Fleet Scenario RFC

[Zane_Marlowe]

Hi friends. After looking at similar threads, I decided to create this thread because it is not a suggestion to SC for something he should code, but a "Request For Comments" from fellow fleet members who would use such scenarios in multiplayer games.

Cheers friends, post your best MP ideas and let's get some good MP going!

[Edit: per request from authors of some of the material previously made available in this post, I've removed the links and edited for clarity.]

[ 08-12-2004, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Zane Marlowe ]

[Guest Remo Williams]

Please remove the link to the doc's you have there Zane. The rules for one are not correct and does not represent the full document that I am almost finished with as I have already told you.

The scores you have there are also incorrect and only about a third complete compared to the full score sheet I have.

As I also said once before the template is a step in the right direction but not what I had in mind. I should have had all three doc's done by today, but I'm a little behind schedule; which is no big deal since the first scheduled match isn't until possible the 22nd. It will be announced soon assuredly.

The last part of the first line of the fleet rules is incorrect and should not be in fleet documentation. Rule 2 is also incorrect as to why CC are not allowed on planets.

When I post the scenario regs, scenario template, and score sheet soon for FC's to download you will see what I mean.

[Zane_Marlowe]

I figured I'd hear from you on this matter, which is why I wrote above that the documents were still undergoing review and when they were modified, the links would be updated with the current versions.

I did actually write down all the values in those documents directly from the scenario page you first wrote, so as rough estimates of what the final documents will look like, I've supposed (correctly or not) that these are approximations sufficient to give scenario designers a sense of what kinds of things to include in their designs.

The additions I made (the "step in the right direction" as you say) were structural and still await comment, if you have formatting comments, this RFC thread is as good a place as any to discuss them since it's an open discussion for all fleets.

If your response to this much is still that it is inaccurate enough that maintaining the links is actually misleading scenario designers, then I'll of course remove them, but since I wrote the documents based on your most recent publically posted scenario design, then it would come as a great surprise that these were so far off base. (The scores were cut and pasted verbatim, which is why it surprises me that you say they're inaccurate.)

At any rate, I've modified the documents to correct those errors you did actually inform me about in the above post, and again, if these documents are actually misleading rather than merely imcomplete, please let me know and I'll remove the links as you've requested.

[Marvin]

Zane, your downloads appear to be rough drafts. How can you post a scenario to the open forum that hasn't been tested, first on your own and then by members of your fleet?

By yourself, you could've checked player entry points and discovered most anyone can launch directly to the NZone. Had you tested with just one other player, you might've realized nobody can stop a carrier from docking at a neutral station ... not nobody, not nohow. In fact, most of those who have been busily testing Gordon's scenario can accomplish the objective in a cruiser. When you aren't required to stop and fight, a fast ship is all you need.

Even if the defending side had a carrier at their disposal, they couldn't stop a cloaked ship from docking ... unless the commander was Zaphod himself. Defenders have a difficult enough time preventing an attack on a shuttle even when it's already protected by a friendly starstation ... at least, in that situation, the objective requires the attacker to linger in a hostile area and perform a time-intensive task.

Without a carrier that can cloak while attacking, you aren't going to stop anybody from docking at a neutral station. Not without the neutral station firing on you after you make the first hostile move.

If you had tested, with just one other person, you would've known that.

Hopefully, come next weekend, we won't have guys asking us to waste time with a scenario that should've been tested, improved, and polished before it reached the open forum.

The reason neither Remo nor Gordon have published guidelines is simple: every time you publish a new draft, somebody is likely to download it and forget to update. It is just dumb to have four or five different versions of unfinished, imcomplete, or unworkable R.O.E. floating around, confounding the issue, complicating the process and confusing both those who want to write scenarios and those who just want to participate in multiplayer engagements.

[Guest Remo Williams]

Thanks Marvin You took some of the words right out of my mouth. LOL!

quote:

---

If your response to this much is still that it is inaccurate enough that maintaining the links is actually misleading scenario designers, then I'll of course remove them, but since I wrote the documents based on your most recent publically posted scenario design, then it would come as a great surprise that these were so far off base. (The scores were cut and pasted verbatim, which is why it surprises me that you say they're inaccurate.)

---

That page was only sent to FC's the SC and others that were attending the meeting it was not publicly posted and was never intended to be. That is until you started posting the info from it then the whole darn page with out my go ahead. It doesn't even have the 3000AD copyright info at the bottom of the page.

Yes the point system on that page is incorrect the same as the rules you posted and does not reflect the changes I've made or the rest of the assets classes I've added to the score sheet.

At this point I'm very irritated! This sort of stuff is exactly why I spoke up about your promotion to FC of Orion and you can bet I'm going to be bending Jamonts ear shortly.

Stop using the material Prime has been working on immediately until you have a clue what were doing. Of course you can go off your own way again and see if you can get the other FCÔÇÖs to follow, but Prime almost has a system done that has been tested to work that were going to follow.

[Zane_Marlowe]

Marvin, I'm well aware of the capabilities of a cloaked ship and I don't have a hard time imagining conditions under which a carrier might succeed or fail that mission according to how it is used in coordination with other elements of the attacking fleet. I didn't need to test the scenario to know that in principle this would be the case.

That said, the scenario is written such that if the carrier doesn't use its cloaking technology to the benefit of its non-cloaking brothers, then the fact that it may arrive alone at the station may not end up benefiting the attacking fleet all that much. The scenario is about teamwork, and the neutral station at the far end of space is selected for its remoteness from the objective. If the attacking team doesn't work together to bring more assets to the destination, it's a pyrrhic victory at best since they can't respawn and they'll have lost the opportunity to gain points from successfully achieving the fleet objective. Point being, I didn't think this up off the cuff, and because I requested comments, I'm glad you offered some. However, I do hope that others who want to design scenarios aren't going to be put off by the tone of your response to my post; not every scenario design requires such extensive testing as you suggest.

Remo, per your request I've removed the links above. Prime Fleet's material is of course the domain of Prime Fleet, so I have removed it and my own references to it.

I'd ask you to consider however that including fleets (leaders and interested personnel) in the process of putting anything together for use by all of them is just as important as the end result that you offer to them, and you began to do so by inviting the other fleet leaders and myself to participate with you. If you're concerned that it's not perfect or that you're going to want to revise it later, that's one thing, and version control is a simple matter. Alternately, I would hope that you're not essentially telling the rest of the fleet community that you're going to basically create this on your own and when it's done we can like it or hate it, but because Prime's got more members than anyone else, then it's just going to just be the de facto standard. I think better of you than the latter possibility, but if it is the former, then I'm afraid I don't understand your retracting your material so aggressively if it was refined enough to bring before the rest of Fleet Leadership.

Because you mentioned it. What I created by going "off my own way" was something that I followed through on when I gained the interest of others in an ongoing discussion that had cheerleaders and critics both. I didn't try to get people to follow my idea if they weren't interested; in fact, four fleet leaders (and a number of ranking Prime members) signed up because it did interest them. I went as far with my project as was necessary to get it to a point where it could be used when the fleet community was organized enough to take advantage of it, and there it waits if they choose to use it. As a matter of fact, I actually noticed that you guys were accomplishing the next phase of the Fleet Action project for me (scenario design), and so I offered the Prime fleet scenario designers my hard work (at the last meeting) in an attempt to create the best possible solution.

Again, because you mentioned it, let me begin by making the following crystal clear: I have no problem with you personally Remo, you give a lot of your time and energy to this game and those who play it, but when you use terms like "until you have a clue," and "go off...and see if you can..." I don't have a charitable way to read that.

You're irritated? Fine, but when I've had such cause with you (and I have), I restrained myself not because of your title, but because it was the right thing to do. You want to email Nick Jamont? Feel free, I've done nothing that indicated ISS's position on any policy or decision without his express approval.

And since you were irritated enough to mention it, if you think I would have been such a bad choice as a Fleet Leader, then take a second look at who else from GALCOM showed at the Fleet Meeting you invited four GALCOM fleets to. After SC's decision to promote me was made, you felt you had to say something about it in spite of the fact that 1) my appointment was to a Fleet you had no part of, 2) it had nothing to do with your fleet, and 3) the putative reason for his doing so was because he had become dissatisfied with the status quo and had solicited, deliberated on, and accepted applications for new leadership from the community. Your objections resulted in my subsequent demotion, we exchanged a civil PM.

We've not said anything about it until you just brought it up now in front of an audience. Before this same audience you've mentioned that you want to "bend Jamont's ear" with similar remarks about me. The only reason I can imagine you've done both of these things in public is because you're trying to take me to task in public and/or intimidate me toward some end, else you would have just PM'd me and been done with it. If you have another reason for doing this, please don't post it here, just PM me and let's not waste more public forum space on this.

I'm going to repeat, I've got nothing personal against you Remo, but you've already thrown me some fists. I've responded with respect for you out of my own sense of decorum and charity, so I hope you'll try harder than your last post suggests to do the same so I don't have to defend myself again in another dissertation-sized post.

Now I hope that concludes the off-topic nature of this discussion. If there are no further objections, I will briefly summarize the scenario since the document I created is apparently no longer tenable.

The scenario is for any two fleets, one is designated the attacking fleet, one the defending fleet.

Scenario Special Rules:

* The attacking fleet cannot respawn

* The attacking fleet cannot dock at any other station but Freeport in Castrin (i.e., no resupply for iridium)

* The attacking fleet has access to one carrier

* The defending fleet cannot use carrier assets

The scenario is simple. The attacking fleet must begin in the NZone, and successfully dock as many assets as possible in Freeport Station in Castrin. It's a long and well-defended trip and you have one shot at it since there are no respawns. The defending fleet can respawn, but doesn't have the element of surprise available to the attackers.

The attacking fleet gains experience per ship for every ship that reaches Freeport station as well as for any kills they get from sweeping aside the defenders.

The defenders gain experience per attacking ship they destroy and a bonus for preventing the carrier from reaching Freeport.

Whew, that about does it for one evening. Hope this will shortly become a more useful thread.

ZM out.

[Marvin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zane Marlowe:

...not every scenario design requires such extensive testing as you suggest.

---

Oh yes it does.

[*]1. Create a scenario.

[*]2. Test it by yourself.

[*]3. Modify the scenario.

[*]4. Test it with one or two other players.

[*]5. Modify it some more.

[*]6. Offer the scenario to your Fleet Commander for analysis and further changes.

[*]7. Distribute the scenario to all Fleet Commanders for testing, analysis, and recommendations -- this is where we were last weekend.

[*]8. Make final modifications to the scenario.

[*]9. Write up the final draft of the scenario and post it for general assessment and game play.

If Prime had devised your scenario, we would've first tested the entry and re-spawn points. One of us would've then found an occupied surver and asked Jamotto or Khan or someone else available to help in testing the scenario. If it had been me, I would've told Khan or Jam to post himself at Freeport and try to prevent me from docking.

Go try that. Try it with a carrier. Then try it with a cruiser. Then switch roles with your test subject and see if you can stop him from docking.

If you can somehow manage to keep even a well-piloted cruiser from docking, then get the fleet leaders together and go Military v.s. Insurgent ... see how many attacking craft you can stop.

If it turns out you actually have a chance of stopping a well-coordinated offensive ... and the fleet leaders agree ... then write up the mission and post it.

'Cause this isn't about Prime Fleet monopolizing the scenario business ... it's about developing scenarios that work. Scenarios that give both sides a fighting chance ... else, why even have two sides?

quote:

---

I would hope that you're not essentially telling the rest of the fleet community that you're going to basically create this on your own and when it's done we can like it or hate it, but because Prime's got more members than anyone else, then it's just going to just be the de facto standard.

---

Think about it, Zane. Who, here, has actually posted a scenario without consulting any other fleet leader or coordinated any preliminary testing?

[Zane_Marlowe]

Well, in fairness to your second point, I'm not asking anyone to adopt it as it stands. RFC means Request For Comments, and toward that end you and I are having a productive discussion. Remo seems to feel that something's lost or threatened by involving people in his unfinished concept, and that's what my quoted comments referred to. He's since informed me that I've been added to his block list because he feels I've treated him with disregard. I mention this not because I'm trying to continue to debate some point with him, but because the whole point of this thread was to start discussion, not close it. In spite of the fact I could claim cause for the same sort of action, I've chosen to continue to talk to people who've cost me something important. Make no mistake, I've never been vindictive and I'm still not, but there's no virtue in picking up your bat and ball and going home.

Regarding the second point, I posted the scenario idea in an unfinished and untested form because I need people to participate with me to accomplish the testing you suggest, so I'll do as you suggest and find someone interested in helping me test the basic outlines, but I didn't have to actually do what you suggest to know that the results you suggest about a cloaked carrier's impunity to detection and attack was true. Stopping cruisers from reaching Freeport is a test of command skill, but the advantage goes to the fleet that can respawn. Balancing the scenario requires balancing scoring to make it worthwhile to support attacking fleet cruisers that can't respawn instead of rushing alone to the station under cloak at the expense of one's teammates.

Smart commanders will use the carrier's cloaking to destroy defending assets who engage the attacking cruisers. Because there is therefore more time spent cloaked in engagements rather than covering the distance from NZone to Castrin, it's not necessarily the case that the attacking fleet carrier commander is going to have enough iridium to make it to Freeport under cloak since he can't dock for resupply.

[ShoHashi]

Ok, my thoughts here. It's not my intent to demoralize anyone on these scenarios. If other fleets want to approach it and do their own that's fine. The more scenarios, the better. However, remember, it WILL require testing.

Prime approached us Insurgents to test out a scenario. We happily agreed and within days were were testing the scenario. We have several, and I do mean SEVERAL, hours from both sides invested in trying to get a viable scenario and more hours to come.

It's easy to just sit down and think up an extravagant scenario. It's much harder to get it to work the way you want it to with UC in it's current state. UC is a phenomenal game in itself and is continually evolving as the SC releases patches. The trick is to get these scenarios to work with what is currently possible to do in UC.

Hence is why we started to test the scenario small at first, then gradually add a few things. As we did that, we found things that didn't work and things that did work. Then we would think of a way around the things that didn't work to get to the point we are at now.

We still have a couple of problems that still need to be solved...I won't get into the specifics at this time.

Personally, in my opinion, the scenario works, however due to a couple of problems, it is not fool-proof. I have, however, the utmost confidence that Prime and the Insurgents will overcome those.

[Guest Remo Williams]

quote:

---

Remo seems to feel that something's lost or threatened by involving people in his unfinished concept, and that's what my quoted comments referred to. He's since informed me that I've been added to his block list because he feels I've treated him with disregard. I mention this not because I'm trying to continue to debate some point with him, but because the whole point of this thread was to start discussion, not close it. In spite of the fact I could claim cause for the same sort of action, I've chosen to continue to talk to people who've cost me something important. Make no mistake, I've never been vindictive and I'm still not, but there's no virtue in picking up your bat and ball and going home.

---

I have no problem including the people that should be involved in this. The Fleet Leaders have just as much say on all this as I do thatÔÇÖs a fact. I have a problem with you and your meddling in Fleet leader business. The last I checked you were a wing leader in ISS. The only reason I allowed you in our meeting was because I thought you had learned your place in the fleets obviously not though.

We didn't cost you crap Zane your the one that went off on a wild goose chase that no one was interested in and was not authorized by Prime; while you were a cadet in Prime's academy. Which was going to cost you a court marshal until you resigned from Prime. I'm still trying to figure out how you got into ISS. I guess they were just desperate for members.

You are a nOOb around here and everyone I've been talking to about your activities is getting very pissed. If you keep following this path your going to have way more enemies than friends around here that you can take to the bank.

My advice to you is to back off let this die down and let your fleet leader do his job before youÔÇÖre no longer welcome in the fleets or this community. This is the last I'm going to say to you on this Zane I mean it. Your on thin ice you best realize it before its to late.

Remo out!

[Marvin]

MOD_ALLIANCE remo,zane,0

[Guest Shingen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

The Fleet Leaders have just as much say on all this as I do thatÔÇÖs a fact.

---

Sorry to butt in here, but what Fleet Leaders are you referring to?

I have yet to be asked about anything regarding scenarios (expect by Dreada about coming up with our own), and besides being asked to participate in one meeting and being made to play as a TER/INS, I don't see how anyone is being included in the process except Prime and possibly members of the Insurgency.

Why jump on Zane because he wants to move things in MP along, and screwed up on your protocols? No offense, but you aren't the only "oldie" around here, and BC has always been based on a dynamic, diverse universe, and since BCM, a dynamic, diverse collection of players.

Sure, it's your dime, and it's your time (regarding your scenarios), but give the kid a break.

Lighten up.

[Guest Remo Williams]

quote:

---

Sorry to butt in here, but what Fleet Leaders are you referring to?

---

Wraith, Orion, ISS, EarthCom, and Insurgents. All the orignal military fleets.

quote:

---

Why jump on Zane because he wants to move things in MP along, and screwed up on your protocols?

---

Because he's not a fleet leader and causing more confusion and distraction than helping with his meddling.

quote:

---

Sure, it's your dime, and it's your time (regarding your scenarios), but give the kid a break.

Lighten up.

---

No! Thanks for your two cents though.

[Guest Shingen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

Wraith, Orion, ISS, EarthCom, and Insurgents. All the orignal military fleets.

---

I guess that pretty much leaves us Raiders and Gammulans as second class citizens in your little world then huh?

quote:

---

Because he's not a fleet leader and causing more confusion and distraction than helping with his meddling.

---

I sure hate your luck. Deal with it. It's just a game fer christ sake.

quote:

---

No! Thanks for your two cents though.

---

Well at least I know where The Devil's Hand Raiders stand in regards to "official" fleet actions.

Thanks for the heads up.

[Guest Remo Williams]

LOL! The same old Shingen I see, as you said deal with it.

It is just a game thatÔÇÖs for sure but Derek does have a few die hard fans out here that give a shit about the direction MP takes since we have been here waiting and working on the fleets for MP for over half a decade.

This topic has out lived its usefulness as I figured it would sooner or later.

[Guest Shingen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

LOL! The same old Shingen I see, as you said deal with it.

---

I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam.

quote:

---

It is just a game thatÔÇÖs for sure but Derek does have a few die hard fans out here that give a shit about the direction MP takes since we have been here waiting and working on the fleets for MP for over half a decade.

---

Please. You aren't the only die-hard fan who gives a shit about MP, I've been personally playing a BC game in one version or another since 1998.

MP has enough problems without creating our own, and alienating players over protocols that ain't even set in stone isn't the way to make MP work.

quote:

---

This topic has out lived its usefulness as I figured it would sooner or later.

---

Well, that's typical. It figures.

[Guest Remo Williams]

quote:

---

Please. You aren't the only die-hard fan who gives a shit about MP.

---

Never said I was.

quote:

---

I've been personally playing a BC game in one version or another since 1998.

---

Cool, to bad you didn't join us here on the forums around that time. Now those were the days! Quite a crew we had around here at that time. I remember camping the forums along with quite a few others waiting on Derek to release the mappak,or patch updates for BC3K.

quote:

---

MP has enough problems without creating our own, and alienating players over protocols that ain't even set in stone isn't the way to make MP work.

---

IYO anyway. The protocols for the military fleets are as good as set in stone, but I wouldn't expect you to know that since you were never a member of one.

quote:

---

Well, that's typical. It figures.

---

Doesn't it though.

[Guest Shingen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

Cool, to bad you didn't join us here on the forums around that time. Now those were the days! Quite a crew we had around here at that time. I remember camping the forums along with quite a few others waiting on Derek to release the mappak,or patch updates for BC3K.

---

Actually, I was around then. I didn't sign in to the forum until around 1999, but I remember those days. I remember Rattler, and Blades, and Aramike, ect.ect.ect.

I got kicked around 2000 'cause me and Derek knocked skulls, spent about 3 years in exile, but it's all water under the bridge.

..and it seems you've either missed or ignored my entire point, so have a nice day.

quote:

---

IYO anyway. The protocols for the military fleets are as good as set in stone, but I wouldn't expect you to know that since you were never a member of one.

---

Thank God for small favors. I never was much of an *********.

Edited: No need for name calling!

[ 08-14-2004, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: Remo Williams ]

[Gordon]

IMO first off we need to stop calling it a scenario it's really Rules of Engagement (ROE).

If someone writes a ROE and gets two fleets interested in playing it then I can see no reason why not. This does not mean that the rest of the fleets have to endorse it or play it for that fact.

The critical issue is that ALL fleet leaders agree on a point structure. This is to prevent stats from being lopsided due to different ROE point structures.

The only 2 real problems I see with Zane's post is that he has made public, information that is still in the testing phase and is the property of Prime fleet, he has since corrected this after he was told to do so. From all the testing we have done I can tell you that Zane's ROE would work but still needed to be tested and refined accordingly. That does not mean I would be interested in playing his ROE as I agree fully with Marvin's posts to this topic. Anyone that plays MP now, knows that Marvin knows a lot about the MP world.

The second problem is that he did not get an endorcement from his fleet CO and the fleet CO of a hostile fleet to his race before posting. Prime's ROE was handled back channel with the fleet leaders of the Insurgents and refined as necessary to meet our goals and objectives. Once we had our initial talks we then tested the ROE and after tweaking it both fleets endorced it. IMO that should be a requirement for any ROE that is written for the game. The only other players that our ROE were shown to were other fleet leaders and beta testers, until the Fleet leaders meeting where non- fleet leaders first got to see it.

So if Shingen and TDH want to engage the ISS using Zane's ROE I see no reason why not as long as we all agree on the point structure for any ROE. Remo is finalizing a data sheet on point awards that I'm sure he will send to each fleet leaders for comments, revisions and finally sign off.