Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Idea'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Calendars

There are no results to display.

Categories

  • PlanetSide 1
  • PlanetSide 2
    • DA Training
    • FEAR Training
    • DL Training
  • Minecraft
  • WTF?
  • Other
  • Music Videos
  • Highlighted Videos

Marker Groups

There are no results to display.

Categories

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Yahoo


Google Talk


Skype


XBox


PSN


Location


Interests

Found 5 results

  1. I'd like to get people on the same page as far as "acceptable PVP" and multiplayer etiquette because I think these are important topics for Stellaris and other multiplayer grand strategy games. Part of the reason I love GOTR players so much is because we like playing together and everyone wants to make sure people are having fun, nobody wants to necessarily exclude anyone - but occasionally, it can be difficult to balance that with the need to actually progress in a game. Ultimately, in these games, somebody does have to WIN, and players want to get to the "end game" instead of playing only the first 1/3 or 2/3 of the game. It can be frustrating for players that weren't involved in the game during the initial setup stage as well, because once you're in a grand strategy game, nobody wants to stop playing it to start over or start 10 versions of the same game with different people in them just to include everyone, at the expense of the original players. Everyone should be able to have fun. So, these things in mind, I propose a few different rules that I would like to discuss. The one thing that ties all of these proposals together is one simple edict: "Keep all human players in the game." (1) "Acceptable PvP" - GOTR is full of friends and we don't like killing each other in long-form games. Why? Because then that player is out and they don't get to play any more. For longer grand strategy games, eliminating a player can mean that person is "out" for hours upon hours of gameplay. As such, we don't like eliminating people - but sometimes it's necessary for the game to progress. My proposal: An agreement between all players that says that PvP is acceptable and inevitable, but that the end result will not be eliminating someone from the game. In Stellaris, for instance, you can make people your vassals, you can force them to cede certain systems, you can essentially beat them into submission and take some of their stuff without eliminating the human player from the game. (To my knowledge, elimination only happens once a human player has zero colonies left under their control.) That's the kind of behavior I'd like to advance. You might have to work harder to rebuild, but you'll be able to rebuild instead of being "out." (2) "Always Rescue Humans" - If at any point there is a serious threat to a human player, all other human players should do everything in their power to prevent their elimination from the game. For instance, in Stellaris, one of the end-game crises is a big zerg rush from outside the galaxy - and depending on where your empire is placed, the zerg rush might spawn right on top of you, or way far away. My proposal: an agreement between all players that if any human player is in danger of being eliminated, all other human players will attempt to rescue them. You may need to make some agreements among yourselves, such as the "in need of rescue" player giving materials or payment to the rescuers, but the end result is that all human players remain in the game. (3) "Play to Win" - The goal of a big multi-player game is that we reach the end-game and that somebody, hopefully, wins the game. Therefore, everyone should enter the game with a particular mindset that they would like to eventually win the game (or form an alliance of winners if necessary). If someone is getting too big, you're allowed to band together against them - if someone is reeling from a loss or disadvantage, they probably aren't a big threat and you should focus on someone else. Fair play and "play to win" can be difficult to balance, but again, our goal is "keep all human players in the game" and with that in mind, it's easier. (4) "Hey, I don't know you" - I'm going to call this the Buddahx rule because it's a great example of good multiplayer play. If you've played a game of Stellaris with Buddahx, you'll have heard the phrase "I don't know you" when you ask him for star charts, or border access, or any information at all. Players should enter these games with the knowledge that this is a perfectly acceptable position to take - again, we're playing to win. You're 100% within your rights to deny an advantage to the other players as long as you're following the other rules. That said, other players may be perfectly fine with discussing plans and positions in the open, and "table talk" is acceptable - you don't have to participate, and you don't have to share, and if you enter a multiplayer game you need to be aware that there are both kinds of players - the "share everything" player, and the "I don't know you" player. (5) "Hot-joining" - Stellaris allows Hot-joining, and it's pretty good at it. Unlike some other games, human players can just jump in mid-game as one of the computers if they wish. This means that you may start a game with five human players and an hour later two more have joined. This is the grand etiquette question: we want to allow those other "late joiners" to play, but with differing time zones and work schedules, who decides when we can play again? Are the two late-joiners now full players and we shouldn't play without all present? Or as long as we have the original five, can we continue? I'd like some feedback and discussion on this, because I have no idea how to handle it. We want to encourage people to play together, but we also don't want to penalize people for continuing to play the game they started. As more and more people join a game, we could have upwards of 10 or 12 human players, and that makes it very, very difficult to synchronize schedules. Should we designate the starting players as "core players" that the game can't move without (or at least without them okaying it)? When does a late-joiner become a core player? Let's say a player only missed the first 30 minutes but has been playing the game with everyone else for 10+ hours, who is a "core player" at that point? This is the hardest question, I think.
  2. RealityVeil

    Dog Fight Fridays (DFF)

    Hello Pilots! Seeing as StarCitizen has something playable right now, we should be playing it! Arena Commander multiplayer has been confirmed as working by myself and Grott, so I say we use it. No time like the present to begin honing our Dog Fighting skills. By using a private match, we'll have a space we can use to practice, experiment, mess around, have fun, and learn without outside interference in the learning process. If DFF really takes off we can start to move into the public space and hone our skills against the best pilots the spectrum has to offer. I'm thinking DFF can encompass all modes of pay, from Racing to Free For All. Please post below, ranking the gameplay modes of arena commander you're most interested in and I'll try to get an itinerary together for our first session. I think we'll run the first session this Friday from 7pm until the last person logs off. Participation is NOT mandatory and you can feel free to leave whenever you like. I will try to run DFF every week, but if there simply isn't enough to do, we can run it every other week until Arena Commander gets more fleshed out. I hope to see you there, Pilots. (As an aside, I know I've been a huge advocate of a wait and see approach as far as Star Citizen goes. I've gone on record as admonishing others why have tried to organize things in the past. I want to go on record now as saying I believe this to be a different case than the one I was so outspoken against because I am organizing an event for the here and now, using existing gameplay and existing systems as opposed to making plans for something that's still in the design phases)
  3. Hello Everyone I'm looking for a few volunteers to help me on a beta server. It's very similar to FTB pack but it has a lot more features than FTB. We looking for people who play on a regular basis and also if somebody who's administrator on the current service we have will be nice. to get a second opinion. If you many questions please feel free to contact me either via this form or by PM.
  4. What if we build an arena and host games every so often. The games we can set up could be anything from spleef to pvp. We could set it up with teams or free for all. We can do it tournament style too. We could set up some rules for the matches as well. I'm thinking that the contestants only be allowed to use whats provided. I might start them in a closed room for a few mins where they chose from supplies and make what they want from it. The winner will get a prize. The prize will be anything from a diamond\diamond block to a lvl 30 enchanted item of the winners choosing. I'm willing to provide an arena and prizes if it will attract more to the server. Please give me your suggestions\support\ criticism\tell me what you think.
  5. RealityVeil

    GotR Feed the Beast MineCraft Server

    Hello ghosts! I'm kicking around the idea of running a professionally hosted Feed the Beast server. For those who don't know, Feed the Beast is a mod pack which, by default, includes the following mods: Minecraft Forge Chickenbones Core NEI Rei's Minimap Advanced Machines Buildcraft Computer Craft Ender Storage Extra Bees ExtraBiomes XL Factorization Forestry ForgeIRC Gregtech Industrial Craft Inventory Tweaks Iron Chests Advanced Solar Panels GraviSuite Modular Forcefield System Mystcraft Obsidian Pressure Plates Portal Gun Railcraft Steve's Carts Thermal Expansion Twilight Forest As you can see, it's quite the list, but fear not! for it comes with a fantastic automatic launcher/installer for the clients, and a pre-built server jar for the server; so things will be very easy for everyone. The big hangup comes in the hosting. I'm willing to run and administrate the thing, but server space is costly. Right now, MCProHosting recommends AT LEST Iron Plan (1600MB; 25 slots; $239.88/year; ~$10/slot/year) for a properly running server. I can not foot that bill on my own. So here comes the nasty part, if this is going to happen I'm going to have to charge for slots. I will not be doing this to make money off of my fellow ghosts, which would be wrong wrong wrong. I'll only be using the money to cover costs. I'm going to poll for how much people are willing to pay, and I'll use that data to determine, not only how big of a server to buy, but also how much to charge per slot to cover the cost of hosting. Prices are set to be per year. If there are any left over monies, I'm not sure what to do with them. If you guys have any ideas, let me know. I certainly don't want to keep them. Robo can have it if he wants. So, included in this tread is a poll. If you are interested at all in a Feed the Beast server, please select how much you are willing or able to pay per year, even if it's zero, so I can at least get a headcount. Please select the maximum amount, and I'll just assume you'll be willing to pay less. If enough support/pledges of support can be drummed up, I'll move forward with the plan. If not, then oh well, back to SSP for me. Thanks for your time, ghosts, and I really really hope to see this happen. --RealityVeil </p> EDIT: Clarification on pay period. (it's per year)
×