Freelancers,
We have heard from undisclosed sources, that the JRK pirates are planning an attack on California. The GOV will be defending California against this invasion and we encourage freelancers to help in the cause. The fighting will be in California System on Tuesday July 15th at 12:00 eastern time. We will be using the rules outlined by Twex in the USB thread.
Regulator
Edited by - Regulator on 15-07-2003 09:26:31
Important MessageYou are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login. |
United Systems of Browclops Clan Forum
Want help in running a persistent server? Want to setup a gaming session? Look no further!
Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:49 am
I must object to this whole seeker thing really.
You would only be ruining the fun for those with the skill and the courage to use such a vessel. By doing that you take out any chance of a Drake or other lightfighter pilot from fighting back and having going completely defensive. A Drake can be killed quite easily really with three or more ships all gunning for it. The Drake pilot would have to go completely defensive and barely be able to fight back. It is a well known fact among elite light fighter pilots that the only time you are truly vunerable to your enemies fire is when you come around for an attack, and I don't mean pot shots. With the Drake being a one kill chance at victory, would make him the prime target for almost every ship, and this situation would result almost everytime. Also you would see teams start to employ a "rush" tactic where they just charge and try to unwhelm the a Light Fighter pilot. And five Eagles all gunning at the same target, I speak from experince learned in my own cockiness while doing my light fighter thing, even in a completely defensive stance, it is hard to stay alive for very long... dodging fire coming from one location is easy, dodging it coming from five gets a little tricky on the hands.
If anything, the only thing that should be classed as a "seeker" would be a Starflier. A starflier that does not want to die, will almost certainly not die for quite sometime. Its even smaller and faster than the Drake.
As for the Pirates hunting the Character known as Dragoon, he told me to let you know he will be ever watchful for your approach, and will consider entering the battle for CA.
You would only be ruining the fun for those with the skill and the courage to use such a vessel. By doing that you take out any chance of a Drake or other lightfighter pilot from fighting back and having going completely defensive. A Drake can be killed quite easily really with three or more ships all gunning for it. The Drake pilot would have to go completely defensive and barely be able to fight back. It is a well known fact among elite light fighter pilots that the only time you are truly vunerable to your enemies fire is when you come around for an attack, and I don't mean pot shots. With the Drake being a one kill chance at victory, would make him the prime target for almost every ship, and this situation would result almost everytime. Also you would see teams start to employ a "rush" tactic where they just charge and try to unwhelm the a Light Fighter pilot. And five Eagles all gunning at the same target, I speak from experince learned in my own cockiness while doing my light fighter thing, even in a completely defensive stance, it is hard to stay alive for very long... dodging fire coming from one location is easy, dodging it coming from five gets a little tricky on the hands.
If anything, the only thing that should be classed as a "seeker" would be a Starflier. A starflier that does not want to die, will almost certainly not die for quite sometime. Its even smaller and faster than the Drake.
As for the Pirates hunting the Character known as Dragoon, he told me to let you know he will be ever watchful for your approach, and will consider entering the battle for CA.
Tue Jul 15, 2003 9:22 am
Well said Meiyo, i totally agree, I do not think telling someone if they use a drake their "team" should get a penalty. Really we should all be able to fly what we want in these scrimages unless they are between clans with rules set down.
If they are opened for server players, then you just can't limit player to use only "these" ships.
I will admit, it is not easy to kill a drake, takes time and you need a good temperment as well as aim. It is my experience that those that bitch about drakes are those that either can't kill them, or do not have the temperment needed to battle them.
I mean comon, 9 out of 10 times anyone in a VHF will kill a drake.....
IMHO
Edited by - FooGoo on 15-07-2003 10:23:54
If they are opened for server players, then you just can't limit player to use only "these" ships.
I will admit, it is not easy to kill a drake, takes time and you need a good temperment as well as aim. It is my experience that those that bitch about drakes are those that either can't kill them, or do not have the temperment needed to battle them.
I mean comon, 9 out of 10 times anyone in a VHF will kill a drake.....
IMHO
Edited by - FooGoo on 15-07-2003 10:23:54
Tue Jul 15, 2003 11:11 am
I agree with that assuming a skilled VHF pilot vs a skilled LF pilot the LF will die. It is however a completely different skill, as I'm sure any drake lover can attest to. Drakes are about wearing down the enemy while remaining untouchable, while VHF's are traditionally about destroying the enemy before you kiss vacuum. Personally I fly both, I believe you best learn how to combat opponents after walking a mile in their shoes. Know thine enemy.
Still, a light fighter could, and should play a very important role in a team MISSION or competition. Not at a handicap, but in a position where it has dominance - in avoiding fire. Any competition which voids these qualities is not a well rounded compeition imo. A CTF competition offers a great advantage to LF's as the flag/flag-capper. Another (proven) example of a competition offering an advantage to a light fighter is the FFA tourneys, although I believe reputation is probably a bigger factor (Raptor had at least 4 fighters on him all the time lol)
Still, a light fighter could, and should play a very important role in a team MISSION or competition. Not at a handicap, but in a position where it has dominance - in avoiding fire. Any competition which voids these qualities is not a well rounded compeition imo. A CTF competition offers a great advantage to LF's as the flag/flag-capper. Another (proven) example of a competition offering an advantage to a light fighter is the FFA tourneys, although I believe reputation is probably a bigger factor (Raptor had at least 4 fighters on him all the time lol)
Tue Jul 15, 2003 1:38 pm
I don't think it has to be a Drake. The team should choose one person to be the "seeker". The other team doesn't even have to know. The seeker could act normally so that the other team won't guess who's the seeker. Or the seeker can stay back and do whatever. Orrrrrr, instead of kill the seeker, the entire team loses, we can use my idea of each team gets x amount of lives, no matter how many people they have. The "seeker" uses up 2 lives instead of 1.
So, for example:
Team A has 4 members: A1, A2, A3, A4
Team B has 3 members: B1, B2, B3
10 lives allowed
Team A chooses A1 as the seeker.
Team B chooses B1 as the seeker.
A1 dies twice, leaving Team A with 6 lives.
A2, A3, A4 each die twice, leaving Team A with 0 lives.
B1 dies once, leaving Team B with 8 lives.
B2 and B3 die three times, leaving Team B with 2 lives.
Since Team B has 2 lives and Team A has 0, Team B wins.
Oh, and I think each member of the team should give x amount of money, and the winner of the skirmish gets the money. That way, if you have more members in your team you have the advantage of numbers, but if you lose, your loss is felt more than if you had lesser numbers. Sorry for the long post.
So, for example:
Team A has 4 members: A1, A2, A3, A4
Team B has 3 members: B1, B2, B3
10 lives allowed
Team A chooses A1 as the seeker.
Team B chooses B1 as the seeker.
A1 dies twice, leaving Team A with 6 lives.
A2, A3, A4 each die twice, leaving Team A with 0 lives.
B1 dies once, leaving Team B with 8 lives.
B2 and B3 die three times, leaving Team B with 2 lives.
Since Team B has 2 lives and Team A has 0, Team B wins.
Oh, and I think each member of the team should give x amount of money, and the winner of the skirmish gets the money. That way, if you have more members in your team you have the advantage of numbers, but if you lose, your loss is felt more than if you had lesser numbers. Sorry for the long post.
Tue Jul 15, 2003 3:43 pm
Good points everyone. There seems like there probably should be some ajustments for light fighters. I was in the battle for Texas in a Drake for 3 hours before I got dockcamped as my first death. I think I like the idea of making a seeker death worth 2 deaths, but not sure what is best. Another idea would be a loss in the event that only light fighters are left on one team. That might not be as good though.
This has probably already been said, but once members of a team die, they could move on to the next battlefield and wait or whatever. That would help with the reentering/respawning thing.
Regulator
This has probably already been said, but once members of a team die, they could move on to the next battlefield and wait or whatever. That would help with the reentering/respawning thing.
Regulator
Tue Jul 15, 2003 6:38 pm
Well I love that there is some good constuctive dialouge goin on here 
I'm with Twex lets keep the rules as simple as possible:
Example:
Factions agree to 3 planet/base battle (i.e. houston, sugar, beaumont)
last man standing or 1 hour per battle per planet/base (3 hrs max)
if one hour expires and there are even # of players then that battle is a draw move to nex planet/system
If all 3 are a draw, 1 on 1 duel settles it (2 groups choose duelers)
anything goes as far a weapons, ships, etc.
no dock camping
docks are only allowed before battle and death
....then u can add on things like seekers etc later,
lets agree on a base...
just an idea
I'm with Twex lets keep the rules as simple as possible:
Example:
Factions agree to 3 planet/base battle (i.e. houston, sugar, beaumont)
last man standing or 1 hour per battle per planet/base (3 hrs max)
if one hour expires and there are even # of players then that battle is a draw move to nex planet/system
If all 3 are a draw, 1 on 1 duel settles it (2 groups choose duelers)
anything goes as far a weapons, ships, etc.
no dock camping
docks are only allowed before battle and death
....then u can add on things like seekers etc later,
lets agree on a base...
just an idea
Tue Jul 15, 2003 7:14 pm
I don't think my idea is that complicated... but your point is nevertheless a good one.
Maybe it's the way I presented my idea. Basically, it's this. Each team gets 10 lives. Once those 10 are up, you lose. (Doesn't have to be 10, but this is just for the sake of example)
Now here goes the stuff that, while it may look or sound complicated, it really isn't:
Team A and B are in NY, A is attacking and B is defending. The first battle is at the Colorado jump gate. Team B loses, and is pushed back to Fort Bush. Team B loses again, and is pushed back to Manhattan. Team B loses and the Battle of NY is won by Team A.
Maybe each system has one planet/station/whatever that is generally considered the center. In NY's case, it'd be Manhattan. In Colorado, it'd be Denver. California would be Los Angeles. Or whatever. Or, perhaps the defending team gets to choose which planet/station/whatever is the main base, the thing they're defending. So, if the battle reaches that point and the defenders lose, they lose the battle. In order to win, the defenders have to push the attackers out of the system (win the battle at a jump gate or jump hole)
So, if in Manhattan, Team A loses to Team B, then the battle is pushed back to Fort Bush. Team B wins that skirmish, and Team A is pushed back to Colorado jump gate. Team B wins there, and Team A is defeated and the Battle of NY is won by Team B, the defenders.
And a battle doesn't have to happen in just one day. If time is running short, then only one skirmish is done and the next skirmish is scheduled for another time.
I think anything that looks complicated is just from the way I write it, not from what it is. But it's just a suggestion. If we use Twex's method, then sure, I'm just eager for a battle. In this upcoming California battle, I'll join whichever side has the least people.
Maybe it's the way I presented my idea. Basically, it's this. Each team gets 10 lives. Once those 10 are up, you lose. (Doesn't have to be 10, but this is just for the sake of example)
Now here goes the stuff that, while it may look or sound complicated, it really isn't:
Team A and B are in NY, A is attacking and B is defending. The first battle is at the Colorado jump gate. Team B loses, and is pushed back to Fort Bush. Team B loses again, and is pushed back to Manhattan. Team B loses and the Battle of NY is won by Team A.
Maybe each system has one planet/station/whatever that is generally considered the center. In NY's case, it'd be Manhattan. In Colorado, it'd be Denver. California would be Los Angeles. Or whatever. Or, perhaps the defending team gets to choose which planet/station/whatever is the main base, the thing they're defending. So, if the battle reaches that point and the defenders lose, they lose the battle. In order to win, the defenders have to push the attackers out of the system (win the battle at a jump gate or jump hole)
So, if in Manhattan, Team A loses to Team B, then the battle is pushed back to Fort Bush. Team B wins that skirmish, and Team A is pushed back to Colorado jump gate. Team B wins there, and Team A is defeated and the Battle of NY is won by Team B, the defenders.
And a battle doesn't have to happen in just one day. If time is running short, then only one skirmish is done and the next skirmish is scheduled for another time.
I think anything that looks complicated is just from the way I write it, not from what it is. But it's just a suggestion. If we use Twex's method, then sure, I'm just eager for a battle. In this upcoming California battle, I'll join whichever side has the least people.
Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:08 pm
Yeah ditch the seeker.
And secondly, never try to balance out the advantage of greater numbers. That's doomed to failure. If it was a tourney then I would agree that yes the teams should be even. If it is a war however, then the less numerous side is taking a risk and they should take responsibiity for that risk. Attempts to equalize the odds will result in sides simply picking their best dueler(s) to fight, thereby ruining the whole point of a war in the first place. Having prize money proportional to the size of the other team (each member fronts a few or whatever) is perfectly fine though, it gives a reason to compete for the less numerous side.
I think the key point of importance is that we aren't trying to make it a contest of skill so that the better player will win. That's for duels. This is war. In war, the victory will go to the side with good leadership, good communication and tactics, and in many cases, greater numbers.
And secondly, never try to balance out the advantage of greater numbers. That's doomed to failure. If it was a tourney then I would agree that yes the teams should be even. If it is a war however, then the less numerous side is taking a risk and they should take responsibiity for that risk. Attempts to equalize the odds will result in sides simply picking their best dueler(s) to fight, thereby ruining the whole point of a war in the first place. Having prize money proportional to the size of the other team (each member fronts a few or whatever) is perfectly fine though, it gives a reason to compete for the less numerous side.
I think the key point of importance is that we aren't trying to make it a contest of skill so that the better player will win. That's for duels. This is war. In war, the victory will go to the side with good leadership, good communication and tactics, and in many cases, greater numbers.
Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:21 pm
questions about California fight tonight. . .
First of all. . . what rules are being used? The stock rules laid out in Twex's post? Or are any of the other suggestions being implimented?
Also, if Los Angeles is the "main" target - where is the starting point? NY jump gate?
Finally, just to be sure, since I'm on the west coast, California time, would that be 9:00PM my time?
Count me in to help out any legitimate Government against the invasion of any unsavory pirates!
First of all. . . what rules are being used? The stock rules laid out in Twex's post? Or are any of the other suggestions being implimented?
Also, if Los Angeles is the "main" target - where is the starting point? NY jump gate?
Finally, just to be sure, since I'm on the west coast, California time, would that be 9:00PM my time?
Count me in to help out any legitimate Government against the invasion of any unsavory pirates!
Tue Jul 15, 2003 9:05 pm
RULES WILL BE POSTED HERE...GOV HAS TO PUSH FREE CA PPL BACK OUT OF SYSTEM (CONTROLLING THE END OF EVERY TRADE LANE). AFTER THEY CAPTURE A DOCKABLE LOCATION, THEY CAN DOCK THERE TO RESPAWN PER ORGINAL RULES. ABSOLUTELY NO SEEKER INVOLVED. I HAVE NO TIME TO LIST NOW...SORRY BOUT CAPS...I WILL POST THE RULES AGAIN LATER...2-3 HOURS MAX.
LATER
JUSTINIAN
Hail Ceasar! Leader of the Free Peoples of the Holy Roman Empire, defender to the lower ranked and faith, lover of monkies (but not those DAMN DIRTY APES!). God Save Ceasar - or the screamer behind him will! Hail Ceasar!!!
LATER
JUSTINIAN
Hail Ceasar! Leader of the Free Peoples of the Holy Roman Empire, defender to the lower ranked and faith, lover of monkies (but not those DAMN DIRTY APES!). God Save Ceasar - or the screamer behind him will! Hail Ceasar!!!
Tue Jul 15, 2003 9:05 pm
Also note that whichever side your character takes in this battle will affect its repution with GOV and other political parties that care.
So before you choose to fight for GOV, or the Pirates, consider the consequences. I'm not saying GOV have a shoot-on-sight policy, but I think the SD do, and who knows what will happen when you next encounter a pirate?
Edited by - Twex on 15-07-2003 22:07:16
So before you choose to fight for GOV, or the Pirates, consider the consequences. I'm not saying GOV have a shoot-on-sight policy, but I think the SD do, and who knows what will happen when you next encounter a pirate?
Edited by - Twex on 15-07-2003 22:07:16
Return to Freelancer Multiplayer Forum