Topic: Big maps and SFB style disengagement rules?

[Lieutenant_Q]

Suggestion:
Set the "speed limit" of the map to say 27.  If you want to go faster than that, you need to select the "High Warp" button from the comm panel.  Then you can set your speed to 64 (28), 125 (29), 216 (30), 343 (31).  If you can make it part of the speed bar, that automatically makes sure that the ships have the power to do so.  And if they only have enough power for warp 4, then they only have enough power for warp 4.

Set the warm up time equal to the time it takes for the ship to accelerate to 27, if they're already at 27, then they should be able to get into high warp within 10 seconds.  Make it so once they ARE at high warp, they need to decelerate, and deceleration takes a certain amount of time. (Could you imagine snagging someone at high warp with a tractor, have both ships suffer the equivilant of an HET breakdown )

I don't like the idea of turning off the shuttle bay...if a captain needs to drop a distraction (sp or ss) to get away, they're screwed.

Question:  Is there anyway we can get an SFC1 type detection system in place?  In SFC1 you couldn't detect certain ships until they were at 80 IIRC.

[Dizzy]

Disengagement criteria ideas- 50% of power available; maybe even designate that it must be warp engine power (if possible);  

NONONONONO!!!

Players will just warp off after taking a serious hit. No one will ever get a kill. All this encourages is peeps to run away. Ultimately, what you have is constant engine replenishment. You just keep warping around the map till your engines repair fully then you reengage. Thats utter BS. By setting such a high criteria for disengagement, say speed 30, we force upon the player to commit to the engagement once a battle has begun. Running then only becomes an option in this case at the start or shortly thereafter when the player decides he is outmatched. If you allow them to so easily disengage, then no one will ever die. I'd never use those missions on a server.

[el-Karnak]

I think we should try to standardize what exactly warp factor one is in the SFCOP game for mission scripting purposes.  The SFCOP manual clearly states that all combat is done at sub-light speed and ignores the SFB warp factor conversions to actually speed1, 4, 27, etc.  This is in-concert with the accepted practices in the other SciFi genres like StarWars, ST-TNG, Battlestar Galactica, Babylon5, etc. where all combat is done at sub-light.  One reason is that light-based direct-fire weapons (ie. lasers, phasers, disrupters, etc.) are not supposed to work at warp+ speeds. The only weapons that could be fired at warp+ speeds were projectiles like Photon torps in SFC3. So, I could see drones being fired at warp+ speeds, but no such warp+ speed drones exist in SFCOP.

I understand that there is a little canonical confusion about what warp factors translate to what speed in the SFC-related games, but a few times in Star Trek things need to be "fixed-up". A classic example is the warbird in the TOS episode "Balance of Terror" being analysed as sublight-only. Canon that was used by SFB. 

This canon error was actually fixed in an Lost Era Novel "The Sundered" where Sulu actually corrects Scotty's incorrect analysis. A more obvious analysis would classify the warbird as a warp 3 vessel. Further analysis of the "Star Trek: Star Charts" reference book would show you how impossible it would be for a sublight warbird to hit all those fed outposts in the timeline of the episode. Further analysis of the Enterprise series would indicate that the Romulan Empire basically came late in developing the warp factor 5 plus engine and were stuck at sub-Warp factor 3 speeds, not stuck without warp  drive altogether as SFB states. The whole premise of the Enterprise series is that no real exploring could be done until  a race developed the warp 5 engine, and this is before the fabled Earth-Romulan war.

 The Star Trek novel "Final Reflection" shows the Klingons inventing their own warp 6 engine about 30 to 50 years before the TOS series. The D6-class ships were built for the warp 6 engines by the Klingons.  So, at the time of the TOS, the big tech transfer from the Klingons to the Rommies had to be giving them warp engines that go better than low warp 3, not the actual warp engine itself.

So, I can see how Taldren went and put in their manuals that all combat is done at sub-light.

Would warp factor one in SFCOP be speed 40? 50? 100?

I don't think it can be in the 30s cuz plasma torps can go speed 36.

I am thinking speed 100 in SFCOP could be warp factor one cuz it's a nice round number and also sub-light realitivistic physics make it difficult to perform any meaningful actions at speed higher than 1/2 c or 50% of 3 * 10^8 m/s.

Then I could know what the min. speed for tac. warping Andros should be?

[FPF-DieHard]

Then I could know what the min. speed for tac. warping Andros should be?

My nagging about tactical warp was so we can do an "Andros" server where the "Andros" can warp in combat to make up for the lack of their other abilites.

Is there any way for one race to be able to warp with much fewer retrictions that that other?   Can this be done on ship-by-ship basis based on some designator in the shiplist?

Speed 100 works for me for TacWarp, that would make "Full Impulse" 30% the speed of light which is about how fast you got go before relatvistc effects get too whacky.

[GDA-Agave]

Players will just warp off after taking a serious hit. No one will ever get a kill.

Your statement here is crap!!  You know damn well that there will still plenty of kills to be had.   What this allows a player to do is stick around and try a few things before making the decision of whether or not to disengage.   Most likely anyone who sticks around long enough to even wonder if they are at 50% power is gonna be dead anyway.  By setting the speed criteria so high, YOU are the one encouraging players to make a decision very early in the match about disengaging.   With 50% power criteria, more players are likely to stick around a while, giving you more chances to get in your "most precious" kills.  Once again, we see balance vs PvP attitudes smacking heads.

Ultimately, what you have is constant engine replenishment. You just keep warping around the map till your engines repair fully then you reengage. Thats utter BS.

Don't we already have rules pertaining to wasting someone time by just running around the map?  Just because you have come up with another reason for somone to do it doesn't make it right.

By setting such a high criteria for disengagement, say speed 30, we force upon the player to commit to the engagement once a battle has begun. Running then only becomes an option in this case at the start or shortly thereafter when the player decides he is outmatched. If you allow them to so easily disengage, then no one will ever die. I'd never use those missions on a server.

See above.  You know that nothing pisses off a PvP attitude player than someone turning around at the border and taco belling.   If you give players the option to stick around, they will.  Hence, you have more time to try and kill them.

Am I making any sense to anyone?  Or am I just howling at the moon again?

[Lieutenant_Q]

perfect sense to me...  I think dizzy is a little off, honestly I would think the game SHOULD be towards less kills.

[NuclearWessels]

I do think that if you set the disengage requirements very high on a big map then more folks will disengage early.

Suppose I'm up against a slightly bigger opponent, and I know that just a couple of engine hits will prevent me from disengaging (or force me to spend 20 m inutes running for the border to do it manually).  Then I'm less likely to take a chance and will disengage at the first opportunity.

If I know I can make a couple of passes, see how the damage falls out, and maybe still hit disengage then I'm much more likely to take a chance -- increasing the chance that I'll actually get knocked below the critical level (whatever that is set at) and be forced to fight to the death (especially since then it'd be an hour long flight to the border even if I could make it).

Just my 0.018
dave

[el-Karnak]

Then I could know what the min. speed for tac. warping Andros should be?

My nagging about tactical warp was so we can do an "Andros" server where the "Andros" can warp in combat to make up for the lack of their other abilites.

Is there any way for one race to be able to warp with much fewer retrictions that that other?   Can this be done on ship-by-ship basis based on some designator in the shiplist?

Speed 100 works for me for TacWarp, that would make "Full Impulse" 30% the speed of light which is about how fast you got go before relatvistc effects get too whacky.

The EEK scripts that are GAW enabled use the race to determine if the tac. Warp feature should be turned on. Right now, I am using OrionTigerHeart race as Andros cuz I am assuming that this is the only pirate race that can use PFs; so, all the TigerHeart ships would be Andros. I can change the Andro-designate race easily enough in the scripts but I would prefer to have a standardized Andro NPC race.  Ship-by-ship basis could be done with MagnumMan shiplist API, but it's much, much easier to just use a race.

[Riskyllama]

Perhaps once we see how ships really handle with either rule in place, well be able to see what rule works best, until then, this is all conjecture in a field where only Dav really knows what he's talking about. Hopefully dave will get those scripts with conditions in a FFA/Hostile skirimish mode and we'll be able to see.

[Dizzy]

Your statement here is crap!!  You know damn well that there will still plenty of kills to be had.   What this allows a player to do is stick around and try a few things before making the decision of whether or not to disengage.   Most likely anyone who sticks around long enough to even wonder if they are at 50% power is gonna be dead anyway.  

WRONG. What happens is when you seriosuly wound an enemy, they simply warp. If you did that in the middle of the map w/o warp they'd be dead. 50% is utter bullsh*t and wont be on my servers. Logically how do you think you'd disengage by acceleration when you only have half power? Thats fricking dumb. Really dumb.

Don't we already have rules pertaining to wasting someone time by just running around the map?  Just because you have come up with another reason for somone to do it doesn't make it right.

You misquoted the rule. It's wasting someone time by just running around the map with no intention of engaging or fighting. By warping a bit here and there you gain some extra time, shield reinforcement and free engine repair. Doing that with intention of reengagement is perfectly within in the rules. What it creates is a tactic of delayment while you repair playing cat and mouse as your opponent vainly tries to warp chase you. It's cheap and stupid and having it available to half damaged ships is ludicrous. Consider this like a battle time-out period while a crew works over your ship. That's exactly what it is.

By setting such a high criteria for disengagement, say speed 30, we force upon the player to commit to the engagement once a battle has begun. Running then only becomes an option in this case at the start or shortly thereafter when the player decides he is outmatched. If you allow them to so easily disengage, then no one will ever die. I'd never use those missions on a server.

You know that nothing pisses off a PvP attitude player than someone turning around at the border and taco belling.   If you give players the option to stick around, they will.  Hence, you have more time to try and kill them.

You have lost your marbles. The 'Hence you have more time to kill them' statement is absurd. Its not a matter of TIME you have to kill them anymore, it's being able to now play the 50% game... This creates a new dynamic... You have to make sure you can knock your opponent down to less than 50% in order to make a kill now.

Am I making any sense to anyone?  Or am I just howling at the moon again?

No and yes.

[Riskyllama]

How is playing for the 50% game going to be any different than the playing for the lost too much power to run game? Alls this really does is remove the border as the necessary jump point, now less games will be fought 5 seconds from an arbitrary line in space...

Agave's right I think you have lost it Dizzy.

[FPF-DieHard]

Be nice guys, we can debate this without the Personal insults.

[762_XC]

Die Hard the forums mod. 

[NuclearWessels]

OK, just to organize my brain as to which variations to try and supply for experimentation/playtesting
(the idea is I'll do a skirmish script and dyna script for each, maybe a multiplayer as well)

 1. the current one that allows combat warping, but modded to disable whatever arming/tractor exploits I can
 2. one that allows going to warp but not dropping back out (i.e. once you go to warp you're leaving, but you still have to navigate off the map)
 3. one with a disengage button that ends the mission (for you at least) but requires you to be at speed 27 (or whatever) to  do it
 4. one with a disengage button that ends the  mission (again, for you) but using the 50+% engine requirement

There might be scripting complications with 3 and 4 if you're leaving a live wing behind, but we'll burn those bridges when we get there.

Variations of 1 or 2 can be done for special cases such as the andros.  Maybe we can add another designator in the Role category, such as "W" to indicate ships that are capable of  combat warping?  (Edit: hmmm ... though that still involves having the script read the shiplist, which is certainly more of a hassle than just checking the race.)

Is that about right?

dave

[Hexx]

I'm feeling lazy so don't feel like looking through the posts- so

Don't forget (if it hasn't been mentioned) that fighters can be launched at green alert.
I'm sure that would benefit the cheesy Hydrans somehow and that would be bad.

~ Honestly, I think the feature is cools, but am (mildly) concerned matches are simply going to be two players warping
around trying to get the perfect attack set up on hte other guy.

Maybe get them working for Andros first, use them on a server (for only Andros) and then spread them out.

[el-Karnak]

I think the way this is going is for option 2 (non-Andro races) only allowable when a certain percentage of engine power is available.  When going to warp the ship goes to green alert status.

I will code up a prototye EEK enemy sweep Patrol mission for people to try out for comparision.

[GDA-Agave]

WRONG. What happens is when you seriously wound an enemy, they simply warp. If you did that in the middle of the map w/o warp they'd be dead. 50% is utter bullsh*t and wont be on my servers. Logically how do you think you'd disengage by acceleration when you only have half power? Thats fricking dumb. Really dumb.

Whats happens now?  When you seriously wound your opponent, they make a decision to run or fight on.  Yes, with the current mission maps they do have to fly off the map giving you the opportunity to kill them on the way out.   I'm not suggesting an immediate warp disengagement thing where your opponent could just warp out at the first sign of trouble.  There should be a procedure that should take a few turns (see my first post), or make so they have to be within a certain distance from the map edge to even disengage.

Players who severely wound their opponents should be given an opportunity to finish the job.   With a speed 30 rule (which would work for most dizzy or plasma ballets tactics) you have almost guaranteed that they will not be able to get away once severely wounded.

You misquoted the rule. It's wasting someone time by just running around the map with no intention of engaging or fighting.

From your earlier post, you said that it would allow a player to just fly around and regain warp power JUST TO THEN warp disengage.  That does not sounds like "intention of engaging or fighting".   That's what I was replying to.

By warping a bit here and there you gain some extra time, shield reinforcement and free engine repair. Doing that with intention of reengagement is perfectly within in the rules. What it creates is a tactic of delayment while you repair playing cat and mouse as your opponent vainly tries to warp chase you. It's cheap and stupid and having it available to half damaged ships is ludicrous. Consider this like a battle time-out period while a crew works over your ship. That's exactly what it is.

First off, I am opposed to being able to use warp for anything other than entering or disengaging combat.   I would not like to see it as a tactic used during engaged combat.    Second, players do this repair tactic now.   They try to create some distance so they can repair.   Most fly close to the border so if under heavy pursuit, they can fly off.  Lastly, the way I think about it, our ships main purpose is to use warp to get them to and from the front.   It seems logical that they would need only 50% of their engines to do so, IMHO.   Hell, even SFB canon agrees with me on this.  I don't know if I've ever had that before.

You know that nothing pisses off a PvP attitude player than someone turning around at the border and taco belling.   If you give players the option to stick around, they will.  Hence, you have more time to try and kill them.

You have lost your marbles. The 'Hence you have more time to kill them' statement is absurd. Its not a matter of TIME you have to kill them anymore, it's being able to now play the 50% game... This creates a new dynamic... You have to make sure you can knock your opponent down to less than 50% in order to make a kill now.

Very possible I've lost my marbles  , BUT it seems to me that this dynamic is in play now.   At least with the 50% criteria in place they can't just fly off the map at 20% like now.   In Dave's mission maps, once you have them at less than 50% (and no ability to repair) they could only disengage by trying to run off his new huge map.   I don't see that being successful very often.

As for what missions and their criteria you use on a server you admin, I am always fully supportive of you picking what you want.  As a player only, my vote is cast by my decision to spend or not spend any time flying on the server.   I'm just voicing my opinion now, so that I would not be a surprise.   

Then again, we are still just batting the idea around before it's really ever been put into play.

[Dizzy]

Then again, we are still just batting the idea around before it's really ever been put into play.

Yeah, you'e right. At least we gave dave 4 variations to play with. So we will test and see what arises. Overall, I think it's a FEATURE!!!

[GDA-Agave]

OK, just to organize my brain as to which variations to try and supply for experimentation/playtesting
(the idea is I'll do a skirmish script and dyna script for each, maybe a multiplayer as well)

 1. the current one that allows combat warping, but modded to disable whatever arming/tractor exploits I can
 2. one that allows going to warp but not dropping back out (i.e. once you go to warp you're leaving, but you still have to navigate off the map)
 3. one with a disengage button that ends the mission (for you at least) but requires you to be at speed 27 (or whatever) to  do it
 4. one with a disengage button that ends the  mission (again, for you) but using the 50+% engine requirement

There might be scripting complications with 3 and 4 if you're leaving a live wing behind, but we'll burn those bridges when we get there.

Nice summary.   Idea 2 with criteria from 3 or 4 would be awesome.   First, its determines if you can go to warp.  If you can, warp off the map but still having to navigate any obstacles.   Oh, to not be the first player to warp into something bad.   That's all I ask for.  DOH!!

Variations of 1 or 2 can be done for special cases such as the andros.  Maybe we can add another designator in the Role category, such as "W" to indicate ships that are capable of  combat warping?

Look a whole new arena to argue about ships and balancing issues.   I'm so excited.   Dave you rock!!! 

[NuclearWessels]

...   I'm so excited.   Dave you rock!!! 

I can't take much credit - the tactical warping has been around in Tracey's and el-Karnak's missions for a long time.  The combination with big maps just seems to have triggered a lot of interest this time around!

thanks though
dave

EDIT: and absolutely, options 1 & 2 still need to be under some form of restrictions as per 3 & 4.