Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Remo Williams

Fleet Meets, Tournaments, Championships

Recommended Posts

So far it's had a little impact, with more interest being shown in training sessions, one Commander who was earlier inactive in mp showed interest in taking part, but due to some practical difficulties wasn't able to take part this week. I expect things to pick up in the next few weeks.

It was the first currently unranked fleet member to get 3 kills (and gain by right Level 4 security clearance with ISS) would be given command of Defence wing, as a one-off offer, because at the moment I'm doing that job myself. The threat of ranked players being kicked out by more active mp players is not looming on the horizon, since the only ones ranked are myself, Zane and Jamont, Jamont won't lose his clearance unless he chooses to leave the fleet entirely, since he was fleet leader for a long time, and myself and Zane are currently the most active mp players. The details of the incentive scheme can be found here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

The only reason were going to a weekly schedule at this point is because the season is about to end and it was a very short season this year. We will be playing every other week when the new season begins on January 1st as always.

We have our first ever tournament on Dec. 11th then the season championship on Dec. 28th. So you can see why I want to go weekly right now to give everyone that has been playing enough play time to get to the championship, since only the two best players or should I say highest scoring players will face off in the championship. The tournament on the other hand will be a series of matches between the to highest scoring fleets.

The tournment will decide the victorious fleet for the season and the championship will decide the the #1 player of the season regardless of fleet affilation. I'm sure this will evolve with time and some sort of award or prize be given to these outstanding players but for now thats still on the table being worked with along with numerous other enhancements to the system. some of which are inline with the ISS system that Zane has spoke of above, but for this season I don't see anything like that happening within Prime anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main concern in bringing up the weekly schedule was that I was expressing some doubt about whether it was wise to implement both a penalty based on non-attendence at the same time as you're ramping up the frequency of the matches. Doing either of them individually might make sense independently on the merits of each idea, but both together would make it pretty tough IMO for people like me who want to be able to be involved, but for whom a bi-weekly schedule is optimal given RL constraints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

Not sure what you mean by penalty. Adding some more game time I don't see as a penalty it maybe unworkable for some people but not a penalty.

Members of Prime that haven't participated in the MP matches are not going to be fleet members any longer period. So not getting to use the new MP lobby will be a non-issue as far as that goes. I'm sorry but thatÔÇÖs what the fleets are for now MP play. If you can't play because of time constraints or don't want to play because the state of UC MP well its time to hang it up.

I don't care if I have only two or three commanders in the fleet DB. At least you'll know when you look at those membersÔÇÖ names that they are active MP players. If Prime don't have the three members to participate in a fleet match come meet day well then we don't participate and will be disqualified for that meet Prime will not take substitutes any longer to be able to compete thatÔÇÖs it. I'm tired of messing around with this I want to have fun. I want the people that WANT to play to have fun. I can understand not being able to play on a given weekend because the wife has made plans, but to miss weekend after weekend is just not going to happen any longer.

If your in Prime and don't own the game I'm sorry your out! This is nothing personal give me a yell when you have the game or the system to play it on and youÔÇÖre back in until then your out.

I'm sorry people about the rant here maybe I should have put this some where else but I feel some of the other leaders here are feeling the same. Maybe you all can take my lead on this and wipe your part of the DB clean except for your active MP members. Once thatÔÇÖs done start sending them PM's to remove your fleet info from their sig. If they don't do it then let me know I'll take it from there for you.

Its time to get this crap fixed, YES it's broken and its time to stop being Mr. nice leaders I know you all want to have fun the same as I do. So letÔÇÖs get some people in here that want to have fun PLAYING MP with us.

Remo Out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't know if I'll be able to attende the meeting every week until december when the season ends; however I respect Remo's opinion and I don't think that missing a match will cause you some damage....at least until you start missing more than one consequential matches...then you'll have to sort it out with your FLs and regain activity or step out.

Personally as I'll try to be there every week for a couple of hours like I've done before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just on a sidenote; maybe it's a good idea to open a seperate sticky thread with an agenda for fleet matches, just times and dates, nothing more, updated after each match or when new info is available.

It would be easier to keep track of than a thread with 7 pages!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shingen

quote:

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

If your in Prime and don't own the game I'm sorry your out! This is nothing personal give me a yell when you have the game or the system to play it on and youÔÇÖre back in until then your out.

I'm sorry people about the rant here maybe I should have put this some where else but I feel some of the other leaders here are feeling the same. Maybe you all can take my lead on this and wipe your part of the DB clean except for your active MP members. Once thatÔÇÖs done start sending them PM's to remove your fleet info from their sig. If they don't do it then let me know I'll take it from there for you.

Its time to get this crap fixed, YES it's broken and its time to stop being Mr. nice leaders I know you all want to have fun the same as I do. So letÔÇÖs get some people in here that want to have fun PLAYING MP with us.

Remo Out!

Well you're a few months behind the curve as far as keeping the fleet DB MP players only. I started booting non-MP players out of TDH awhile back.

We did "discover" yesterday, that if players stay in AP/AI while attacking other players, the "spinning" and "lag-jumping" is almost completely reduced.

It takes most of all the skill out of combat, but it also makes it alot more stable and playable using AP/AI alone for PvP combat. Also, we found that there is virtually no lag when using missles, but PTAs screw everything up, lag wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Shingen:

We did "discover" yesterday, that if players stay in AP/AI while attacking other players, the "spinning" and "lag-jumping" is almost completely reduced.


It shouldn't be much of a discovery - especially if you know what the AP/AI mode actually does.

Naturally - as I've been saying all along - those complaining about dogfighting, have no clue what they're talking about because they have NOT spent time doing it. Issuing orders as a commander is a whole different kettle of fish from being engaged in actual combat.

If the AI assumes that role, it has a better understanding of the ship's dynamics, the world etc, so it knows what to do. A stupid - yes stupid - player who thinks he can grab a mouse or joystick on day one and expect to prevail, doesn't.

quote:


It takes most of all the skill out of combat, but it also makes it alot more stable and playable using AP/AI alone for PvP combat.

It has NOTHING to do with stability.

The AI isn't doing ANYTHING differently from a human player - it just does it better. It is no different from dropping yourself into the middle of a planet base and getting shot on sight because you decided to stop - for a moment - to look around; while your NPC marines are moving about.

quote:


Also, we found that there is virtually no lag when using missles, but PTAs screw everything up, lag wise.

Well gee, there's a surprise. Missiles are single model entities with a pre-computed path when they have target lock.

The PTA turrets - just like the regular laser shots - has to render the shots on your machine and on every other client machine (or they won't see your shots). Guess what happens when there is rapid PTA fire as the server attempts to update all clients. Yes, lag.

This is further exacerbated by the fact that the server will always cap at a 56K stream (regardless of whether you have DSL, cable or whatever) in order to keep all players at the same reasonable synch rate (or players on DSL will have a distinct advantage over those on 56K dial-up). This transmission cap (at 56K) is one of the major revisions I had originally planned (last year during Beta) on making in UC. Now I can't because its too much work as I'd have to strip the kernel and its not worth my while for a $19.99 game. So, its being done in the new networking kernel as described here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to respond to Remo for just a moment because I think my former comments were unclear. The basic issue I'm trying to figure out is this: there are two rules under review for potential adoption (if this is actual, not potential, then I missed it).

Rule 1: Fleet meets are going to increase in frequency.

Rule 2: Members who miss two fleet meets are going to be penalized by their respective fleet, either by not giving them access to the match (I'm not thinking about the MP lobby software) or by perhaps dropping them from the fleet.

Rules 1 and 2 separately might make sense (although we've talked about how some people contribute to the fleet materially in web support or other projects as are deemed valuable to the fleet by the Fleet Leader), but in conjunction seem to make it very difficult for someone to avoid getting booted from their fleeet because other people wanted to play MP games more frequently.

Did I miss something in this analysis? I'm not trying to say what we should or shouldn't do, I'm trying to point out a consequence in case BOTH rules are adopted, and I'm asking you guys if that consequence makes sense.

On a related note, I've been researching ISS, CIOPS, and posts dating back to the inception of the Fleets when people like DeSylva, Ristar, Rattler, Gudihl, and Chavik were the primary players in getting the fleets setup (prior to BCM even) and almost all those earliest posts are in the RP threads, with one explanation of the purpose of the fleets being RP primarily. Yes, there was no MP component back then, but given that original focus and SC's thinking that the BC/UC games are not focused around MP play (as the MMO title will be), then have we correctly determined that RP is no longer adequate as a focus of fleet activity? We seem to be giving up a very rich universe (including in-game stations bearing our fleet names) if we make the SP game (and associated RP) irrelevant to fleet membership and practice.

This is a more philosophical discussion that probably deserves another thread, but since the values in that discussion bear on the policies in this one, I thought I would bring up the question here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

AFAIK, we're not giving up anything, see my above
- its in the official regs. But suffice it to say MP, in comparison to RP, is the "big picture" right now.

Yeah, I put the conditional "if" in there for that reason because it's not been clear to me whether we're considering dropping people's membership in a fleet because they aren't participating in any sense (which seems reasonable) or dropping members because they're not participating in MP games, which would be a little more severe. IF MP play is the only requisite for fleet membership, then is there a commitment to sustaining the RP side of fleet activity, from which the fleets were born?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shingen

quote:

Originally posted by Zane Marlowe:

Yeah, I put the conditional "if" in there for that reason because it's not been clear to me whether we're considering dropping people's membership in a fleet because they aren't participating in any sense (which seems reasonable) or dropping members because they're not participating in MP games, which would be a little more severe. IF MP play is the only requisite for fleet membership, then is there a commitment to sustaining the RP side of fleet activity, from which the fleets were born?

Well if you look at the RP Forum, there really hasn't been a whole lot of RP activity either. I know, at least on my end, that RL time constraints are the cause of this, and I need to get my RP back in gear. But I think MP is where the fleets belong. RP would be nice, but it's also more time consuming then a few hours playing a match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're right that the problem is not active RPers (or other contributors) who aren't multiplaying, but rather just not enough people who sign up are staying involved.

I reread the regs (the Fleet FAQ) you referred me to, and that seems to be pretty clear that RP and involvement in RP-related stuff would be sufficient participation, although it does talk about RP and MP as reasons why you might want to join a fleet, not necessarily as sufficient reasons for retaining your fleet membership (i.e., a fleet might require or not require either one of those in order to sustain one's membership).

I think this question came up in my mind when Remo wrote, "Members of Prime that haven't participated in the MP matches are not going to be fleet members any longer period." Now of course he's just referring to membership in Prime, but I wondered whether this was going to become fleet policy in general since he also wrote, "Maybe you all can take my lead on this and wipe your part of the DB clean except for your active MP members. Once thatÔÇÖs done start sending them PM's to remove your fleet info from their sig. If they don't do it then let me know I'll take it from there for you." Again, this is only his suggestion, but if this were to go through, I wonder if it would ultimately make the SP game and RP irrelevant to Fleet Activity. Thoughts? I'm not trying to criticize here, just see outcomes so everyone can make careful choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shingen

quote:

Originally posted by Zane Marlowe:

I think this question came up in my mind when Remo wrote, "Members of Prime that haven't participated in the MP matches are not going to be fleet members any longer period." Now of course he's just referring to membership in Prime, but I wondered whether this was going to become fleet policy in general since he also wrote, "Maybe you all can take my lead on this and wipe your part of the DB clean except for your active MP members. Once thatÔÇÖs done start sending them PM's to remove your fleet info from their sig. If they don't do it then let me know I'll take it from there for you." Again, this is only his suggestion, but if this were to go through, I wonder if it would ultimately make the SP game and RP irrelevant to Fleet Activity. Thoughts? I'm not trying to criticize here, just see outcomes so everyone can make careful choices.

Remo didn't start that "policy". I did, and I stand by it.

Again. It all goes back to the question of WHAT FLEETS ARE FOR. Before MP, they were for RP. Now, they should be for MP and RP, but mainly MP. That's just my opinion though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Shingen:

Before MP, they were for RP. Now, they should be for MP
and
RP, but mainly MP.

Agreed

Maybe FL's could be creative and start up some incentive programs to encourage and reward MP & RP activity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After thinking about it, I don't think that dropping players from a fleet for non-participation, is such as bad idea. After all, there must be a reason they joined to begin with.

There are many ways to contribute to a fleet without actually being involved in online matches. e.g. DREADA pointed out Reed's website work. Others point out RP etc etc.

At the very least, fleet membership should be like being in the National Guard; you gotta show up once in a while - especially during rollcalls - or fleet meetings (not to be confused with actually online game participation).

So, you guys can use this as a guideline when determining who to drop from a fleet. e.g. if I get an email from DennyMala saying that he got dropped from a fleet, I'd be pissed; because he is an active community member who shouldn't be penalized just because he can't be at each and every fleet meet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Shingen:

RP would be nice, but it's also more time consuming then a few hours playing a match.

Time consuming? It took me a half-hour just to read this one thread ... and I'm talking about just the stuff that was posted today!

Who has time to read ... let alone write ... for R/P?

quote:

Originally posted by the SC:

At the very least, fleet membership should be like being in the National Guard; you gotta show up once in a while ....

I wouldn't touch that line with a ten foot pole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


SC originally posted:

There are many ways to contribute to a fleet without actually being involved in online matches. e.g. DREADA pointed out Reed's website work. Others point out RP etc etc.

At the very least, fleet membership should be like being in the National Guard; you gotta show up once in a while - especially during rollcalls - or fleet meetings (not to be confused with actually online game participation).


I agree totally. I will not drop people from Bishamon just because they haven't played MP.

There have been several of us Insurgents, ie. Chavik, DreadX and Mordax and myself who have been involved with MP games and will continue to do so unless RL issues keep us from a match. Then there are several other members who contribute to the Insurgents in other ways (behind-the-scenes), ie. UC website design, training missions, tactical analysis of matches, etc.

Now, if someone joins up in the fleet and then is not heard from for two months, then that's a different story...they are out of the fleet.

A lot of the current members in the Insurgents have been with their fleets since inception and do answer the monthly rollcall threads. So, in this manner also, they are active in my opinion.

Just my two cents on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

I agree also, I was a little vague in my post. There are ways to contribute to MP without being on a MP server thats for sure.

Zane I'll respond to your post shortly. Its time for me to grab some dinner now. I'll be back! LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

...if I get an email from DennyMala saying that he got dropped from a fleet, I'd be
pissed
; because he is an active community member who shouldn't be penalized just because he can't be at each and every fleet meet.


I'm very touched...

However just to get back on topic...I suggest we shut down the PTA on the fleet matches (and Marvin will hate me for this.....sorry chief... ) and allow the use of missiles....hoping that this will reduce the spinning effect we were seeing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shingen

quote:

Originally posted by DennyMala:

However just to get back on topic...I suggest we shut down the PTA on the fleet matches (and Marvin will hate me for this.....sorry chief... ) and allow the use of missiles....hoping that this will reduce the spinning effect we were seeing....

Yeah, I think we should prolly start playing with PTAs off and maybe AP/AI on.

Is there going to be a match this Sunday, or is it still on the 21st?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not favorable to play with AP/AI on....just because this will change radically our (or maybe my) approach to the game....changing it in to some sort of real time strategy game instead of a simulation.....and because the stronger ship will almost surely win without the human "interference", assuming that we all starts with same AI level...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shingen

That's kewl. I think if we play without PTAs and allow missles (but not fighters??), I think it will help alot.

Are we also going to implement Chavik's suggestion of a "Free-for-all" after the ROE objectives are completed, or just end the match as we've been doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by DennyMala:

However just to get back on topic...I suggest we shut down the PTA on the fleet matches (and Marvin will hate me for this.....sorry chief... ) and allow the use of missiles....hoping that this will reduce the spinning effect we were seeing....


While that is a good suggestion, it will only serve to mask the problem. I want to be able to (this weekend) see and experience the problem for myself so that I know what you folks are talking about.

Also, without having to disable PTA in the code, all people on the server could simply turn off their PTA system and run the tests that way. The PTA system won't fire unless it is active; I think you all know that by now, so I shouldn't have to do anything in this regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×