Server war 24/7

[Iron man]

Looking for having your opinion in opening a server 24h 7 days server opening for war conquest. In this aspect the player of a faction will start with a only one station built and will have to conquer the maximum of charted system.

Faction will have to conquered 20 charted system out of 26 to be winner. A system is considered conquiered when a faction holding 80% .

System can only be conquered adjacent at a system already holding.
PVP will be frequent and needed to take over the system.

What is your though about it?

[Edited on 2-7-2016 by Iron man]

[Edited on 2-7-2016 by Iron man]

[MiaZ]

Sounds good to me

[The Looch]

Oh yeah that'll work

[Percopius]

That sounds cool. I think it could point out any issues or additions that may need to made to the code to support a 24/7 war and keep it fun.

Is someone willing to serve 24/7?

[Iron man]

We was thinking making this poll thread first for having a general idea if a % of the community will be interested or not. If it's successful we maybe starting hunting a reliable server admin willing to participating doing such of changement.

[Radikal]

Nice concept, however I think the low numbers of MP persons would make it unsatisfying without having the NPCs taking a larger-than-usual active role (but that could be part of the fun).
Good luck with this, almost too bad that I can't do MP.

[MiaZ]

Nice concept, however I think the low numbers of MP persons would make it unsatisfying without having the NPCs taking a larger-than-usual active role (but that could be part of the fun).
Good luck with this, almost too bad that I can't do MP.

\\

You may be underestimating the impact that players can have on the games universe.

A small group could turn a system in a few hours without too much trouble.

[Radikal]

\\

You may be underestimating the impact that players can have on the games universe.

A small group could turn a system in a few hours without too much trouble.

Nope, that is exactly why heavy NPC may be needed. How fun is it really to plow through all the systems and change them in only a couple days?

Heavier NPC activity would make the systems less of a push-over.

It's probably just that I enjoy combat too much.

[MiaZ]

\\

You may be underestimating the impact that players can have on the games universe.

A small group could turn a system in a few hours without too much trouble.

Nope, that is exactly why heavy NPC may be needed. How fun is it really to plow through all the systems and change them in only a couple days?

Heavier NPC activity would make the systems less of a push-over.

It's probably just that I enjoy combat too much.

Yep you might be right there.
Players will still have to build stations in the occupied systems to maintain them.
So starting from single station per side, it's going to take a while at least, especially as there are not many players yet.


If one side does plow through the systems in a couple days then I agree it would be too fast.

[Janus]

How would you disable NPC's? I've found nothing in the text8.dat file that will allow deletion of NPC's.

[MiaZ]

No one said anything about disabling NPC's. The opposing factions would still need to fight them.

Or if you mean the default stations? I am pretty sure they can be deleted easily.

[Edited on 2-7-2016 by MiaZ]

[Marvin]

There is an option, server side, for allowing AI to influence faction percentages. With a war server, they could unfairly keep participating players from gaining any ground. Other than that, it might be a good idea for the server to delete all stations except one for each clan (if you plan on having clans) or each faction (ALC and FDN). But, for that to work, you'd need each "clan" to sign up so that they could be assigned a star system and it's accompanying station at the get-go.

[Serayl]

So starting from single station per side, it's going to take a while at least, especially as there are not many players yet.


If one side does plow through the systems in a couple days then I agree it would be too fast.

Ehh. It can be done, provided you're efficient and know how. Killing that initial station can also be done fairly quickly if nobody's around to defend it. After that, you plant your own station on top of it and 'win'.

I feel the big issue here is still the lack of players that'd be around at any given time. Any large periods of inactivity with one faction or the other would mean a lot of lost ground.

[DaveK]

I like the idea of a server where players who want to concentrate on faction vs faction play rather than pvp. I'm not being negative but the following points occur to me. They may already have been worked out. I'm just offering them for discussion

If all the systems start out as either FDN or ALC (as now) then players would have to be turning systems of the opposing faction, If I remember correctly you only have to replace the Command module to turn a station from one faction to he other. From that point players, being able to take contracts in the system, would be increasing their faction's system influence. Iron man is setting 80% system influence as the system success target. Have I interpreted it correctly?

As well as picking off the opposition faction's systems you would also have to defend your own to stop them being taken/retaken. How will the 'attacking when no defenders are on line' thing be made to work? Or is that (hopefully) there would be enough players in each faction to be able to maintain 27/7 coverage?

HB have been working out how our clan would exist in EL since clans are a historical relic. We have also been looking for a role other than just lending a general helping hand to everyone who is in trouble. Basically clans will become unofficial groups of players who want to play cooperatively. Is that how other players see it?

Would a faction be allowed or forbidden to create a station of their own for R&R and repair and refuelling? What would be the effect in that case of a 'contract race' to gain control of a system? Would a faction be able to overcome the 'Home Advantage' if they had to fly to their nearest system to refuel/repair/reload? Player acting as fuel tankers (parked in a nebula cloud with max fuel tanks and in a deployed fuel processor or equipped with one), being equipped with a repair beam and loading cargo bays and hardpoints with spare missile reloads would become a strategic aspect of a system invasion

Could players just log as and when they fancied a system wide fight?
Would gaining 20 systems @ >80% for one second count as overall victory? Perhaps holding 20 systems @ >80% for 24 hours would be more satisfying. That 24 hours would certainly be an exciting time to be involved!
How would the 'winning side claim their victory? Who would be the judge? What would happen if a system was lost before the judge could validate the victory? Could the server log be the register and validation - a faction could U2U Iron man with a time and date when they won and Iron check the log!

Sounds like the idea has a chance of succeeding where EM clans couldn't! It also sounds like it has the makings of a long term campaign mode for EL

[Janus]

Only way something like this could be fair would be to disallow profiles that have played single player. Have it MP only.

[Serayl]

As well as picking off the opposition faction's systems you would also have to defend your own to stop them being taken/retaken. How will the 'attacking when no defenders are on line' thing be made to work? Or is that (hopefully) there would be enough players in each faction to be able to maintain 27/7 coverage?

Probably the easiest way to solve this is to institute what I'd call 'the active defender rule'. It works like this:

If you want to attack a station belonging to the opposite faction, you cannot (honourably) do so unless there is at least one player online in that faction able to defend their base. You and them can duke it out, and whoever deals the most 'damage' [kills & modules destroyed vs deaths, stalemates = defender wins] gets to accomplish their objective. You can also agree upon a length of time beforehand (15min, 30min, 1hr, etc.) before the attack 'ends' or until one side requests an afk break/needs to go/gets bored or wants to finish.

The only instance where this rule may not apply is for enemy stations built in your territory, as having to declare attacks for everything would become overly tedious (since building them would be far faster than one could tear them down using the rule).

I guess someone would have to post something so people know what's happened while they've been offline, as a means of accounting. Stations gone missing without AARs (after-action reports) would need to be investigated in case someone circumvented the rule.

[Janus]

I hate to break it to you, but in war there are very few rules. Don't torture prisoners and don't bomb hospitals. Pretty much everything else goes.

[Radikal]

Is there a broadcast message in MP when stations are attacked or command module destroyed?
How are players to know assets are in danger?

[Serayl]

I hate to break it to you, but in war there are very few rules. Don't torture prisoners and don't bomb hospitals. Pretty much everything else goes.

In that case, I see many enemy turrets sitting outside your stations, along with jump traps everywhere in your future.

No offense, but if you say 'anything goes', you better be prepared to deal with some pretty cheesy strategies, along with a healthy dose of metagaming. It was this sort of take-no-prisoners/win-at-any-cost mentality that killed a lot of the clan wars in EM, from my understanding.

In the absence of something like the active defender idea, why fight other players at all? You could simply wait until the other guy is busy with real life or asleep, then snipe their stations into space dust.

Is there a broadcast message in MP when stations are attacked or command module destroyed?
How are players to know assets are in danger?

I've suggested a text alert for this sort of thing previously, although I think it's easier said than done. Right now, your own vigilance is the best defence.

[Edited on 2-7-2016 by Serayl]

[MiaZ]

Killing that initial station can also be done fairly quickly if nobody's around to defend it. After that, you plant your own station on top of it and 'win'.

yeah, look I don't know but going off the initial post I kind of assumed
factions can only take adjusting system, to one already held meant the going straight for enemy base
would be a agaisnt the rules of this setup.

There is also ""PVP needed to take over systems" not sure but sounded like a takeover cant be complete without 2 sides.

Forcing MP only saves would work as well, but I am not going to bother starting a MP only profile myself until I know
a few others would be joining in for this..



[Edited on 2-8-2016 by MiaZ]

[Marvin]

I like Dave's idea. We've debated ROE for when players are off line until the cows came home ... with no satisfactory result. Maybe having set times for combat might work better. And the idea of having a Milk Cow hiding in a nebula ... genius!

[SeeJay]

Only way something like this could be fair would be to disallow profiles that have played single player. Have it MP only.

That won't do a thing. I don't understand why people keeps saying that and I really didn't
understand the MP Only Servers in EM.

What's the point? It only takes a few days (or hours) to build a new profile in MP to unlock all
ships and then you make a few copies of it just in case.
What's the difference from using a profile that's been used in SP?

And what really killed "Clan Wars" in EM was the offline attacks (for me at least).

Other than that, it sounds like a fun event. I do have problems logging on at specific
times, so I don't know if I can participate enough. I log on when I have time to play.

[Iron man]

I like the idea of a server where players who want to concentrate on faction vs faction play rather than pvp. I'm not being negative but the following points occur to me. They may already have been worked out. I'm just offering them for discussion


Sounds like the idea has a chance of succeeding where EM clans couldn't! It also sounds like it has the makings of a long term campaign mode for EL

Thx Dave I appreciate your ideas and your answers/question

Ill try my best for answer the whole.

First, before starting thinking/creating anything, We are looking for a minimum of participation of the player. If not enough interested or playing it will be not worth it to continue.

"If all the systems start out as either FDN or ALC (as now) then players would have to be turning systems of the opposing faction, If I remember correctly you only have to replace the Command module to turn a station from one faction to he other. From that point players, being able to take contracts in the system, would be increasing their faction's system influence. Iron man is setting 80% system influence as the system success target. Have I interpreted it correctly?"

Answer : Just as a reminder this won't be a war with station getting destroy but a possession. If I remember correctly a system is taken by : killing red of the others faction and also by doing simple missions when the reputation is not in opposit faction or in disputed.

Example : Im FDN starting at sirius. I could only take over the system adjacent a sirius. When a system will be taken the players will be able to take the next system adjacent. Like a chest game.
We count on the fair play of the player for playing the rules correctly.

"As well as picking off the opposition faction's systems you would also have to defend your own to stop them being taken/retaken. How will the 'attacking when no defenders are on line' thing be made to work? Or is that (hopefully) there would be enough players in each faction to be able to maintain 27/7 coverage?"

Answer : At the moment, on the most busy server , there is always someone online on the 2 faction. These idea I believe will have to be made after a few test starting by : The oposing faction couldn't trying take a system controled by the opposit faction with none are on. And if the system works open to attack anytimes.

I was thinking opening the news papers idea on this idea which will give a resume every week of wasn't going on and make small event like : Alc Attacking for sure atlas this saturday the fdn has to defend. In this case this will more likely will attract potential players looking for heavy fight.

"HB have been working out how our clan would exist in EL since clans are a historical relic. We have also been looking for a role other than just lending a general helping hand to everyone who is in trouble. Basically clans will become unofficial groups of players who want to play cooperatively. Is that how other players see it?"

Answer : It's a bit like AP clan see it yes. it's more like a cooperative player looking for keep in touch and follow a same idea wihout forget we pick a side when we log in MP.

"Would a faction be allowed or forbidden to create a station of their own for R&R and repair and refuelling? What would be the effect in that case of a 'contract race' to gain control of a system? Would a faction be able to overcome the 'Home Advantage' if they had to fly to their nearest system to refuel/repair/reload? Player acting as fuel tankers (parked in a nebula cloud with max fuel tanks and in a deployed fuel processor or equipped with one), being equipped with a repair beam and loading cargo bays and hardpoints with spare missile reloads would become a strategic aspect of a system invasion"

Answer : The station being not a priority for conquest another system, they will be likely yes allowed. But I like the idea of if the system is not taken the player will have to repair/refue;/ reload in a system conquered. That can open many possibility. Like I said we will start by doing test if that many peoples is interested and why not changed after every match the rules for make it more interesting in less boring.

"Could players just log as and when they fancied a system wide fight?
Would gaining 20 systems @ >80% for one second count as overall victory? Perhaps holding 20 systems @ >80% for 24 hours would be more satisfying. That 24 hours would certainly be an exciting time to be involved!
How would the 'winning side claim their victory? Who would be the judge? What would happen if a system was lost before the judge could validate the victory? Could the server log be the register and validation - a faction could U2U Iron man with a time and date when they won and Iron check the log!"

Answer : If I do understand does a players could swap of faction when he want. Answer is no. Like I said a fair play will be ask for the players if they start as ALC they will have to stay ALC until the end of this match.

I do like the idea of maintain this 24h overall. The 1 second will be pretty hard to check even with many admin but with your idea of chat log that will make te things clear. I probably won't be the admin of a forum as in AUS the internet is not the best but if the project please to the community we will start looking for a charity owner preferable with a stable and good server. More likely in US as the ping is good for everyone in the world most of the time but open to any suggestion.


To add Something this idea/ project is for implanted another kind of game for player looking for action and conquest. In this case players looking for these type of game will play on this server instead of playing on usual server and potential annoying player looking for peace.


Like always we are opening to any suggestion and propositon
Thx for reading

[DaveK]

I hate to break it to you, but in war there are very few rules. Don't torture prisoners and don't bomb hospitals. Pretty much everything else goes.

But this isn't RL and a great deal of past experience shows that clan wars never took off because clans were unwilling to take part if they came back online and found that someone had taken their system, destroyed all their stations and built up to 100% control when no defender was online to try to prevent them.

Taking over an undefended system is just too quick and easy

At least one clan abandoned the whole idea of 'owning' systems and went nomadic because hours of work getting the system control established was wiped out overnight. And that is very frustrating = not fun at all. Even more so when the attackers logged off when the defenders logged on so they wouldn't have to fight since the 'defending' clan had a wing taken from some of the top combat jocks in the game at that time.

Surely the whole idea of Iron man's set up is actually to enable and encourage group vs group combat in the game. Winning by taking over 20 systems is just the means to that end - not the main end in itself.

[Serayl]

Answer : At the moment, on the most busy server , there is always someone online on the 2 faction. These idea I believe will have to be made after a few test starting by : The oposing faction couldn't trying take a system controled by the opposit faction with none are on. And if the system works open to attack anytimes.

I still find that the FDN is often short-handed on military craft whenever I've been online. Sure, there may be folks playing FDN on busy servers, however they're very often still building themselves up or exploring the unknown. As has been stated elsewhere before, the disparity between FDN and ALC is generally due to ALC being the default faction choice. On top of that, a few people play ALC simply because more people are online as ALC than FDN.

My general opinion is that unless there's at least ten active players to a side, things will be a bit tenuous with a war server. I think we ought to try and get more people playing EL's public MP first and foremost: a lot of the release-week people either moved to LAN servers, back to SP or stopped playing. Short of the almost guarenteed potential for more rib-poking incidents, trying to get more people playing can be nothing but good for a war server; you might actually get enough people to have conflicts going on across multiple fronts, something that just doesn't happen right now.

I hate to break it to you, but in war there are very few rules. Don't torture prisoners and don't bomb hospitals. Pretty much everything else goes.

But this isn't RL and a great deal of past experience shows that clan wars never took off because clans were unwilling to take part if they came back online and found that someone had taken their system, destroyed all their stations and built up to 100% control when no defender was online to try to prevent them.

Taking over an undefended system is just too quick and easy

This. Most of us aren't here to play a hardcore, ultra-competitive game and a great many people hate having two or three hours of their in-game work undone when they're unable to do anything about it. That goes double for anyone not able to play regularly, too.

[Edited on 2-8-2016 by Serayl]