Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Server details, announcements/events, and general multiplayer discussion.

Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby Marvin » Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:24 pm

There are three factions: (1) Alliance (ALC), (2) Independent (IND) and (3) Federation (FDN). If members of any of the three factions are in a sector doing contracts, the ability to accept a contract is disabled upon entry of someone of another faction into the same sector.
User avatar
Marvin
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 13080
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:47 am
Location: Fallon-Reno

Re: Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby SolarWarden » Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:31 am

That's all well and good, but it makes it difficult to leave your sector when a member of your faction (and your clan) spawn camps. Passive-aggressive forum posts notwithstanding, maybe a little conversation would have resolved the situation instead of being griefed out of the server.

And on that note: The contract/faction restriction is pretty ridiculous. If someone who's not buddy-buddy with your faction enters the sector, everything locks up? That's ludicrous and kills the multiplayer dynamic unless you just want to build and complete contracts, things you can do in single player or by yourself...
SolarWarden
Lieutenant Jr. Grade
Lieutenant Jr. Grade
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 7:21 pm

Re: Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby Marvin » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:53 am

Diana had this idea that maybe we could snag a contract while Ghost was re-spawning. Timing being the key, she tried to get it to work more than once. Sorry 'bout that but we did try to explain (you can ask Starbuck for the Chat log ... if I'd known there would be a problem I would've recorded it myself). As for the algorithm which blocks contracts while two or more factions are in the same sector, you might want to take a vote. On the one hand it does put the kabash on contracts but, on the other hand, it does alert players (in this case, me) to a possible enemy in the camp.
User avatar
Marvin
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 13080
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:47 am
Location: Fallon-Reno

Re: Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby Vice » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:57 am

I'll plan on moving this to the multiplayer forum shortly. 'Everything' shouldn't 'lock up', only certain link conditions would apply if opposing players are in the same sector as each other.

Here are a couple of points which may help clarify how the contract linking system works and why:

- Contract links can be made between players in the same sector of the same faction ID. Only sectors with opposing players in them will have restrictions. No lock out conditions will apply for any other sectors not having such conditions, including in the same region and including in the same system.

- Only PvE contracts (accepted at a station/city) are effected if opposing players are in the same sector. Player-to-player contracts can still be set up as well as any objectives outside of the PvE contract system (including attacking enemy ships to build territory control and/or simply hunting down and attacking an opposing player).

- The lock out was to help accommodate player requests to prevent opposing players from being able to come along and complete PvE objectives if an initial opposing player is online to stop them from doing so. The only requirement was they had to be present and in the exact same sector. It also facilitates the flight lead binding/mechanism required by the multiplayer mode's contract link system.

- If players of the same faction start a contract and then an opposing player jumps into the sector, things should remain fine and the player(s) with the pending contract can complete the objective. The lock out would only apply at the next PvE contract accept attempt.

- This is also where building can be beneficial. If a player from an opposing faction is attempting to block contract operations in a sector, having more than one location to re-route to close by can provide alternatives.

Alternatives to the contract linking requirements may be possible, but it was moderately requested to have such a restriction to give groups (then 'clans') with small numbers the ability to stop a limited range of actions against sectors they were present in. So it'd be helpful to keep that in consideration when discussing possible changes.
StarWraith 3D Games
www.starwraith.com | www.spacecombat.org
3D Space Combat, Mercenary, and Trader Simulations
User avatar
Vice
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:38 am

Re: Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby SolarWarden » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:01 pm

Marvin wrote:Diana had this idea that maybe we could snag a contract while Ghost was re-spawning. Timing being the key, she tried to get it to work more than once. Sorry 'bout that but we did try to explain (you can ask Starbuck for the Chat log.


So after it didn't work, instead of asking me to leave the sector politely, she griefs me?

You are correct, you guys did explain, which I was reading while Diana spawn camped me. Knowing the problem doesn't help if I'm prevented from solving it. I was referring to her demeanor specifically with the 'conversation' remark, not you guys. I gathered your meaning from the chat and was prepared to comply, but couldn't do anything about it because the moment my client started back up, it was impact sounds and missile alerts right into another "[FDN]Diana destroyed [IND]Ghost."

To Vice:

It sounds like you nerfed the sector functionality for opposing groups due to high numbers of players interacting. That simply is not an issue anymore. The most players I've seen on a server at one time since I've played this game are seven, so coddling to smaller groups to prevent bullying doesn't seem like it would be an issue anymore. In fact it works in the opposite manner. Large group doing their thing gets irritated when single pilot's presence locks their contract system up. You have to see the nonsense in that...

Maybe a better method for opponent identification is to have other multiplayer clients in the server designated with a special mark on the Nav screen when they enter your sector. I spent 20 minutes trying to locate another player in a sector with me a few days ago before giving up on the session. And the contract algorithm decreases the chances of non-aligned groups interacting with each other as well. It seems the contract exclusivity as well as the human player identification concepts in this game chop the multiplayer dynamic at the knees for the action-oriented players who would rather drink paint than spend time building and doing contracts when there are seven other people in the server to interact with.

I've been in love with this game since day 1, largely due to the possibilities inherent in the multiplayer system, but the discovery of these little restrictions has me contemplating selling my copy.
SolarWarden
Lieutenant Jr. Grade
Lieutenant Jr. Grade
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 7:21 pm

Re: Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby Marvin » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:28 pm

IIRC, the current method was put into place prior to the addition of the independent (IND) faction. While it makes sense that contracts should be blocked in situations where FDN and ALC must fight it out until one faction leaves the sector, there is less reason to do so when one or the other faction is "visited" by an Indy. Perhaps cooperative missions could be carried out, such that the Indy pilot gains reputation while the included faction gains both reputation and incremental sector control.

If so, then it must be decided if Indy pilots can assist in completing combat contracts. And, if they do, what will it do to their independent status. Allowing them to keep the IND tag would, I imagine, have less of an impact on the current game code. Otherwise, if the Indy pilot was to find himself eventually aligned with either ALC or FDN, it would pretty much negate (or be negated by) the current option of manually swapping between the three factions.

I might add that, currently, there is no [PIR]ate tag ... which, if it did exist, would excuse unprovoked attacks against another player. Naturally, anyone flying either a FDN or ALC tag should always expect an attack by the other faction. FDN and ALC are, according to Dave's compendium, hostile to one another. But, since we only have Indy, should (and this has been discussed previously) someone flying the IND tag have the option of initiating an unprovoked attack? And, if he does, is he then fair game for repeated attacks by other players?
User avatar
Marvin
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 13080
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:47 am
Location: Fallon-Reno

Re: Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby Marvin » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:38 pm

I spent 20 minutes trying to locate another player in a sector with me a few days ago before giving up on the session.

Since most of IM's conversation is on a separate channel, you missed the query as to who, among us, had a Deploy constructor. With it, you can deploy a sensor array, which covers a large area of the sector, allowing you to find a pilot of another faction. (Pilots of your own faction are clearly indicated on the Nav map.) If both players are attempting to join one another, they can transmit their in-sector coordinates using the applicable button on the Nav menu.
User avatar
Marvin
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 13080
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:47 am
Location: Fallon-Reno

Re: Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby Vice » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:41 pm

It sounds like you nerfed the sector functionality for opposing groups due to high numbers of players interacting.


Actually, it was the opposite. I hope I was clear on that. It was to allow for small groups, sometimes only one player, to have the ability to stop PvE actions in a particular sector. This was for protective measures as well as interactive measures (see below).

Large group doing their thing gets irritated when single pilot's presence locks their contract system up. You have to see the nonsense in that...


That's what was requested, wasn't a nonsense approach to them, they wanted to be able to stop PvE actions and this was one way to facilitate that in a limited scope (required sector alignment out of many thousands and only stopping non-active PvE contracts). It also meant that they were encouraged to interact with each other rather than just the PvE environment.

And the contract algorithm decreases the chances of non-aligned groups interacting with each other as well.


How so? The result would be them engaging each other in battle, trading, setting up PvP contracts, or doing any other number of things together or against each other, not go off on their own for PvE contracts. To stop PvE contracts means they are nearly forced to engage/interact with each other because other non player-vs-player activities are literally disabled. This was/is one of the goals of the system as requested and designed since it directs players to interact with each other rather than not.

It seems the contract exclusivity as well as the human player identification concepts in this game chop the multiplayer dynamic at the knees for the action-oriented players who would rather drink paint than spend time building and doing contracts when there are seven other people in the server to interact with.


Fairly subjective rhetoric. Do you have other examples of actual results you feel would inhibit such interactions? So far, what you claim seems to be the opposite of what others have asked for and what the actual output result would be and has been. So I'd be interested in hearing other thoughts from you (and welcome others as well) on the matter.

I've been in love with this game since day 1, largely due to the possibilities inherent in the multiplayer system, but the discovery of these little restrictions has me contemplating selling my copy.


Certainly up to you. Unfortunately for the issue at hand, such actions would likely further bolster the system not changing if those who would prefer something different just bail.


Lastly, just to be clear, you would like me to remove the restriction on PvE contracts when opposing players are in the same sector, correct? So if/when other players come back to me and ask why this condition was removed, the reasoning you propose is to allow players of opposing factions to continue doing PvE contracts even when other real players of an opposing faction are in the same sector. I personally don't have a problem with that, but want to make it clear that changing this will then allow players to continue doing PvE contracts as though the opposing faction player(s) is/are not even present. Those opposing players will also then be allowed to directly interfere with the PvE objectives and the 'encouragement' to interact with each other beyond that will no longer exist. How do others feel about such a change?
StarWraith 3D Games
www.starwraith.com | www.spacecombat.org
3D Space Combat, Mercenary, and Trader Simulations
User avatar
Vice
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:38 am

Re: Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby SolarWarden » Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:25 pm

Marvin wrote: currently, there is no [PIR]ate tag ... which, if it did exist, would excuse unprovoked attacks against another player. Naturally, anyone flying either a FDN or ALC tag should always expect an attack by the other faction. FDN and ALC are, according to Dave's compendium, hostile to one another. But, since we only have Indy, should (and this has been discussed previously) someone flying the IND tag have the option of initiating an unprovoked attack? And, if he does, is he then fair game for repeated attacks by other players?


My attack on Power was the farthest thing from unprovoked. I made it clear to everyone in a friendly and even jovial manner that I was raiding and playing pirate mode. I also stated clearly that I won't grief players. One interaction and it's done. I made contact with Power, stated my terms, and after a few trade console exchanges, fired several spaced out warning shots, then more trade console exchanges, and only after I was positive he wasn't going to comply did I open fire. Standard pirate shizz, man. If you have things to say to me, please address them to me instead of these passive aggressive generalizations.

Marvin wrote:is he then fair game for repeated attacks by other players?


Where do you draw the line from repeated attacks to spawn camping and griefing?

Vice wrote:they wanted to be able to stop PvE actions and this was one way to facilitate that in a limited scope (required sector alignment out of many thousands and only stopping non-active PvE contracts). It also meant that they were encouraged to interact with each other rather than just the PvE environment.


By encouraged, you mean forced. And in this case, forced out of the server. You even said it yourself in bold:

Vice wrote:To stop PvE contracts means they are nearly forced to engage/interact with each other because other non player-vs-player activities are literally disabled. This was/is one of the goals of the system as requested and designed since it directs players to interact with each other rather than not.


You're policing multiplayer interactions through hard code instead of host and moderator administration or player poll. That is a recipe for conflict because you're always favoring one demographic of player over another.

Vice wrote: So far, what you claim seems to be the opposite of what others have asked for and what the actual output result would be and has been.


Perhaps you are right, but maybe you should also consider the possibility that you're holding onto the glory days when your servers were packed. A changing player landscape requires adaptability, and these restrictions are antiquated to the current multiplayer environment.

Vice wrote:Certainly up to you. Unfortunately for the issue at hand, such actions would likely further bolster the system not changing if those who would prefer something different just bail.


It was a bit childish of me to place that last bit of venom in the post, I concede. Being griefed from a server boiled my blood a bit. I apologize, but to respond to your inquiry, I don't feel much bend or reception happening here past Marvin making excuses for the actions of his clanmate and you defending your code.

Vice wrote: Lastly, just to be clear, you would like me to remove the restriction on PvE contracts ... opposing players will also then be allowed to directly interfere with the PvE objectives and the 'encouragement' to interact with each other beyond that will no longer exist.


I think you overestimate the amount of ne'er-do-wells and troublemakers. In my time in-game I've only encountered one or two questionable pilots, and it was usually a non-issue after the first interaction. These aren't life-changing events. So somebody messes with your mission one day. I bet you'll figure out how to beef your ship and defenses up next time to better deal with that type of threat. Conflict breeds evolution. The way I see it, if a player is interfering with another's PvE contracts, they don't need the developer holding their hand and padding their knees to deal with the issue. This isn't Kindergarten, most of us are grown adults. I know when I play a raiding role, I follow etiquette and never grief players, and I would never dream of interfering with a contract in progress, but you can't code out the negative aspects of multiplayer environments without hobbling some degree of in-game freedom.
SolarWarden
Lieutenant Jr. Grade
Lieutenant Jr. Grade
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 7:21 pm

Re: Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby Vice » Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:43 pm

Points well taken, particularly the last one in your last paragraph. Although public online servers have rarely been packed in my games, even during some kind of 'glory days' :) Conditions like this really were in response to requests from players, most of whom when they play in online public multiplayer, contend with very lean numbers. I'm certainly open to making such a significant change though anyway and if little/no other feedback comes in about it, I'll likely begin the process of doing so.

One potential side effect of making this change that is important to be aware of is that players outside of the faction group will not be included in the contract link. This can have some odd potential side effects, such as not being part of the entity components, waypoint state, or environmental conditions of a contract being established. So they won't see certain things that the other linked in players will see being outside of the contract link (only if they are in the same waypoint location though, which generally/probably won't be too common). It would likely be a challenge for different faction players to join in at a common waypoint anyway since there isn't a contract link under such conditions, but it is still something I'd want you to be aware of. If you and others are willing to accept that kind of requirement, then it will be feasible for me to look into removing the PvE contract restriction for opposing players.

Perhaps one other possibility would be to allow PvE contracts to be accepted when opposing players are in the same sector, but protect the contract zone from interference by them. A kind of restricted zone could be established that is visually boxed off if an opposing player got too close. That would essentially provide the same protection against unlinked players and resulting differing gamestate, but still allow them to be in the sector.
StarWraith 3D Games
www.starwraith.com | www.spacecombat.org
3D Space Combat, Mercenary, and Trader Simulations
User avatar
Vice
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:38 am

Re: Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby Marvin » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:10 pm

Just one point on a tactical note. If you plan to initiate an attack, first save at a spawn point which is outside your chosen combat area. Otherwise ... ::)
User avatar
Marvin
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 13080
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:47 am
Location: Fallon-Reno

Re: Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby Vice » Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:53 pm

Preserving the option to travel throughout the sector, even when an opposing contract is active, will likely be a good goal in functionality. Including even allowing a level of interference by opposing spacecraft. So open travel will likely be retained.

Here are some of the main points of the system I am drafting:

- All PvE contracts will be allowed to be accepted by players linked in the same faction when opposing players are in the same sector. All previous restrictions for contract accepting will be removed.

- Only a few contracts have entity requirements that do not transfer to unlinked players as required. This is a new issue caused by removing the accepting restrictions. So a new range check will be put into place that will cause a contract to fail if an 'unauthorized' opposing faction ship arrives near the contract zone, but only within very limited conditions. This won't apply for most contracts, only meteor intercept, solar array cleaning, lost item, and recover item contracts will have such a requirement. And it won't likely matter the vast majority of the time since an unlinked player won't receive the waypoint, so they won't know where to go for these short term location specific objectives anyway. This will help maintain consistent gamestate as needed along with fully open travel, even under such rare possible circumstances.

- A new flight lead selection/assignment system will be put into place to accommodate players being able to accept PvE contracts with opposing players in the same sector. Previously, this wasn't an issue. But removing the accepting restrictions introduces this potential problem. So the new system will automatically reassign the flight lead role/control to a member of the accepting faction if/when needed upon contract activation to accommodate variable conditions that can apply when opposing players are in the same sector.

- It will be designed to work the same way in both private/LAN modes and public/listed modes.
StarWraith 3D Games
www.starwraith.com | www.spacecombat.org
3D Space Combat, Mercenary, and Trader Simulations
User avatar
Vice
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:38 am

Re: Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby matchbox2022 » Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:38 am

Vice wrote:Points well taken, particularly the last one in your last paragraph. Although public online servers have rarely been packed in my games, even during some kind of 'glory days' :) Conditions like this really were in response to requests from players, most of whom when they play in online public multiplayer, contend with very lean numbers. I'm certainly open to making such a significant change though anyway and if little/no other feedback comes in about it, I'll likely begin the process of doing so.

One potential side effect of making this change that is important to be aware of is that players outside of the faction group will not be included in the contract link. This can have some odd potential side effects, such as not being part of the entity components, waypoint state, or environmental conditions of a contract being established. So they won't see certain things that the other linked in players will see being outside of the contract link (only if they are in the same waypoint location though, which generally/probably won't be too common). It would likely be a challenge for different faction players to join in at a common waypoint anyway since there isn't a contract link under such conditions, but it is still something I'd want you to be aware of. If you and others are willing to accept that kind of requirement, then it will be feasible for me to look into removing the PvE contract restriction for opposing players.

Perhaps one other possibility would be to allow PvE contracts to be accepted when opposing players are in the same sector, but protect the contract zone from interference by them. A kind of restricted zone could be established that is visually boxed off if an opposing player got too close. That would essentially provide the same protection against unlinked players and resulting differing gamestate, but still allow them to be in the sector.


Haven't jumped on in a while, but I can definitely say if you want people wanting a different experience and playing the multiplayer, you have to let interaction happen, even if it's interference. That's the point of being able to be singleplayer.

I really think that being able to accept a contract while another opposing faction human is around is a great idea, but instead of boxing it off, they should be included in the contract.
Why? Most notably...so they can deal with another human, fight them, get them to leave, chat etc.

It breeds MORE interference, but if you can do a contract with an enemy around then all the power to you. It should be that way.

The one issue I can see from this is spawn-camping / saving where you as an enemy faction save in hostile territory and begin griefing players even AFTER they take you out.
Something for that would be great to change, where if they must come back it would have to be as the current faction in control (that's my personal recommendation)
User avatar
matchbox2022
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby Vice » Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:27 am

Panning that out raises some pretty severe negatives/consequences. It would go against the primary principle behind factions in the first place. If hostile factions could force link themselves into a contract being offered by one faction to its own faction, then there would be no sense in having factions at all for a contract system anyway (ship kills would be split/nulled, territory credit would be split/nulled, payments would be given to enemies, hostiles would be fighting their own allies, the list goes on).

There's interference (which is and would continue to be possible), then there's nulling out gameplay achievements entirely. I don't think such problems would be of interest to players... at least I would be very surprised if they were. Agreed on boxing out regions of space, that won't be included, space will remain open. That is one of the goals of the new system I'm formulating.

If a player really wanted to try and 'interfere', they could still switch their faction (without hot swapping, which would introduce all kinds of other problems) to try and do so in the manner you describe. The players and server operator would just have to decide if that was acceptable to them or not, then kick, ban, or allow as desired.

Interference could still happen under the new system, but without forcing a link where there shouldn't be one, resulting in nulled or reversed gameplay progress, even if/when the objective is completed. Players will still be able to interfere with each other during contracts, if they desire, but contracts should likely be kept exclusive to the faction offering them and allied ships for a variety of gameplay reasons and functions.
StarWraith 3D Games
www.starwraith.com | www.spacecombat.org
3D Space Combat, Mercenary, and Trader Simulations
User avatar
Vice
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:38 am

Re: Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby SolarWarden » Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:07 pm

Marvin wrote:Just one point on a tactical note. If you plan to initiate an attack, first save at a spawn point which is outside your chosen combat area. Otherwise ... ::)


I didn't plan on "doing combat." It was a single raid on a removed pilot in an inferior frame. I don't pick fights, I pick marks, and i did so publicly and in a friendly manner. Everything was smiles, even from Power, all up until the spawn camping and griefing. Had I known Diana was going to get all butthurt and perch on the dock to lay down on her triggers, then I certainly would not have saved there, I assure you. I wouldn't have even come into Galactica II. I liked to play with you guys in IM because you have been cool in the past. My mistake. You don't have to worry about that anymore, trust me. Regardless, our school yard quibble isn't important. The discussion has evolved into game specifics so let's leave it at that.

Matchbox2022 wrote:... if you want people wanting a different experience and playing the multiplayer, you have to let interaction happen, even if it's interference. That's the point of being able to be singleplayer.

I really think that being able to accept a contract while another opposing faction human is around is a great idea, but instead of boxing it off, they should be included in the contract.
Why? Most notably...so they can deal with another human, fight them, get them to leave, chat etc.

It breeds MORE interference, but if you can do a contract with an enemy around then all the power to you. It should be that way.


EXACTLY, although I don't think opposing factions should be included in the contract or receive contract info (I agree with Vice on this, that would cause way too many interference issues).

This is multiplayer, people should be able to interact however they see fit unless it's a Teen Titans game on Nickelodeon's network or something, but we're not 7 and 12 year olds. Name another adult multiplayer environment that places those kinds of restriction on players to keep their feelings from getting hurt.

Vice wrote: So a new range check will be put into place that will cause a contract to fail if an 'unauthorized' opposing faction ship arrives near the contract zone, but only within very limited conditions.


How is this any different from restricting contracts at the docks? Just stay out of it. Let people do what they will and deal with their own game states. I agree. let's not give opposing factions waypoint information to active contracts, but don't punish the contractee because an opposing faction "flew too close." So another ship messed with your meteor intercept or your solar array. Back to the "we're all adults" argument. You seem to want to keep playing daddy to a bunch of toddlers, and that's just not the environment we have here.


All the other proposed changes sound delicious, though.
Last edited by SolarWarden on Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SolarWarden
Lieutenant Jr. Grade
Lieutenant Jr. Grade
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 7:21 pm

Re: Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby Marvin » Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Ghost, IM doesn't attack anyone without just cause. We certainly don't attack new players ... unlike what you did when firing on (and blowing up) a new guy who was minding his own business, doing his best to figure out the game. (Kudos for not "griefing" the guy. Had you done so, it might've forced us to abandon our progress in another sector and come to the new guy's assistance.)

When you approached the city (after blowing up Power), we had no way of knowing your intentions (looking for more blackmail credits, perhaps). So we sent our most junior pilot, Diana, to defend against any hostile action on your part. Why you decided to use the city as your spawn point is beyond me but it nonetheless indicated that your intentions were still hostile. Consequently, Diana continued to defend the city each time you showed up.

By the way, if you intended to surrender, you could've done so using the chat window available in the Entirely Safe Corridor (ESC). Had you done that, Diana would've held her fire. Unless, of course, you then attacked. At which time she would've returned fire ... and kept it up mercilessly.
User avatar
Marvin
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 13080
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:47 am
Location: Fallon-Reno

Re: Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby Vice » Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:17 pm

How is this any different from restricting contracts at the docks?


Well, because it's not restricting contracts at the docks :) All contracts will be acceptable, so it's a new avenue of gameplay not related at all to contract acceptance. Things will be open, even when opposing factions are in the same sector. I'd hoped that was clear. I'll explain the other elements below.

Let people do what they will and deal with their own game states. I agree. let's not give opposing factions waypoint information to active contracts, but don't punish the contractee because an opposing faction "flew too close." So another ship messed with your meteor intercept or your solar array. Back to the "we're all adults" argument. You seem to want to keep playing daddy to a bunch of toddlers, and that's just not the enironment we have here.


It's more out of functional necessity, not me wanting to play daddy to toddlers :) But like I said, it will likely almost never apply (and even then for only about 4 contract types, nothing combat related, plenty of interference potential), it's more of an internal system to support the functional requirements of gamestate synch rather than something you may run into as a player. I'm just posting all of the notes on how such a system will need to be designed in order to facilitate the request changes, even the ones that may have little to no impact on what players actually encounter. I do that pretty often, thinking out loud and typing up draft notes on various design elements needed to reach the goal of an overall functionality change.
StarWraith 3D Games
www.starwraith.com | www.spacecombat.org
3D Space Combat, Mercenary, and Trader Simulations
User avatar
Vice
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:38 am

Re: Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby SolarWarden » Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:28 pm

Marvin wrote:Ghost, IM doesn't attack anyone without just cause... ...and kept it up mercilessly.


Marvin, you were there, you saw my demeanor, and how everything that happened went down. Everyone (including you and power) was joking around and laughing, even about my piracy statements. I even recall you telling her to stop and let me respawn in the chat window just before I left, so you don't have to keep making hindsight excuses to save face like it was the plan all along. I'm over it, it's over.
SolarWarden
Lieutenant Jr. Grade
Lieutenant Jr. Grade
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 7:21 pm

Re: Why Members of Another Faction Might Not Want Me in Their Sector

Postby Vice » Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:19 am

The new contract acceptance system has been in testing/prototyping for about the past week. After a couple of updates to fix a few minor issues, it's been working well. Lots of testing over LAN has been completed and three rounds of internet testing for online analysis has also been finished. After further testing over the next week or two, the system should be in place and included in the next planned update, which will hopefully be by mid May at this point if things stay on track.
StarWraith 3D Games
www.starwraith.com | www.spacecombat.org
3D Space Combat, Mercenary, and Trader Simulations
User avatar
Vice
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:38 am


Return to Multiplayer - Server and Events Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Schmidtrock and 2 guests