Topic: The way the dynaverse should really work...

[Dizzy]

Back in the day when I played a campaign all nutter like, I'd wake up, do some coffee, and log on to the server. Do a buncha right clicking... find out where the enemy was, what they'd been doing all night...What the DV's were... Lotsa scrolling lotsa right clicking. Finally I'd decide where to go on the front. That usually required logging off the server, switching races and then waiting and waiting and waiting for a hex flipping ship if no one was online, or waiting for a pvp ship if players were around to hunt... and I'd just wait wait till I saw it in the yards... Then I'd have to travel all around the map to get where I wanted before I finally got a game going... a LOT of time had slipped away. Not anymore.

Imagine logging on with your online dynaverse account to the online campaign interface. At the touch of a few buttons you have full strategic awarness of the map: Front lines, DV's, all that with more tools to filter and search to get the most of the webmap. Now you know where you need to go and with what. So you click another button and you now get to change your race, your ship and your location on the map. All without having to login to the server. But when you do login, you are right where you want to be... with the race and ship you want... armed with all the knowledge of where you need to go. Only thing left is to take a mission.

THAT is how I want my experience to be like. And hopefully I'll get to do that this next server as will you all. Just wanted to share that. 

[Rolling]

Cool.

You sure are putting in a lot of time to insure an optimal gaming experience.

Thank you.

[Dizzy]

I just think it. I delegate the actual work to my peers. Im a lazy innovator. Actually, whenever you see bonk post, just keep giving him positive karma. He is a machine.

[C-Los]

Yes Indeed, it is a "Wonderful Thing" and Bonk has worked his fingers and more I'm sure to the bone to get it done.

Sir Bonk ... <S>   


Now if we could just stop all the finite rules, and play the game for fun again ..... I would be truly happy !!

Just my 2 cents !     I bid everyone a Good Day .... 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Back in the day when I played a campaign all nutter like, I'd wake up, do some coffee, and log on to the server. Do a buncha right clicking... find out where the enemy was, what they'd been doing all night...What the DV's were... Lotsa scrolling lotsa right clicking. Finally I'd decide where to go on the front. That usually required logging off the server, switching races and then waiting and waiting and waiting for a hex flipping ship if no one was online, or waiting for a pvp ship if players were around to hunt... and I'd just wait wait till I saw it in the yards... Then I'd have to travel all around the map to get where I wanted before I finally got a game going... a LOT of time had slipped away. Not anymore.

Imagine logging on with your online dynaverse account to the online campaign interface. At the touch of a few buttons you have full strategic awarness of the map: Front lines, DV's, all that with more tools to filter and search to get the most of the webmap. Now you know where you need to go and with what. So you click another button and you now get to change your race, your ship and your location on the map. All without having to login to the server. But when you do login, you are right where you want to be... with the race and ship you want... armed with all the knowledge of where you need to go. Only thing left is to take a mission.

THAT is how I want my experience to be like. And hopefully I'll get to do that this next server as will you all. Just wanted to share that. 

<sigh>  I might be alone here but that approach would take away much joy for me.  I equate it to clicking the mission accept button and having combat determined for combat automatically.  It isn't quite that bad but it is getting there in my opinion.

I prefer having to use my brain to determine where to go, what to fly, what to look at on the map and in the news, and where to strike and with what ship.  Some folkes excell in pvp, others have excelled in being able to formulate strategy and respond quickly and efficiently to a changing strategic map. 

For example, I know when Lord Kreug is on I have to change my plans as I know he is strategically savy and will react quickly to my moves and lead others to counteract them as well.  If anyone could do a few clicks and see everything, his talant is minimized to a degree.  I'm not a big fan of webmaps for the same reason although they are ok if not too detailed.  It only makes sense that you could see ownership of hexes,  but you shouldn't be able to see enemy bases behind the lines or pilot positions. 

I perfer a thinking mans game strategically as well as tactically and suggest that any "innovations" not be used without considerations of there potential negative effects.

P.S.  A full strategic awareness is really pretty much available with a few clicks already (although the scroll bug can be a pain occassionally) if you know how the right clicks to make.  This is one of the key aspects of  what the great strategist, having the skill to know which clicks to make.

[SkyFlyer]

but you shouldn't be able to see enemy bases behind the lines or pilot positions. 

I agree... However I think bases or pilots within 3 hexes of an enemy territories area should be able to be seen.

[KBF-Crim]

Now...if you could intergrate RM/ARM comunications into that as well...

When you log in , if there are new orders, important news etc....a window would open like a PM notice....

This would save a ton of checking the racial forums

[762_XC]

I'm kind of with Chuut here re: making it too easy. I would be concerned if it were a situation like LB5, with destructable bases that were visible on a webmap (God that was funny).

But I will reserve judgement until I see the interface and exactly how much detail is given.

[Dizzy]

<sigh>  I might be alone here but that approach would take away much joy for me.  I equate it to clicking the mission accept button and having combat determined for combat automatically.  It isn't quite that bad but it is getting there in my opinion.

I prefer having to use my brain to determine where to go, what to fly, what to look at on the map and in the news, and where to strike and with what ship.  Some folkes excell in pvp, others have excelled in being able to formulate strategy and respond quickly and efficiently to a changing strategic map. 

For example, I know when Lord Kreug is on I have to change my plans as I know he is strategically savy and will react quickly to my moves and lead others to counteract them as well.  If anyone could do a few clicks and see everything, his talant is minimized to a degree.  I'm not a big fan of webmaps for the same reason although they are ok if not too detailed.  It only makes sense that you could see ownership of hexes,  but you shouldn't be able to see enemy bases behind the lines or pilot positions. 

I perfer a thinking mans game strategically as well as tactically and suggest that any "innovations" not be used without considerations of there potential negative effects.

P.S.  A full strategic awareness is really pretty much available with a few clicks already (although the scroll bug can be a pain occassionally) if you know how the right clicks to make.  This is one of the key aspects of  what the great strategist, having the skill to know which clicks to make.

???

A thinking man's game it is. Why would I want to take away from it? I already stated (EDIT: destructible) bases will not be viewable on the webmap. But I never said anything about the location of a player. Personally I dont like this feature and agree with you. I may have it disabled. But everything you do on the webmap you are already able to do in game. The webmap just makes it easier, faster and combines your webyard and race choices in one easy interface. What is it taking away???

[Dizzy]

Now...if you could intergrate RM/ARM comunications into that as well...

When you log in , if there are new orders, important news etc....a window would open like a PM notice....

This would save a ton of checking the racial forums

Ya but you run the risk of replacing the racial forums. IMO that is where things all come together. Some players dont use TS or VT so the racial forums are where all the interaction and planning is for them.

I'd overstep my bounds telling you it wont happen. If the players or A/RM's are all for it, then sure. My initial reaction is that im not feeling it tho.

However, A/RM features will be present, although not in a form of a message system afaik. A/RM features are planned to include the ability to edit their sides player info like prestige, ship, race and location on the map. But your idea is good... I see links on the OCI page to the racial forums and your voice channels. Basically... this page is a one stop shop that gives you all the tools you need for this game save logging into the server and running missions.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Now...if you could intergrate RM/ARM comunications into that as well...

When you log in , if there are new orders, important news etc....a window would open like a PM notice....

This would save a ton of checking the racial forums

Now that idea I support 100%

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

What is it taking away???

Ok here is one area:

you now get to change your race, your ship and your location on the map. All without having to login to the server.

So a player is deepstriking low on supplies the enemy knows he is there so he goes to the webmap and putshimself in a DN before he is caught, or simply teleports himself to a sfer location.

Or suppose a side cuts off an entire section of enemy space.  The defending side just all go to the webmap and reassign themselves to the cutoff area in whatever ship they want and resist making much of that cutoff effort for nothing.

Or suppose a player is hunting ships moving between fronts hoping to ambush and surprise a few.  He sits on the most direct route between two key points waiting to catch enemy units as they streak to respond to what his teammates are doing.  He hopes to kill them but at worse he knows he will be keeping them away from the crucial area.  But his foes just simply go to the webmap and reappear on the other side of the map and he is left sitting there waiting for the foe that never came.

Just a few examples.

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

Yeah I have to say that the wormhole as it stands on the forge, would be unacceptable in a campaign as Chuut notes, you could get yourself out of hot water too easily deepstriking, or on the other side find the deepstriker on the webmap, buy your DN and go jump over to where he is for whatever PP cost.  Wormhole will favor the nutter as you would have to make it expensive so that it isn't used casually and frequently.
 The idea someone had here (Dizzy?) of making it only a blackhole hex to a blackhole hex for wormholes would make this better, as you would still have to fight your way at least a few hexes.

[Bonk]

Have no fear, the new version of the webmap will be fully configurable (more so than the current one.)

Dizzy has already expressed that bases will not be visible, player locations will not be visible, the wormholes will rather be stargates and will only work to/from allied planets only... adding up to just a minor time saver.

All these options will be configurable by the campaign admin.

While it won't be done for this server the goal of this approach to a shipyard is laying the groundwork for a real OoB.

The Forge (as its name implies) is meant partly as a testbed to explore new techologies in an open ended way, which it is doing quite well, besides just being a persistent server.

And I never did understand the visible bases issue on the webmap. Even without a webmap of any kind all bases are visible, just watch the news, on a busy server its impossible to place a base unobserved.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Have no fear, the new version of the webmap will be fully configurable (more so than the current one.)

Dizzy has already expressed that bases will not be visible, player locations will not be visible, the wormholes will rather be stargates and will only work to/from allied planets only... adding up to just a minor time saver.

All these options will be configurable by the campaign admin.

While it won't be done for this server the goal of this approach to a shipyard is laying the groundwork for a real OoB.

The Forge (as its name implies) is meant partly as a testbed to explore new techologies in an open ended way, which it is doing quite well, besides just being a persistent server.

Good to hear even the OOB goal I'm sure there are some players who  will enjoy that. Nice work Bonk.

[Dizzy]

Yeah I have to say that the wormhole as it stands on the forge, would be unacceptable in a campaign as Chuut notes, you could get yourself out of hot water too easily deepstriking, or on the other side find the deepstriker on the webmap, buy your DN and go jump over to where he is for whatever PP cost. 

After discussing it, Bonk and I see no point in charging pp for relocation via webmap. And as Bonk said, I stated elsewhere that you will find you will only be able to change locations via webmap from allied planet to allied planet.

What is it taking away???

Ok here is one area:

you now get to change your race, your ship and your location on the map. All without having to login to the server.

So a player is deepstriking low on supplies the enemy knows he is there so he goes to the webmap and putshimself in a DN before he is caught, or simply teleports himself to a sfer location.

See above.

Or suppose a side cuts off an entire section of enemy space.  The defending side just all go to the webmap and reassign themselves to the cutoff area in whatever ship they want and resist making much of that cutoff effort for nothing.

???

They already do this with using multiple accounts, Chuut.

Or suppose a player is hunting ships moving between fronts hoping to ambush and surprise a few.  He sits on the most direct route between two key points waiting to catch enemy units as they streak to respond to what his teammates are doing.  He hopes to kill them but at worse he knows he will be keeping them away from the crucial area.  But his foes just simply go to the webmap and reappear on the other side of the map and he is left sitting there waiting for the foe that never came.

Cutting off empires or parts of them is a strategic option left for A/RM's to choose based off of map VC conditions. You don't do it so you can wait to hunt ships moving between fronts hoping to ambush and surprise a few. Instead, you wait and catch the news and see what hex they hit then respond.

I think I've shot down all your concerns except one. Let's say you cut off an enemy section of the map, a small one, where there lies an enemy planet and now you have a buffer of 5-6 friendly hexes between it and enemy space. That buffer will give you some time to capture the planet or else catch them moving across the bridge to get to their planet trying to save it. However, with the new webmap relocator, the enemy will simply relocate to the planet skipping thru having to fight their way thru that area you cut off.

I dont like that. I discussed talking to Bonk that if individual planets have no LoS to another friendly planet, then web map reloaction to that planet is disabled thus avoiding the above situation where they enemy just magically pops up there skipping thru the buffer zone you created.



Some caveats about how it's still the same as the old way: Some players SD near that planet and will respawn there skipping thru the buffer zone anyway. Players may have multiple accounts and have logged off there in one. You may not be online when they decide to cut thru the buffer zone. And even if you are, you may be outnumbered, out classed, out PvP'd. Few situations actually turn it into an advantage in cutting off a small area, but I have taken notice of this and have discussed it with Bonk already.

Whether it can be addressed as I discussed we will see...

Can you think of anything else besides what we talked about here? I think this new feature has just that one flaw.

[Dizzy]

Dizzy has already expressed that player locations will not be visible

What about except for players like Hexx or those that have bounties? Can we set it up to see where they are?

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Or suppose a side cuts off an entire section of enemy space.  The defending side just all go to the webmap and reassign themselves to the cutoff area in whatever ship they want and resist making much of that cutoff effort for nothing.

???

They already do this with using multiple accounts, Chuut.

And I think that is not a good thing either.

Cutting off empires or parts of them is a strategic option left for A/RM's to choose based off of map VC conditions. You don't do it so you can wait to hunt ships moving between fronts hoping to ambush and surprise a few. Instead, you wait and catch the news and see what hex they hit then respond.

You misread the intent.  The purpose is for the VCs the waiting to hunt is an action to further this end.  By sitting between the points you engage the enemy as he progresses to the battle area, hopefully destroying him, if he runs away you might draft him again further slowing his progress to the contested area.  You are potentially drafting him away from his planets and bases rather than fighting him in areas where he can resupply between missions.

Some caveats about how it's still the same as the old way: Some players SD near that planet and will respawn there skipping thru the buffer zone anyway.

Always thought that was cheap too.  I fight my way out, or die trying my best.

Players may have multiple accounts and have logged off there in one.

Multiple accounts have good and bad points.  I like them when you have OOB limitations so that you can log off the "heavy iron"  when someone else wants to take a turn.  I don't mind it so much when you have to rely on random shipyards.  I don't think it would be necessary to have multiples as long as webmap purchasing and shifting accounts between races is available and should be forbidden.

As for other areas I can see the potential for "blinking" all over the map.  When the instant blinking is allowed it defeats such tactics as diversions to a large degree.  Supposing that there is a limit of 1 DN per side on a server.  That DN can be lured into a certain area of operations by a diversion taking it away from the real target for a while, with the ability to magically teleport from here to there that big ship can basically be everywhere at once.  Put that with a disengagement rule and you have the potential for one ship to dicate the action for the entire map.  There should be hard choices about what is strategically important, this "blinking" is a detriment to strategy in this regard.

Also you have the potential for hex flippers to blink from front to front as well.

Another thing is with such teleporting, tracking the news to determine where the enemy is becomes less reliable.  Sure that DN took a mission on the rom fron a minute ago, but he might be on the Lyran front now.  Or where is that pesky Soreyes he hit the Klingons a minute ago, but he hit the Roms 2 minutes ago, and the Lyrans three minutes ago, etc.  The intelligence reporting of the news is thus rendered nearly useless.

[762_XC]

Chuut raises some good points here. I really do not like the teleportation thing.

And Dizzy, what would even be the point of charging PP for it? The nutters are the ones you would worry about the most, along with the heavy iron.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Dizzy has already expressed that player locations will not be visible

What about except for players like Hexx or those that have bounties? Can we set it up to see where they are?

Why?  A bounty Hunter is just that a hunter.  It takes skill and sometimes luck for a hunter to track his prey, it shouldn't be a matter of clicking the mouse once.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Another note about teleporting.

It might be a disadvantage to certain races based on map setup.

In a traditional map setup this could compound problems for the Hydrans for example.  While their foes might bounce around from allied planet to allied planet to be able to mass their forces against the cut off Hydrans, the Hydrans coundn't themselves bounce out of their space, nor could their allies bounce in to help them.

Map setup would be very tricky so you didn't disadvantage one race or one side by having it more suceptable to being cut off.  You could make a map where everyones strating situation was identical, but this would be pretty boring.

[Dfly]

I am also against being able to jump around on the map, from friendly planet to friendly planet even.  It takes only a couple minutes at best to travel on the map as it is. 

[Dizzy]

Dizzy, what would even be the point of charging PP for it? The nutters are the ones you would worry about the most, along with the heavy iron.

The answer is in one of my above posts.

[Dizzy]

The purpose is for the VCs the waiting to hunt is an action to further this end.  By sitting between the points you engage the enemy as he progresses to the battle area, hopefully destroying him.

Chuut, listen to what you are saying. If you destroy the enemy as he progresses to the battle area what happens? He respawns at the planet the exact thing you say u dont want happening.

if he runs away you might draft him again further slowing his progress to the contested area.

If you want to slow his progress, draft and bounce him from the planet area. The disengage rule will send them packing. Again, no one just 'waits' for pvp when there is a VC target to take. You attack the VC. Then when the enemy responds, you seek them out. Not the other way around.

You are potentially drafting him away from his planets and bases rather than fighting him in areas where he can resupply between missions

No one is gonna waste time drafting someone away from his planets when they have a buffer zone just so they cant resupply. You are gonna go after the VC. Otherwise you waste time. Why use PvP players on a bridge that's worthless when you have the chance to flip the planet? Doesnt make any sense. The way I see it chuut, is that either way we have it the enemy will get to their planet. Once there its both sides job to bounce the other from the area. Ultimately, it comes down to whoever has the manpower to maintain the cutoff area to block the VC points. Everything else is academic because sooner or later one side will end up with the planet. It's not a matter of who owns it with or without a connectivity bridge, it matters if there is a LoS when VC's are tabulated. I find this argument so exclusive to such a narrow point of view that its hard for me to give it any weight.

[Dizzy]

Supposing that there is a limit of 1 DN per side on a server.  That DN can be lured into a certain area of operations by a diversion taking it away from the real target for a while, with the ability to magically teleport from here to there that big ship can basically be everywhere at once.  Put that with a disengagement rule and you have the potential for one ship to dicate the action for the entire map.  There should be hard choices about what is strategically important, this "blinking" is a detriment to strategy in this regard.

Bless you chuut! I love ya bud but im not following u at all here. If I were the only DN allowed on per my side and I wanted to operate and dictate the action for the entire map I can do so whether or not I have the web relocation or not. I simply run a mission and traverse the map to a different area and run another mission there. Rinse repeat. So yeah, either way, if I choose I'll be all over the map and all over my enemy. And I have done so in the past. After running someone out of a hex I'll check the news and see where they are then. I have followed players around so much on the map they log off and quit and that is their own fault for not tactically getting a fleet together to stop my DN. With the relocation via web account, its not gonna be any different. Is it?

Also you have the potential for hex flippers to blink from front to front as well.

Using multiple accounts, or even just one, the time it takes to log off and relocate on the map vs the time it takes to traverse a few dozen hexes is about the same. Look, if a player is willing to take the trouble to logoff after each mission and relocate on the map to another area so as to not be tracked and engaged, then they will be getting less work accomplished than someone commiting to an area. Besides, that violates an old general server rule where you cant consistently log off and relog on repeatedly.

Lets get real tho, whats the difference between blinking here and there and crossing hexes on the map? Same thing, right?

Another thing is with such teleporting, tracking the news to determine where the enemy is becomes less reliable.  Sure that DN took a mission on the rom fron a minute ago, but he might be on the Lyran front now.  Or where is that pesky Soreyes he hit the Klingons a minute ago, but he hit the Roms 2 minutes ago, and the Lyrans three minutes ago, etc.  The intelligence reporting of the news is thus rendered nearly useless.

Like I said, the same can be done by hitting a hex and then traversing the map to another area and hitting it there.

As for other areas I can see the potential for "blinking" all over the map.  When the instant blinking is allowed it defeats such tactics as diversions to a large degree. 

What are u talking about??? Yeah its called diversion and has been a strategic component of so many past servers I cant count. There will be no difference in the future using this with a web relocator. Peeps intentionally run a mission or two somewhere else to draw the enemy off. Whats the difference now?

[Dizzy]

Or suppose a side cuts off an entire section of enemy space.  The defending side just all go to the webmap and reassign themselves to the cutoff area in whatever ship they want and resist making much of that cutoff effort for nothing.

Chuut, the ONLY reason there would be a cutoff in the 1st place is if it were tied to a VC. Not since the early brezgonne wars of old have I seen a RM scheme up a plan to cut off a race just to screw them. That sort of thing is old news and I wouldnt allow it on any of my servers. Cutting off a race sucks for that race and they quit playing. If you have to do that to win then u suck too and Im sure u agree with me.

You should think outside the box on this one. 1st of all, no where in the game would you be able to cut off starships from defending an area of space unless you also destroyed their shipyards and resupply points. If you want to eliminate someone, do it by accomplishing VC's which may ask you to draw a line across the map, just dont confuse it with thinking it also prevents players from responding.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Chuut, listen to what you are saying. If you destroy the enemy as he progresses to the battle area what happens? He respawns at the planet the exact thing you say u dont want happening.

It depends on where you draft him and where the respawn location is.  Insteed of sending him to your target assault are you might send him far far away from it.  I've done this as strategy before.  It works.

If you want to slow his progress, draft and bounce him from the planet area. The disengage rule will send them packing. Again, no one just 'waits' for pvp when there is a VC target to take. You attack the VC. Then when the enemy responds, you seek them out. Not the other way around.

It might not be a planet first of all, secondly you might want to darft him in open space rather than on a planet where planet defense missions enter the equation, Thirdly you might want to draft him apart from his potential wingmen, Fourthly you serve your purpose win or lose away from the target, might cost you a ship but might gain you a VC target, Fifth, you might use the terrain at the cutoff to your advantage, plasma in a neb for example, this terrain might not be available at the target site, Sixth, as already stated, you might be more likely to catch him low on supply, Seventh, you might want to use your attacks to put something in the news other than the main assault in hopes of covering it.  There are likely other reasons/situations but this should be adequate to make the point.

No one is gonna waste time drafting someone away from his planets when they have a buffer zone just so they cant resupply. You are gonna go after the VC. Otherwise you waste time. Why use PvP players on a bridge that's worthless when you have the chance to flip the planet? Doesnt make any sense. The way I see it chuut, is that either way we have it the enemy will get to their planet. Once there its both sides job to bounce the other from the area. Ultimately, it comes down to whoever has the manpower to maintain the cutoff area to block the VC points. Everything else is academic because sooner or later one side will end up with the planet. It's not a matter of who owns it with or without a connectivity bridge, it matters if there is a LoS when VC's are tabulated. I find this argument so exclusive to such a narrow point of view that its hard for me to give it any weight.

Its all about timing Dizzy, sometimes getting one or two missions off at the right time will decide ownership.  The difference between attacking and defending makes it so.  If you act on the bridge you can take advantage of many factors which I listed above.  Additionally you keep the target hex clear from clutter and avoid having disconnects, wasting multiple pilots when 1 will do for the flipping, etc.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Bless you chuut! I love ya bud but im not following u at all here. If I were the only DN allowed on per my side and I wanted to operate and dictate the action for the entire map I can do so whether or not I have the web relocation or not. I simply run a mission and traverse the map to a different area and run another mission there. Rinse repeat. So yeah, either way, if I choose I'll be all over the map and all over my enemy. And I have done so in the past. After running someone out of a hex I'll check the news and see where they are then. I have followed players around so much on the map they log off and quit and that is their own fault for not tactically getting a fleet together to stop my DN. With the relocation via web account, its not gonna be any different. Is it?

If there is no difference in time it becomes irrelevant for travel speed (the only potential benefit that I see) anyway so why add it? 

Also you have the potential for hex flippers to blink from front to front as well.

Using multiple accounts, or even just one, the time it takes to log off and relocate on the map vs the time it takes to traverse a few dozen hexes is about the same. Look, if a player is willing to take the trouble to logoff after each mission and relocate on the map to another area so as to not be tracked and engaged, then they will be getting less work accomplished than someone commiting to an area. Besides, that violates an old general server rule where you cant consistently log off and relog on repeatedly.   

Lets get real tho, whats the difference between blinking here and there and crossing hexes on the map? Same thing, right?

Again then what is the point of having this feature if it is so useless?

Like I said, the same can be done by hitting a hex and then traversing the map to another area and hitting it there.

Again I assume there would be a significant time difference in crossing the map and in "blinking", if not I repeat, what is the benefit of having this feature?

What are u talking about??? Yeah its called diversion and has been a strategic component of so many past servers I cant count. There will be no difference in the future using this with a web relocator. Peeps intentionally run a mission or two somewhere else to draw the enemy off. Whats the difference now?

The differerence would be time required if this exists if not just see above.  The other difference is that the travel would be free from harassment/drafting also see above.

[762_XC]

Diz no matter how you try to slice it it is going to eliminate some strategy.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Chuut, the ONLY reason there would be a cutoff in the 1st place is if it were tied to a VC. Not since the early brezgonne wars of old have I seen a RM scheme up a plan to cut off a race just to screw them. That sort of thing is old news and I wouldnt allow it on any of my servers. Cutting off a race sucks for that race and they quit playing. If you have to do that to win then u suck too and Im sure u agree with me.

It happens all the time to one degree or another, it is just rare that a race gets totally cut off like it did in the last Slave Girls.  If you have players able to play in multiple accounts they have the option of switching to a different race and might continue, then again some never stop even if cutoff (kudos to those ISC pilots who stuck it out in the last slave girls).  Hydran pilots start off cutoff on the standard map anyhow and to break out they have to cut someone else off, yet they still play.  Almost every standard server has a tactic of cutting off allies, and maintaining your own connections, that is strategy.  It might suck for your side at times but given a server with even numbers on both sides, if you get cutoff  its likely because you deserved it.  Lopsided servers are another matter but if your on the outnumbered side your likely screwed anyhow and I agree in those cases it does suck to cut off such a force denying them at least the joy of PvP.

Cutoff aren't always complete cutoffs anyhow, making the enemy travel a longer route often pays dividends.

You should think outside the box on this one

.

   No offense Diz, you know I love ya bro but I think i've been punching holes in your box this whole time.

You keep saying that there is no worry with teleporting because it takes as much time as moving so where is the innovation here?  Just a nice shiny toy that does the same thing as the old one according to that train of thought.

Now I'm all ears to hear of what benefit this teleportation system will bring so far I've seen nothing, I'm sure you have a reason for wanting it so lets hear it.  When you let us know what the benefit is rather than telling us how it is the same as the old way we can start considering it and thinking outside this box you mention.

1st of all, no where in the game would you be able to cut off starships from defending an area of space unless you also destroyed their shipyards and resupply points.

This is represented in the game by controlling hexes.  if you want true free flow movement you simply disable mandatory missions in all space.

If you want to eliminate someone, do it by accomplishing VC's which may ask you to draw a line across the map, just dont confuse it with thinking it also prevents players from responding.

If you want to eliminate an enemy there are several ways to do so, chosing the best and being able to respond to the enemy's own choices is the definition of strategy.  The VCs are the ultimate goal but a headlong drive at them is rarely sucessful without numbers, you can trench warfare all you want and likely be happy doing so, but there are often other cards to play from your hand.

[KBF-Crim]

I dont see why this is even an issue...

ANY new feature is a GOOD thing....no one is saying it MUST be enabled for any particular server...

As allways....server rules are set by the server admin....and fluctuate from server to server...

There is really nothing to gain in arguing against either point...

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Any new opinion is indeed always good, using them may not always be however, debate serves to bring forth aspects that might not be otherwise considered prior to launching these features on a serious server.  The emergence of unforseen problems at that point becomes much more problematic.

[Dizzy]

Now I'm all ears to hear of what benefit this teleportation system will bring so far I've seen nothing, I'm sure you have a reason for wanting it so lets hear it.  When you let us know what the benefit is rather than telling us how it is the same as the old way we can start considering it and thinking outside this box you mention.

Most peeps having 2 or more accounts log off on different fronts so as they can be in two places in short order when they need be. If we move toward having one account that does everything, you must be able to move that account around the map.

And quite honestly, I've seen nothing concrete on how this will be a bad thing for strategy. Explain it to tool and have him explain it to me, cuz you are losing me, chuut.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Most peeps having 2 or more accounts log off on different fronts so as they can be in two places in short order when they need be. If we move toward having one account that does everything, you must be able to move that account around the map.

Ok now we are getting somewhere.

My position:  I dislike being allowed more than one account unless it is a second account with a different race or an account used for having an OOB ship.  If I remember correctly Bonk has this covered with his webmap allowing you to purchase any ship almost instantly and also allowing for changing of the race of the account via the webmap. ( Kudos to Bobk) Now that this is done there is in my view no need for an additional account. 

I don't feel that there is any need to be able to move faster around the map.  I have several reasons for thinking this way.  The first is by having the more difficult transit you must always be thinking of the strategic picture.  Sometimes winning a battle can cost a war.  If you defend this area you might give up that one.  Distribution of your forces and timing becomes more critical and strategic descision of great importance.  If everyone is zipping around the map the stratic gets overshadowed by the tactical.

The second reason is the fact that you have defined the teleporting to now be between two friendly planets in a LOS.  This disadvantages races/ units already cut off who cannot benefit from it as much.  If a side is cut off chances are it is losing the server or is threatened with such.  Why throw an additional disadvantage at them.  Of course if that race begins by being cut off they suffer immediately.

Rather than list the other reasons already stated i'll do as you suggested and let t00l explain it to you.  He seems to get it already.

Now one case in which I wouldn't mind the telporting would be before a player gets on the server for the first time in some specified time period (I'd say six hours minimum) he could be allowed to reposition his ship at that and only that time.  People could have things affecting the campaign that weren't happening when they last logged off to sleep and it is not unreasonable to assume that the captains of their ships would have redeployed themselves based on the changing situation.  Redeployment takes time (remember all those episodes when the Enterprise was the only ship close enough to respond for days?) but a six hour+ period would allow for enough time for such long distance repeployments.

And quite honestly, I've seen nothing concrete on how this will be a bad thing for strategy. Explain it to tool and have him explain it to me, cuz you are losing me, chuut.

Fair enough, but I've seen nothing other than that last situation I posted above on how this might be a benefit.  That aspect has some worthy potential, but i just can't see it otherwise because of what it does to strategy and gameplay.  If you have anymore explanations of how it could be of benefit please do share them here for consideration and if I can't grasp what your saying an t00l or someone else can, they can translate those thoughts for me. 

Does anyone see a big benefit for this teleporting other than the one I put above?  I'd hate to be missing something that might make the game better.  If you see a benefit please chime in.

[Dizzy]

The second reason is the fact that you have defined the teleporting to now be between two friendly planets in a LOS.  This disadvantages races/ units already cut off who cannot benefit from it as much.  If a side is cut off chances are it is losing the server or is threatened with such.  Why throw an additional disadvantage at them.  Of course if that race begins by being cut off they suffer immediately.

Uhhh, defined it as relocation between allied to allied planet only. I think I only mentioned something about LoS... but that doesnt seem to be practical. Kinda funny tho, it seemed as if you were using that as an argument against the web relocation saying that you favored a race that was cut off should not get to relocate. Well, seems I misunderstood you. I do not want the race that's cut off to suffer more either. The reason they get cut off is usually because they were out numbered, the reason not to have them suffer 2x.


Be nice if we could find some common ground to work on here. I think we have serveral major differing viewpoints. One that makes it substantially hard to work thru is that you and I disagree completely on my wanting players to have equal and easy access to all races and all ships at all times. I believe that is a key to dyna hapiness for many players. You can take and self impose on yourself your own view of one race one ship all you like, but I dont share it and dont think the majority of the players would want to either. I view it as a special interest topic.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I believe that is a key to dyna hapiness for many players. You can take and self impose on yourself your own view of one race one ship all you like, but I dont share it and dont think the majority of the players would want to either. I view it as a special interest topic.

I might prefer it by a 60%-40% margin but I'm not dead set against it, especially if it can be put into one account.  My problem is with using different accounts to move from place to place cheaply on the map rather than taking the effort to fly youself out there.  When we had to use multiple accounts to fly different races this was unavoidable and therefore acceptabble.  With a webmap that allows for one account to be transferred to any race at the players will and instant purchasing of any ship, extra accounts become uneeded.  Everyone can fly any race and anyship at will.  I have absolutely no problem with this regardless of a slight preference otherwise.  Z-E-R-O problem.


What I dislike is servers that allow players to switch accounts to be at different places on the map intentionally.  I think you have always been in favor of multiple accounts so you can move quickly across the map, i remember tales of this being done as far back as  Artic Fire, not to have different ships, but to have a quick way of travel..  I think the key is that this movement whether via teleport of via multiple accounts when not justified by the necessity to have second accounts to change races or ships becomes just pure laziness and takes away from those who like to put in the extra time and strategize.  Anyhow thats how I see it.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Now here is a thought.

I have no problem with the very limited use of a teleportantion system that would be an effort to create some phenomenon.

By this I mean having a "wormhole" between two specific points and only those points which allowed for teleporting in a limited way, not bouncing anywhere on the map that had a friendly planet but two specified points whether friendly or enemy and these points never changed.  From 2-4 of these in a campaign might actually be interesting.

If such a thing was used perhaps place one in the space of each team where they knew and controlled both entry and exit points and two that we unknown, hidden on the map in neutral space waiting to be discovered and exploited strategically.  The limited destination of the telport would keep it from too heavily impacting the entire campaign (at leat i think so) but would at the same time have enough of an impact to make for potentiallyinteresting situations.

[Dizzy]

Well that is a fundamental difference in how we each see it. I played articfire. I was in the thick of it. And I had two accounts because toward the end the DB swelled to where it took too long to travel between fronts. I'd park one account in the north to battle the kzin and another in the south to battle the ISC and Klinks.

What's happened since is despite faster movement between hexes on following servers, and no matter how big the map is er small for that matter, not many enjoy traversing the map to get from front to front. They want to log right into the action. Maybe someday we can join battles in progress using the online interface. That is at least one of our far reaching goals.

As it stands now, there wouldnt be much benefit to logging off just to change locations on the map when you can just about do it in the same time frame by traversing the hexes. The benefit is when you first login and decide where you want to go after who you decide to be. This feature will cut down second accounts to the point where we wont need them anymore and that is another goal.

[Dizzy]

Now here is a thought.

I have no problem with the very limited use of a teleportantion system that would be an effort to create some phenomenon.

By this I mean having a "wormhole" between two specific points and only those points which allowed for teleporting in a limited way, not bouncing anywhere on the map that had a friendly planet but two specified points whether friendly or enemy and these points never changed.  From 2-4 of these in a campaign might actually be interesting.

If such a thing was used perhaps place one in the space of each team where they knew and controlled both entry and exit points and two that we unknown, hidden on the map in neutral space waiting to be discovered and exploited strategically.  The limited destination of the telport would keep it from too heavily impacting the entire campaign (at leat i think so) but would at the same time have enough of an impact to make for potentiallyinteresting situations.

Now this is an idea I love. One problem I'll admit with the web warping, gonna coin that, is lets say that there is indeed a planet you cut off by itself. If would be frustrating to see enemies pop up on it continually as if magically to defend it. This is imo the only problem with this feature. I think I may have a solution that would tie in this feature with a strategic element. As we all know there are three types of planets. Colony, Core and Homeworld. If we are able to, I'd prefer to use web warping only on allied core or HW planets. That'd leave colony planets out of the picture and enable an interesting map setup to see how Core worlds are fought over. At the very minimum, HW planets would be setup for this. But for my servers, other admins can do as they please, Core worlds would be a strategic element indeed beyond being a frontline base if they could also be a web warp point.

[NuclearWessels]

Y'know, this could be used to create a spherical universe: wormholes connecting the top row of hexes to the bottom and the left row of hexes to the right...

dave

[Bonk]

Y'know, this could be used to create a spherical universe: wormholes connecting the top row of hexes to the bottom and the left row of hexes to the right...

dave

Good idea. Most interesting.

I'm going to work on these kinds of features regardless, and will make them as configurable as possible with the types of options discussed here.

And as Crim mentioned, its up to the campaign admin to enable it if desired and with what type of options. ( to the Deacon... )

Now I have to stop reading the forums and actually get to work on it!    I need do the damn dishes first though, I'm scared something might jump out of the sink and bite me!   

[Dizzy]

Y'know, this could be used to create a spherical universe: wormholes connecting the top row of hexes to the bottom and the left row of hexes to the right...

dave

More evil would be a huge row of neutral hexes at 100 DV. Obviously you cant cross it to get to the enemy empire, but you can thru the warp gate... One on each side... fight your way inside enemy territory.

[el-Karnak]

Now I have to stop reading the forums and actually get to work on it!    I need do the damn dishes first though, I'm scared something might jump out of the sink and bite me!   

Admiral!! Dere Be Cock-Roaches here!!

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Well that is a fundamental difference in how we each see it. I played articfire. I was in the thick of it. And I had two accounts because toward the end the DB swelled to where it took too long to travel between fronts. I'd park one account in the north to battle the kzin and another in the south to battle the ISC and Klinks.

What's happened since is despite faster movement between hexes on following servers, and no matter how big the map is er small for that matter, not many enjoy traversing the map to get from front to front. They want to log right into the action. Maybe someday we can join battles in progress using the online interface. That is at least one of our far reaching goals.

As it stands now, there wouldnt be much benefit to logging off just to change locations on the map when you can just about do it in the same time frame by traversing the hexes. The benefit is when you first login and decide where you want to go after who you decide to be. This feature will cut down second accounts to the point where we wont need them anymore and that is another goal.

I already posted on this use of it and my  approval as long as it is something that will be used vefore logging onto the server after a signifigant time off of it and not just frivilous usage.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Y'know, this could be used to create a spherical universe: wormholes connecting the top row of hexes to the bottom and the left row of hexes to the right...

dave

More evil would be a huge row of neutral hexes at 100 DV. Obviously you cant cross it to get to the enemy empire, but you can thru the warp gate... One on each side... fight your way inside enemy territory.

LOL i had actually thought of something simiklar bases on a Deep Space nine type of scenario with a wormhole connecting two far off quardrants.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Y'know, this could be used to create a spherical universe: wormholes connecting the top row of hexes to the bottom and the left row of hexes to the right...

dave

If you could restrict the movement to between 2 specific hexes only that would be cool, but I don't think allowing anyone to move from any hex on the far left to any hex on the far right is such a good idea and wouldn't create an actual sphere effect.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Now here is a thought.

I have no problem with the very limited use of a teleportantion system that would be an effort to create some phenomenon.

By this I mean having a "wormhole" between two specific points and only those points which allowed for teleporting in a limited way, not bouncing anywhere on the map that had a friendly planet but two specified points whether friendly or enemy and these points never changed.  From 2-4 of these in a campaign might actually be interesting.

If such a thing was used perhaps place one in the space of each team where they knew and controlled both entry and exit points and two that we unknown, hidden on the map in neutral space waiting to be discovered and exploited strategically.  The limited destination of the telport would keep it from too heavily impacting the entire campaign (at leat i think so) but would at the same time have enough of an impact to make for potentiallyinteresting situations.

Now this is an idea I love. One problem I'll admit with the web warping, gonna coin that, is lets say that there is indeed a planet you cut off by itself. If would be frustrating to see enemies pop up on it continually as if magically to defend it. This is imo the only problem with this feature. I think I may have a solution that would tie in this feature with a strategic element. As we all know there are three types of planets. Colony, Core and Homeworld. If we are able to, I'd prefer to use web warping only on allied core or HW planets. That'd leave colony planets out of the picture and enable an interesting map setup to see how Core worlds are fought over. At the very minimum, HW planets would be setup for this. But for my servers, other admins can do as they please, Core worlds would be a strategic element indeed beyond being a frontline base if they could also be a web warp point.

As long as you limited the jump points between two determined locations for each web warp I'm ok with it.  I just wouldn't want to see a web of such jump points.  At least not at first till we tried a more modest version first.

***This would be cool for a babylon 5 campaign done in the SFC universe.  Actual jump point maps from the show could be used.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

You know Dizzy another aspect has occurred to me, if jump points are tied to terrain features like planets, couldn't they also be tied to bases?

In thinking of the Babylon 5 jumpgates i realized that such structures could be destroyed.  A jumpgate destruction mission would have to be hard but that would be a helluva lot of fun.     of course they could be rebuilt, (at a high price and perhaps after a time delay for constuction)  after all wouldn't want to limit the fun to 1 run only 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Another recommendation I'd have is to not place these jump points on planets , perhaps near them but not on them, use a blackhole hex instead.  You wouldn't want to have folkes able to drop in on a planet during an assault without giving the attacker at least a few seconds to note the icon moving into the area.  Additionally this would create a strategy  of taking the wormhole before the planet and thus making the sudden appearance of lots of foes in a "cut off " area less likely.

[Dizzy]

Destructible Starbase Warp Gates... I like it.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I might suggest getting over to the modellers forum and see if anyone would be interested in making a "stargate" model,

I also thinking that this might be a good scenario for a new mission.

[Dizzy]

I see something happening here... We could add this model to Starbase Assaults and link it to the web warping. A small adjustment in the script would make base busting even more enjoyable, hehe.

As I see it, I'd setup web warping for HW's and Starbases, the latter of which would be destroyable.

Jumpgate

[Skaren]

In our campaigns (non Dyna) we have used jump gates and worm holes for 10+ years.  Sometimes they even lead to parrelell maps, we once had a campaign with three maps all linked in odd ways with worm holes.  Kinda like Spock's multi tiered chess game, and the strategy got equally complex which the players loved.

In one campaign one planet actually had 4 worm holes lead to it.  It was named Worm World.  That also leads to situations where controlling such a hex as Worm World has major strategic value.  That also adds greatly to the game.

I wonder if someday a Dyna will have multiple maps?

My last thought is that when we used Jumped Gates the fact that they can be destroyed degraded things as opposed to non destructable worm worlds.  We found some folks would destroy their own gates to stop players from attacking through them and if folks were in transit and one was destroyed what happens?  The destructable nature of them caused technical issues that non destructable ones do not. 

After years of using them non destructable worm holes has been found to work much better than jump gates.  Dyna may be different but it is worth thinking about.

[Bonk]

I might suggest getting over to the modellers forum and see if anyone would be interested in making a "stargate" model,

I also thinking that this might be a good scenario for a new mission.

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163344735.0.html

There are others around too...

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163344860.0.html

I have one on disk here somewhere...