Elitist attitudes and poor sportsmanship? Not in my Matricks Online! NEVAR!!!!1
Hovercraft Battles
442 posts · 2007-08-29 08:37:55 to 2009-05-15 04:18:45
Garu wrote:
Elitist attitudes and poor sportsmanship? Not in my Matricks Online! NEVAR!!!!1
no u
Here's an idea, Neoteny...
What if winning the battle only gave you 2 XP, losing gave you 1. And then you got an additional amount of XP for destroying another ship based on their rank?
Rank 0 - 0 XP
Rank 1 - 1 XP
Rank 2 - 2 XP
etc.
I know that idea on it's own won't really stand, but just throwing it out there to see if someone could improve on it. There's got to be a way for lower ranked ships to be rewarded for fighting against higher ranked ships, thus allowing them to catch up.
The problem I see there is that there's a probability that the lower ranked captains participating would receive 0 XP in a battle, which would halt their expansion.
I could possibly agree with attaching 1 XP per rank difference for downing a ship ranked above you (i.e. rank 2 downs a rank 3, gets 1 bonus XP). The trouble I see with this is that it might end up being largely applied to already ranked captains (i.e. Sieges would get the kill shot on Bindi's ship and get 1 bonus XP becaus Bindi is rank 3 and Sieges is rank 2, and that isn't so entirely necessary). If it's applied across the board, it could also be easily used to upgrade already ranked ships even moreso.
The other thing is that certain ships, like yours, Fen, are impregnable against standard loadout starter ships. They straight up have a 0% chance of hitting you. Unless you play stupid and lose a bunch of rams, without some sort of upgrade to level things out, you're going to win no matter what. Same goes for Bindi and hitting things - there is no chance to dodge any shot she takes.
What would you think about a system where upgrades would be randomly placed along an enemy side of a map, whereby they could collect a +1 to ballistics, +1 shields (to whichever ship performs a land action on said square) in order to attempt to temporarily improve against a force that outmatches them?
I think the upgrades on the map would be a good way to meet both parties in this, because as Neoteny said it was very frustrating rolling 3 and you still don't put a dent in the other ship ... not to say - it's unrealistic.
Synapse777 wrote:
not to say - it's unrealistic.
but they haz uberleet neo pwrz
Synapse777 wrote:
I think the upgrades on the map would be a good way to meet both parties in this, because as Neoteny said it was very frustrating rolling 3 and you still don't put a dent in the other ship ... not to say - it's unrealistic.
One way you could've brought my ship down is via ram. While 3 vs 4 is in my favor, it's not impossible. Void, who had only 2 hull vs. my 3 hull at the time took me out in two hits. He did a ram... he rolled a three, and I rolled a one. Then he rammed again, and got a successful ballistics roll against me.
If you'd looked at which captains would be participating, you could've built your own ship to become quite a match. You could've had a ship that had, say... 5 hull, 1 shield, 0 ballistics, 0 energy. You could've rammed me, and had an equal chance of deflecting my ballistics, which is only 1.
You made your ship a default ship (3 1 1 1), and then had them sit there and shoot at me. There are always other options to pursue. Another tactic, you could've made your ship with high energy, lure us out of our positions, and then use your speed as an advantage to get your ship through and to the other side. Or, hit us with EMPs every round while Tekmon and the drones made a drive to move past.
I don't think it's unrealistic. I've put considerable effort to beef up my ship's armor and hull integrity. You were shooting a Sherman tank with a pistol.
Neoteny, what about changing up rolls? Make it /roll 6 or something (except for moves, which would still be /roll 3).
I didn't know what the outcome of any other setting than 3 1 1 1 could have done to the game we played, but given you got more experience you of course see other aspects to it.
Fen wrote:
Neoteny, what about changing up rolls? Make it /roll 6 or something (except for moves, which would still be /roll 3).
I actually almost like this idea better than temporary stat increases. There is still an advantage, but it is reduced somewhat. I don't think any real strategic capacity of the game would be lost to this, either, since the rolls are just luck.
What are the other thoughts on this?
Neoteny wrote:
Fen wrote:
Neoteny, what about changing up rolls? Make it /roll 6 or something (except for moves, which would still be /roll 3).
I actually almost like this idea better than temporary stat increases. There is still an advantage, but it is reduced somewhat. I don't think any real strategic capacity of the game would be lost to this, either, since the rolls are just luck.
What are the other thoughts on this?
I'm willing to give it a try.
Initiate Bell curve. Make it a different set of EXP than just 10 to rank up, and on top of that change the EXP system from
3 win
2 win die
1 die
to something more substantial like Fenshire said Exp per kill/per win because in the current system you can have people gaining EXP without fighting.
Maybe a
2 pt. Win
1 pt. Kill
-1 pt. die
Throw in a death penalty. No one fears a suicide runs in these fights, we're all basically Cyphs in this (XD).
Doing this with a Bell curve on ranking up would make it a longer drive for points and to initiate we'd have to reset the ship scores too. Just an Idea.
Neoteny wrote:
Fen wrote:
Neoteny, what about changing up rolls? Make it /roll 6 or something (except for moves, which would still be /roll 3).
I actually almost like this idea better than temporary stat increases. There is still an advantage, but it is reduced somewhat. I don't think any real strategic capacity of the game would be lost to this, either, since the rolls are just luck.
What are the other thoughts on this?
At first, I was going to suggest giving lower rank ships enough temporary stat increases to only make up part of the difference. For example, if there was a rank 0 vs a rank 2, you could give the rank 0 just one extra stat point. That way, the rank 2 doesn't feel that their accomplishments are completely meaningless, and the lower rank ship's disadvantage is not as significant.
However, I think I like the /random 6 idea even better.
/ random 6 sounds good for the gun shield and ram rolls, but for energy thats going to make turns huge and would reduce the need for an extra energy point.
Lt0Brien wrote:
/ random 6 sounds good for the gun shield and ram rolls, but for energy thats going to make turns huge and would reduce the need for an extra energy point.
Energy would still be /random 3, as Fen suggested.
K let me know when the next battle is, Ive got a good 7 days left on my sub XD
Ill be back though.
When will B1t's Crew get experience for the last battle?
The rolls changed /6 sounds good.
CodeNut wrote:
When will B1t's Crew get experience for the last battle?
It has already been given:
Okay thanks. Different link from the OP. Kinda confusing.
CodeNut wrote:
Okay thanks. Different link from the OP. Kinda confusing.
Vogt stopped running the Hovercraft battles and I don't have the kind of financial assets to maintain something on a page like awardspace (I looked up the information). So for the purpose of maintaining the battles, I essentially cloned the website with substantial editing to the rules page (to reflect accuracy to the game), updated ranks page, and a use for the combat page.
Maybe I can see if Virrago can edit that first post to include the new link sometime, though.
OK. I've been thinking about a way to level the field between ranked and non-ranked captains. The roll to 6 on ballistics and shields, might not solve the problem in a fair way as I see it. So, I propose the following: A Skill roll.
A Skill roll will apply only if there's a rank difference greater than 1, i.e. if both players are of the same rank it won't apply. Roll base number will be 3, as any other battle roll.
If a higher ranking player wins the roll, s/he will keep her/his base statistic (ballistic, shield) at her/his current level, for the next regular (ballistic, shield) roll. For example, a Rank 1 captain wins the Skill roll and a ballistic roll will resolve, s/he keeps her/his ballistic stat at 2 (given s/he has the regular ship configuration) as the base for the ballistic roll.
If a lower ranking player wins the roll, the higher player will have it's base statistics (ballistic, shield) lowered at the same level of the lower ranking player, for the next regular (ballistic, shield) roll. For example, a Rank 1 and a Rank 0 captains make their Skill roll. The Rank 0 wins the Skill roll and a ballistic roll will resolve, The Rank 1 captain will have her/his ballistic stat at 1 (given the Rank 0 captain has the regular ship configuration) as the base for the ballistic roll.
If there's a tie, re-roll, as usual.
At the end of the particular engagement, stats reset at their normal level, and won't be carried, i.e. each round will require a Skill roll, when appliable.
I called it a Skill roll, but the name can be changed. As I said, the roll will be a random 3, as any other battle roll.
What do you think? Will it work?
TekMon wrote:
OK. I've been thinking about a way to level the field between ranked and non-ranked captains. The roll to 6 on ballistics and shields, might not solve the problem in a fair way as I see it. So, I propose the following: A Skill roll.
A Skill roll will apply only if there's a rank difference greater than 1, i.e. if both players are of the same rank it won't apply. Roll base number will be 3, as any other battle roll.
If a higher ranking player wins the roll, s/he will keep her/his base statistic (ballistic, shield) at her/his current level, for the next regular (ballistic, shield) roll. For example, a Rank 1 captain wins the Skill roll and a ballistic roll will resolve, s/he keeps her/his ballistic stat at 2 (given s/he has the regular ship configuration) as the base for the ballistic roll.
If a lower ranking player wins the roll, the higher player will have it's base statistics (ballistic, shield) lowered at the same level of the lower ranking player, for the next regular (ballistic, shield) roll. For example, a Rank 1 and a Rank 0 captains make their Skill roll. The Rank 0 wins the Skill roll and a ballistic roll will resolve, The Rank 1 captain will have her/his ballistic stat at 1 (given the Rank 0 captain has the regular ship configuration) as the base for the ballistic roll.
If there's a tie, re-roll, as usual.
At the end of the particular engagement, stats reset at their normal level, and won't be carried, i.e. each round will require a Skill roll, when appliable.
I called it a Skill roll, but the name can be changed. As I said, the roll will be a random 3, as any other battle roll.
What do you think? Will it work?
I could see this being abused by players setting stats low (i.e. ballistics at 0) thereby making other players miss while keeping a normal chance to evade (i.e. ship configuration 4 hull, 2 shields) leaving them with stronger than normal ramming capabilities, low chance to be hit, so long as they succeed.
Neoteny wrote:
I could see this being abused by players setting stats low (i.e. ballistics at 0) thereby making other players miss while keeping a normal chance to evade (i.e. ship configuration 4 hull, 2 shields) leaving them with stronger than normal ramming capabilities, low chance to be hit, so long as they succeed.
<.< >.> What? High Hull stats? What are you talking about *hides the stats of all EPN captains*...
Neoteny wrote:
TekMon wrote:
OK. I've been thinking about a way to level the field between ranked and non-ranked captains. The roll to 6 on ballistics and shields, might not solve the problem in a fair way as I see it. So, I propose the following: A Skill roll.
A Skill roll will apply only if there's a rank difference greater than 1, i.e. if both players are of the same rank it won't apply. Roll base number will be 3, as any other battle roll.
If a higher ranking player wins the roll, s/he will keep her/his base statistic (ballistic, shield) at her/his current level, for the next regular (ballistic, shield) roll. For example, a Rank 1 captain wins the Skill roll and a ballistic roll will resolve, s/he keeps her/his ballistic stat at 2 (given s/he has the regular ship configuration) as the base for the ballistic roll.
If a lower ranking player wins the roll, the higher player will have it's base statistics (ballistic, shield) lowered at the same level of the lower ranking player, for the next regular (ballistic, shield) roll. For example, a Rank 1 and a Rank 0 captains make their Skill roll. The Rank 0 wins the Skill roll and a ballistic roll will resolve, The Rank 1 captain will have her/his ballistic stat at 1 (given the Rank 0 captain has the regular ship configuration) as the base for the ballistic roll.
If there's a tie, re-roll, as usual.
At the end of the particular engagement, stats reset at their normal level, and won't be carried, i.e. each round will require a Skill roll, when appliable.
I called it a Skill roll, but the name can be changed. As I said, the roll will be a random 3, as any other battle roll.
What do you think? Will it work?
I could see this being abused by players setting stats low (i.e. ballistics at 0) thereby making other players miss while keeping a normal chance to evade (i.e. ship configuration 4 hull, 2 shields) leaving them with stronger than normal ramming capabilities, low chance to be hit, so long as they succeed.
I visualize the Skill roll as a way to level the battlefield, between higher and lower ranked players, "de-pumping" higher stats when needed. Hull must be kept, in my oppinion, because a veteran player deserves her/his hovercraft lasts longer. The same goes for energy and the combat phases it gives.
Regarding the potential abuse of higher ranked players ramming with their hovercraft, we can add that if s/he lost the Skill roll, s/he lost automatically the hull point, without any additional shield check, giving to the lower ranked the chance to go directly the ballistic roll, with its own Skill roll, and possibly inflicting additional damage.
In the case where a higher rank player has her/his stats at a lower level than a lower rank player, i.e. ballistic 0 - shield 0 or as with Void's sentinel, lower hull integrity; a Skill roll is not needed, as I see it now, because the regular roll will do its work.
It is better with these modifications? What do you think?
What is it that you don't see fair about the /random 6, Tek? All of these rules you're sugesting for skill rolls seem to be making things a bit too complex and disorienting for my taste, and the game is already daunting enough to newcomers.
Neoteny wrote:
What is it that you don't see fair about the /random 6, Tek? All of these rules you're sugesting for skill rolls seem to be making things a bit too complex and disorienting for my taste, and the game is already daunting enough to newcomers.
A high rank player will win always against a lower rank player, because a random 6 still lefts the high rank player with her/his stats intact. For example, RedBindi hovercraft needs the low ranked player to make a ballistic roll of 4 or higher and wait she lost the throw. Of course, that is a 50% throw, but if eventually she keeps earning more experience, the time might come where her ballistic roll might be pumped up to 6 and then current situation will arise again.
My Skill roll proposal is to give a chance to lower rank players and yet to allow higher rank players to play. As it is now, higher rank players are farming XP points from lower rank players. Remember that was the reason Vogt set a rather complicated way to pair battles, even deniying a higher rank player the opportunity to play, if there was not a proper match.
I know the extra roll will be a burden to keep, but what we're looking for is to entince new players and let them know they can win if fortune and a proper battle management are on their side, regardless of the rank of the other player.
TekMon wrote:
A high rank player will win always against a lower rank player, because a random 6 still lefts the high rank player with her/his stats intact.
No, a higher rank player will not always win against a lower rank player if they do /random 6. Let's say that a ship with default stats (3 1 1 1) is shooting at a ship with shields at 3. If the ranked ship rolls a 1, then the unranked ship can win by rolling either a 4, 5, or 6. This way, the new players have a much better chance of doing some damage to the ranked players and surviving longer, while the ranked players do not feel that their accomplishments are meaningless.
Omega0 wrote:
TekMon wrote:
A high rank player will win always against a lower rank player, because a random 6 still lefts the high rank player with her/his stats intact.
No, a higher rank player will not always win against a lower rank player if they do /random 6. Let's say that a ship with default stats (3 1 1 1) is shooting at a ship with shields at 3. If the ranked ship rolls a 1, then the unranked ship can win by rolling either a 4, 5, or 6. This way, the new players have a much better chance of doing some damage to the ranked players and surviving longer, while the ranked players do not feel that their accomplishments are meaningless.
As stats stand now, yes, the lower rank player might win the roll. I'm proposing the Skill roll as a way to anticipate the time when a 6 base roll won't be enough. In the other hand, I'm not throwing away veteran accomplishments.
On the contrary, the debuff applies only at the resolving combat phase. If the higher rank player wins the Skill roll, her/his stats apply, exactly as it's happening now, while if s/he losts, the stats go down to the same level as the lower rank captain, with a chance of winning the attack roll, either shield or ballistics.
Let's face it. We're discussing this because nobody wants to lose against a higher ranked captain, knowing beforehand that the battle will be lost with the current rules.
OK. I decided to stop being argumentative and decided to bring some simple mathematical analysis, in order to back up my claims about the fairness of a random roll increase against my proposal of a Skill roll to debuff higher stats.
First. The table below shows the results of rolling a random 3 dice, without modifiers, i.e. when both players have the same value at a given stat:
| Player 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player 1 | ||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| 1 | T | L | L | |
| 2 | W | T | L | |
| 3 | W | W | T | |
The probabilities are as follows:
| Player 1 | |
| Win | 33.3% |
| Tie | 33.3% |
| Lose | 33.3% |
Now, let's see the odds, when there's a +1 modifier:
| Player 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player 1 | ||||
| 1 (+1 = 2) | 2 (+1 = 3) | 3 (+1 = 4) | ||
| 1 | L | L | L | |
| 2 | T | L | L | |
| 3 | W | T | T | |
As such, the probabilities are:
| Player 1 | |
| Win | 11.1% |
| Tie | 22.2% |
| Lose | 66.6% |
If there's a +2 modifier, then the results are:
| Player 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player 1 | ||||
| 1 (+2 = 3) | 2 (+2 = 4) | 3 (+2 = 5) | ||
| 1 | L | L | L | |
| 2 | L | L | L | |
| 3 | T | L | L | |
Then the probabilities are:
| Player 1 | |
| Win | 0.00% |
| Tie | 11.1% |
| Lose | 88.8% |
At this point, we can see that it won't matter what Player 1 does, he can't win. We can even propose to speed up the battling process, giving the winning roll to Player 2, without the need of throwing the dice.
Nevertheless, let's see how a random 6 dice behave. The following table shows the results of rolling a random 6 dice, without modifiers:
| Player 2 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player 1 | |||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ||
| 1 | T | L | L | L | L | L | |
| 2 | W | T | L | L | L | L | |
| 3 | W | W | T | L | L | L | |
| 4 | W | W | W | T | L | L | |
| 5 | W | W | W | W | T | L | |
| 6 | W | W | W | W | W | T | |
Under this scenario, the probabilities are:
| Player 1 | |
| Win | 41.6% |
| Tie | 16.6% |
| Lose | 41.6% |
Not bad, apparently, even with higher odds than a random 3 roll. However, when there's a +1 modifier, the results are as follow:
| Player 2 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player 1 | |||||||
| 1 (+1 =2) | 2 (+1 =3) | 3 (+1 =4) | 4 (+1 =5) | 5 (+1 =6) | 6 (+1 =7) | ||
| 1 | L | L | L | L | L | L | |
| 2 | T | L | L | L | L | L | |
| 3 | W | T | L | L | L | L | |
| 4 | W | W | T | L | L | L | |
| 5 | W | W | W | T | L | L | |
| 6 | W | W | W | W | T | L | |
Suddenly, the probabilities for winning are lower than with a random 3 roll:
| Player 1 | |
| Win | 27.7% |
| Tie | 13.8% |
| Lose | 58.3% |
With a +2 modifier the probabilities are:
| Player 1 | |
| Win | 16.6% |
| Tie | 11.1% |
| Lose | 72.2% |
With a +3 modifier the probabilities are:
| Player 1 | |
| Win | 8.3% |
| Tie | 8.3% |
| Lose | 83.3% |
With a +4 modifier the probabilities are:
| Player 1 | |
| Win | 2.7% |
| Tie | 5.5% |
| Lose | 91.5% |
And finally, a +5 modifier gives probabilities of:
| Player 1 | |
| Win | 0.0% |
| Tie | 2.7% |
| Lose | 97.2% |
In conclusion. A random 6 gives chance to a lower rank player to compete against a higher rank player, with odds favorable to the higher ranking player, but it eventually will lead us to a situation similar to the current one. My proposal for a Skill roll doesn't have this limitation, though it needs to be tested to see if it will help to promote the hovercraft battles.
That's all well and good for the /random 3 rolls - which are flawed, and that's the goal to fix it.
As it stands, with increasing to a /random 6 roll, a ship with a stat of 0 going against a ship with a stat of 3 would still have a 1/12 chance of success, with a 1/6 chance to succeed or tie. (i.e. this is the equivalent of a ship with a stat of 1 [since we have relatively low 0's] going against a ship with a stat of 4, which, outside of hull, does not exist yet). Under the normal system, the stat 0 would have 0% chance to hit or tie.
A ship with a stat of 0 going against a ship with a stat of 2 has a 1/6 chance of success and a 10/36 chance of success or tie (i.e. shp with stat 1 vs ship with stat 3). Under the current system, the stat 0 would have 0% chance to hit and 1/9 chance to tie.
A ship with a stat of 0 going against a ship with a stat of 1 (stat 1 vs stat 2) has an 11/36 chance to succeed and a 16/36 chance to tie. Under the current system, the stat 0 would have 1/9 (for comparison, that's 4/36 - the /random 6 improves odds 4 times over here) chance to hit and 2 chances to tie.
These rolls are a significant improvement and, I believe, will be what we will use, at least in one test battle, though I do not foresee any difficulties.
Neoteny wrote:
That's all well and good for the /random 3 rolls - which are flawed, and that's the goal to fix it.
As it stands, with increasing to a /random 6 roll, a ship with a stat of 0 going against a ship with a stat of 3 would still have a 1/12 chance of success, with a 1/6 chance to succeed or tie. (i.e. this is the equivalent of a ship with a stat of 1 [since we have relatively low 0's] going against a ship with a stat of 4, which, outside of hull, does not exist yet). Under the normal system, the stat 0 would have 0% chance to hit or tie.
A ship with a stat of 0 going against a ship with a stat of 2 has a 1/6 chance of success and a 10/36 chance of success or tie (i.e. shp with stat 1 vs ship with stat 3). Under the current system, the stat 0 would have 0% chance to hit and 1/9 chance to tie.
A ship with a stat of 0 going against a ship with a stat of 1 (stat 1 vs stat 2) has an 11/36 chance to succeed and a 16/36 chance to tie. Under the current system, the stat 0 would have 1/9 (for comparison, that's 4/36 - the /random 6 improves odds 4 times over here) chance to hit and 2 chances to tie.
These rolls are a significant improvement and, I believe, will be what we will use, at least in one test battle, though I do not foresee any difficulties.
Yes Neoteny, my point is that a situation where a random 6 will be useless doesn't exists yet, but it migth eventually occur. With my Skill roll proposal, I'm aiming to fix the problem under the current base 3 system and keeping it from break, eliminating the modifiers when appliable, only for that single attack phase.
Of course, the scenario when a lower rank player might have a better stat than a higher rank player needs more revision, specially with odd hovercraft configurations. Maybe a formula where the whole stat points are counted might give more balance than a straight stat debuff. Will think about it.
In all honesty, things aren't meant to be equal - that's the point of the stat increases. Beside that, enough of this game is already left up to chance that I don't know if I feel comfortable leaving "leveling the playing field" up to the addition of another roll.
As I stated before, it makes things overly complex, and even then, there's a pretty high and/or equal chance that a ranked player will retain their stats and nothing will change. Otherwise, they will be punished for being ranked, which is something I do not want. Additionally, the random upgrade of lower-ranked ships' stats doesn't seem to fit into the scheme of the battle and doesn't make logical sense to me.
/random 6 covers all the way to a stat bonus of 4 versus a stat bonus of 0 (i.e. stat bonus of 5 versus stat bonus of 1) giving at least a chance to combatants in that position. Indeed, there is a 0% chance of hitting at level 6, but if you analyze the distribution of stat points, you'd have to be an idiot to go for 6 stat points in just one area, and would have to be either incredibly stupid in your distribution or incredibly high ranked to do so (while still leaving most of your other stats defenseless).
For example, for a rank 5 (maximum rank) captain to have 6 stat poins in a particular aspect of his/her ship, they would have only 5 points to spread around to the other stats. Let's say they leave energy at 1, they would then have four. At an even distribution, that's 2 hull and 2 in either ballistics or shields. In this example let's say it's shields. They would then have a craft at 2 6 1 2. What does this mean? The ship would have relatively high ability to remain unhit, but would be incredibly susceptible to ram and only slightly more accurate than normal with ballistics, while having average move speed. At its best, it could possibly have 3 6 1 1 or 4 6 1 0. But at this point, you must also consider how often this craft, in its building (levelling), would be susceptable to attack and would likely be destroyed. It's not a feasible design.
The same goes for throwing it all into ballistics or hull. Certainly a ship could end up with 11 hull, if they never put any point into anything else. It would also take them forever, since they would perpetually have 0 shields and 0 ballistics and would not be able to hit anything and would constantly be able to be hit.
At current, the only ranked captains of achieving a 6 or higher in a stat other than hull are Publius, ShiXinFeng (neither of which play anymore), TekMon, Tranque, and Void. The only one I can see it happening with would be Void, and even then, he would retain a 0 in sheilds and be dead in 2 hits.
I just don't see a stat of 6 happening. And if it does, I see that the vulnerabilities it creates will more than level the playing field.
I agree with you Neoteny. I'm not trying to punish veteran players. I was just rationalizing that the skill roll as a way to say "bad days happen". Guns jam, shield generators fail, the pilot is drunk :: laughs ::, etc.
The question not should be if the current environment is friendly to new players, but how we can work to attract new players at all. If after Rank 5 won't be additional stats increments, then a random 6 will be enough fora lower ranked player, without crippling the efforts of a higher rank captain. Let's test how the random 6 works.
Sorry for the lack of updates, but I've been bogged down with papers and finals. At current, I'm procrastinating from writing another eight pages for a fifteen page paper after having just finished severely editing a rather poor paper written by a classmate in another class.
The next battle held will invoke the /random 6 rule and, provided it is successful in its purpose, the /random 6 rule will be enacted as the new standard for hovercraft battles.
This is getting very confusing!
Lyr
Illyria22 wrote:
This is getting very confusing!
Lyr
But is solving the issue with the veteran ships vs new ships a bit. Which makes the confusion okay to me.
Illyria22 wrote:
This is getting very confusing!
Don't worry about all the stuff TekMon said about skill rolls, we won't be using those. We're just going to do /random 6 for ballistics and shields rolls (and perhaps ramming) instead of the usual /random 3. It shouldn't be too confusing.
/random 6 will replace /random 3 in all areas except initiative energy rolls. That's all.
Ok. So when's the next one?
Lyr
How many people still participate in this? I may play with a project of sorts of this summer...
Bayamos wrote:
How many people still participate in this? I may play with a project of sorts of this summer...
Quite a few. Zion always seems to pull out a strong showing; EPN, Gerik and Lt0brien play. Machine-side, there's Illyria and b1t. Tekmon seems to be holding up the Merv side. And we still have no Cypherites. It'd be pretty darn nice to have some more Machines, Bayamos!
Fen wrote:
Bayamos wrote:
How many people still participate in this? I may play with a project of sorts of this summer...
Quite a few. Zion always seems to pull out a strong showing; EPN, Gerik and Lt0brien play. Machine-side, there's Illyria and b1t. Tekmon seems to be holding up the Merv side. And we still have no Cypherites. It'd be pretty darn nice to have some more Machines, Bayamos!
I've been spotty on attending, mostly because real life has been more haywire than usual, due to my kitchen being remodelled (plus I've been limiting my time on DN1, but I won't get into the reasons why). Once that's done, I'll make it up to you folks.
Just wanted to update everyone on the situation of the battles.
I had intended to do some in the few days I had after finals, but, well, I'm in Japan right now and it obviously didn't happen before I left.
I get back June 2nd, so we may resume sometime that week or after.