Print

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

[FPF-DieHard]

Wow, who knew you could edit the names of threads 

BUMP

[GDA-S'Cipio]

I think there were a couple of things that used to create more 1v1 PvPs even on servers that had epic, hotly contested battles.

1)  There used to be missions that would only draft 1v1.  Like, the patrol mission with the disable ship in the middle.  You and your carefully constructed Big Metal fleet would jump some hopeless smuck, and suddenly you'd realize you were in a one-on-one, and the schmuck no longer looked quite so schmucky.

Some people complain that they don't like this mission because it seperates you for one combat from the wingman you worked hard to coordinate with, and they have a point.  But I think these missions added some spice to the game and I think they were realistic to the source material.  A lot of good stories take place when one ship gets seperated from a fleet.



2)  As someone else already pointed out, a big fleet is killer in combat but lone pilots are more efficient on the map.  When we were behind and being left alone, the Gorn used to give orders that our pilots were NOT to get a wingman, as we could catch up better flying solo.  This behaviour could be encouraged by adding more 2nd tier VC hexs.  Big fleets would still go for the bigger hexes, but a race aced out of this competition could split up and sweep a lot of second tier hexs to break even.

-S'Cipio

[Bonk]

Wow, who knew you could edit the names of threads 

BUMP

Lol, and here I thought you had dug up the old one... should have noticed its way too short to be the genuine article... 

[Bonk]

1)  There used to be missions that would only draft 1v1.  Like, the patrol mission with the disable ship in the middle.  You and your carefully constructed Big Metal fleet would jump some hopeless smuck, and suddenly you'd realize you were in a one-on-one, and the schmuck no longer looked quite so schmucky.

Some people complain that they don't like this mission because it seperates you for one combat from the wingman you worked hard to coordinate with, and they have a point.  But I think these missions added some spice to the game and I think they were realistic to the source material.  A lot of good stories take place when one ship gets seperated from a fleet.

Interesting point, but...

I have been on the receiving end of this one many times and inevitably it still ends up as a DN vs a DD and I'm screaming where is my wingman dammit! And because of the disengagement rule I end up staying to be destroyed instead of running to get the shorter penalty, it gets expensive. (especially if ships are costly) 

But I may have at least a partial solution: http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163364179.0.html

[762_XC]

I HATED that mission that split you off from your wingman/men. 

I think there are better ways we can encourage 1v1 flying if that's desired. The Slot idea is one, and I'm sure creative minds can come up with more. (And I mean ideas that work along with the disengagement rule.)

Mandatory mission meanness makes me mad.

[Hondo_8]

I have some change to toss in


From how Im seeing the progresion of D2 is that the maps and VCs are becoming more PVP condusive.   The old days before the 100 pound rule books were introduced most encounters were 1v1 and the far and few were the 2v2 3v3 battles that were rejoiced over when encountered.

I think some of the issues for discouraging 1v1 is not scripting based but how we have ruled ourselves into boxes.  The bigest rule I think that started this push to pvp maps and Vcs is the line of supply...any where a line of supply it will discourage 1v1.

VC on maps tend to devolp choke points where it comes down to pvp.

I imagine space battles much like navel encounters  alot of looking around for the bad guys and only a few major encounters.

What d2 is lacking is a politcle system where if ships are not present in a system for a period of time to keep law and order then the system is lost..... 

I think that large fleet engagments should be done in gamespy  IE major Planatary hexes. starbases.  There could be a system of points that each race could accumalate with pvp kills, VC achievments to spend on a large fleet assualt for a major VC hex, or even spending points on starbase placments in controled area. Out comes of major Fleet assualts could hamper ship productions for the losing side, Or lose of a captial ship. Capital ships could be produced dependent on the economy of a race or points spent

Just some random thoughts

1AF Hondo

[Julin Eurthyr]

Glad to see that I'm not alone in beliving that we've legislated ourselves into this position.

What's bugging me some (which is understandable, in a way), is that we're calling for more legislation, ie, slot-areas etc., to fix the problem instead of addressing the causes that led us to require wingmen.  While more legislation is the "American way", we're looking at making a rulebook the size of SFB just to play one server.

Personally, I'd rather see the root causes fixed while not undoing everything we've done...

To me, there are 3 things contributing to the "wingmen required" syndrome.  I'll repost them with more details / possible fixes which won't extend our "rulebook" to a thousand pages...

1.  EEK missions:  On one hand, they do work "as advertised", ie, increasing the challenge level.  For a certain ISC pilot that's fairly experienced in Fed and Rommie (yes, that's me), they are a "challenge".  Having been designed to be a challenge to an I-CCZ, I can handle them fairly regularly in the over-gunned ISC hulls, and can tough them out in Fed / Rommie hulls.  On the other hand, they might be a tad to difficult for the newbies, whether they're the true newbies we've recently attracted, or a "veteran" with no experience in a race (like the aforementioned ISC pilot who's had a tough time learning Klingon due to colorblindness vs. interface issues)...
The fixes for this are obvious, though a bit of a challenge.  We could drop them altogether, which also kills our AI-free PvPs.  We could "tone them down" from Anti-CCZ to Anti-CC (ie, Fed CC+R / Klink D7L) levels (which requires a recompilation from a retired scripter), or find a way to allow the "easier" TG / ED missions to show up in every hex.

2.  OOB / VCs.  Both of these tie together, as putting a VC price on a ship is practically as limiting as an actual rule like an OOB.  Both of them make the loss of a certain ship painful, whether it's a loss of the rights to the ship or helping the enemy score points.  Personally, and from a "watcher's" standpoint, the best servers have been the ones where the OOB / VCs covered the same thing that SFB restricts, ie, the carriers / DNs / specialty ships.  Keeping the OOB ruleset at that level would cut down on the ships being escorted, therefore freeing up more solo pilots and one-on-one opportunities.

3.  Disengagement.  This may be rendered a moot point with Bonk's recent work, as the new multi-DV shift for losing a battle might make killing / driving off a half-dozen or so of the "evil frigate-droners" that led to the disengagement rule the fastest way to flip a hex.  Otherwise, the only fix I can think of is writing a server with enough VC locations so that a driven off pilot is "immediatly useful" at another locale.

Of course, another thing that's hurt our 1 vs 1 PvPs is the lack of pilots.  When there's only a dozen pilots per side, and half of them (3-6) are in fancy-ships and the other half are escorting those fancy ships, that does cut out the 1 on 1's... :roll:

[FPF-DieHard]

The 'legislation" is to make up for lack of back end features. 

If stuff can be done in the background that is transparent to the user, there is little need for legislation.

[Hexx]

Glad to see that I'm not alone in beliving that we've legislated ourselves into this position.

What's bugging me some (which is understandable, in a way), is that we're calling for more legislation, ie, slot-areas etc., to fix the problem instead of addressing the causes that led us to require wingmen.  While more legislation is the "American way", we're looking at making a rulebook the size of SFB just to play one server.

Personally, I'd rather see the root causes fixed while not undoing everything we've done...

To me, there are 3 things contributing to the "wingmen required" syndrome.  I'll repost them with more details / possible fixes which won't extend our "rulebook" to a thousand pages...

1.  EEK missions:  On one hand, they do work "as advertised", ie, increasing the challenge level.  For a certain ISC pilot that's fairly experienced in Fed and Rommie (yes, that's me), they are a "challenge".  Having been designed to be a challenge to an I-CCZ, I can handle them fairly regularly in the over-gunned ISC hulls, and can tough them out in Fed / Rommie hulls.  On the other hand, they might be a tad to difficult for the newbies, whether they're the true newbies we've recently attracted, or a "veteran" with no experience in a race (like the aforementioned ISC pilot who's had a tough time learning Klingon due to colorblindness vs. interface issues)...
The fixes for this are obvious, though a bit of a challenge.  We could drop them altogether, which also kills our AI-free PvPs.  We could "tone them down" from Anti-CCZ to Anti-CC (ie, Fed CC+R / Klink D7L) levels (which requires a recompilation from a retired scripter), or find a way to allow the "easier" TG / ED missions to show up in every hex.

EEK mission have nothing to do with it- they do tend to make people fly bigger ships but that's it.
I can beat EEK missions solo using any race, including the plasma ones- hardly a call that a wingman is needed.

2.  OOB / VCs.  Both of these tie together, as putting a VC price on a ship is practically as limiting as an actual rule like an OOB.  Both of them make the loss of a certain ship painful, whether it's a loss of the rights to the ship or helping the enemy score points.  Personally, and from a "watcher's" standpoint, the best servers have been the ones where the OOB / VCs covered the same thing that SFB restricts, ie, the carriers / DNs / specialty ships.  Keeping the OOB ruleset at that level would cut down on the ships being escorted, therefore freeing up more solo pilots and one-on-one opportunities.

All OOb/ OOB VP's tend to do is keep the Heavy metal out of the hands of the less experienced players- while this is not always(imo) a bad thing, again it doesn't really contribute to the "fleeting" issue

3.  Disengagement.  This may be rendered a moot point with Bonk's recent work, as the new multi-DV shift for losing a battle might make killing / driving off a half-dozen or so of the "evil frigate-droners" that led to the disengagement rule the fastest way to flip a hex.  Otherwise, the only fix I can think of is writing a server with enough VC locations so that a driven off pilot is "immediatly useful" at another locale.

This is 100% the reason for the fleets- disengagement.  Jumping solo/duo players with duo/trio fleets has substituted itself for "strategy". Players flying three ship fleets have claimed (and I think t00l does here somewhere) that it's OK because you don't know what you're going to draw- perhaps, but one of the things you know you won't draw is a four ship fleet.
The disengagement rule is needed (until hopefully Bonk's work takes care of everything including someone running off the hex)
Although I still believe spreading out VP hexes with varying DV's/VP's/locations/terrain types is the way to go.

[K'Hexx]

Glad to see that I'm not alone in beliving that we've legislated ourselves into this position.

What's bugging me some (which is understandable, in a way), is that we're calling for more legislation, ie, slot-areas etc., to fix the problem instead of addressing the causes that led us to require wingmen.  While more legislation is the "American way", we're looking at making a rulebook the size of SFB just to play one server.

Personally, I'd rather see the root causes fixed while not undoing everything we've done...

To me, there are 3 things contributing to the "wingmen required" syndrome.  I'll repost them with more details / possible fixes which won't extend our "rulebook" to a thousand pages...

1.  EEK missions:  On one hand, they do work "as advertised", ie, increasing the challenge level.  For a certain ISC pilot that's fairly experienced in Fed and Rommie (yes, that's me), they are a "challenge".  Having been designed to be a challenge to an I-CCZ, I can handle them fairly regularly in the over-gunned ISC hulls, and can tough them out in Fed / Rommie hulls.  On the other hand, they might be a tad to difficult for the newbies, whether they're the true newbies we've recently attracted, or a "veteran" with no experience in a race (like the aforementioned ISC pilot who's had a tough time learning Klingon due to colorblindness vs. interface issues)...
The fixes for this are obvious, though a bit of a challenge.  We could drop them altogether, which also kills our AI-free PvPs.  We could "tone them down" from Anti-CCZ to Anti-CC (ie, Fed CC+R / Klink D7L) levels (which requires a recompilation from a retired scripter), or find a way to allow the "easier" TG / ED missions to show up in every hex.

2.  OOB / VCs.  Both of these tie together, as putting a VC price on a ship is practically as limiting as an actual rule like an OOB.  Both of them make the loss of a certain ship painful, whether it's a loss of the rights to the ship or helping the enemy score points.  Personally, and from a "watcher's" standpoint, the best servers have been the ones where the OOB / VCs covered the same thing that SFB restricts, ie, the carriers / DNs / specialty ships.  Keeping the OOB ruleset at that level would cut down on the ships being escorted, therefore freeing up more solo pilots and one-on-one opportunities.

3.  Disengagement.  This may be rendered a moot point with Bonk's recent work, as the new multi-DV shift for losing a battle might make killing / driving off a half-dozen or so of the "evil frigate-droners" that led to the disengagement rule the fastest way to flip a hex.  Otherwise, the only fix I can think of is writing a server with enough VC locations so that a driven off pilot is "immediatly useful" at another locale.

Of course, another thing that's hurt our 1 vs 1 PvPs is the lack of pilots.  When there's only a dozen pilots per side, and half of them (3-6) are in fancy-ships and the other half are escorting those fancy ships, that does cut out the 1 on 1's... :roll:

Agree totally Julin.  But I think the lack of players is largely due to the over legislation.  Dumping the Karnak missions is likely the best first step as they force increased winging and dependence on big ships.  The light cruisers and frigates are suppossed to be the workhorses of the fleet, et with Karnak missions we rarely get a good opportunity to fly them unless they are droners or we have a wing.

[762_XC]

"Lack of players" is due to the fact that it's a 5 year old game. I'm not sure what "over-legislation" means, but if you're suggesting Chuut, that the disengagement rule has driven off more peeps than it has RETAINED, I think you could not possibly be more wrong.

The fact that D2 is even still alive after all these years indicates to me that we have something good going here.

Lest you forget, the DR was the brainchild of the most infamous hex-flipper of all as an attempt to keep the plasma races from disappearing totally. It has succeeded well beyond anyone's expectations.

To summarize, it's all Fluf's fault.

[Bonk]

The disengagement rule is needed (until hopefully Bonk's work takes care of everything including someone running off the hex)

That is how Lepton and I have been testing it, I have been running off, he wins, consistently. However, it is the mission script's responsibility to report this correctly, there is nothing I can do in the serverkit code to affect that. (The "patrol bug" should be long dead).

By the sounds of things here I'll have to add differing gf configurable DV shifts for various combinations of 2vs1, 3vs2... as well.

Note that it is using DV shifts of one and high hex DVs that has painted us into this corner, the old serverkit defaults would result in most hexes flipping in just one mission, kinda negating the whole PvP and hex flipping time issues...

[K'Hexx]

Lest you forget, the DR was the brainchild of the most infamous hex-flipper of all as an attempt to keep the plasma races from disappearing totally. It has succeeded well beyond anyone's expectations.

Fluf did 80% of his hex flipping in a CVA t00l, what he was was the most infamouse "big-ship"  captain after yourself of course.

[762_XC]

Don't forget Die Hard. 

It is kind of funny you perceive me as a big ship captain, considering how naked I feel without a high energy turn at my disposal.

Granted there aren't that many Hydran pilots who feel comfortable in dreads. Maybe 3 or 4 of us left?

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I consider a CCH and above a big ship t00l, doesn't take a DN to be considered big.

[762_XC]

Then it's hardly a descriptive term, since you are talking about 95% of D2 players.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Then it's hardly a descriptive term, since you are talking about 95% of D2 players.

95% since the disengagement rule and Karnak patrols perhaps 

Anyhow, the CCH is a big ship, but I tend to think of the "big ship" as one who is usually to be found in a BCH or larger, but occassionally "slum" it in a CCH which would be in the largest 10% if not 5% of any race's navy.  Nothing against the CCH, it is a great ship class and one of the more balabced,just feel that recent settings have been very unfair to those who like to fly smaller ships. 

[FPF-DieHard]

. . . just feel that recent settings have been very unfair to those who like to fly smaller ships. 

PvP always gives an advantage to the bigger better ships.  There is no way to have PvP count for anything without perpetuating this.

We should rename KCW to "Attack of the D7Ws"   

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Of course PvP would give the larger ships the advantage in combat, but out of PvP it applies as well.  Look at the mission matching in Karnak patrols.  Funny thing was Karnak designed his missions to make it hard for droners, it really didn't, what it did do was make the missions very difficult for small ships except for droners, thus prompting increased use of drone boats and larger ships.

[762_XC]

Players who like to fly small ships are SOL without artificial limitations, like The Slot. That's not because of DR, that's just human nature. People fly the biggest thing they can get. There's nothing "forcing" them to do this, they do it anyway.

At least now thanks to "over-legislation" we no longer have 3xBB fleets running around.

[FPF-DieHard]

Of course PvP would give the larger ships the advantage in combat, but out of PvP it applies as well.  Look at the mission matching in Karnak patrols.  Funny thing was Karnak designed his missions to make it hard for droners, it really didn't, what it did do was make the missions very difficult for small ships except for droners, thus prompting increased use of drone boats and larger ships.

No disagreement about the Karnak patrols.  I'm not using them again unless he comes back to fix some bugs.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Players who like to fly small ships are SOL without artificial limitations, like The Slot. That's not because of DR, that's just human nature.

respectfully disagree.

[762_XC]

Are you saying before the disengagement rule people in general DIDN'T gravitate towards bigger ships?

[Hexx]

Players who like PVP *tend* to gravitate towards big ships
Players who like hex flipping *tend* to gravitate towards smaller ships

The problem arises from the fact that the D2 is-for all intents and purposes- about hex flipping.
A frigate with 4 or 6 drone racks can do far more damage in proportion to it's ability to take damage
than anything bigger.As their size increases,ships increase their ability to absorb damage at a far greater rate than they
increase their firepower.
Given AI draws as being remotely equal to their BPV, small ships (with drones etc) will have a far faster mission time against AI
as it's far easier for a ship with 4-6 drone racks and 2 phaser 1's to kill a frigate than it is for a BCH to kill another BCH.

For hex flipping- the smaller ship is better, for PVP- where the ability to absorb some damage is needed the bigger ship works better.

So the question is- can we balance hex flipping with PvP? -so far we haven't even come close.
(Although Bonk may be riding to the rescue again)

As for the Karnak missions I'd have to respectfully disagree about the difficulty- I can run them in the same amount of time using a DWLP
as a BCHP.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

DWLP is a droner type ship with lots of offense for a small price.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Are you saying before the disengagement rule people in general DIDN'T gravitate towards bigger ships?

No not saying that they didn't only that it was much less a a gravitation at that time.  I'd say its at least 50% more now with the combination of the "DR" and fleeting limitations.  Origionally I was very pro one ship per pilot myself, and it still has its place on a few select servers but it should have never become the norm.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Here is a thought.

Would it be possible to have missions that drew ai opponents based on the number of pilots in a misssion and their hull classes?

This would mean that a frigate drafting for a battleship would draw an ai frigate and an ai battleship to fight.

 If this couldn't be done would it at least be possible to base it on the number of pilots?

It might help combat gangbanging behaviors a tad more.

[NuclearWessels]

Here is a thought.

Would it be possible to have missions that drew ai opponents based on the number of pilots in a misssion and their hull classes?

This would mean that a frigate drafting for a battleship would draw an ai frigate and an ai battleship to fight.

 If this couldn't be done would it at least be possible to base it on the number of pilots?

It might help combat gangbanging behaviors a tad more.

Using the EEK style (strip AI then create your own) it should be possible to customize the AI by the number of wings, their hull classes, and their combined BPV.

dave
 

[Fluf]

Gotta love a good Jinn you Bastard thread! 

Amazing after 5 years this game is still having the same arguements that it had when it started.  Im glad to see new things being tried and worked on continueously.  Keep it up people.

[Hexx]

DWLP is a droner type ship with lots of offense for a small price.

DWLP is a great ship- IMO- one of the best (actually the best) ow the DWL's
But I'd hardly call it a droner type ship as (even with the ESG's) it lacks the
"cruch" power that gives droners their mission times.

In PVP of course they're fantastic