BZAP

Agreed. With the removal of private freqs, squads seldom get the chance to work together. A squad-based league can encourage growth and healthy competition. Because squads differ in size, larger ones should enter in multiple groups. A squad loses nothing from a match amongst themselves; enrolling several groups only increases their presence. The 4v4 match outline used in pre-league will work fine. If you'd prefer simpler, might I suggest Namp's league map for spec-on-death elimination. The latter automatically penalizes teams for being short on players. It also makes scoring very easy. No bot needed, either!

Looking good. I like maps with character. I wouldn't mind seeing some past bases added in, too... or even a new layout for center

At one point, you guys had a system that shuffled teams after a consecutive win. I thought this was a good idea... why is it no longer used? All too often one freq will dominate the other one fg after the next. It's already frustrating enough that entering mid-game will (likely) place you with the weaker team. The fact that leech/kill money comes slower for experienced players gives us all the less reason to attack on a disadvantaged team. Also wonder why the (S) tag no longer appears next to summon lancs. It's true that almost everyone has summon at this point in the reset... but it would be good to recognize teammates that might not have it.

Player-run? I wouldn't mind seeing competition between self-formed squads. We could allow a week for teams to form, then organize a dueling schedule, and finally hold matches in gduel or league. Similar rules as before. Winning team splits a money prize

Nice designs. These bases look alot better than the ones we have now.

If you mean team dueling league, I'm all for it. HS needs a break from flagging!

You should include shell on your list of incentives!

I get $5 per attach with summon. Not sure how much non-summon lancs and lg/meds get. Is it true that lancs have a larger leech range? Do they get higher $ per leech kill?

Certainly not.. but in all fairness, I don't see Mav as one to cheat. Moreover, I can't see how this situation warrants such a heavy degrant. This isn't the first time cer has turned an otherwise trivial situation on its head.

It would be refreshing to play in a different set of bases for once. I'd especially like to see the zone to pull out some of its older maps. Maybe dedicate a day of each week OR week of each month toward an old map? Settings and money need not be changed!!

The only scam-proof loan is no loan at all. Lynx's concept has little to offer for players simply because it will not take a beyond-$100 risk. The concept is sound in theory (if it helps, imagine the same system beginning with a $100,000 loan). The problem is that 100HSD does not hold much value. Nor is is a practical investment to push one's credit line to a worthwhile number. I think the question at hand is how to build a practical bank--which I do not see as feasible. Given the hostility of the lending environment, an automated, high-loan system is out of the question. Moreover, HSD is easy to acquire and possesses no investment value. Spider's manual "system" only introduces subjectivity: someone picks who gets the loan, how much is loaned, and what the interest rate is. At this point, I think you are simply complicating things by introducing a bot. Stick with ?give

What I'm most worried about regarding dual signatures is how they'll impact the pace of gameplay. Fighters will be quicker and spammier. Basing will be as chaotic as ever. If you thought quad-rep AD weasels were annoying, imagine one with signature armor. In short, I think HS is fast-paced enough

hi everdream. Long time no talk. I feel two signatures grants players too much power, especially in the gun/engine department. How would you escape a warbird with flash drive and mass driver

I really don't mind ATs as they are, but if you must remove them, I would suggest limiting ATs to large ships only. Come to think of it, I've always found it odd that players were limited from "big ship" items (ZPM, Mezon, ...) on a small ship, yet were able to install a superior AT version (Temporal). Anyway, limiting ATs to big ships only will ensure they don't appear in duel settings. I like the idea of multiple sigs. In response to Brain's comment, I believe it can still be done without a total overhaul. As an idea, HS can introduce a line of "half" signature items--components that offer slight advantages over standard stuff but allow pairing with other "partial" signatures. These new sigs don't have to be designed from scratch. You can simply offer a slightly boosted version of the standard item (a retro rocket plus, for example).

I don't get it, either. The 'crime' of sharing an account seems awful trivial. As a team, I think it's safe to say that we'd prefer unix piloting as opposed to klammy (no offense to klammy). You guys give unix too much hate.

Several players run multiple accounts to switch between ships of the same type. It is simply too costly to change between signatures and alien tech components. It'd be nice to have a "garage" of sorts where players can swap between pre-made setups. As an idea, we could place a designated safe in B8 for switching ships. A switching pass valued at $700,000 per ship (max 1 per ship) will allow players to access and store an alternate build. Feasible concept?

Players will continue to complain about weapons they have trouble overcoming. First it was shredder, then prox, then mass driver, and now temporal gets all the rage. I know many players avoid incorporating these items into their builds at risk of getting ridiculed. Realize that you can always match builds to compete.

captains of both sides can simply agree not to use specials. If for some reason, someone violates terms, both sides can resume item use

likewise

I think you are overcomplicating everything with the bonus points system. moreover, why would you ever penalize a team short on players? Assuming that matches lead to total elimination, wouldn't allowing a five point lead and losing a quarter of a team's firepower be crippling enough? You also mentioned that ?buy would not be available. out of curiosity, will respawning refresh items like port and repel? edit: I failed to see that an unpenalized 3 man team could win a match after being totally eliminated, but I still think the penalty is too extreme.

Will refs impose any item restrictions or will the case be "everything goes" ?

bzap not captain not ref

Okay, From what I hear and know, teams are balanced by EXP rather than player count. While I don't specifically know how the balancer works, alot of players, including myself, can't help but feel bad for taking up more "room" on the team with our high EXP. I'm sure you developers have taken this into account, but I wonder whether you guys have yet to set a cap on EXP count. In other words, is there a maximum amount of EXP that any single player can contribute to his freq? Besides extra capacity, which I can easily live without, my highest EXP item is antideath which requires 8000 EXP. Signature and all but one FTL items all fall under this requirement. Given that, I think it would be fair to count each player for a maximum of 8000 EXP. On an unrelated note, I can't seem to buy thors from safe or any of the 4 corner safes in the map. I even tried to buy them at b8. Why are they disabled?

Question2: Are you firm on wb/jav only? I think allowing med/large ships with some restrictions (for example: no cloak, EMP, turrets, et cetera) could make things interesting.

Count me in!