Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

• Yes

  33 (100%)

  No

  0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 33

[Dizzy]

Penalty box was cool too, I thought. Kept an opulent player from hoping right back in a DN after his was just popped.

[KBF-Crim]

I fail to see the need to be awarding HEXX flipping points for any reason.

Doh".....I had to read that twice to 'Get it"

 

[Bonk]

In my opinion Skull's "The Slot" was the best compromise I have seen, it allowed non-DN players to have some fun too and an effect on the campaign and for DN players to have their disengagement rule elsewhere on the map.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I have seen it said more than once that you might as well be playing the single player game. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The singleplayer game stops when you stop playing. The Dynaverse is a "Persistent Universe" first and foremost (and damn persistent at that, lol), anyway, it keeps running even if you are not there. Your actions have an effect that "persists". I think people need to remember this. It is a strategic game, not just a test of tactical prowess (though that is important too).

[C-Los]

IMPORTANT NOTE: I have seen it said more than once that you might as well be playing the single player game. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The singleplayer game stops when you stop playing. The Dynaverse is a "Persistent Universe" first and foremost (and damn persistent at that, lol), anyway, it keeps running even if you are not there. Your actions have an effect that "persists". I think people need to remember this. It is a strategic game, not just a test of tactical prowess (though that is important too).

People of the PvP mindset have a tendency to forget this.....   

My opinion has always been...."Disengagement rule Bah Humbug !"    Make the ship costs more and losing the ship 50% and no one will be replacing a ship so easily.... Plus I think for people who want PvP to run people off with the rule is at the same time saying they don't want it... Doh !!!!

Of course you all know I've felt this way ever since it was implemented.... 

[KBF-maQmIgh]

If you want a more PVP mindset then you need to go back to the old SFC Online Dennis was running. The map is NOT controlled in the game but outside the game to arrange PVP play. For example the Klingon Commander moves a D7, D6 and 2xF5s into a hex that contains a Federation CA and 2xDDs. If the fed decides to fight or cannot withdraw due to movememnt limitations then the fight is played out by the players. This can be a scheduled fight so it is all PVP. Imagine if you will using F&E to play the strategic game and then SFB to play out the battles.

This allows near puire PVP play.

[FPF-DieHard]

People of the PvP mindset have a tendency to forget this.....   

The rules have become too PvP oriented, and we wonder why casual players loose interest.

[Hexx]

People of the PvP mindset have a tendency to forget this.....   

The rules have become too PvP oriented, and we wonder why casual players loose interest.

Perhaps
But I'd still argue far more players left the game before we started the current trend
then afterwards.

With ship prices reduced on servers to keep casual players from losing interest,
no withdrawl penalty simply means you'll actually be hurting your side
in a close fought battle if you engage in PVP.
Same thing if your side is outnumbered, you'll cost your side the game if you fight PVP's.
With the (silly) claims that hex flipping is strategic, everyone is far better off
to run 2 minute missions against the AI than engage in a 20 minute (or likely longer) duel against
an enemy player.

The disengagement rule is fine, imo there should also be VP's for forcing big ships to run away or kills
(but we know how well that goes over... )

[KBF-maQmIgh]

You know what, lets try a different apporach WHO CARES! Put up a server with a set of well posted the predefined rules. I think most players here will come running...

[el-Karnak]

How did such a simple idea as the disengagement rule get so convoluted out of proportion?

Disengagement rule is vital to a dyna's survival. There's no getting around that. When you had someone like Fluf argue so forcefully for it a couple years ago for the SS2 server then there is no higher hex flipping authority that you need to consult with. You had practically the whole Romulan playerbase up in serverrevolt over the lack of a disengagement rule.  Most of them were not interested in SS2 w/o the rule and few remaining would play other races casually. ISC playerbase was in a pretty cranky mood too.  No self-respecting server admin. is going to argue with that. And, surprise, surprise, they don't.  You mess with the disengagnement rule and you may as well start shutting down the Romulan and ISC races. Lyrans won't be far behind.

But, the disengagement rule is supposed to be kept simple.  Its function is to replace the broken SQL database add-on to the dyna server kit. Basically, if SQL was working, any PvP match that results in a loss would have a MULTIPLE DV shift. What the actual DV shift should be is up for debate. I would go for something in the 10 DV shift range. Why? Cuz, on average most people do about 10 missions an hour.  But, we don't have the server kit to do this. So, we translate a 10 DV shift into an one hour banning from the hex the PvP match took place in for both fleeing an enemy or being destroyed.

That's it. Nice and simple.  To repeat:  you taco bell or die in a PvP match then you are banned to the hex for an hour. Admins. can play with the banning time, but they should not differentiate between taco belling and dying to stop any disengagement rule work-arouds. If SQL ever works, the same system will be used except it will be multiple DV shifts instead.

You can argue for waivers in cases of being heavily outnumbered in a PvP match. Just don't forget to get the missions scripters on the same page if they ever do multiple DV shifts in the scripts. GDA-Kel had the best system when he was able to shift the DVs in the server kit's middle-ware tier instead of having the functionality hard-coded in the client-tier mission scripts.

[GDA-Kel]

What if winning a PvP match had more effect on turing and a hex than beating the AI?

That might encourage PvP as being more helpful in hex flipping.

Just an idea, dont really know much about the Dyna mechanics.

This is the ideal solution. If we had working SQL we could make PvP victories worth more than PvAI victories, and we probably wouldn't even need a disengagement rule.

The question is whether we'll get to this point before the next server is ready.

Keltset actually had this working with SQL for his Dragon's Claw and Dragon's Tooth servers on EAW.   What are the odds people would show up for an EAW server again?

(Don't know if his success means SQL works better for EAW, or if it was just the result of lower player loads.)

-S'Cipio

Yep...my two servers did all that and more.  This was a post in the Gorn forums way back on July 13, 2003. 

Fellow Reptiles,

The Dragon's Teeth server is far enough along in testing that I can share with you my progress to date.

1. I have implemented a new feature called GNN, or Galactic News Network. The GNN will broadcast messages on general chat for all to see. Currently, it only broadcasts info concerning astounding victories by players and PvP wins by players.

2. Astounding victory bonus DV shift. All players get a bonus point of DV shift when they earn an astounding victory. For example, if you attack a clear enemy hex at DV 10 and earn an astounding victory, the DV will actually shift to 8, instead of 9.

3. PvP bonus DV shift. All players get 8 points of DV shift when they earn a PvP victory. For example, if you attack a clear enemy hex at DV 10 against an enemy player and win a victory, the DV will actually shift to 1, instead of 9.

4. The bonuses are cumulative, so an astounding victory against another player in a clear hex at DV 10 will lower the DV to 0 (1+ 1 + 8 ).

5. Now the bad news. The database is updated correctly with the proper DV values. However, each of our maps is NOT updated until another mission is run (or forfeited) in the hex where the astounding victory or PVP bonus was earned.

6. Shipyards. According to the D2 Server Admin forum on Yahoo, there is a memory leak in the shipyard functionality that causes the SQL D3 server to crash. Well, I suspect that this leak also exists in the SQL D2 server kit. To avoid this problem, I built my own shipayrd. The old shipyard is still active, so you can still buy ships the old way. To access the new shipyard, you must be in Gorn chat. Simply type YARD: and then the individual command. Current commands are 'show' and 'buy.' So, to view all ships in the yard, type:

The second, (and final) server, the Dragon's Claw implemented even more features such as:

Bases set to destruct ONLY when a hex changed owners, not when the first successful mission was run in the hex.  This made bases much more robust, but not indestructable. 

Built in line-of-supply.  You could only flip a hex for your empire if it could trace a LOS to a friendly supply point (base or planet).  If the hex was not in supply, then it flipped neutral and stayed that way.  This solved most of the deepstrike issues.  A player could deepstrike to his heart's content, but the best he could do would be to deny space to his opponent by flipping hexes to neutral if no LOS existed.

Players could own up to 5 ships, but only fly one at a time.  Ships could be spread out within your empire and the player could jump to any of his other ships by simply typing a command in the chat channel. 

Other than LOS (it was not completely debugged), all of these features worked correctly 100% of the time.  Everything was bug-free. 

Does anyone remember the Dragon's Claw and Dragon's Teeth servers?  I'll bet most do not, judging by the attendance on them.  At that time, the remaining community members decided to move to OP as the game of choice.  Very few stayed behind on EAW.  The OP SQL kit did not even exist, so there was no chance of moving this new functionality to OP.  when SQL became available for OP, it was more bugged than EAW I believe, so I did not choose to put the time and effort into porting my code to OP.  I actually looked more into SFC3 than OP.  Turns out SFC3 was even worse, so I retired from server developement permanently.

<ahem>  Sorry to hijack the thread....back to retirement now...

[Father Ted]

I'm gonna do something outside the box. I'm going to agree with Karnak. The disengagement rule should be kept. If you Taco Bell, you lose an hour, or whatever, in the hex. It may not mean much in your average asteroid hex, but if it's a VC planet, and everybody is dogpiling it, losing a DN for an hour means something. Also, players getting killed shouldn't be rewarded with a half DE penalty if they're flying an attrition ship. Be it an NCL, D5D, MCD, etc. they shouldn't be able to simply go back into the hex because they threw away a 2000 BPV ship that can be replaced as soon as the shipyard reloads.

I know nobody likes more rules, but I'd suggest that anybody losing a DN-CA has a 30 minute penalty, but CW-POL gets the full hour on a hex.

[Gook]

Need to see the "roolz" before any comiitments, but the signs in this thread don't look good.

[Hexx]

Need to see the "roolz" before any comiitments, but the signs in this thread don't look good.

I think the only thing really agreed upon so far is that the disengagement rule should be
kept in.
If you're against it for some reason that's cool
I have absolutely no problem flying on a server where it's not, but I think it's needed for
the vast majority of servers for simple balance.

[Strat]

I'm no Dynaverse philosophical genius, but explain to me please:

Why do we need poeple to leave a Hex for a specified amount of time when they die or lose? 

This prinicple I do not understand quite yet.

[762_XC]

Strat, the reason for the disengagement rule is to keep the Mirak from single handedly running away with the server.

Consider that your average patrol can be won in 3 minutes for a non-plasma race, and maybe 4 1/2 for a plasma race. A Mirak DF or DWD can do it in 1:40 (the time it takes to reach the AI). Fed and Klink droners can do this but not as reliably (since they draw stiffer AI).

The reasoning behind the rule was basically to rescue PvP (and plasma races by extension) from being totally obsolete. Since flipping hexes in a droner is far more efficient than fighting a human, droners would simply run away and come back into the same hex. If they died they'd drop another 500 pp (about .01% of their PP total) on a new ship.

[Hexx]

If you don't have them leave for a certain amount of time, PVP becomes pointless
Most players running hex flipping missions are flying small ships as they're the best hex flippers

A mission time against AI with the hex flipper is around the 2-3 minute mark,
usually closer to two for most races.
The mission time for a PVP is probably in the 20-30 minute mark.
So it makes no sense for a player trying to flip hexes to actually fight it out.
Let his ship die, hit the yards, back flipping hexes in however much time it takes
for the yards to cycle.
As there could (reasonably) be 8-10 missions run by one player on a hex while
another player is flying PVP, you're best off to avoid PVP altogether.

If your side is outnumbered by the other side the effect is of course multiplied.

By having a disengagement penalty it keeps hex flippers out of a hex for x amount of time if they
die, and usually 2x if they run. This lets one PVP win somewhat balance the lower mission time of an AI battle.


EDIT- and it's not just about the Mirak (they're simply the most famous for it)
Anything carrying 4 or more drone racks, Plasma PF's, or numbers of Fusion fighters on
a DD or smaller hull (actually CW for some) can do it easliy

[Bonk]

Need to see the "roolz" before any comiitments, but the signs in this thread don't look good.

I disagree, heated discussion is a good sign. It means there is interest.

... Plus I think for people who want PvP to run people off with the rule is at the same time saying they don't want it... Doh !!!!

I suspect I might be the only other person who underestands this tautology.

Does anyone remember the Dragon's Claw and Dragon's Teeth servers?  I'll bet most do not, judging by the attendance on them.  At that time, the remaining community members decided to move to OP as the game of choice.  Very few stayed behind on EAW.  The OP SQL kit did not even exist, so there was no chance of moving this new functionality to OP.  when SQL became available for OP, it was more bugged than EAW I believe, so I did not choose to put the time and effort into porting my code to OP.  I actually looked more into SFC3 than OP.  Turns out SFC3 was even worse, so I retired from server developement permanently.

<ahem>  Sorry to hijack the thread....back to retirement now...

Yes, I remember and thought they were pretty dang cool!    Things are improving, I have relatively stably OP SQL servers running, You are the only other one who truly understands the mechanics of it, (Well except for maybe DarkElf and Karnak) come back to us please!!! 

At least its good to see you around to put your 2¢ in anyway! 

[Grim]

I'm gonna do something outside the box. I'm going to agree with Karnak. The disengagement rule should be kept. If you Taco Bell, you lose an hour, or whatever, in the hex.

I have to agree.

[Bonk]

I'm gonna do something outside the box. I'm going to agree with Karnak. The disengagement rule should be kept. If you Taco Bell, you lose an hour, or whatever, in the hex.

I have to agree.

If we must...

But there should be no disengagement rule if you are destroyed. I mean you lost your ship you worked hard to get, you are sent back to base, away from the action...

Or, we can go for the full disengagment rule and only DN pilots get to enjoy action on the front... 

We need to get back to Skull's concept of "The Slot", it rocked!    Or perhaps people are unwilling to accept a No-Heavy Metal zone? The disengagment rule as it is, is just elitist, exclusionary and a total bummer for casual players, that is all there is to it.

[Grim]

Well from a personal standpoint i don't see what is wrong with the current system of disengagement, being if you disengage from a battle you cannot enter that hex for a period of time, if you get destroyed you can't enter that hex but the time is reduced in comparision to fleeing.

Like you posted Bonk, the "slot concept" introduced by Skull was a great idea, something which i believe should be implemented more often. A place where only smaller ships can enter, different disengagement rules used in these special areas e.g. further reduced time or no disengagement penalty whatsoever.

Benefit of having slots/other special areas on the map means that a person can decide for example what they feel like flying on the day, flying heavy metal one day under the standard disengagement rule, another day feeling like flying more intense PVP in a smaller ship area with less disengagement rules.

This should appease all types of players.

[KBF-Crim]

I'm no Dynaverse philosophical genius, but explain to me please:

Why do we need poeple to leave a Hex for a specified amount of time when they die or lose? 

This prinicple I do not understand quite yet.

Here is it is in a small nutshell...without the disengagment rule...

You can take the biggest ship you want...the cheese that goes crunch....I'll take an E4D....I'lll own as much space of you empire as I so wish...

Even if you lucky enough to catch me in a mission...I'll taco bell and just start another one...

No matter how many missions you run....I'll just gobble your space at 1:40 a pop....

After fighting for 3 or 4 hours and seeing you hexes flip red underneath you....you'll get it...

[Hexx]

I think everyone liked the idea of "the slot" iirc I even stole it for
the Mirror server (if only I'd actually played on it)
Just think everyone's been to preoccupied with other stuff to put it back in.

KCW will have a slot (for the F5 junkies)

....
Actually I had forgotten about that, doh!

[Strat]

Thanks guys.

I'm just asking so I can help brain storm solutions.

What is 'The Slot' idea?

[KBF-Crim]

I'm gonna do something outside the box. I'm going to agree with Karnak. The disengagement rule should be kept. If you Taco Bell, you lose an hour, or whatever, in the hex.

I have to agree.

If we must...

But there should be no disengagement rule if you are destroyed. I mean you lost your ship you worked hard to get, you are sent back to base, away from the action...

Or, we can go for the full disengagment rule and only DN pilots get to enjoy action on the front... 

We need to get back to Skull's concept of "The Slot", it rocked!    Or perhaps people are unwilling to accept a No-Heavy Metal zone? The disengagment rule as it is, is just elitist, exclusionary and a total bummer for casual players, that is all there is to it.

Bonk....see my post to strat...

Losing an E4D is like loosing a lighter when you have a case of them in the cupboard....

You not thinking in strategic terms....the the DV.....the SMALL ship is god....

[Bonk]

Thanks guys.

I'm just asking so I can help brain storm solutions.

What is 'The Slot' idea?

The slot is a zone on the map restricted to CLs and smaller so that casual players will not be driven off all the action zones by nutters in big ships.

[KBF-Crim]

Thanks guys.

I'm just asking so I can help brain storm solutions.

What is 'The Slot' idea?

The slot is a zone on the map restricted to CLs and smaller so that casual players will not be driven off all the action zones by nutters in big ships.

I'd REALLY  really really really like to herr burts PF floatilla's added and allowed to play there too...

[Bonk]

I'm gonna do something outside the box. I'm going to agree with Karnak. The disengagement rule should be kept. If you Taco Bell, you lose an hour, or whatever, in the hex.

I have to agree.

If we must...

But there should be no disengagement rule if you are destroyed. I mean you lost your ship you worked hard to get, you are sent back to base, away from the action...

Or, we can go for the full disengagment rule and only DN pilots get to enjoy action on the front... 

We need to get back to Skull's concept of "The Slot", it rocked!    Or perhaps people are unwilling to accept a No-Heavy Metal zone? The disengagment rule as it is, is just elitist, exclusionary and a total bummer for casual players, that is all there is to it.

Bonk....see my post to strat...

Losing an E4D is like loosing a lighter when you have a case of them in the cupboard....

You not thinking in strategic terms....the the DV.....the SMALL ship is god....

Yes, I fully understand that and it is a cheap and ugly tactic,

BUT

In my CL I am excluded from participating in any battles that are meaningful, because I am chased off by nutters in big ships that I have no chance of defeating. It gets bad enough that sometimes I just log off and go futz with server stuff to keep myself occupied. This should not happen.

In my opinion, the bad side of the disengagment rule outweighs the good side by a significant margin.

Why not just make a rule to stop the exact situation you describe without excluding casual players from all the significant battle zones?

[KBF-Crim]

I'm gonna do something outside the box. I'm going to agree with Karnak. The disengagement rule should be kept. If you Taco Bell, you lose an hour, or whatever, in the hex.

I have to agree.

If we must...

But there should be no disengagement rule if you are destroyed. I mean you lost your ship you worked hard to get, you are sent back to base, away from the action...

Or, we can go for the full disengagment rule and only DN pilots get to enjoy action on the front... 

We need to get back to Skull's concept of "The Slot", it rocked!    Or perhaps people are unwilling to accept a No-Heavy Metal zone? The disengagment rule as it is, is just elitist, exclusionary and a total bummer for casual players, that is all there is to it.

Bonk....see my post to strat...

Losing an E4D is like loosing a lighter when you have a case of them in the cupboard....

You not thinking in strategic terms....the the DV.....the SMALL ship is god....

Yes, I fully understand that and it is a cheap and ugly tactic,

BUT

In my CL I am excluded from participating in any battles that are meaningful, because I am chased off by nutters in big ships that I have no chance of defeating. It gets bad enough that sometimes I just log off and go futz with server stuff to keep myself occupied. This should not happen.

In my opinion, the bad side of the disengagment rule outweighs the good side by a significant margin.

Why not just make a rule to stop the exact situation you describe without excluding casual players form aall the significant battle zones.

*sigh*

Take the heavy cruiser of you chioce...I'll take an E4D.. NOT a light cruiser....a FRIGATE.....you'll see just how effective these ships can be in PVP...

A better example would be the D5D....a REAL CL....

I'll take ANY match against a BCH of your choice....and win more than 50%....I'll stand and fight on those odds any day..

Go ahead...devise a rule for droners....you then have to define what a droner is....oh like EVERY MIRAK ship in the list...

I can then take another ship , not defined as a droner...like an F5....and run 1:40 missions with it...and your back in the same boat....no boasting at all...

I can make you some movies if you need to see it with your own eyes...

[Strat]

How close are we to implementing SQL in a production environment, ie a real game?

[Bonk]

I'm gonna do something outside the box. I'm going to agree with Karnak. The disengagement rule should be kept. If you Taco Bell, you lose an hour, or whatever, in the hex.

I have to agree.

If we must...

But there should be no disengagement rule if you are destroyed. I mean you lost your ship you worked hard to get, you are sent back to base, away from the action...

Or, we can go for the full disengagment rule and only DN pilots get to enjoy action on the front... 

We need to get back to Skull's concept of "The Slot", it rocked!    Or perhaps people are unwilling to accept a No-Heavy Metal zone? The disengagment rule as it is, is just elitist, exclusionary and a total bummer for casual players, that is all there is to it.

Bonk....see my post to strat...

Losing an E4D is like loosing a lighter when you have a case of them in the cupboard....

You not thinking in strategic terms....the the DV.....the SMALL ship is god....

Yes, I fully understand that and it is a cheap and ugly tactic,

BUT

In my CL I am excluded from participating in any battles that are meaningful, because I am chased off by nutters in big ships that I have no chance of defeating. It gets bad enough that sometimes I just log off and go futz with server stuff to keep myself occupied. This should not happen.

In my opinion, the bad side of the disengagment rule outweighs the good side by a significant margin.

Why not just make a rule to stop the exact situation you describe without excluding casual players form aall the significant battle zones.

*sigh*

Take the heavy cruiser of you chioce...I'll take an E4D.. NOT a light cruiser....a FRIGATE.....you'll see just how effective these ships can be in PVP...

A better example would be the D5D....a REAL CL....

I'll take ANY match against a BCH of your choice....and win more than 50%....I'll stand and fight on those odds any day..

Go ahead...devise a rule for droners....you then have to define what a droner is....oh like EVERY MIRAK ship in the list...

I can then take another ship , not defined as a droner...like an F5....and run 1:40 missions with it...and your back in the same boat....no boasting at all...

I can make you some movies if you need to see it with your own eyes...

I resent the implication. 

The same thing holds when I fly gorn.

So you have to be an ace to be allowed to participate in any significant action on a server, is that it?