From: echeverr@scf.usc.edu (Luc Robitaille)
Newsgroups: rec.games.netrek
Subject: Re: INHL NetHockey Survey: (Hockey Players, Please Read)
Date: 23 Nov 1992 20:41:23 -0800
Organization: Los Angeles Kings
NNTP-Posting-Host: girtab.usc.edu

In article <we$1Hj7y=a@atlantis.psu.edu> JGR@ECLX.PSU.EDU (Jim Reisman) writes:
>PROPOSAL A:   Reduce carnage by having 5 vs 5 teams.

I think 6 on 6 would be better.  Allows two more players into the game and
all that.

>PROPOSAL B:   Increase wait time between goals/periods from 30 seconds
>              to 40 seconds.

Good idea.

>Rational:     Allows players to send instructions/adjustments between
>              goal/periods. Only adds 2-3 minutes to game.

I thought the 30 seconds to faceoff were included in the 20 min of the period.
If this is so, then adding 10 sec to the faceoff time wouldn't alter the
duration of the period.

>PROPOSAL C:   Have players within playing field be destructed after
>              goals as well. Reenter near home planet. Players off 
>              playing field (substitutes) are unaffected.

I like it, but then, what's the point of adding 10 sec to the faceoff time?
(prop b)

>PROPOSAL D:   A copy of the stats already kept by the server would be
>              saved to a .game_stat file. File would include stats of
>              all players since last NEWGAME command.

Yes this is good.

>PROPOSAL E:   Player Substitution/Ghostbusting: Gentleman's Agreement.

Nah.  Consider it a penalty-type thing :-)

>  The following proposals have also been suggested. I am NOT FOR
>implementing these proposals at the present time. Please give me
>your opinion of them:

>PROPOSAL F:   Designated Goalies who are indestructible while
>              in a goalie box.

I like this too since i proposed this during a game.... making the
goalie indestructible is too hard... how about a "crease" thru which torps
and plasmas cannot pass?  Kind of like a wall, thru which only defenders
may pass... this may be tough to code tho.

>PROPOSAL G:   Players bounce off boundaries (except for small window
>              to allow for substitute players.)
>Alternative:  Perhaps, inelastic player collision with wall? (i.e. They
>              stop.) Unsure about this one.

I like the alternative... sorta like suddenly hitting warp 0.

>PROPOSAL H:   Institute a Pause command.

Nah.  You don't pause pickup games.  Of course if it's an INHL, a pause WOULD
be necessary IMO.

>AND FINALLY, please answer these questions:
>1) Do you think there should be an INHL next Spring, or NetHockey
>   Clue Games, or both?

Both if at all possible.

>2) If there is an INHL in Spring, which of the following INHL 
>   team selection proceedures do you think is best?
>A)  A Team Drafting Method:  
>        Guarantees even teams, but players would be unable to 
>     choose team mates.

I like a draft.  Something to avoid piling huge amounts of clue on one
team.  I want the INHL to be real fun, not like the INL which is more
of a competition thing than fun.  Anyhow, netrek is not as fun as hockey
under any condition.

>B)  Team Selection by INHL Commissioner:  
>        A trustworthy commisioner ( bav :) ) would split people into
>     even teams, taking into consideration playing time compatibility
>     and desired team mates. The Commish can't be a nutball however.

Then why bav? :) I don't like this cuz there'll always be bitching over who
would be the commisioner (or who would be on the council, etc.)

>C)  Unstructured team selection:
>        Guarantees people will play with who they want, but unbalanced
>    teams and school team egos will be inevitable.

After seeing the wreckage in the INL and rgn, this is the least viable option.

5150
Luc Robitaille