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

[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