[Kazan]

all the protocol needs to do is have a mechanism to record games and the winners of those games - everything else can be done by php scripts

[Unknown Target]

Galaxy Wars?
Freespace Wars?
Defense Wars?

[kasperl]

Originally posted by Kazan
all the protocol needs to do is have a mechanism to record games and the winners of those games - everything else can be done by php scripts

what about the exact amount of kills? or perhaps even the time a ship was re-armed, and the loadout of that ship? the exact ship types (including fighters) used?

[Kazan]

I can see a possible use for the exact ammount of kills

but rearm times, loadouts and ship types? whats the point

[kasperl]

to keep score precesily of what ships where destroyed, and to get an approximation of secondary weapon expendings. We plan to add resource management to the game, to make certain systems worth more then others.

[Kazan]

you plan to add resource management

this is not an RTS - i will be reproducing the ORIGIONAL SW

[kasperl]

so no requests then......

[Rictor]

Kazan: why?

[Kazan]

rictor: gameplay - adding things like "resource managment" changes the gameplay - i am not going to do anything that changes the gameplay

[kasperl]

ok, crap.

is there any way at all for someone to introduce those options without rigorous re-coding?

[Kazan]

no

[Rictor]

From what I remember way back when, FS2 multiplayer was good, but it simply doesn't stand up to the new fangled gametypes coming out right now, like Onslaught in UT2K4, Battlefield 1942 and so on.

Adding a few simply tactical elements would spice up the gameplay and ensure longer interest by players. I'm not even thinking of ahything specific right now, just somethings to beyond "shoot, kill, next".

Basically, what I'm getting at is that you say you don't want to change gameplay, but how do we know that gameplay is as good as it could be. No risks means no payoff. And those people liekly to play it (hardcore FS2 crowd at HLP and VW) have probably played vanilla FS2 mutliplayer to death already.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Rictor
From what I remember way back when, FS2 multiplayer was good, but it simply doesn't stand up to the new fangled gametypes coming out right now, like Onslaught in UT2K4, Battlefield 1942 and so on.

Adding a few simply tactical elements would spice up the gameplay and ensure longer interest by players. I'm not even thinking of ahything specific right now, just somethings to beyond "shoot, kill, next".

Basically, what I'm getting at is that you say you don't want to change gameplay, but how do we know that gameplay is as good as it could be. No risks means no payoff. And those people liekly to play it (hardcore FS2 crowd at HLP and VW) have probably played vanilla FS2 mutliplayer to death already.

This is the whole reason I'm not even interested in FS online in the slightest way possible.

I played it online once and was litterally disappointed to the point of me wanting to deinstall FS alltogether. Its the super modability that kept me going for a while. But really, the MP is just boooooooooring.

But thats just me...

[Kazan]

you want to spice up TvT? make more complex TvT missions

[Tiara]

I tried... You try making complex TvT missions without having FS crash on you time and time again

[Flipside]

Well, there are options in post 3.6 without touching the Multiplayer code itself. We could ask for some more multi-player specific sexps, e.g, upgrading weapons when a certain goal is achieved (I notice the PBanks tends to increase in power from weakest to strongest, so it could just load up the ship with the next Primary in the list). I don't want to suggest too much more until 3.6 is out and requests are being taken

We already have variable handling, so I think we can do things like keep scores. Ideas have been thrown about for 'Kinetic football' for a while now, with Subspace nodes as a goal

With things like HT&L stations popping up now for more interesting scenery to interact with, theres a lot possible with a bit of thinking beyond the 'standard' FS2 rules. which the SCP guys seem to be removing by the day

[kode]

Originally posted by Rictor
Given the choice of the teo at the top Freedpace: Conflict Zone is denitintely the better of the two. However, it doesn't really convey the Onlineness of the concept...

you are drunkt. axmit it.

[Setekh]

Conflict Zone out of those two.

[Singh]

ok. I'll close the vote tommorow, but I think its Conflict zone all the way :/

[kasperl]

Originally posted by Singh
ok. I'll close the vote tommorow, but I think its Conflict zone all the way :/

dang it, i liked the other one better

anyway, i updated the site with some news, the name change will come through soon:
http://nodewar.penguinbomb.com/fleetwars/

edit: a Cookie for anyone who finds "fleetwars" somewhere on that site and tells me where (aside from the URL)