3 ship fleets.

[762_XC]

The difference with KCW Hexx is that the outnumbered side was forced to die and give up VC's every time they were caught. On a normal server they just disengage and work somewhere else. This strategy works just fine, ask Chuut.

Chuut, if you think holding a defensive position is an invalid concept in warfare, you should read about Gettysburg, or maybe the Battle of the Somme. Maybe it irks you that such a passive concept can be effective, as it surely irked Lee.

P.S. I didn't claim there was any brilliance behind it, just that it was effective.

[FPF-DieHard]

I'm going to be honest, the "investigation" and "escort" missions will not be used.

And again Why Not? (aside from the fact you don't feel like it  )
A single player jumping into a hex with 3 guys sitting rock is never going to know what missions he'll draw until he's in the hex, assuming the above missions each seed at even odds, he'll still have a 66% chance to draw a misison that will have him outnumbered, but he's got a chance to pick one that will pair him off with a (hopefully)decent fight rather than obliteration.

Because having a script that magically seperates you from your fleetmates is retarted.   It makes no sense, I have to use the Chebaca defense on this one.

You CAN break up the fleets with a little "skill." and timing.  On more than one occasion I've been able to get the massive fleet to chase me around the strategic map by attacking random hexes with a DN.  There are legit strategys to break up concentrations of firepower, relying and a magin script that just has no logical basis is a poor one.

I agree with you about splitting up VC objective and design a server where cancentrating all your forces in 2 hexes is a bad idea.   This makes sense, use it.

Why did I pull the inverstigation and scout missions from past servers?  On GW4, I was in a CVA+ and the Coaltion had nothing big on at the time.  I vas able to jump into hexes select the cheexy 1v1 mission and then chase each pilot off 1v1 as investigation and Scout came up nearly ever time.   Skull (I think it was skuill) pointed out how stupid this was, his side could not form up wing to defend against a single large ship.   I agreed with him, pulled the missions on the spot, and have not looked back.

I miss most fights being 1v1 as well as you Hexx, but artificail stupidity like the 1v1 misions as retarted rules are not the way to go about getting this back.

[Dfly]

then tell us how to get them back

[FPF-DieHard]

then tell us how to get them back

Spread out objectives.

[K'Hexx]

Chuut, if you think holding a defensive position is an invalid concept in warfare, you should read about Gettysburg, or maybe the Battle of the Somme. Maybe it irks you that such a passive concept can be effective, as it surely irked Lee.

Lee and more notably his aide Longstreet, was a master of denfensive warfare, Lee blundered at Gettysburg after humiliating much larger and better equipped Union armies for years.

However, the idea of a defensive position in open space is just plain retarded.  We are talking imense distances of EMPTY space.  We are also talking time as measured in large periods of time, how could  a squadron to remain totally together while maintaining a defensive coverage of the entire area represented by a hex?  They would have to be split up and call for back up if the foe was spotted, or they would only be able to cover a small portion of the hexx.  A draft which split up a squadron such as this simply represents an occassion where the drafter was able to initiate the battle before the reinforcements from the squadron could arrive.  The missions that draft all the squadron represent an occassion when the squadron was able to assemble before the shooting began.   It makes plain sense.

Now when we are talking base and planet hexes the squadron should not be split up as there is a reasonable defensive position involved.

[762_XC]

A defensive position does not have to use terrain to be effective. Maybe Jutland was a better example. But even in naval warfare you have night and weather to give you cover; in space it is not so. Oh sure you have ion storms and asteroid fields and such but these things make up .00000000001% of the total volume of space.

Sensor ranges being what they are there is simply no way a single ship is going to isolate one ship of a squadron of three in open space. The concept is retarded.

That's the technobabble reason it's dumb. For the gameplay reason, see DH's example above.

You want to use your initiative against a fleet sitting rock, outflank them. That's the way it works in RL, not by charging into them and magically getting to fight only a fraction of their force.

[NuclearWessels]

I like the generic name.  Can't the end of mission report be made to give the actual name?  That way if a particular mission is bugged then you get that last moment reminder of what mission it was so that you can record it when needed.

Good point - I'll definitely add the true script name to the end-of-mission reports, I really should have done that a long time ago - thanks!

dave

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

then tell us how to get them back

Spread out objectives.

another way is secret objectives for each race.  If noone knows for certin what the other sides targets are it opens up the game.