Print

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

[762_XC]

No, only Chuut can do that. 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Oh hell, why even have a server? Let's all play the single player campaign and meet on GSA once a night.

Hexx can't capture you on GSA

 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

It was my understanding that the disengagement rule was an effort to prevent hex flipping ships from running over the map.  With the exclusion of droners, carriers, escorts and marine ships, what we are left with are line ships and command variants, ie no Hexx flippers.  We have combats where challanges can be made, have limits on disengagement for PvP houses so why a need for a disengagement penalty.  If a territorial pilot disengaged from a hex, I'd think it would be in the PvP pilots intest to have them return once more and give them  another chance to earn PvP points.



I honestly just can't see any reason that a disengagement penalty would be needed, wanted, or enhancing the enjoyment factor of the server under these conditions.  I'd be more than happy to listen to any reasons other than unreasoned emotional comments.  Perhaps t00l can provide some points in favor, as he seems to implt there is a good reason to keep it on such a server setup.  Either way I'll play and be ok with any decision Hexx comes up with, its his server after all.  I just don't think a disengagement rule has anything to offer for a line ship vs line ship server when everyone is using the same line ships.  It would just encourage players to run in the largest packs they could muster and detract from the number of one on one matches.

[Riskyllama]

Oh hell, why even have a server? Let's all play the single player campaign and meet on GSA once a night.

Hexx can't capture you on GSA

 

Actually, this is untrue.
Captures can be done if you use "huge fleet" instead of "FFA"...unfortunately huge fleet requires there be only one pilot on team A.
Also some of the starting locations are a little close though. But if you need captures in a 1v1 or 1v2 or even 1v3 setup, you can have em on GSA.

[762_XC]

Droners are not the only hex flippers. Every ship can kill AI, some just do it better than others.

It's not about droners being contained as much as giving PvP a role in shaping the map.

And VC's are not a substitute for that.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Droners are not the only hex flippers. Every ship can kill AI, some just do it better than others.

The shiplist are identical for all sides thus a non factor I think.

It's not about droners being contained as much as giving PvP a role in shaping the map.

This IS a valid point  , however I think the map will be so large and the territories so mixed that I'm not sure it will be a big factor, especially given the no LOS requirement and the lack of mandatory missions.  On a more normal style server I think you have a good point here, just don't think it really applies to KCW.

You run a player off a hex but he can still move around the map unimpeded to get to anyother destination, having to keep track of scattered banned hexes all over the map (no LOS and no mandatories remember).  All that is really achieved is keeping the player off that one hex and forcing alot of paperwork as pilots try to keep track of what hexes they can't hit.  If a disengagement rule was to be used I prefer the idea of players being banned from the big VC hexes as these would likely be marked by a planet or base or something.  Those hexes would be easy to spot and to remember and be those that couldn't simply be circumvented.  A disengagement applying to those might be worthwhile, having it apply to open space seems cumbersome however, and might reduce good PvP opportunities with no real benefit.

And VC's are not a substitute for that.

In many cases you are correct but it really depends on the VCs as they could be for anything.

[762_XC]

VC's, honor points, attrition points, etc, do not have the tangibility that affecting the map does. That is why they will never be a substitute.

With the current rules and no disengagment rule, there is no reason to enter PvP EVER, unless you are challenged. (And once you're done with your requisite daily fight it's right back to flipping).

Until SQL gets running and we can do multiple DV shifts, the disengagement rule is necessary.

[Bonk]

I wonder if SQL is really necessary for higher DV shifts for PvP... the Base construction mission works just fine on the flatfile and does more to the map than just shift DV... I wonder if it might be used as a model for higher PvP DV shifts in plain old flatfile missions... hmmmm..... I'm working on updating the scriting API to VC8 right now... perhaps this will be my next project... (as updating the serverkit to VC8 is going to take a while and is our current task before conitinuing SQL work...)


Hmmmm....


edit: a hack might be to force a mission split (host left) at the end of an enemy PvP mission as this is known to result in a double DV shift if the split missions report the same result...

edit 2: another hack might be to leave the base placement DV boosts enabled in the GFs and have an enemy PvP mission place and remove a base...

Gotta get Tracey's feedback on this, I might be on to something here.... gonna post in the scripters forum...

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

With the current rules and no disengagment rule, there is no reason to enter PvP EVER, unless you are challenged. (And once you're done with your requisite daily fight it's right back to flipping).

False Statement Here is why:

PVP Houses
-will gain the majority of their VP points from winning PVP battles.
Defeating a pilot from an opposing PVP house is worth 3VP
Defeating a pilot from an opposing Ter house is worth 2VP
Chasing a pilot from a PVP house off (in even numbered battle) 2VP
Chasing a pilot from a TER house off (in an even numbered battle) 1VP



Territorial Houses

Defeating any Pilot is Worth 2VP
Chasing Off any pilot is worth 1VP

But I'll live with it if we use it not too much of a biggie, just alot of silly paperwork for some keeping up with scattered hexes all over the map.  Get stopwatches and notepads ready 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

A bit OT but related a bit to the VC shift issue.

Wondering it it would be possible for DV shifts to take into account Hull class, so that losing a DN would affect the DV more than losing a smaller ship, seems like a reasonable us for multiple DV shifts in my book. 

For example 1 shift for beating ai, 3 for a PVP va a frigate, 4 for a light cruiser, 5 for a heavy, 6 for a bch, etc.   Line ships could be considered a hull class or 2 down as they are easier to replace.  Would a distinction by hull class be possible with SQL?

[Riskyllama]

Question for Hexx, is there a limit on challenges one can offer in a day, or can Krueg challenge eveyone as they log on for the first 3 days straight (assuming he beats everyone else to the punch).

[Bonk]

Fair warning: it takes nearly 10 minutes for gamespy to download all of its ads over dialup before you can get into a lobby, then about a further 5 minutes for all the other crap to download before you can even see any rooms. So if challenged I would prefer direct tcp/ip games or on the dynaverse server to save everyone a lot of time, thanks.

[KOTH-Green]

Fair warning: it takes nearly 10 minutes for gamespy to download all of its ads over dialup before you can get into a lobby, then about a further 5 minutes for all the other crap to download before you can even see any rooms. So if challenged I would prefer direct tcp/ip games or on the dynaverse server to save everyone a lot of time, thanks.

Nothing wrong w/ GSA games.  If challenged, that is probably where I'll play.  TCP/IP games can have problems too...no platform is perfect. 

[Dfly]

I also think there should not be any penalty for disengage/death rule on this one due to the points system for PvP and the no disengagement on accepting a challenge.  It may be a good testing ground to try it.  A PvP can be due to a challenge but not limited only to challenges.  Any pilot could be drafted into a PvP.  I am sure it would not hurt the TER pilots feelings if they knew they were not banned from a hex for a limited time but rather could go right back to it.  I am also pretty sure the PvP pilots would not fret over being able to return to said hex. 

Only limit I think could be used is on planets and surrounding hexes?

[Bonk]

Fair warning: it takes nearly 10 minutes for gamespy to download all of its ads over dialup before you can get into a lobby, then about a further 5 minutes for all the other crap to download before you can even see any rooms. So if challenged I would prefer direct tcp/ip games or on the dynaverse server to save everyone a lot of time, thanks.

Nothing wrong w/ GSA games.  If challenged, that is probably where I'll play.  TCP/IP games can have problems too...no platform is perfect. 

I'm just saying I won't play them because I'm just not willing to sit through the 15 minute wait for Gamespy to load. There are no megabytes of ads to download for a tcp/ip game. (which really is the identical game type as GSA anyway... try a StarFleetOP.exe -Host or StarFleetOP.exe -Client [IP address to connect to] to see... that is how gamespy calls SFC)

[Riskyllama]

OT:so you're saying we could connect into a GSA operated room if we knew the host's IP address?

[Dfly]

Yes, have done it often

[Bonk]

OT:so you're saying we could connect into a GSA operated room if we knew the host's IP address?

Not the GSA room, but the OP game connections setup phase once the host launches from gamespy. Gamespy simply launches a tcp/ip game as host for the host and passes the host IP to the clients for connection on launch.

Look at C:\Program Files\GameSpy Arcade\Services\full.cfg under [sfc2op] to see what I mean.

edit: you must be running the gamepsy client to chat in a gamespy room... er well almost... :
http://www.dynaverse.net/gslist.php
That page can display the IP address of the room hosts but I have disabled it for obvious security reasons.
You can see lobby chat there using the "Chat Lobby" links on that page but cannot particapate directly, but tells will work (double click a player name in the list on the lobby chat page)
Created using: http://aluigi.altervista.org/papers.htm#gslist

[KBF-Crim]

Ok Bonk...something to put on your "to do" list....

Build a chat roon here on DV.net that we can launch the game from...

[Bonk]

Ok Bonk...something to put on your "to do" list....

Build a chat roon here on DV.net that we can launch the game from...

I would need to create an exe or browser plugins for the different browsers for you to download to your machine and install so it can detect your OP installation folder and launch it when called for.

This it what the CUGS ACSIII system is all about, I was going to participate in its development but got tied up with the serverkit project and this website. I still want to check that out... (looking for the download link to post now...)

ah, here it is: http://www.r-pex.com/prod05.htm

[Pojo92]

...What does it mean to "rot fur?"  Have seen references to this in the past and was similarly clueless.  Just want to make sure I don't do anything to run afoul of the rules.

Thanks.

[Riskyllama]

It was explained to me as meaning to loose missions intentionally in ones's own space in order to allow allies a neutral hex to set up bases or planets in. I believe it refers to one of the kitty races having done it on one of the Canada west servers or something like that. The knowers of old will show up soon enough with the truth to this though.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Actual "Rotting Fur" was the practice of cheating by logging in as an enemy and intentionally losing missions to lower the DV of a hex.

Some have used the tag (incorrectly IMHO) to include losing a mission so that an ally can take control of a hex so as to place a base or take control of a planet (or for whatever reason). This practice has been allowed on many servers, as a representation of one ally turning over an area or facility to the administration of an ally.

I think Hexx is using this term to denote both practices, since even allies in the mechanics sense of KCW aren'treally allies.

[762_XC]

Don't bother Bonk. He's fixing SQL!

[Dizzy]

It's not about droners being contained as much as giving PvP a role in shaping the map.

This IS a valid point  , however I think the map will be so large and the territories so mixed that I'm not sure it will be a big factor, especially given the no LOS requirement and the lack of mandatory missions. 

Lets make sure the map isnt so big that having one account as per rules doesnt constantly force us to have to spend 10 mins just to move over to where the action is. Lets also make sure there are resupply points/embassy bases all over the map. Otherwise, some houses will be left with nothing to do but fight AI. That's whyt I still say do it all on the Cartel map. Everyone gets the same interface and everyone can resupply/repair at any planet base.

If you do that, the disengagement penalty could be applied for only those hexes. In addition, mandatory missions can be reinstated as supply wont be a problem and thus front lines and PvP areas can be resestablished and defined.

[Hexx]

Yeah.. but what my admittedly limited tests have shown is that on the cartel map
you respawn at the nearest base/planet.
So if you're fighting on or in the hex beside a base/planet and die, you'll respawn on
that base or planet.

I have a feeling that might cause some issues..

Besides the idea that there is going to be one center of attention that everyone is fighting over is
based on the normal servers where you have 2 sides fighting over the same planets.
This one has eight, so I think it will spread out a bit.

[Dizzy]

I have a feeling that might cause some issues..

explore that mb

Besides the idea that there is going to be one center of attention that everyone is fighting over is
based on the normal servers where you have 2 sides fighting over the same planets.
This one has eight, so I think it will spread out a bit.

Remember, only a quarter of the players signed up will be play much at all. And out of that only a fraction will be online at the same time. So if you further spread them out over 8 areas, well... Mise well play a SP game where we can all fly C7's.

[Hexx]

... Mise well play a SP game where we can all fly C7's.

I had actually planned on this... decided I wouldn't be able to trust t00l though..
<sigh> ruining the SP game for everyone...

[KBF-Kapact]

VC's, honor points, attrition points, etc, do not have the tangibility that affecting the map does. That is why they will never be a substitute.

With the current rules and no disengagment rule, there is no reason to enter PvP EVER, unless you are challenged. (And once you're done with your requisite daily fight it's right back to flipping).

Until SQL gets running and we can do multiple DV shifts, the disengagement rule is necessary.

I'm just trying to get something clear, and sorry if it's been explained before, but if I am in a PvP fleet, and I do some hex flipping, is that wrong? Or is it just worth less to my fleet in the long run?

[Hexx]

PVP houses will likley have to hex flip as well- they receive fewer points
for holding objective hexes, and more for PVP kills.
Theoretically it's possible (I suppose) to score so many PVP kills
that you wouldn't need to hold any territory, but then of course
your name would be Hexx and you'd already know the answer to the question.