home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
Text File | 2001-12-03 | 38.3 KB | 1,037 lines |
- Path: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!hub1.nntpserver.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news2.best.com!nntp1.ba.best.com!not-for-mail
- From: doosh@best.com (Tom Holub)
- Newsgroups: rec.games.netrek,rec.answers,news.answers
- Subject: rec.games.netrek Frequently Offered Clever Suggestions list, Part 1/2
- Supersedes: <netrekFOCS.1_1004702400@best.com>
- Followup-To: rec.games.netrek
- Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 12:01:08 +0000 (UTC)
- Organization: The ISP formerly known as Best
- Lines: 1015
- Approved: news-answers-request@MIT.Edu
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <netrekFOCS.1_1007294401@best.com>
- References: <netrekFAQ_1007294401@best.com>
- Reply-To: doosh@best.com
- NNTP-Posting-Host: shell3.ba.best.com
- Content-Type: text/html
- X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 1007294468 50802 206.184.139.134 (2 Dec 2001 12:01:08 GMT)
- X-Complaints-To: abuse@best.com
- NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 12:01:08 +0000 (UTC)
- Xref: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu rec.games.netrek:79264 rec.answers:70337 news.answers:220242
-
- Archive-Name: games/netrek/suggestions/part1
- <html>
-
- <title>Netrek Frequently Offered Clever Suggestion List</title>
-
- <BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#111100" LINK="#336699" ALINK="AA0000"
- VLINK="#996600">
-
- <h2 align="center">Netrek Frequently Offered Clever Suggestion list</h2>
-
- Archive-Name: games/netrek/suggestions/part1<br>
- Last-Updated: 16 Mar 1997<br>
- Changes: Converted to HTML, made significant updates to a number of questions,
- added question about a shared player database.<p>
-
-
- <i>Note: This was written by Andy McFadden but is now being maintained by me
- along with the other FAQ lists. Many thanks to Andy for compiling it
- (in addition to his other contributions to the netrek world).</i>
- <p>
-
- The same ideas get proposed over and over by people trying to enhance the
- game, and the same discussions come up again and again. This file is an
- attempt to stem the flow by presenting old discussions and arguments
- against the ideas.
- <p>
-
- This assumes you are familiar with the game itself and some of the
- vocabulary (argot) involved (e.g. scum, ogg, LPS, Iggy). This is NOT
- intended to be a capsule summary of rec.games.netrek discussions; it is
- intended to help people trying to enhance the game understand why many of
- the obvious improvements won't work or won't be accepted by the Netrek
- community. As such, it contains one-sided and occasionally opinionated
- material. I welcome improvements and stronger arguments, but if you want
- to debate the value of something I will probably ignore you.
- <p>
-
- [ This file has been evolving since September of 1992. Some of the info
- may have become outdated as Netrek evolved. ]
- <p>
-
- REMEMBER: Netrek is not Star Trek. Netrek is not reality. Star Trek is
- not reality. Netrek is not Nintendo. DO NOT suggest modifications purely
- to make the game "more realistic". ONLY consider ideas that will improve
- game play.
- <p>
-
- <h3>Contents</h3>
- <a href="#1">
- 1. How about team DI?
- </a><br><a href="#2">
- 2. How about no DI at all (+ changes in general)?
- </a><br><a href="#3">
- 3. All ships shouldn't fire 8 torps.
- </a><br><a href="#4">
- 4. Let's make cloakers blind.
- </a><br><a href="#5">
- 5. Let's allow cloakers to fire.
- </a><br><a href="#6">
- 6. The DD needs to be improved.
- </a><br><a href="#7">
- 7. Here's a neat idea for a new ship.
- </a><br><a href="#8">
- 8. How about a ship design system?
- </a><br><a href="#9">
- 9. Remove the kill restriction on army carrying.
- </a><br><a href="#10">
- 10. Remove the kill restriction on plasma torps.
- </a><br><a href="#11">
- 11. Get rid of LPSs.
- </a><br><a href="#12">
- 12. Get rid of Iggy!
- </a><br><a href="#13">
- 13. Combine all of the server processes into one.
- </a><br><a href="#14">
- 14. Put the number of armies next to the planet.
- </a><br><a href="#15">
- 15. Highlight ships with kills.
- </a><br><a href="#16">
- 16. Prevent bombing/taking out of T-mode.
- </a><br><a href="#17">
- 17. Just have a two-race galaxy.
- </a><br><a href="#18">
- 18. Add incentives for scout bombing.
- </a><br><a href="#19">
- 19. Protect ships that are fully lagged.
- </a><br><a href="#20">
- 20. Change the names of the races or the planets.
- </a><br><a href="#21">
- 21. Add ship collisions.
- </a><br><a href="#22">
- 22. Give planets gravity or motion.
- </a><br><a href="#23">
- 23. Set up an invitation-only clue server.
- </a><br><a href="#24">
- 24. Allow ships to drop mines.
- </a><br><a href="#25">
- 25. Have the client update the torps instead of the server.
- </a><br><a href="#26">
- 26. Have ships come in at the starbase instead of a planet.
- </a><br><a href="#27">
- 27. Ships should auto-repair at warp 0.
- </a><br><a href="#28">
- 28. Change the way the wait queue works.
- </a><br><a href="#29">
- 29. Add steering keys.
- </a><br><a href="#30">
- 30. Prevent butt-torping.
- </a><br><a href="#31">
- 31. Have a database that's shared between multiple servers.
- </a><br><a href="#A1">
- A1. Appendix: Sturgeon II changes
- </a><br><a href="#A2">
- A2. Appendix: Extreme Netrek
- </a><br><a href="#A3">
- A3. Appendix: How to propose a change
- </a>
-
- <hr>
- <a name="1"><h4>
- 1. How about team DI?
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- Too many rank scums out there for themselves. Need to add an incentive for
- team play, so that they will get more DI if their team does better.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- Change the DI structure so that you get points for stuff your teammates do.
- Alternatively, change it so that you get points for different "team stuff",
- like taking strategically placed planets or killing carriers.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why not:</strong><br>
- Most "team DI" schemes will cause people to switch to the team that's
- winning, because that's where the points are. It is possible right now to
- see the players on each team before making the initial team selection; this
- would make unfair teams the rule.
- <p>
-
- Changing the individual values of things is difficult when you consider how
- the current DI scheme works. "DI" is simply the sum of offense, bombing,
- and planet ranks, multiplied by the number of hours you have been playing,
- and then adjusted according to the global average. There are no fixed DI
- values for doing certain things; just your relationship to the rest of the
- people on the server.
- <p>
-
- If you try to reward players on teams that are doing well, people will
- quit when their team starts to lose, creating a steamroll effect (all
- the clued people join the winning side, all the non-clues stay on the
- losing side). Keeping track of planets won/lost during a game is a nice
- idea, but will lead to a lot of quit-scumming when the other team is
- taking a planet or two. Rank scums will always be scums; you can change
- the rules but they will always find annoying ways of working around them.
- <p>
-
- Killing people with armies gives you (5*armies) bombing credit, and taking
- core planets is worth more than other planets, so the incentives exist;
- people are simply unaware of them or feel it is easier to do things the
- scum way.
- <p>
-
- Incidentally, DI works like this:
- <p>
-
- <li>There are three factors: bombing (the number of armies you have,
- bombed), offense (the number of enemies you have killed), and
- planets (the number of planets you have taken). There's also defense
- (number of times you have been killed), but most servers have done
- away with the defense criteria since ogging became popular.
- <p>
-
- <li>The server takes these values, considers how long it took you to
- get them, and then compares that against the server average. From
- this you get "ratings", where having a 1.0 bombing rating means you
- bomb as many armies per unit time as the average player, 2.0 ratings
- mean you bomb twice as many, and so on.
- <p>
-
- <li>The bombing, planet, and offense ratings are added. This gives your
- total ratings. An average player would have 3.0 ratings.
- <p>
-
- <li>The ratings are multiplied by the number of hours you have spent in
- t-mode on that server. This is your DI.
- <p>
-
- Hitting 'U' (shift-u) while playing brings up a chart showing what ratings
- and how many hours you need to make a particular rank. You can also promote
- if you don't have the ratings but have twice the DI, or if you're ratings
- are two points down and you have four times the DI. You can't be demoted.
- <p>
-
- Many players are under the misconception that you "get DI" for doing a
- particular action. You don't.
- <p>
-
- <hr>
- <a name="2"><h4>
- 2. How about no DI at all?
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- DI is a mistake. It is the reason for scumming.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- Toss it. At least toss all the ranks above Captain.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why not:</strong><br>
- Many people like to advance in rank. DI was developed because the original
- Xtrek had nothing but win/loss stats, so ratio scumming was the only way to
- look impressive (you think DI is bad... heh). There are a large number of
- Admirals who like having their rank (hey, it took them a long time to get
- there), and some of them run servers. DI is like the USA's electoral voting
- system: it's not great, and the country might be better without it, but it's
- not going away without a major fight.
- <p>
-
- Besides which, it's a good way to attract [scum] players to new servers.
- <p>
-
- Any change to DI is simply going to shift scumming one way or the other.
- Most arcade games are centered around the accumulation of points; the object
- is to do certain things, for which you rewarded. The idea of Netrek, however,
- is to win the game; rank should be just an incidental feature. However,
- there will always be those who see the accumulation of points, rank, or
- whatever as the driving goal.
- <p>
-
- The Holy Grail of DI changing is a system that rewards only non-scum
- activities. However, telling scumming from teamwork requires human
- intervention or artificial intelligence in most cases.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Jean-Marc Tanzi writes:</strong><br>
- >I believe that any team game, like netrek, where a machine could
- >really compute how well you play cannot be that good.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Other interesting ideas:</strong><br>
- <li>Have players promote each other. Once you get to a certain rank, you can
- promote those beneath you. This has a chicken & egg problem which can be
- solved by importing a database or with some active administration at first.
- Note this is open to abuses (demoting people you don't like, promoting
- really lame players to embarass them, etc), and tends to trivialize rank.
- Tried on b62150.student.cwru.edu, never widely accepted.
- <p>
-
- <li>Shift planet credit so that you get partial credit for making it neutral
- and partial credit for taking it. This is accomplished by (for example)
- multiplying everybody's planet rating by 3 and then awarding 1 for neuting
- and 2 for taking. Since the global average is also multiplied by 3,
- player ratings don't change, so DI is constant. Tried on
- bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (now lexus). Doesn't seem to significantly
- change the game.
- <p>
-
- <hr>
- <a name="3"><h4>
- 3. All ships shouldn't fire 8 torps.
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- The game is unbalanced. SBs should be able to shoot more torps than others.
- Maybe SCs shouldn't be able to shoot as many.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- Increase SB torps to 12, or scale all others accordingly.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why not:</strong><br>
- Going to 12 torps requires mods to both client and server. This will increase
- CPU time slightly, and will increase network usage. You can't just switch
- on the ship type, either, because a SB could fire 12 torps and then refit.
- <p>
-
- Scaling all ships down (so that an SC would fire, say, three torps total)
- has been tried on Sturgeon; see <a href="#A1">appendix A1.</a>
- <p>
-
- Any change to the ship characteristics is going to be met with a great deal
- of resistance. The game is very carefully balanced, and any changes can
- result in drastic changes in the way it's played.
- <p>
-
- <hr>
- <a name="4"><h4>
- 4. Let's make cloakers blind.
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- Cloaking is too powerful. Ogging is getting out of hand.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- Remove certain items from the tac display of a cloaked ship, like enemy
- ships, planets, torps, etc.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why not:</strong><br>
- Been done. Not very popular. Removing planets makes them hard to take
- (you just sit there watching your 'O' flag, hoping that nobody will kill
- you because they KNOW you are coming straight in). Removing torps is bad
- for the same reason.
- <p>
-
- Removing other players to make ogging harder is bad because most players
- LIKE ogging. It's fun, and it's part of the game.
- <p>
-
- It turns out that this is a good example of why not to change the rules of
- the game. As people have gotten better at phaserlocking and being aware
- of the galactic, ogging has become very difficult; where it used to
- dominate strategy, now most top teams actively avoid cloaking in most
- situations.
- <p>
-
- <hr>
- <a name="5"><h4>
- 5. Let's allow cloakers to fire.
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- Now that Star Trek VI is out, cloakers (esp. Kli) should be able to fire.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- Allow ships to fire when cloaked, possibly with a higher fuel or wtemp cost.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why not:</strong><br>
- Gimme a break. Ogging would become trivial without changes to other parts
- of the game. See the Sturgeon changes in <a href="#A1">Appendix A1.</a>
- <p>
-
- <hr>
- <a name="6"><h4>
- 6. The DD needs to be improved.
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- The DD is weak. It can't take bomb as well as an SC, and it can't fight as
- well as CA.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- Give the DD bigger shields, or bigger torps (30 is too small), or more
- powerful phasers, and perhaps a bigger fuel tank.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why not:</strong><br>
- As Tom Holub put it (paraphrased), "The CA is weak. It can't bomb as well
- as a DD, and it can't fight as well as a BB." All ships have their place,
- it's just a question of finding the right niche. DDs can carry 5 armies,
- making them more of a threat to planets than the SC.
- <p>
-
- Several discussions have raged over rec.games.netrek about what the One True
- Use of the DD is. None have been found. They can't be used as a big SC
- nor as a small CA; they require a different perspective. I won't offer
- them here, but will instead relegate it to the thrice-revised DD Players Guide.
- <p>
-
- As a side note, the cooling rate on DDs was changed from 6 to 7, allowing
- them to go great distances without overheating. Many players who previously
- thought the DD fully worthless now consider it to be valuable in certain
- circumstances. This is another example of changes in play styles affecting
- perception of the game; DD cooling was originally changed from 7 to 6
- because DD's were considered too powerful.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Newer, alternative proposals:</strong><br>
- <li>make the CA weaker, by reducing phaser strength or manuverability (but
- then the SC gets correspondingly stronger) [implemented on bigbang]
- <p>
-
- <li>have a reentry delay based on ship size (again, the SC gets stronger, plus
- no one wants to spend time looking at the entry screen.
- <p>
-
- <li>give the DD mondo plasmas, making it a special-purpose ship
- <p>
-
- <li>remove the DD entirely so people stop whining
- <p>
-
- I (the pronoun "I" is somewhat ambugious in this document, as I, Tom Holub,
- have not removed all of Andy McFadden's "I"s) am personally of the opinion
- that there isn't space for a full-time ship in between the current CA and
- the current SC--any ship between the two will be either useful only in
- spots, or will be powerful enough to make one of the others obsolete. I
- don't think this is a bad thing.
- <p>
-
- <hr>
- <a name="7"><h4>
- 7. Here's a neat idea for a new ship.
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- There's a gap in Netrek that really needs to be filled.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- I want a new ship X that can do Y and Z.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why not:</strong><br>
- KSU-Galaxy/Chaos servers are a prime example of ship design run amok. The
- GA had huge torps, fast phasers, an incredible refueling rate, and eventually
- they even boosted the manuverability on some servers. As a result, nobody
- played anything but GA (there were some DD holdouts, but once you could turn
- in GA at a reasonable warp most of those switched over).
- <p>
-
- You may think your new design will fit perfectly into Netrek. You're
- probably wrong. Some examples from the past:
- <p>
-
- <li>mini-starbase. Like your normal SB, but less filling. You'd get a couple
- on a team, or maybe just have them more often. Two of these together,
- pressoring each other out of danger, would be damn near invincible when
- guarding a repair planet. It's basically a Super Planet Defender, like
- a BB on steroids, and it really wouldn't add anything new to the game,
- since it's easier to ogg than an SB and slower than a BB.
- <p>
-
- <li>fighters. SBs would launch these, perhaps they'd be robot-controlled.
- Again, neat idea, but so what? They would either have to occupy a player
- slot (reducing the number of other robots you can have) or require
- modifications to both client and server (which is a Bad Thing). Again,
- what do they add? Are they any different from plasma torps with a high
- tracking setting? See the <a href="#A1">Sturgeon changes</a>, which
- implemented them as slow-moving tracking torps, which SBs could fire instead
- of normal torps.
- <p>
-
- <li>floating fuel platform. Another pseudo-SB, which looks like an AS but
- has fuel like an SB. Easy ogg target; what good is it if you have to keep
- it sitting behind your home planet? One BB can off the thing, so it's
- not even valuable as a distraction.
- <p>
-
- <li>ogger ship. Maybe it uncloaks fast (a la the old Calvin scheme), or it
- does 200 points of damage when it explodes, or it has small torps but a
- big phaser, or whatever. Anybody who thinks they need this has never been
- ogged by somebody in a CA who knows what they're doing. This would just
- make Ogging by Idiots that much easier.
- <p>
-
- <li>super scout ship. Strip off most offensive weaponry, make it real fast.
- What's the point? Try stopping a good SC player, and THEN see if you
- really want to propose this.
- <p>
-
- <li>big fat starbase. This one has the actual size increased, making it easier
- to hit, but is given better shields to compensate. So what's the point...?
- It would involve changing a lot of code in the server and client to special
- case the various options, plus new bitmaps (for shield/cloak as well),
- etc, etc.
- <p>
-
- Many suggestions like these come from people trying to compensate for
- inadequacies in the ships (sounds vaguely Freudian, doesn't it?) It takes
- time and a lot of practice to become a really effective player; even
- the lowly SC can be a marvelous dogfighting ship when it's flown by a
- skilled player (with no lag).
- <p>
-
- The "paradise" server introduced a number of new ships, but it also changed
- a LOT of other game features, and required a new client to play. One was
- the "jump ship", which could carry 4 players and go warp 30, but had only
- 25 shields and 25 damage. (Paradise continues to be refined, so I'm not
- going to try and describe their setup.)
- <p>
-
- <hr>
- <a name="8"><h4>
- 8. How about a ship design system?
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- Other games (e.g. xtank) allow you to change the way your ship is set up. I
- want to be able to adjust my ship characteristics according to the way I play.
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- Allow ship characteristics to be adjusted by the player.
-
- <strong>Why not:</strong><br>
- This was implemented in a version of the original Xtrek game. The tendency
- was to do things like strip all torpedos, most of the hull, half of the
- engines, and all of the cloaking ability from the ship and get phasers that
- could do 40 points of damage to ships outside of visual range (but had to
- be orbiting a fuel planet to fire more than twice).
- <p>
-
- Games quickly became ridiculous. Either your planets were being taken by
- someone completely invisible, or you were getting destroyed by ships you
- couldn't see. Nobody bothered dodging, because nobody fired torps.
- Basically, this winds up removing strategic aspects from the game in
- favor of tactical aspects, and that's not a good thing.
- <p>
-
- Any implementation will require carefully balanced limits and a lot of play
- time before it would become widespread. Anyone who wishes to try this will
- likely have to set up their own server and then try very hard to attract
- players to it.
- <p>
-
- As a side note, <a href="#A1">Sturgeon</a> has a feature somewhat like this:
- predefined ship upgrades after you get kills. Unfortunately this can (and
- does) encourage ratio scumming and runner scumming, because nobody with a nice
- big fat ship wants to die. (It also introduced "upgrade scumming" to the
- world: repeatedly killing a second login to get lots of upgrades.)
- <p>
-
- <hr>
- <a name="9"><h4>
- 9. Remove the kill restriction on army carrying.
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- Imposing a restriction based on kills is unrealistic and silly.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- Allow any player to carry armies.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why not:</strong><br>
- If you allow this, you remove a big part of the challenge of the game.
- Getting a kill and staying alive while trying to move armies around is
- one of primary challenges in Netrek. If anybody can carry armies, then
- every player is a potential planet taker, and it's impossible to focus
- the defense of your space.
- <p>
-
- You will also increase the instances of Ensign Fubar scampering about,
- picking up armies and dying with them. This is a Very Bad Thing when your
- team is low on armies. If a player can't get a kill, he probably doesn't
- have the skill or experience to take a planet without getting nailed.
- <p>
-
- (People who need practice taking planets need to practice staying alive first!)
- <p>
-
- For those who insist on reality, it can be argued that Star Fleet Command
- doesn't like to entrust armies with commanders who haven't proven themselves
- in battle (especially Kli!) It has also been suggested that the captains
- use the hull fragments of the enemy starships to build crew accommodations
- for the armies.
- <p>
-
- <hr>
- <a name="10"><h4>
- 10. Remove the kill restriction on plasma torps.
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- Requiring kills for plasmas is silly.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- Allow plasmas for one and all.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why Not:</strong><br>
- While this is a trivial server change (quick alteration to .sysdef), it's
- there for a reason, namely that having 8 battleships with plasma torps makes
- taking planets impossible. LPSs would never end. Chaos servers allowed
- infinite plasmas, and plasma-wars became rather common. So did plasma-
- muggings (you can't shoot three incoming plasmas!) The ping-pong plasmas
- made life interesting, but then there's not much point in taking planets
- on a Chaos server anyway.
- <p>
-
- The way things are now, players with 2+ kills can be ogged, which prevents
- them from firing more plasmas.
- <p>
-
- While it's true that the rich become richer (or perhaps the deadly become
- more deadly), there's nothing wrong with elitism in Netrek. It's just a
- game. Deal with it.
- <p>
-
- <hr>
- <a name="11"><h4>
- 11. Get rid of LPSs.
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- LPSs suck. They're boring and they make my stats hurt.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- Various ideas. A small sampling:
- <li>have a 5 second delay before players can reenter
- <li>have a delay inversely proportional to the number of planets your team has
- <li>enter moving away at maxwarp
- <li>have the presence of enemy ships force new ships to appear farther away
- (a la Plato Empire)
- <li>enter without fuel (this is also used as an anti-psycho-ogging "fix")
- <li>use the random entry planet selection stuff, extended to work on planets
- that the team doesn't own
- <li>allow a certain number of construction points per minute; big ships use
- more construction points; once exceeded, you have to wait for it to climb
- back up
- <li>genocide happens when only one planet remains
- <li>allow a ship with 5 or 10 kills to carry a MondoBomb; when it reaches the
- planet it obliterates it
- <li>turn an SC with 3 kills into Super Ogger, doing several hundred points of
- damage with its explosion
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why Not:</strong><br>
- The Last Planet Stand is one of the few things in Netrek that absolutely
- REQUIRES teamwork. It is nearly impossible to break an LPS unless the
- attackers are organized or the defenders are largely clueless.
- <p>
-
- A reasonable solution to the Indefinite LPS (one that drags on and on
- because all the clued players on the attacking side bailed) is the Bronco
- LPS timer. The attackers get 30 minutes to break it, at which point the
- galaxy resets. There are players who dislike the timer because it encourages
- the attackers to slack off ("oh, we'll just wait for the timer, we'll never
- break through), but it's proven to be a reasonable compromise, although it
- has definitely reduced the average LPS-breaking ability.
- <p>
-
- LPSs are here to stay. It is possible to come back from one, just as it is
- possible to genocide a race. If you are concerned about the damage to your
- stats, then set up your own server, scum your way to admiral, and get on
- with your life.
- <p>
-
- Side note: LPSs with homeworld agris are monumentally unpopular. You can
- hold off against a fleet with greater numbers without too much difficulty.
- Most servers explicitly prevent the home world from being agri; if your
- favorite server doesn't, tell the server admin. (The other side of the
- coin is that, once taken, it's harder for the home team to retake. I don't
- think this balances the pain of taking it in the first place, however.)
- <p>
-
- <hr>
- <a name="12"><h4>
- 12. Get rid of Iggy!
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- Iggy is nothing but a pain.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- Lose him.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why Not:</strong><br>
- Iggy is a Bronco server feature that adds a bit more randomness to the game;
- it's a robot that comes in at intervals and chases the nearest ship. The
- only reason it ever made it into the normal server distribution is that
- the server god of bronco, Terence Chang, invented it, and the CMU weenies
- thought of it as their own. Gladly, Iggy has now been removed from all major
- servers; robots come in only when players do stuff like take planets out
- of t-mode.
-
- <hr>
- <a name="13"><h4>
- 13. Combine all of the server processes into one.
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- My workstation can't handle all the context switches.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- Merge all the ntserv processes into one, and maybe even combine them with
- daemonII, so instead of the Server Union we'd have the Unified Process.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why Not:</strong><br>
- A few people have tried this. There are advantages and disadvantages to
- doing this, not the least of which is that it requires a complete rewrite of
- the server, a partial to full rewrite of the client, and will work best as a
- strictly UDP implementation (which requires a whole new protocol).
- <p>
-
- Among the disadvantages are the possible loss of the shared memory segment
- (which kills the traditional tool interface), the need to bring the server
- down whenever changes are made, the inability to simply restart failed
- components (ex: restartable daemon), changes in CPU load possibly resulting
- in lower UNIX process priorities (and thus worse real-time performance),
- changes in the way the kernel sees Netrek (e.g. waiting for I/O), poorer
- performance on MP machines, the larger executable will be more likely to be
- swapped out under BSD, loss of memory firewalls between components,
- possibility of security breaches in a UDP-only setup, etc, etc.
- <p>
-
- There are a number of advantages, but this file is meant to discourage you,
- not entice you. A reading of the process scheduling chapter in _The Design
- and Implementation of 4.3BSD UNIX_ should be required for anyone contemplating
- this. It turns out to not be a big deal, anyway; all modern machines can
- handle a full netrek server.
- <p>
-
- Here's a note from somebody who once tried it:
- <p>
-
- <pre>
- -----
- Article 11256 of rec.games.netrek:
- From: jrichard@cs.cs (John 'MacGyver' Richardson)
- Date: 30 Dec 92 05:31:11 GMT
-
- [...]
- Ok, not to beat a dead dog, but I've been working on this for a while now.
- It was pretty easy to come up with multiplexed I/O for logging in. HOWEVER,
- the big problems are:
-
- o scheduling becomes a disaster! However, I'm trying reading
- one packet from whoever's ready and going on to the next slot.
- Updates taken care of by the daemon now get taken care of by
- a signal handler.
-
- o reading and writing becomes a disaster! If you use TCP you have
- to deal with partial reads and writes of packets because you have
- to use nonblocking I/O. If you want to write code, you have to
- have states for everything in the universe (so to speak). The
- solution? Use UDP only. But that requires a TCP like protocol
- to get those packets that absolutely have to get there (like a
- login name). Feel like re-inventing the wheel? I sure feel
- like I am now. :)
- [...]
- -----
- </pre>
-
- This guy clearly didn't know about select(), but there are issues with that,
- as well.
- <p>
-
- <hr>
- <a name="14"><h4>
- 14. Put the number of armies next to the planet.
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- It's annoying to have to hit 'i' all the time to get army counts.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- Put the number of armies on each planet next to the planet's bitmap on the
- galactic map.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why Not:</strong><br>
- This is the first step down the path to "Netrek for Morons(tm)". You can see
- when a planet pops by watching the galactic map; having ever-increasing army
- counts staring you in the face is like having a compass attached to your
- nose.
- <p>
-
- It's true that the information is accessible, if somewhat inconvenient.
- However, players who aren't paying attention won't see the new army
- numbers, and are less likely to react to an army bitmap on the display than
- they are to seeing "15" next to Sir. If you aren't paying attention to
- armies, you lose. There are several places in Netrek where this is the
- case.
- <p>
-
- Netrek rewards vigilance and a keen eye as well as intelligence and fast
- reflexes. Being constantly aware of everything around you is a challenge
- beyond the goals of the game itself; it requires the player to improve
- himself, and rewards experience. Doing all but say, "do this next" will
- make things too simple, and reduce the sense of accomplishment acquired
- from mastery of the game. Knowing exactly where the armies are and how many
- requires as much skill as holding a phaser lock, which is as it should be.
- <p>
-
- There are those who think otherwise. I'm not presenting their opinions here,
- because if you are about to propose this then you share those opinions
- already. Suffice it to say that there is enough disagreement to keep this
- from becoming a standard feature of Netrek.
- <p>
-
- <hr>
- <a name="15"><h4>
- 15. Highlight ships with kills.
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- It's too annoying to have to look down at the player list, and relate that
- to the people flying around.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- Mark players with kills somehow.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why Not:</strong><br>
- This is yet another stepping stone on the path to ButtHeadTrek. This would
- essentially stick a big "Ogg Me" sign on the engines of anybody with a kill.
- You don't even have to pay attention to the game to know what you should do
- when you encounter a ship with kills.
- <p>
-
- While this is in the same vein as the army counts, it isn't really
- controversial, possibly because the guys who like the army counts also like
- to take planets and don't want to get swamped by "stupid oggers."
- <p>
-
-
- <hr>
- <a name="16"><h4>
- 16. Prevent bombing/taking out of T-mode.
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- Many players either don't know Netrek-etiquette about not messing with
- planets outside of T-mode, or they choose to ignore it.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- Make the server enforce it.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why Not:</strong><br>
- The main problem with it is that sometimes its okay to bomb out of t-mode.
- If you've got a 2-on-2 "training" session and just want to practice trading
- planets, it's annoying to have it blocked. Making this policy work without
- getting in the way generally requires human intervention. Most servers
- nowadays do something to prevent you from doing this, but, for example,
- on servers where you can't take neutral planets out of t-mode, you can
- genocide a team (leaving their last planet neutral), and then they quit
- out, you lose T-mode, and you can't reset the galaxy because you can't take
- neutral planets.
- <p>
- The most common implementation now is to not allow bombing, but to allow
- dropping armies out of t-mode. This gets around the problem resetting the
- galaxy. Most server send in robots to kill people who do this, which
- should keep people from doing it too much.
- <p>
-
- <hr>
- <a name="17"><h4>
- 17. Just have a two-race galaxy.
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- Netrek is a descendant of Empire, which had four warring races. However,
- Netrek games typically have only two races fighting each other, so the rest
- of the planets are just worthless junk. This increases network/CPU overhead,
- and leads to 3rd-race scumming.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- Remove two of the races. Leave Fed/Rom, or Rom/Kli (with a reorg of KLI
- space).
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why Not:</strong><br>
- The other planets serve a variety of uses. They can be used by scout bombers
- and planet takers for refueling and repair, and allow cloaking near hostile
- space. It also allows 3rd-space scumming, but that's a different issue.
- <p>
-
- Most importantly, the size of the galaxy increases the area which needs
- to be defended. If you reduce the galaxy to a two-way, it will be impossible
- to attack from or retreat to neutral space. All offensive actions will take
- place in a single corridor, making starbases and large ships much more
- important. Bombing and deep planet taking will become more difficult
- because there is a single path of attack.
- <p>
-
- Whether you think this is a good idea or not, there's no denying that it
- will dramatically change game strategies. It is unlikely that such a
- proposal will be popular.
- <p>
-
- <hr>
- <a name="18"><h4>
- 18. Add incentives for scout bombing.
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- Very few people are willing to SC-bomb because of the drain on stats (too
- much time away from taking planets). Bombing 2 or 3 armies at a time doesn't
- really help the bombing stats much; ogging carriers may do more.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- Change the amount of bombing credit based on the number of armies sitting
- on the planet when bombing began. So you'd get massive credit for bombing
- the last three armies, but not nearly as much for bombing it from 60 to 55.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Alternate proposal:</strong><br>
- Start all planets out at 5 or 6 armies.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why Not:</strong><br>
- Both proposals suffer from the fact that average bombing stats have already
- been computed on most servers based on the "one army, one vote" scheme
- with 30 initial armies on each planet. Changing the setup mid-stream would
- make it nearly impossible to get a 1.0 bombing rating.
- <p>
-
- It's also highly unlikely that anybody really concerned about rank is going
- to do much scout bombing anyway. Advancing bombing at the expense of
- offense and planets is not a good way to scum up to Admiral.
- <p>
-
- The alternate proposal also affects the ability of a starbase to fill up
- with 25 armies at the start of a game. Overall, the second proposal will
- likely have a dramatic impact on the way the first few minutes of a game
- are played - something that isn't likely to go over too well with the "old
- timers."
- <p>
-
- The INL server, and some pickup servers, have gone to 17-army game starts;
- this helps some, but not enough. It does allow the base to get 25 armies
- fairly easily, however.
- <p>
-
- lexus.astro.indiana.edu has also implemented "flatten credit"; you get extra
- bombing credit for bombing all the armies off a planet, no matter how many
- started there. That way, bombing a planet from 5 to 4 (which SC bombers do
- all the time) is worth more than bombing it from 17 to 16. It still
- doesn't make bombing a high-DI activity.
- <p>
-
- <hr>
- <a name="19"><h4>
- 19. Protect ships that are fully lagged.
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- When a client becomes seriously lagged, the player usually ends up getting
- snuffed by the first bozo who comes within visual range.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Proposal:</strong><br>
- Make a server mod so that ghostbusted players are invulnerable until the
- connection gets reestablished.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why Not:</strong><br>
- <pre>
- >From: jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick)
- >Subject: Re: Playing with lag
- >Date: 11 Aug 92 01:24:29 GMT
- >
- >Last time it came up, one objection I remember is that it would become
- >trivial to abuse. Want to take that last planet? Lock on, cloak, max
- >warp, and then yank the ethernet connector out of your machine. Wait
- >30 seconds while the defenders waste all their fuel on you, and then
- >finally realize that you're in Protected Mode. Stick the ethernet
- >connector back in, beam down your armies, genocide the galaxy.
- >
- >Or if you're worth less when in Protected Mode, just yank the ethernet
- >connector whenever death seems inevitable.
- </pre>
-
- Depending on the implementation, you might be able to just hit ^Z and
- suspend your process. When the client host's buffers fill up it'll look
- just like a network storm to the server host. If all you want to handle
- is fully severed clients then you won't be solving the problem; the only
- time my client has been severed is when the server goes down.
- <p>
-
- <hr>
- <a name="20"><h4>
- 20. Change the names of the races or the planets.
- </h4></a>
-
- <strong>Problem:</strong><br>
- Feds never fight Klingons, and who are these Orions, anyway? The names
- are outdated and don't reflect Trek stuff.
- <p>
-
- <strong>Solution:</strong><br>
- Use Ferengi, Cardassians, or some other "real life" hostile races. Change
- the names of some of the planets to reflect Star Trek stuff, i.e. use
- names like "Farpoint" and "Vulcan".
- <p>
-
- <strong>Why Not:</strong><br>
- The names of the races and the planets are ingrained into Netrek players.
- If somebody says "clear org", experienced players know where to go without
- even looking at the map.
- <p>
-
- Races are the same way. Everyone who has played for a while is used to Rom
- being top left, Orion being lower right, etc. People don't write, "K3 is
- scumming in lower-left space". It's Fed space, and it always should be.
- Sure, people would get used to it after a while, but I don't think most
- people WANT to get used to it. In a few situations it can be a real pain,
- such as when the first letter changes. If you want to send a message to the
- other team, you have to use a different key. It's also used in a lot of
- places in the code, so it'd be a pain to change (and if you didn't change
- the code, but rather just the external appearance, it'd be very confusing
- for people prying into the source code).
- <p>
-
- Remember what this document says up top: Netrek is not Star Trek, Netrek is
- not Real Life. It's a game, with names chosen as convenient points of
- reference. If you want to set up a server with California city names or
- campus buildings instead of star systems, feel free. This has been done,
- but it's never caught on.
- <p>
-
- <hr>
-