Tempest

Congrats, Kyla

Argh. Another active staffer leaving :/ Good luck with those future projects, Roach And if you feel compelled to shoot my spider to bits again, don't hesitate to drop in.

You people are strange. boom.

Hey, I'm not crazy... D'oh.

It was an excellent game. I'm not biased. Not even a little.

Gratuitious spam reply.

Touché.

I hate to say so, but the ol' 17th forum seems to be remarkably good at spamming. It's amazing how the first 5 topics on any given day are usually about nothing at all. [Obligatory Pro-17th Rant] Go 17th! Woo! [/Obligatory Pro-17th Rant] Now I'm going to go post twice on 17th to balance this out.

D'oh. Sorry to hear you're leaving, NBV. Hope you come back after whatever's happening in RL gets sorted out. Best wishes.

England all the way!

As far as I know, the closest thing we can get to that is to use a ?buy upgrade system. This would likely alienate any newbies we get, though. There's no way of tying W/L to something like this without the use of a bot (not sure if even that's possible) and thus suffers from being inaccessible and difficult for newcomers.

I like the base. Flags at east/west are more or less as I'd imagined them, and nobody's groaning about north being gone. I'd say warbirds are a little unbalanced power-wise. They still seem to lack the offensive edge, but afterburners, repels and a fair energy level make 'em at least as difficult to kill as they currently are, if not more so. Nonetheless, having to green X-radar balances it somewhat. Javelins seem above average in terms of power. Spiders seem to lack a proper role. Their guns and portals make them excellent support and pursuers outside base, but their burst is near-useless except in certain areas of base. It seems strange the former advantages suggest a fighter-sort of role whilst the burst suggests a more port/bursting style of play. I see the advantages of having to green up for energy after spawning, but it makes them very, very vulnerable whilst doing so. That said, a fully-greened spider is still remarkably effective (but I'm going to pretend that's a bad thing 'cos I hate greening). It's also been suggested that the burst is meant to soften enemies up so that a salvo of bullets will finish them, but surely a faster, bigger burst that deals less damage per pellet is more suitable than a slower, smaller but more damaging burst? Leviathans seem relatively weak. The afterburners are all but useless. The extra speed is hardly recompense enough for the massive energy drain, which would likely have proved more useful absorbing enemy shots under most, if not all, cir-*BAD WORD*-stances. The bombs also seem almost indistinguishable, damage-wise, from warbird bombs. Terrier is well-balanced in these settings. The weasels are very interesting. Rockets are far from useless: players can make rocket/mine runs in a way similar to that of oldmap weasel, which is certainly entertaining. The low speed makes this kinda suicidal, though. Level 3 bullets don't seem to fit the ship somehow, but nonetheless provides a degree of balance to it. I wasn't too sure what changes have been applied to the lancaster. Seems more reliant on bullets (ugh) and have a new repel. Haven't noticed any changes to shark. Seems to be above average in terms of power. Neutral reaction, overall. Doesn't seem to add anything particularly exciting to game-play, except perhaps for the weasel. [bIAS] Oh, and Warbird + Antiwarp = Bad. Upgrade Greening + Spider = Bad. Lancs + Bullets = Bad. [/bIAS] Hmm. Maybe I shoulda tagged that at the start.

Welcome, Void Hope you have fun in 17th. Manus is right - you'll be owning us all in no time (especially me, heehee). And don't listen to any of 'em about 'Javs' and 'Warbirds'. Spiders rule all.

Same. Sounds good, but we'll need to play 'em.

How on earth do you know that for a fact? What evidence have you based this on? A fact is something we base on and support with evidence. The Earth revolves around the Sun. The sky is blue. People die. These are facts. Simply saying 'trust me because I know I'm right' isn't enough without adequate evidence to back it up. I'm not saying you don't know about ship settings, or gameplay, or how the zone works. I'm saying you have no evidence nor precendent to base the !@#$%^&*umption (and !@#$%^&*umption it is) that players will prefer old sets to the new. And to address minor points: Why do you say that the old settings required more skill than the new ones? One could argue that the new settings require skill, simply in a different way. A good pilot will still be far superior to a new one, and it still takes a fair amount of time to 'master' a ship. Skill is relative, and difficult to quantify. Your definition is moulded by oldsets, and that perspective may no longer apply to our current settings. You keep saying that you're sure that newers players will do this, or like that, but again you fail to present any real evidence apart from personal !@#$%^&*umption. But ships are still different enough to ensure distinct advantages and disadvantages in the various possible matchups. There seems to be a contradiction in your argument. Consider a zone where all the ships are equal: much like a single ship event. Now, consider a zone where one ship is vastly superior to another, whilst being utterly useless against a third ship type. Which one requires more skill? The first, of course: a pilot killing another pilot in exactly the same ship, with no advantages or disadvantages is able to prove his 'skill'. After all. he/she defeated an opponent on equal terms. In the latter case, consider what happens when a pilot destroys an enemy using ship which is vastly superior to his/her opponent's. One would logically assume that the skill involved in this case would be far less than the above example. So how, exactly, can you argue that making each ship more distinct makes the zone more skillful? Further, even if you refute the arguments above, why are 'skills' required for a zone to be successful? I pointed out TW in the above post as an example of a zone which is considered by many to be unthematic and lacking in skill, yet one can hardly say that it's an unsuccessful zone. I'm not applying the same principles to 17th; I'm simply pointing out a case where your argument seems not to apply. Preposterous! Absolutely ridiculous! Why, if we listened to your suggestions, we'd... er... Wait, I agree with this one. (Note: Hmm. To clarify, it may seem from the above few posts that I hate pre-change 17th. I don't. If there is to be a change, then I would favor pre-change settings as much (if not more) than a completely new map and settings - simply because they have been tested extensively before and proven to be (relatively) balanced. A completely new 17th, in my opinion, runs an even higher risk than a reversion to our previous settings, unless the matter is handled with the utmost of care and consideration to our newer players. )

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't seem to understand your argument. You could either be saying that the old settings suited the zone in terms of theme (Vietnam), or that they are superior because they were the original settings created. Thematically, I see no reason why conforming to the Vietnam idea should be so important, and any argument made stating that the old settings worked better because it fits the theme is tenuous at best. Yes, the zone is '17th Parallel', but I would hardly describe Trench Wars as an accurate depiction of the Great War. The latter argument is also flawed - what has been done cannot be undone. The 17th of today is different of that of yesteryear, not only in terms of settings and maps but also players, whom, as you had acknowledged above, might not (and, as Sever and Talion proved above) welcome the change back. Our current settings fit the players we have: any change of such magnitude would likely only drive them away. On the contrary, almost any zone has a similar system. Can you say that there is no teamwork between differing ships in DSB? In TW? In MG? A generalisation, no doubt. Consider how few of 'us' there are left. Why should the zone change for the whims of the minority? And do you think that the players we currently have will also consider old settings more fun than the new? I fail to see how that's not applicable today. How can you have such confidence that old settings will attract players when there has been no such precedent before? It seems no more than mere guesswork to me, and I don't see how you can base an entire argument upon a supposition.

Let me clarify something: when I stated that growth is more important than fun, I acknowledge that they are fundamentally linked. However, I would place growth above fun in that when growth is possible at the expense of fun, I would pursue growth. There seem to be three options. We could retain the map we have now, and simply exist as we are. We could change the map into something different altogether, making it both unique and different from oldmap settings, and attempt to give it more potential than pre-change settings had. Or simply revert to old settings. We seem to be arguing over one point over and over again: did the majority of players leave pre or post changes? If it can be proven that they left pre-change, then logic would dictate that reverting to oldmap would be a mistake. If the opposite is true, then oldmap remains a valid option. However, even if the latter were true, you seem to have presented no evidence that the majority of the zone welcomes reversion back to oldmap sets. How can you assume that newbies will take to the older settings as much as the older players did? And how can you assume that player levels would have increased during the 'brief time' when oldmap settings were used if we had kept it? There appeared to be no sign of such a revival at the time. Simply having a handful of vets who prefer oldmap isn't enough. Even those who welcome change may not welcome pre-change sets. Reverting to oldmap will, therefore, be a risky proposition. (Edited several times because I can't structure an argument properly)

Long. There seems to be a difference of understanding in this debate. Some believe that the regular population voiced their complaints after the settings were changed, and left as a result. The alternative viewpoint seems to be that the regular population started leaving (due to various factors), and that the change in settings re-established a player-base and thereby saved the zone. Rather than waste time arguing about the semantics of Roach's declaration that oldmap settings are strictly better than our current settings, I will instead focus on another point of discussion: several people measure the success of a zone solely by how entertaining it is. I would instead argue that the primary aim of a zone is growth, with fun being a linked but ultimately secondary goal. Since I'm lazy and can't be bothered to rewrite my opinions, here's a post from some time ago: (sections were cut, depending on their relevance to the zone today) But this is not to say that no action should be taken. We seem to have been experiencing a dip in the player-base lately, and the ratio of spectators to players is higher than ever. Without being overly rash, perhaps some action should be taken to remedy this situation - although note that I am not advocating a reversion to oldmap settings. And Delic - I'd like a copy of that list

Suiciding is faster and more fun.

Nah, they're only joking : )

Don't worry, I'm an ex-TW player too : ) I hope you'll find 17th to your liking. Have fun : )

Agreed. Excellent idea.

I agree with Delic. The map encourages base-play, which is commendable; it also puts more emphasis on teamwork and planned attacks, both of which are very positive. It is, however, terrible. I would wager that 60% of the votes registered by Scorebot are negative, even after factoring out the 'I hate change, I'll !vote no' crowd. First, the map is near unplayable given a low population (whereas the previous one wasn't): mainly due to the high attach bounty of all ships (33) and the size of the map. The new weasel getting antiwarp further aggravates this problem. A setback posed by the sheer size and construction of the base is the number of dead end areas (mostly leading to flags) scattered within: the first exit left and right when entering the base leads to such areas, and can confuse and annoy newer players trying to play ball (they aren't dead ends as such, but take longer to get to goalroom). The tiles themselves aren't particularly newbie-friendly and can seem somewhat gaudy. The lack of a goal count causes the ball game to lose its sense of pace. Players no longer have a set number to aim for, and makes the gameplay significantly less dynamic. This also means that the current stats bot (!top100) is rendered obsolete - a problem, considerng how popular it is amongst most players. Bricks are now even more annoying: being able to block off entire sections of the base is a huge advantage. This is also true in the previous map, but was remedied by tubing and wallp!@#$%^&*ing - both impossible in this map. Most of the above problems can be tweaked and fixed by changing settings and small parts of the map, but another flaw still remains: the addition of the rockets to the jav and the new style of gameplay (emphasis on attaching and focused on a small section of the base) is far too similar to other zones: the map itself is reminiscent of trench wars, and the gameplay seems DSB-based. It simply doesn't play like a 17th map, and fails to capture the uniqueness that 17th should possess. Oh, and the spider is horrible

Happy birthday, Rice

Be less rash, Delic Roachy wasn't suspended because he voiced his views on the forum; nor was it because he voiced his opinions.