Jump to content
krause

[Op: SOP] Mission Making SOP: Time Limit [2011-04-14]

Recommended Posts

The current mission making SOPs require "All missions must contain a coherent schema of play. This involves a briefing, logical objectives and the means by which to accomplish them."

 

When I originally wrote this I meant it to mean that all missions uploaded to the server should have a time limit. This isn't explicitly stated - and I suggest we add it to the SOPs. I could have added this SOP as an MMO, but I thought it would be prudent to bring this to a public vote.

 

My main concern/reason for creating this poll are missions which go for 6+ hours at a time during prime time. Missions should have a time limit of about 2 hours or so to allow for variety on the server and the greater demands of the public.

 

Accordingly I propose that the #2 mission SOP be changed to:

 

"All missions must contain a coherent schema of play. This involves a briefing, a reasonable time limit, logical objectives, and the means by which to accomplish them."

Share this post


Link to post

I like the wording you've used. Not specific to annoy, but gives a precedent and intent.

 

I support this vote.

Share this post


Link to post

who is glory, does he know only regs can vote. Hmm maybe he should put a poll in for reg status :P


also would add what I said in skype krause

 

yeah I think polling it is a good call but would exclude alt server missions and domi. But I would add a rule that domi should not be played primetime like 6pm ESt- 0000ESt

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree boon, ALL missions without exception should have a time limit except for on alt. All that 6070 hour stuff can go there.

Share this post


Link to post

I hope this isn't due to the recent "6 hour take over of Fallujah" thread. I played in that mission and I think it MIGHT have lasted for 3 hours.

 

I understand the need to keep things changing and have variety, but how would this be enforced? Would missions require a "timer" script that just fails it after 2 hours?

 

I know I'm not a regular but I think as long as a mission is still progressing towards completion, and the majority of people on the server are having fun and don't want a change there is no reason to change missions. I'm just saying that because a couple of people out of 30 are complaining about something shouldn't be a reason to switch missions.

 

Some of the best times I've had were on missions like Unternehmen Lehrgen back at TG staying up till 5am. Of course I do remember some people objecting to the length of that mission back then, but that shit was fun if you ask me. Back when there were more NO JIP missions I remember watching with a spectator script for at least an hour a few times before I could actually start playing. As long as there was enough action to keep me entertained and some way to watch it I was ok with that. Sometimes it was fun to fly around as a crow and talk to all the KIAs and other guys watching.

 

I'm still learning and I don't have a ton of time to put into mission creation but I have some ideas where they might take 2+ hours. If people don't want missions like that then I guess I might have to rethink some things or just try to break them down a bit.

 

Just throwing my opinion up here. I know I can't vote.

Share this post


Link to post

I actually agree with Gungnir.

 

No offense, but if 25-30 people are having fun, you join and say "when are we changing maps" and the rest of the group growls at you?...I say tough luck.

 

I'm under the impression that the alt server is there for a reason. Aka, when there's a mission you don't like on the primary? Hop on the secondary.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually that's not correct. The alternative server is primarily for missions which don't belong on server 1 - i.e. non-tactical missions or missions which otherwise don't follow the mission rules.

 

Also i'm aware that some people have fun playing the same mission for an entire day at a time, a significant population of others want variety. This server belongs to everyone who is a regular.

Share this post


Link to post

Too bad this community is about tactical play and seeder missions are not tactical 90% of the time. Its funny how domi-players hog the server and refuse change. But once the map switches they desert the server and leave. One way street, thats what it is. I simply refuse to play never-ending missions with no structure or mission intent.

 

This SOP change would clarify that if you want to play never-ending domi/insurgency/etc you can make an event or go play on the alt server, that way people who like structured missions don't get overwhelmed by the horde of domi-players who think they own the server for themselves and refuse to share it with anyone.

 

/rant over.

Share this post


Link to post

Too bad this community is about tactical play and seeder missions are not tactical 90% of the time. Its funny how domi-players hog the server and refuse change. But once the map switches they desert the server and leave. One way street' date=' thats what it is. I simply refuse to play never-ending missions with no structure or mission intent.

 

This SOP change would clarify that if you want to play never-ending domi/insurgency/etc you can make an event or go play on the alt server, that way people who like structured missions don't get overwhelmed by the horde of domi-players who think they own the server for themselves and refuse to share it with anyone.

 

/rant over.

[/quote']

 

Look Inca, I'm all open to doing real missions all the time but there are times that you can't do it, you can't do it with 5 relatively new guys and your only choice is seeder missions to get more people.

Take for example yesterday when we switched to Steamroller..we had absolutely no one stepping up for mission commanding ending up with me as a CO and if it wasn't for Foxxy and Miles I wouldn't have had a single squad leader that knows what hes doing....now think doing a more serious mission thats not as forgiving as Steamroller and you'll see where its heading...the server will be empty during European time.

 

We lately have allot of new people and seeder type missions like Domi and Insurgency help players develop their leadership skills without too much damage on the other players, where are people going to practice their leadership skills...when 14 other players depend on them with a serious commander?you know what will happen...people will rage about having a shitty leader...I have seen it happen.

 

Forcing a time limit will only hurt us...I am pro-choice..not limiting players, the end result of the time limit will simply be us restarting the mission every 2 hours and losing our progress because of this rule as we are 10-15 guys without anyone willing to lead a serious mission.

 

 

FYI Insurgency has more then enough ending conditions - its up to the server admin to set the parameters for the amount of respawns and the caches.

I still don't see whats not tactical about insurgency...once you get more then 4 guys going rambo alone will result in your death and when you pass the 10 players marker squads must cooperate or they will be destroyed.

Just look at that Insurgency AAR thread with the video - you can see the teamwork, using a Cobra to blow up a cache inside the building with laser designation while the infantry are in a safe distance, if it was tactical blob it would have ended with a massive teamkill as the cache has a big explosion radius.

If you have any suggestions on how to improve its tactically I am willing to hear and add it to the mission, if people are behaving like retards then blame them not the mission - this mission rewards teamwork and fucks up rambos by killing them, you can't herp-derp your way in to the cache and blow it up.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm voting no simply because this could pinch out some missions that legitimately span longer than two hours.

 

And because I see this as more of a response to "let's play Domi/Insurgency 24/7 during weekdays and keep the population at 20 or below."

 

It would be much easier to pull a Fallout and say, you can only play Domi/Insurgency once per day or some silly business like that.

 

Or throw Domi/Insurgency on the alt server. Then make the alt server public. At least that way people'd see we had 20 people on every weekday and would be tempted to join this community.

 

Bait and switch.

Share this post


Link to post

First, thank you krause for bringing this issue to a vote. I had no idea that some players felt this strongly about the kind of missions that should be played at UO.

 

I guess I do not completely understand what the purpose of the Alt Server is.

 

If players are in “Server 1 – Waiting Room” and want to play a different kind of mission what prevents them from using the Alt Server? If players are enjoying ANY kind of mission why force them off or limit mission maker’s creativity? If there was only one server then setting limits makes perfect sense. But in a community with two gaming servers why not just rule that only one “seeder mission” can be running at a time, and then require “SEEDER” in the mission description. Then enjoyable game play would not be interrupted and the other server not being used would be free for those great tactical missions.

 

I really enjoy both tactical and seeder missions. Certainly tactical missions require no defense in a community of ARMA/ACE/ACRE players! Seeder missions help us new to the UO community hone our skills as leaders, pilots, crewmen and members of a squad, besides sometimes they are just plain fun!

Share this post


Link to post

The way I understand it, and correct me if I am wrong is this....

 

Primary Server....= Tactical Missions, and such. This server also has prime hour priority.

 

Alternate Server, = Domi, Insurgency, Island Life and such. This server is all the other stuff.

 

I believe that the Primary Server should stick to just that, Primary UO style missions. IN THE PRIME TIME.

If people want to play Insurgency, and the server only has like ~20 people, let them if it is like a Weds, or what not.

 

Friday, Saturday, Sundays, the Primary Server should stick for use by missions, so as not to cut anyone off if there is a demand, want for real missions.

 

I have recently been playing Insurgency, and actually like the cluster fuck that it is. But, due to its long long mission completion time, it should stick to the Alternate Server. It is used as a seeder in my opinion, and then, at any time, when there are enough players, we could vote for mission, and migrate to primary server, and continue.


BTW,

Voted no. I don't think the fix is with the missions, just where the missions and what type of mission is played.

We should solidify the Server definitions, and enforce that. I am working on a large ass COOP as we speak that will take at least 2 hours...with players who all know how to lead, command, use CAS, and such. It has potential to be a map wide mission, that will take time.....

Share this post


Link to post

As a new Member to UO community (this is only my second post), I really do not understand what is going on. Is there a stigma to playing on a sever labeled “Alt”? If so why not change the server names to “Alpha & Bravo” or “One & Two” or let whoever contributes the most financially to UO that month have the naming rights like they do for sports complexes. Naming rights could be fun and generate additional philanthropic revenue for UO.

 

If “Naming rights” is implemented get ready to play on “The Boston Garden” and “Fenway Park” servers! :)

Share this post


Link to post

Boston??????????

YANKEE STADIUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post

Yankee Stadium?!?! Evil Empire home turf!

 

Maybe we should scrap the “Naming rights” concept right now! OMG what a dumb idea!

Share this post


Link to post

re: zzez

 

This poll has nothing to do with reclassifying domination or insurgency as non-tactical - and it's not required that they be played on the alt server. It has to do with allowing more of a variety on the server during weekdays. Missions which have no end essentially clog up the server all day and stifle the server population, while dozens of people are waiting over the course of it to play something else.

 

A time limit allows for a break where people can re-consider if they want to play something else.

Share this post


Link to post

If you want to donate a ton to UO you are more than welcome but it has been set in stone from the beginning that no one at UO will be have extra rights/privileges for donating or whatever. It prevents any sort of split between member/ premium member or whatever.

 

Anyway tactical, proper missions are for the primary server. All other missions like zombies, CL or any other lol type mission goes on the Alt (Alternate) server.

Share this post


Link to post

If the time break is not forced then I would be up for it, as long as its not scripted in to the mission and its the server admin responsibility or a vote takes place on the server to keep playing or switch to a different mission, if its mechanical without any considerations then no.

I think its best to clarify what you mean by reasonable time limit, who how and what will enforce it?

Share this post


Link to post

It will be a required feature in missions, and what is reasonable is to be determined by the MMOs, i'd consider 2 hours to be appropriate for most missions.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe push it to 2.5 - 3 in certain cases for very large player missions because it can take a hell of a long time to get set up and start moving before anything actually happens. I'm talking about COOP70+

Share this post


Link to post

That's fine, as long as there isn't NO TIME LIMIT and there isn't just a technical time limit of like 8 hours or something. The idea is to make an appropriate, reasonable time limit for the mission that won't result in the server population being stifled as its the only option for people to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...