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.