Jump to content

MP Fleet Action Tournament


Recommended Posts

Hi friends,

This post is going into its own thread because I'm anticipating that it will require a discussion of its own.

It seems to me that while there are plenty of commanders who are interested in multiplayer, there is very little in the way of scoring, winning, or losing that we have at present set up. While UC has its own play style (namely, SURVIVE!) that may not lend itself to the sorts of fragfest scoring that we see in FPS games, it strikes me that people still want something to measure wins and losses, and how much better would that be if it actually counted beyond the MP session in question.

My solution to this perceived need is a map-based double-blind tournament system that requires fleet commanders to handle intelligence, logistics, and engagements in order to complete their objectives in the tournament. Allow me to briefly outline.

On the Single-player map we have many systems, and each is owned by a particular race. Unofficially, I propose to make the ownership of the systems on that map dynamic according to fleet wins/losses. Fleet commanders will position their fleets one jump at a time on the single-player map in "strategic turns" that alternate between all playing races. Fleet commanders may, during their turn choose to:

[*]Move

[*]Engage

[*]Resupply

[*]Recon

Movement means positioning your fleet in an adjacent system unoccupied by an enemy fleet.

Engagements are either directed at planets in systems unoccupied by an enemy fleet, or at fleets in adjacent systems (as a move/engage combination order).

Resupply means that a commander's fleet remains stationary and restores its logistics pool for that strategic turn. (This will be necessary if you have fought a tough campaign and need to lick your wounds.)

Fleets indicate where they wish to move, and a designated "map officer" (a 3rd party) maintains the map information, which includes the locations of all fleets and the ownership of all systems. Fleet commanders will have reconnaisance that includes only adjacent systems. (I am considering rules to extend this range, including intelligence and recon strategic orders, but playtesting will iron this out.)

Logistics I have not outlined beyond the idea that each side has a logistics pool that consists of a certain number of points that commanders may use for resupply and reinforcements. During strategic resupply turns a fleet commander gains logistics points, and during battles he commits/loses them. A smart commander is not necessarily going to commit his whole logistics pool to a fight because he knows that the enemy may be breathing down his neck on the next turn, and will conserve resources for an anticipated defense.

When fleets engage one another there are three basic steps.

[*]Intelligence Gathering

[*]Commit Assets

[*]Begin Campaign

Intelligence gathering is when CIOPS and its counterparts in the other fleets get their due. Intelligence agents must secretly generate intelligence by doing special intelligence missions on a specified 3000AD server within a scheduled window of time (an hour one evening for instance). The objectives of the mission will be generated by the person maintaining the galaxy map information, but would include things objectives such as dropping supplies on a given planet, overflying a planetary base, entering a system and counting the assets there, or other missions to be determined. At some point during that window of time (window not to exceed 1 hour), the intelligence agent must logon to the game server and perform the mission in an UNARMED transport of their choosing, using any alias and race/caste affiliation they choose. Enemy fleets will of course be looking for this agent, and if they kill him, then the intelligence mission fails and the intelligence agent's fleet will not have the advantages afforded by the intelligence operations.

Successful intelligence operations allow a commander to do one of the following prior to commiting assets and engaging the enemy:

[*]Reveal enemy Asset Commitments

[*]Reserve fleet assets until later in the campaign

[*]other advantages TBA

Revealing enemy assets means that the enemy commander's asset commitment is known to the intelligence-supplied fleet commander. In case both are supplied, then each gets to look at the other's initial commitment and then revise their commitment secretly. Reserved assets can be committed at any battle in the following campaign, and if not used, are available during the following strategic turn when committed assets would normally be undergoing repair and resupply and be therefore unavailable.

Committing assets is when the fleet commander must choose how many ships to commit to the taking of a system. As noted above, fleet commanders will have to balance strategic map needs with the needs of the coming engagement. Fleet commanders will have to make their commitments without seeing the commitments of their enemies (unless of course they have intelligence data as noted above). Fleet Commandes have a logistics pool of points that represents the total strength of their flet and can be used to "buy" CC's for the campaign to come.

The actual engagement begins after both sides have reported their asset commitments to the map officer. The engaging fleets will then follow a battleflow diagram illustrated here. The fleet that owns the system is considered the "defending fleet" and their victories follow the "D" arrows on the diagram. The fleet that is attempting to take the system is the "attacking fleet" and follows the "A" arrows on the diagram. The diagram represents the dynamic changing of initiative in the campaign as each side wins or loses a scheduled battle on a designated 3000AD UC Server. Each battle includes the complete allowance of assets committed from the logistics pool to the campaign. Wins and losses are established by sending the map officer a transcript of the server log so he can tally up the kills for each fleet. Matches last one hour once deployment has finished (see below for deployment rules per scenario) Brief descriptions of the scenarios on the diagram are as follows:

The meeting engagement is the first encounter of the two fleets and represents the opening foray that will determine the actions to follow. When teams login to the MP server, they will each begin in their home system and spread out to do battle on the MP map accordingly.

If the attacker wins, then they be in a force projection situation that means that they will fight another battle where they can deploy their CC's in any systems but the defender's home system before the battle begins.

If the attacker wins the force projection battle, then they will attempt planetfall. Simply put, this is the defender's last chance to hold off the attack, and the attacker must take either a planetside base or a space station with their fleet. (Gameplay will establish an appropriate final objective for the attacker, I'm open to suggestions, but they should be some kind of base or city.) In this battle, the attackers can deploy in the defender's home system, but they cannot hyperjump away from the entry points to the system (the jumpgates, wormholes, fluxfields, etc.). The defenders on the other hand must setup in their home system in orbit around their home planet.

If the attacker fails in the meeting engagement, then the defender is in a force containment situation where they have isolated and contained the attacking fleet and can then attempt to dismantling it. The defender may then position his CC's in any system he desires prior to the battle's beginning except for the attacker's home system. The Attacker is limited to deploying in his home system.

If the defender wins the force containment scenario, then they are in a pursuit phase where the attack has fallen apart and the defending fleet commander is attempting to rout or destroy the attacking force completely. In this case, the attacking fleet (who is now on the ropes) deploys right at the jump gate to their home system. The defender may deploy their fleet anywhere but at that jump gate, or at the jumpgate's outlet. If the attacker's choose to withdraw from the campaign, their exit is right there and they will cede the campaign to the defender. If the attacking fleet makes a go of it, then they will have to destroy the defending fleet's assets in that system. Respawning defenders may not reenter the attacking fleet's home system, but the attacking fleet has no respawns, and must do the job with only what they have at hand. If the attacking fleet withdraws or the defending fleet eliminates them, then the defending fleet has defended the system.

The counterattack scenario represents a turning point in the campaign where one side recovers the initiative in the campaign and can attempt to "get back on its game." I think you can follow the arrows and see how that works.

Whew, if you've read this far, then I congratulate you. This sounds more complex than it is, and I'm sure it could be automated down the road (in fact, that's my project at present).

Let me know if you have any questions, clarifications, critiques, etc.

Let the battle for the galaxy begin!

ZM out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

sounds intersting, but I hate to rain on the party. this is going to be VERY complicated to organize. The intel missions are going to be well nigh impossible since noone actualy flys around in unarmed transports in MP. I think it should be their choice of race caste and ship to make it more difficult to pick out the odd player running around in the unarmed transport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, part of the reason for not letting players used armed ships is because the whole purpose behind intelligence gathering is that you're doing it secretly. Now because the server logs the players and their locations, I can't very well keep secrets that way, but notice that the agent can choose whatever race/caste alliance he wants when he does the intel mission because that's his "disguise." Will it disguise him from other players on the server? No. However, it will keep him immune to NPC enemy responses, and that's all he needs to be able to get through enemy space.

Getting past the other players means being sneaky about when you logon to the server in the first place. The agent has to move fast to avoid the players on the enemy side and get his mission done as quickly as possible. If the agent gets a fully loaded cruiser to do the job, then you've effectively lost the simulated element of surprise in the simulated campaign.

ZM out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zane, I like it. (now why can't all the newbies trying to get on my last nerves, be productive like this).

If there is anything - within reason - that I can do within the game, let me know. One thing I can probably do with minimum ease, is to have the server send a client's name, ship, rank, location and EPs to a webpage. This could be updated regularly, as long as the server was up.

I can also feed the race/caste of a station/base to the web page. This would be good for station captures etc.

Of course, something like this would require clients to always use their same name/asset name each time they connect to any server.

Once I iron out the kinks on the planetary mp section, this would be something to do (along with the captains log idea I had earlier).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basicly a very good idea for UC-multiplayer, Zane, but like Eclipse I think it can be too complicated to organize. I would suggest to start it on a smaller scale with basic battles for sectors and extend the campain as needed for the participating players. I would start it without planetfalls and without the complex battleflow diagram. Just one fight for the dominance of a sector and so a progress through the sectors of the galaxy.

How do you want to organize the resources, players etc? With an interactive homepage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Zothen:

Basicly a very good idea for UC-multiplayer, Zane, but like Eclipse I think it can be too complicated to organize. I would suggest to start it on a smaller scale with basic battles for sectors and extend the campain as needed for the participating players. I would start it without planetfalls and without the complex battleflow diagram. Just one fight for the dominance of a sector and so a progress through the sectors of the galaxy.


I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

One thing I can probably do with minimum ease, is to have the server send a client's name, ship, rank, location and EPs to a webpage.

Yes.

If we can track and verify EPs after an on-line battle is over, everything else should fall into place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Zothen:

Basicly a very good idea for UC-multiplayer, Zane, but like Eclipse I think it can be too complicated to organize. I would suggest to start it on a smaller scale with basic battles for sectors and extend the campain as needed for the participating players. I would start it without planetfalls and without the complex battleflow diagram. Just one fight for the dominance of a sector and so a progress through the sectors of the galaxy.

Good questions, let me reply briefly because I actually have to get out the door here.

1. Organizing just means having enough IT resourcing to do it. If by organize you mean "get commanders to participate" then I look at how often the regulars show up on these boards and I don't think we're going to have a problem since asset commitments to a campaign are numbers of ships (i.e., spawns) not numbers of commanders. Playtesting will iron out the ratios there, but I defer that tuning question for later.

2. Second, other people have managed to pull this off, but my two best examples are not even from a computer game. Go check out Games Workshop's campaign map for the 3rd battle of Armageddon . In this campaign played on tabletops around the world, players reported their game wins/losses and the results were tallied by the company into an overall campaign result. They generated HUGE revenue in miniatures that summer with all kinds of custom stuff for that campaign because people wanted to fight for a goal, which is the same reason I'm putting this together now, it grows the community and the SC's revenue stream for future development. The event was so successful that they followed it with the Eye of Terror campaign last summer and similarly structured fantasy campaigns called Return to Albion in 2001, and Storm of Chaos this summer. If Games Workshop can do that with a non-automated tabletop game, a few graphic designers, a database, and some Flash eye candy, then I'm sure we can put this idea together.

3. Yes, I would have an automated webpage where people can see automatically generated summary information on the campaign. My rough idea is to have forums where user groups have access to "closed channel" topic areas specific to their race alliance, and "open channel" topic areas where fleets can communicate more broadly with one another. The game stats would be handled by something similar to the ladder software already in use by FPS clans. For a rough idea of what the the fleet action website idea might offer, go here, and for a rough idea of what the ladder software looks like when it's fully implemented, go here.

The difference between the ladder campaign and the map camapaign is that victory and campaign dynamics are not points based, but location based. This will not be too terrible to manage because we're going to have an online version of the SP map; a rough draft of which I've been working on in Flash so I could accomplish rollover graphics effects that would show system possession dynamically by setting links to altered overlays in graphics in folders organized by system so that all you have to do to update a battle is change a link (which again could be automated).

The first post in this topic is what the front end looks like. The back end can be handled by one guy with a map, and excel worksheet, and a few push-pins (on the low end) or all that stuff I mentioned above if it gets the interest and support of the community (on the high end). Either way, it's not too difficult to organize with the right resources.

Getting people to play? Well, let's see how much YOU like living under a Gammulan flag! I say the commanders will rise to the occasion. Look at what organization we have (fleet db, rp, AAR's) already WITHOUT any real consistent multiplayer component. The community is up to the task.

ZM out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

One thing I can probably do with minimum ease, is to have the server send a client's name, ship, rank, location and EPs to a webpage.

I can also feed the race/caste of a station/base to the web page. This would be good for station captures etc.

Of course, something like this would require clients to always use their same name/asset name each time they connect to any server.

Hey SC, given that technology exists to load databases with text file inputs through email, this would be an easy automation step (as long we get the database to read the input correctly). The database could then calculate winners on the basis of EP, possession of a base, etc., and submit the results to the site admin for approval (the same way news sites currently allow admins to review news submissions through a MySQL/php back end). Admins could approve, and then the results could be posted to the website and the galaxy map could be automatically updated with new possession overlays.

At least that's how the music sounds in my head!

ZM out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zane,

This is really cool but way over my head. From what I can tell, though, if UC MP goes with this concept, we are all committed (maybe in more ways than one ). Anyone who implements this thing would need to be dedicated ... with a capital "D" ... to Universal Combat.

I assume you plan to be here a long, long time? Or at least until you can find someone to take your place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Zane Marlowe:

quote:

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

One thing I can probably do with minimum ease, is to have the server send a client's name, ship, rank, location and EPs to a webpage.

I can also feed the race/caste of a station/base to the web page. This would be good for station captures etc.

Of course, something like this would require clients to always use their same name/asset name each time they connect to any server.


Hey SC, given that technology exists to load databases with text file inputs through email, this would be an easy automation step (as long we get the database to read the input correctly). The database could then calculate winners on the basis of EP, possession of a base, etc., and submit the results to the site admin for approval (the same way news sites currently allow admins to review news submissions through a MySQL/php back end). Admins could approve, and then the results could be posted to the website and the galaxy map could be automatically updated with new possession overlays.

At least that's how the music sounds in my head!

ZM out.


Congratulations. You've just confirmed the reason why I don't get involved in discussions like this. Instead of staying within the scope of what is available and what I suggest, you ladies come up with all kinds of insane things - as if I don't have better things to do with my time, but to make more work for myself. For a $19.99 game. Right.

I talked about something as simple and trivial as a data sent to a webpage, you want a dB backend. Right. For that, you should be playing Jumpgate or Darkspace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now remember SC, I didn't ask anyone to create this solution for me, and the database connectivity is on the database side, not on your game server's side. That reads, "no coding required" from 3000AD.

By "send to a webpage" I'm assuming you mean that you can send text output to an email address or a maybe just an output file I can read off the net. What I am suggesting is that php can feed a text file from the web into a MySQL database--output to be determined later.

Does 3000AD have to implement this? No, of course not. Does the user community have the talent somewhere to come up with a little php programming? Perhaps, so that's why we're having this discussion. You suggested that you could output information, and that's all I'm assuming that you'll do. The rest is up to us, and if we don't have the available talent, then I'll find a less-automated way to do this. I said it could be done with an excel file, a map, and a few push pins. If that's what it takes, then I can do that (in truth, I could do a lot more than that with Access, but I digress), but the important part is the front end idea, not the back end implementation. Map campaigns are an old staple of the tabletop, and extent to which we dress it up (with Flash, nifty websites, databases, etc.)is the extent of the community's interest, not the extent of 3000AD's patience for chasing fan pet projects (which is rightfully less).

In short? This isn't the burden you're imagining SC. If you can do what you said you could easily do, I can find the resources to take it from there.

ZM out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm going to do - when I get the chance - is send the information to a web page (e.g. a link via the fleet dB). Nothing more. Nothing less. Just like I said above.

Everyone in this damn community, talks about doing things. And then not. In the end, I have to find people to actual do it. Then pay for it. So, forgive me if I don't hold my breath about anyone doing anything on the backend. Php or not.

Volunteers (?) around here just like to talk. I guess it makes them look cool or something. You'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SC, can you post an example link for me to look at?

Also, this thread has moved towards a discussion of the back end support for how to accomplish this. Assuming that I figure that out, my interest is more in terms of the front end rules and presentation.

Some outstanding issues I have not yet figured out would be the following:

[*]How would you rate CC's in points that could be used in a logistics pool?

[*]How would would you determine the amount of logistics pool points restored on a "resupply" strategic order?

[*]Would you set limits on strategic resupply according to the possession of adjacent systems? (i.e., a supply line?)

[*]Are there other kinds of strategic orders a fleet commander would carry out on the SP map?

Let me know what you think.

ZM out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Zane Marlowe:

SC, can you post an example link for me to look at?


No. But if you go to Jumpgate or Darkspace, you will see live stats from the game world being fed to web pages. Its not a big deal.

quote:


Let me know what you think.[/QB]


I don't. I have no interest in this, nor do I even have the time to pay ANY attention to it. All I said was that I could feed some information from the server to a web page. You guys can do what you want with that info. So, whatever you guys end up doing, good luck. You'll be needing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You had the SC, you really had him. He was all happy and whatnot thinking, hey let me help this guy out by updating a webpage with info surrounding in game events. And then, what happened? Now it's basically a dead deal.

Here's my thoughts on the matter. You can take them or leave them and I might start my own thread about my terminally simple idea for multiplayer interaction but I'm going to toss this out here.

When I played Starfleet Academy it was just like this game in that the multiplayer was not something that catered to FPS type scoring. What we ended up doing was creating scenarios in an RP format and then playing them out in the game.

What the hell do I mean? Well, you would take the map and you would say... OK X Fleet controls all of (INSERT MULTIPLAYER SECTOR HERE)and Y Fleet controls all of (INSERT SURROUNDING MULTIPLAYER SECTOR HERE). Once you had divided up the multiplayer universe between the fleets(if you have too many fleets make it planets) you start the storyline. You would then assign resource points to ships and then allocate total resource points to fleets that they spend to purchase their fleets. Obviously big fleets would have to put some of their people in JUNK ships or have many smaller craft. This would have to be looked at but also it would help promote parity between the fleets in that if I can fly an MK3 with fleet X and a POS with fleet Y it might benefit me to join fleet X... evening competiton a bit.

Anyway, so let's say you have a forum thread going that is talking about Prime Fleet launching an attack on a Gammulan sector... the players would Roleplay the interactions in a kind of "Risk" environment with a grid on a webpage (no maps that's SC's property and we don't want people getting a freebie) showing who owns what. Now, X Fleet can challenge Y fleet. If they have to cross through Z fleets territory to do it, they must get permission or fight them. Perhaps they will make an alliance and attack the sector together.... who knows that's the RP part of it for the ambassadors and the leaders to argue.

You would have to make a time table. So let's say Fleet X declares war on Fleet Y, the actual tournament matches would have to be held within say 72 hours with the fleets being represented by those players available for their side. The wars would then be fought in stages. First space, where all enemies or all defenders would have to either be defeated or retreating and then onto the home planet's surface where you would have to destroy a few command facilities in three cities chosen as "bases" by the defenders, (this portion depends completely on viability in game). I haven't really tried the planetary aspects since the patch.

If your fleet is defeated you lose your sector of space. If you only controlled that one sector you are eliminated from the tournament. If you are the attacker and you are defeated, you may only defend against the people you attacked with half as many ships as you attacked them with, so long as they launch an immediate counter attack. Counter attacks must be declared within 24 hours of defeating a hostile force.

Ofcourse the rules and what I am saying are becoming more complex and counter to this thread but basically ONE LIFE per phase of the attack. You die, you LOG OFF until the planetary phase. You die during the planetary phase you log off. It might be that the space phase and the planetary phase have to be fought on seperate nights or as seperate games.

The point is that there are much simpler ways to handle tournaments than the way that was described. Even this might be a bit complex. However, this way enables people to engage in diplomacy, trade etc. in the RP environment and then conflict in the game environment. Of course RP interactions can also be played out on the server with ambassadors meeting in game etc.

The deal is this... we called our tournament the KISS tournament. KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID.

Anyway just a thought. Likely this made no sense I got about ohh... NO SLEEP LAST NIGHT and I'm dead tired right now. You have my sincerest apologies.

Tak

[ 05-30-2004, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Takvah ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, "let me know what you think" is an open question for anyone who is interested. Tak's interested, so I'll continue my conversation with him.

Tak, when I posted the idea for a MP fleet action tournament, I put the most complex idea there because if you put a simplified version in there then people invariably say "yeah, but you're missing...." (As it turns out, if you put too complex an idea in there then it turns out that people think it can't be done. We'll see friends

So to answer your question, could we omit the flowchart from the idea and fight single battles to decide the fates of system, supported by forum use? Of course! However, I read your post twice and I'm not seeing how what you're suggesting is going to save time and effort. I've almost completed an Access database for this idea now, and it contains the appropriate quadrant, system, planet, and base data for SC's universe. I'll put the fleet and commander information in, and when I'm done building forms and reports, I'll have something I can use to quickly and easily track fleet movements, system's changing hands, battle stats, logistics pools for Fleet Commanders, and whatever else seems appropriate. I can post a my own map of the SP universe and direct interested parties to a website where they can read the rules, post in forums in the way you're talking about, etc.

In other words, the first draft of my idea is almost done (as far as IT resourcing goes) in just over 48 hours; and I'll dress it up more in the days to come.

Tell you what, I see the initial inspiration this idea attracted needs a little refreshing. I'm going to work this back end stuff out and post my results shortly. In the mean time, I meant what I said about not having worked out the logistics part. How would you guys rate your CC's? Would you offer any amendments to the proposed Strategic Map elements of the game?

I'm curious to hear.

ZM out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Tak, when I posted the idea for a MP fleet action tournament, I put the most complex idea there because if you put a simplified version in there then people invariably say "yeah, but you're missing...." (As it turns out, if you put too complex an idea in there then it turns out that people think it can't be done. We'll see friends

Sorry, but that's nonsense! I don't think you would have the problem to say to them that's just the beginning. If you start it too complex most players who don't have the time for such complexity (recon phase, spacebattle phase, groud operations all need time to play) won't join in.

I don't think it can't be done, but think about the time a usual player needs for this. That's why I said omit the recon phase and the planetfall phase in the beginning and let everybody jump into some quick action first. Then we see how much players we have for this tournament and then we should talk how to progress and expand the tournament.

I don't think anybody would mind you this approach...

quote:

In the mean time, I meant what I said about not having worked out the logistics part. How would you guys rate your CC's? Would you offer any amendments to the proposed Strategic Map elements of the game?

I'm curious to hear.

Each asset has a certain worth. May it be possible to engage the logistics part with this values?

Another way could be to rate the firepower of a CC (shilds, turrets, assets, etc.) to set up a list with this. Then you set up the resources a certain CC costs and set a value how much income each faction gets from their property per cycle (day, week, whatever...).

[ 05-31-2004, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Zothen ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Takvah:

You had the SC, you really had him. He was all happy and whatnot thinking, hey let me help this guy out by updating a webpage with info surrounding in game events. And then, what happened? Now it's basically a dead deal.


You're right. But I won't call it a dead deal just yet. I will add in the data feed to a web page. Thats not a big deal. I just lost interest when I started seeing more difficult and ambitious things that would extend beyond what I thought would be adequate for an initial small start. From that point on....because it garnered my interest....it just got worse because somehow Zane lost sight of where he was going.

quote:


Here's my thoughts on the matter. You can take them or leave them

Well, for someone who has already done it, maybe you should add a URL pointing to your page. At least then those who don't know who you are, won't just think you're just some n00b spouting unrealistic ideas.

quote:


and I might start my own thread about my terminally simple idea for multiplayer interaction but I'm going to toss this out here.

I would advise that you start your own anyway - and let Zane have his over-ambitious pipedreams.

Besides, its always good to have various ideas. The one that I can do - with ease - always gets my vote.

Right now, I am willing to do the following (in between my other tasks, so don't think they are high priority)...

  1. Feed player stats directly from a server to a web page. That data - depending on how it is formatted on the web page - can then be saved to disk and used as anyone sees fit. This data of course will only work for fleet enabled servers (I will use the INI setting to determine this) because then you are guaranteed that clients will always use the same player/asset names. And can also follow tasking instructions from fleet/wing leaders.
  2. Provide instructions to fleet leaders who are also members of the Beta team and can use GBS-III which can then show how to alter the alliance matrix for the world, change the race/caste of assets (e.g stations), regions etc. This would then allow them to create new scenarios which can then be run on the server and all clients.
  3. From time to time, change the world partition as required by whatever the situation is e.g. the entire Tapestran region could change from Ter/Ins prevalence to Ter/Mil.

Thats it. Nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Remo Williams

Thanks SC sounds like a great start for the Fleets. Now the Fleet leaders should get together and bang heads for awhile and work out the details IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that's a lot more than I expected SC.

Just a quick post to let you guys know that I've finish the database development phase of my "over-ambitious pipe dream" and interested commanders can contact me via PM to get involved in trying the proposed tournament rules out.

The database I developed will support everything I proposed in the first post: logistics, strategic movement and engagement, logistics pools, system campaigns, individual battle results, commander experience tracking, intelligence missions, and system capture.

At this point I'm working on making this available over the web, and for the time being, battle results will need to be worked out by emailing screenshots of exp, and setting up some ad hoc rules about spawning (before we get the data feed).

Step 2, making the database itself available through a web application, is well under way.

Step 3, developing a dynamic campaign map, is still at the conceptual stage.

Again SC, thanks for all this stuff you're kicking in, it's beyond my expectations and supremely handy.

ZM out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Zane Marlowe:

Again SC, thanks for all this stuff you're kicking in, it's beyond my expectations and supremely handy.

ZM out.


No problem. If you have the dB backend, then the data I send to the web page can be grabbed or pushed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fleet Action website for coordinating multiplayer campaigns is now ready to begin doing so.

On the site you will find forums with closed and open channels for fleets to coordinate with their members and with enemy fleets. Those of you who are interested, register and PM me there and I will have you put into the appropriate groups and databases for communication and tournament play.

The tournament rules are still very much in beta of course, but I've done what I can prior to playtesting. When interested commanders get set up there we can get started. To reach me directly through an email address created specifically for these operations, use [email protected].

ZM out.

[ 05-31-2004, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: Zane Marlowe ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey does anyone know if the Insurgency actually controls any systems? In the navchart.ini for the game (from which data I've fed my database) it has listed that systems are controlled either by GALCOM, Neutral, Valkerie, or Gammulan.

I'm drawing a political map with rollover images that show who possesses what system, and I've got images for all the races, GALCOM, EarthCOM, and the Insurgency, but I'm trying to figure out who controls what.

Does anyone know a better place for me to look?

ZM out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...