Topic: Evil Dave mission feedback thread

[Hexx]

Who exactly is the "gangbang crew"?

Just about everyone myself included.  Not a criticism against any individuals, just pointing out an aspect of the current style of play.  Players will use what is effective for the most part and there is nothing wrong with that, but if you want to make the enjoyable for other styles of play, you have to facilitate it by making it effective. 

I was never a big fan of the disengagement rule, but I've come to realize that it is essential to have it in some form on most servers to facilitate a style of play of many in the community, but by the same token we must try and work around certain aspects that take other styles of play away.

Under the current style there is still an advantage to hex-flipping, even with a radius, but there isn't as much advantage for a pilot who is seeking out 1 v 1 PvP, I've been racking my brain to come up with ideas to this dilema. 

We can have a couple missions that only draft one on one and denote them with special symbol in the mission name. 

Won't work --> You could have a group of 3 defending a hex, have a solo pilot jump in to pull one of the defending group then have a group of three jump the group that now has two people.

Simply set up an area of the map where you can't have wings seemes easiest.
(make it 15 hex asteroid field that is worth vp to whomever controls the most of it)
Which would allow you to avoid planet assaults as well.

[el-Karnak]

Who exactly is the "gangbang crew"?

Just about everyone myself included.  Not a criticism against any individuals, just pointing out an aspect of the current style of play.  Players will use what is effective for the most part and there is nothing wrong with that, but if you want to make the enjoyable for other styles of play, you have to facilitate it by making it effective. 

I was never a big fan of the disengagement rule, but I've come to realize that it is essential to have it in some form on most servers to facilitate a style of play of many in the community, but by the same token we must try and work around certain aspects that take other styles of play away.

Under the current style there is still an advantage to hex-flipping, even with a radius, but there isn't as much advantage for a pilot who is seeking out 1 v 1 PvP, I've been racking my brain to come up with ideas to this dilema. 

We can have a couple missions that only draft one on one and denote them with special symbol in the mission name. 

Won't work --> You could have a group of 3 defending a hex, have a solo pilot jump in to pull one of the defending group then have a group of three jump the group that now has two people.

Simply set up an area of the map where you can't have wings seemes easiest.
(make it 15 hex asteroid field that is worth vp to whomever controls the most of it)
Which would allow you to avoid planet assaults as well.

We could have the 1v1 only mission set to trigger on only one specific terrain type. Then the dyna map designer can pick and choose which hexes are suitable for such missions. You can have the mission set to highest priority to make sure it comes up the most in the specified hexes.

[NuclearWessels]

I've got a collection of strictly 1v1 missions that show the public mission name "Investigation" and a collection of strictly 2v2 that show a public mission name of "Escort".  They could easily be made terrain specific, though if we wanted to keep the rest of the pack from also getting offered in those regions they'd need to be retooled a bit as well.

From the point of view of keeping the mission packs reasonably generic a server rule seems the easier approach, but I'm known for laziness

dave

[NuclearWessels]

El demento idea here (been up most of the night with crying baby syndrome, so I might not make much sense today)

What if one of the 3v3 missions used a map that effectively turned it into 3 seperate 1v1 battles?  Player A from team 1 faces player A from team 2, then a big distance away from them B is pitted against B, and a big distance further along C is pitted against C.

The theory being that the attackers split up along three different paths, and the defenders couldn't let one of them slip through unopposed while they focused on the others, so the defenders split up as well.

It's not something I'd want to see frequently, but could be interesting

dave

[NuclearWessels]

...
Under the current style there is still an advantage to hex-flipping, even with a radius, but there isn't as much advantage for a pilot who is seeking out 1 v 1 PvP, I've been racking my brain to come up with ideas to this dilema. 

I like the idea of a region of exploratory space "where no man has gone before" containing VCs or other goodies and a no-wings rule based on the idea that the various empires can't afford to divert entire fleets into the area while there's a war going on.

It might be a shrinking zone as the war progresses and more and more of the territory gets explored.

Hell, maybe even say no wings in any neutral hex until it's DV has been dropped below X, on the basis that we're not sending a valuable fleet into a region until it has been adequately explored.

dave

[Hexx]

El demento idea here (been up most of the night with crying baby syndrome, so I might not make much sense today)

What if one of the 3v3 missions used a map that effectively turned it into 3 seperate 1v1 battles?  Player A from team 1 faces player A from team 2, then a big distance away from them B is pitted against B, and a big distance further along C is pitted against C.

The theory being that the attackers split up along three different paths, and the defenders couldn't let one of them slip through unopposed while they focused on the others, so the defenders split up as well.

It's not something I'd want to see frequently, but could be interesting

dave

I was actually thinking about this... weird (and I don't have crying baby syndrome either..)
Only thing I was thinking of was- can you keep the ships "balanced"
ie so teh DNH/CB/PFT end up fighting their opposite?
If it can't- all I think is really going to happen is a longer fight as the fleets try and reassemble themselves.

[NuclearWessels]

I was actually thinking about this... weird (and I don't have crying baby syndrome either..)
Only thing I was thinking of was- can you keep the ships "balanced"
ie so teh DNH/CB/PFT end up fighting their opposite?
If it can't- all I think is really going to happen is a longer fight as the fleets try and reassemble themselves.

That's the problem I forsee too - I don't think I can determine the individual's player's strength until they've been created/placed, but I'll look into it.

dave

[762_XC]

If it can't- all I think is really going to happen is a longer fight as the fleets try and reassemble themselves.

That will happen anyway.

[FPF-DieHard]

Spreading out VCs is the only way to get 1v1s again without retarded "atrifical" ways of doing so. 

[NuclearWessels]

Spreading out VCs is the only way to get 1v1s again without retarded "atrifical" ways of doing so. 

  Means fewer rules and less work for everyone but the admin, how much better can it get 

dave

[NuclearWessels]

OK, I think all the various changes/corrections/tweaks that people have requested over the past couple of weeks have been applied now.  In particular I've tried to go through the drafting and the maps fairly carefully, hopefully everything has been caught.

The updated pack is in the usual location: http://www3.telus.net/NuclearWessels/sfc/downloads/NWPack.exe

Next time someone feels like running a test server ... hint hint...

dave