11. Disengagement rule in place
12. No Alt/F4 out to save ship
Brought satisfaction to those who would chase around a weaker ship for an hour, only to see him run off when he ran out of "consumables". I can see how those who are frequently run off would feel dissappointed in not being allowed to get back in there and be run off again without waiting for a while.
This rule finished all my arguments about small ships tuned for AI missions. Either they stand and die, or they don't come back. I see no need to justify why a captain should be forced to withdraw from a hex other than that it adds balance to the game.
I thought it was PvP we wanted... not endless AI battles to bank PP...
I thought it was PvP we wanted... not endless AI battles to bank PP...
Meaningful PvP, that actually counts for something is the part you are missing. Killing or driving off a DD classed hex flipper in a strategically important hex, only to have them come right back and attempt to run under you is foolish and was killing the D2. Before the disengagement rule, PvP was practically meaningless.
When in a mission, fight or leave. Do not lead your opponents around the map wasting their time. There are many good run and chase strategies but staying in the map with no intentions of fighting is not one of them.
Disengagement rule save Dyna2. Without it the game would have died a silent death a long time ago cuz most players and techies would abandon the game. Not to mention the Mirak would be subject to a continual flame roasts 24/7 due to their superior hex flipping ability. So, the Mirak players would run too. It happened big time with some GFL Mirak players 2 years ago. They got sick of all the "hex flipping" flames and moved on to other games.
I guess if like playing on stock dynas with stock missions then not having the disengagement rule is for you.
So now PvP is only available and meaningful for nutters or those in assigned ships? Not acceptable.
Easy to prevent missions being run over the big ship:
Have him back up a hex, send in two small ships to defend, the big ship watches for the pesky enemy small ship to go into mission with the smaller defenders then returns to the hex to scare off any others that come along or to face any large ships that come along.
You also assume that any players in small ships are arseholes with no honour that will tie up a large ship in mission without engaging it... we had a rule against that. What happened to it? (not to mention I find it somewhat offensive)
here's the old SFC2.net rule:QuoteWhen in a mission, fight or leave. Do not lead your opponents around the map wasting their time. There are many good run and chase strategies but staying in the map with no intentions of fighting is not one of them.
Yes if the hex is being guarded by an enemy DN you need to get a wingman to unseat him, as it should be. You are also not allowed the benefit of trying to get lucky and draw an AI only mission under him even if he has previously forced you to disengage or has killed you in that hex, which is alos as it should be. There is now a real consiquence to losing in PvP, as the lose of PP has never had much effect as ships are to cheap and PP to easy to come by to ever serve as much of a deterent.
So why do we have fewer players now?
So why do we have fewer players now?
Because it is a 4 year old game.
What is meaningful PvP Kroma?
I know some people caught in a D5D, NCD, DF that can't PvP to save their life. Their only purpose is to run fast missions and flip hexes. I also know people in the same ships that can give people in larger ships a real go at it.
So why do we have fewer players now?
Because it is a 4 year old game.
Right, and most of us that remain will not leave because of a rule that is implemented or not. I think the disengagement rule is severely detrimental to the game (I play all races), but I remain.
Let me post this again so it is not missed:
I think if a losing player has to leave a hex for an hour, then the victor has to stay in that same hex for an hour, to avoid abuse of this rule.
I mean how can a ship defend a hex for multiple turns when it is not even there?
You also assume that any players in small ships are arseholes with no honour that will tie up a large ship in mission without engaging it... we had a rule against that.
Both sides have DNs. Both sides have multiple players in smaller ships. The team that uses their resources in a coordinated fashion will win the hex. Nutters and non-nutters all have valid meaningful roles to fill.
You also assume that any players in small ships are arseholes with no honour that will tie up a large ship in mission without engaging it... we had a rule against that.
That's not the problem being addressed by the disengagement rule.
Suppose the small ship *isn't* an areshole. Suppose he sees the big ship and then honorably leaves immediately. (Or charges in, does his best, and dies.)
Either way, he's back in the hex five seconds later running yet another mission.
EDIT: Jeez! a lot of posting happened in the few minutes since I started mine! Never mind, this has been covered already.
-S'Cipio (the slow)
Yes I agree Jeff, good "Kroma" for everyone involved in the debate. Lucky there is enough of me to go around.
I can't really argue that, but I'm a bit biased by recent experiences on LB5, where there were few players on the defending team and a marked rarity of DNs. Leaves you pretty much neutered for any strategic defence, thus I gave up on strategy and started watching the news to hunt players, running all over the map looking for good matches regardless of strategic importance. (I actually kind of like playing on the side of the underdog, it provides motivation...)
I still say that pvp needs more importance placed on it, by having a small number of VPs for destroying/capturing enemy players, a la RDSL. Perhaps impelementing this could allow for the removal of the disengagement rule?
Disengagement rule save Dyna2. Without it the game would have died a silent death a long time ago cuz most players and techies would abandon the game. Not to mention the Mirak would be subject to a continual flame roasts 24/7 due to their superior hex flipping ability. So, the Mirak players would run too. It happened big time with some GFL Mirak players 2 years ago. They got sick of all the "hex flipping" flames and moved on to other games.
I guess if like playing on stock dynas with stock missions then not having the disengagement rule is for you.
So why do we have fewer players now?
For example, one evening on GW1, I logged on, in my CWLP, to find that the base captured by the Lyrans on the Kzinit border was under attack by 7 Kzinti players, and I was the only Lyran on. So, they drafted me in 1s and 2s, and I defeated every single one of them, some by chasing them off the map, some by destroying them and some were captured, thus securing the base for some time. In the end, the base was captured some time later (after I'd gone to bed). Prior to the disengagement rule, I'd have lost that base quickly despite defeating the opponents.
Disengagement rule save Dyna2. Without it the game would have died a silent death a long time ago cuz most players and techies would abandon the game. Not to mention the Mirak would be subject to a continual flame roasts 24/7 due to their superior hex flipping ability. So, the Mirak players would run too. It happened big time with some GFL Mirak players 2 years ago. They got sick of all the "hex flipping" flames and moved on to other games.
I guess if like playing on stock dynas with stock missions then not having the disengagement rule is for you.
So why do we have fewer players now?
3 major reasons:
1) Not enough regular dynas of SS2/SG3 quality being run. There was a dry spell after SS2 that lasted 6 months that really was a downer. Simply put, there were way too many vicious flamewars of WT caliber going on in 2003 that really messed everything up.
which led to => #2
2) Lack of cohesive direction in dyna tech. Too many horses were pulling in way too many different directions. When DIP was formed too many productive techies refused to participate in the organization for various reasons, one of which was the dubious signup requirements. That last thing many techies are going to do is submit to an entrance vote by DIP members that don't do techie stuff. The fact they do techie stuff is more than good enough. I think the community has figured that out by now after going through a few patches of little dyna campaign activity. Bottom-line, it wasn't until SGODev started up again in conjuction with the GW dyna series that things started to move meaningfully in OP dynas.
3) Last but not least: the game is old beyond belief. If there was no disengagement rule the game would have died and D2.net may not have had a raison d'etre to exist. The scripters would have no reason to make new missions or update the old ones. Everyone would just hang out on GSA for weekend party IP games.
I just don't agree that the lack of a disengagement rule would have killed the D2. There are other solutions that actually encourage PvP, not discourage it. Also, as I have expressed, the D2 is a much better environment for PvP than GSA, it adds meaning and variability to the matches and avoids the politics that leave some players out in the cold on GSA.
Simlilarly, allowing fleets would add additional variability and realism to the game in my view, and make much of the current rules issues moot. Unlike some claim, allowing fleets does not force everyone to fly them, there are times and places to fly a single ship or a fleet, each have their own advantages (but that is another issue, though not entirely unrelated).
BTW....#12
I agree with completely.... ;)
BTW....#12
I agree with completely.... ;)
No arguement there! (unless the double-fire bug is at play...)
I just don't agree that the lack of a disengagement rule would have killed the D2. There are other solutions that actually encourage PvP, not discourage it. Also, as I have expressed, the D2 is a much better environment for PvP than GSA, it adds meaning and variability to the matches and avoids the politics that leave some players out in the cold on GSA.
I feel that it is the disengagement rule that gives D2 PvP that very meaning now. In the past PvP in the D2 just seemed like a sideshow to me, although still a fun one as compaired to some of the PvP in GSA as you mention.
BTW....#12
I agree with completely.... ;)
No arguement there! (unless the double-fire bug is at play...)
Or your opponent is a starcastling tw*t. :P
BTW....#12
I agree with completely.... ;)
No arguement there! (unless the double-fire bug is at play...)
Or your opponent is a starcastling tw*t. :P
:rofl: ...but a starcastling Fed facing a skilled Gorn is dead meat as I see it. (or have I misundersood?)
For example, one evening on GW1, I logged on, in my CWLP, to find that the base captured by the Lyrans on the Kzinit border was under attack by 7 Kzinti players, and I was the only Lyran on. So, they drafted me in 1s and 2s, and I defeated every single one of them, some by chasing them off the map, some by destroying them and some were captured, thus securing the base for some time. In the end, the base was captured some time later (after I'd gone to bed). Prior to the disengagement rule, I'd have lost that base quickly despite defeating the opponents.
Good case to look at. What was preventing the other six Kzin from flipping the hex while you were in mission with the first one? Seems the boys are getting slow in their old age... hehe. ;) I do see the advantage and utility of the rule in such situations, but is it realistic that one light cruiser can hold off seven? (I know, its a game and realism can be iffy sometimes.). After you logged off and the hex was undefended, it is still somehow magically defended by a ship that is not there? Seems odd to me.
What if the first battle was against a DN and you had to run away or were destroyed and being the only Lyran on you had no DN for backup... so you have to go fly boring missions against the AI in some other hex that is not important? How does that encourage PvP? If there is seven enemies there is little to no chance that you will be repeatedly engaging a larger ship and running away... why can't you have another chance in the ship you've been knocked down to? Why not something like three strikes in a hex and you're out - your commander deems you unworthy of the front and sends you back home for training.
If we want that kind of thing then I'd be more for something that has been suggested: if you are destroyed or captured you must start a new account but can fight wherever you please... that would sufficiently discourage the "irritating-mosquito" factor...
What I object to is an ememy DN coming into a hex you have been working on for some time, running you off in one mission, then leaving the hex for his own hex-flippers to undo your work and you can do nothing about it, and are denied a fair match against a ship of your own class. The DN can move along the front repeating this again and again, making all smaller enemy ships effectively useless.
"If we want that kind of thing then I'd be more for something that has been suggested: if you are destroyed or captured you must start a new account but can fight wherever you please... that would sufficiently discourage the "irritating-mosquito" factor..."
Aye Kroma, I kinda came to that conclusion myself in the next paragraph, lol. I can't really see a viable alternative yet. All I can think of, to make it less of a game spoiler to the casual player who wants pvp, is to reduce the time penalty to say 30 minutes.
..It is way too easy to avoid being drafted. Once drafted, the disengagement rule makes the confrontation mean something as there is a definitive outcome. Little hex flippers should not be able to dodge the heavy iron in a hex, but this is the consequence of the D2 system...
"If we want that kind of thing then I'd be more for something that has been suggested: if you are destroyed or captured you must start a new account but can fight wherever you please... that would sufficiently discourage the "irritating-mosquito" factor..."
Probably because I am not "currently" stoned, but I am having a hard time understanding 'what' exactly this would do about the irritating-mosquito" factor, since even with a brand new account the player can by another hex flipper right off the bat. This basically just makes the disengagement penalty a 5-10 minute one as the player creates a new account and orders a new ship.
..It is way too easy to avoid being drafted. Once drafted, the disengagement rule makes the confrontation mean something as there is a definitive outcome. Little hex flippers should not be able to dodge the heavy iron in a hex, but this is the consequence of the D2 system...
That is not my concern at all, my concern is being denied participation in anything significant because you do not have a big ship for whatever reason. As a player in a small ship I do not want to dodge drafts, I'm looking for them! I thought you were one of the people interested in seeing a decrease of AI battles... the disengagement rule only serves to discourage PvP and encourage endless AI battles to bank PP, or because you have been banned from all the active hexes...
Not if you start in a frigate with 300PP...
..It is way too easy to avoid being drafted. Once drafted, the disengagement rule makes the confrontation mean something as there is a definitive outcome. Little hex flippers should not be able to dodge the heavy iron in a hex, but this is the consequence of the D2 system...
That is not my concern at all, my concern is being denied participation in anything significant because you do not have a big ship for whatever reason. As a player in a small ship I do not want to dodge drafts, I'm looking for them! I thought you were one of the people interested in seeing a decrease of AI battles... the disengagement rule only serves to discourage PvP and encourage endless AI battles to bank PP, or because you have been banned from all the active hexes...
What is the problem with having draft radius more than zero again? I forget.
What is the problem with having draft radius more than zero again? I forget.
Sick processor load on the server when lots of players on.
Perhaps,we just need larger starting ships to get the causal players involved immediately in the goings-on. That I have no problem with.
What is the problem with having draft radius more than zero again? I forget.
Sick processor load on the server when lots of players on.
Question Bonk, why could we do it on EAW 3 years ago on dial up with much slower processors (smaller graphics cards and loads less memory) than we have now and much slower net connections and 10 times the people playing? Is it an OP thing?
Shame as with drfat radius of 1 hunting parties after DSers get real fun. So do hotspots, spent over an hour once on CW3 trying just to get out of what we called the "meatgrinder", kept getting drafted into multiple PvP missions, very hairy, but loadsa fun.
Doesn't anybody see how to prevent a small ship from tying up a larger one without a disengagement rule? I personally think a lot of dyna strategies have been lost or forgotten over the last year or two...
What is the problem with having draft radius more than zero again? I forget.
Sick processor load on the server when lots of players on.
Question Bonk, why could we do it on EAW 3 years ago on dial up with much slower processors (smaller graphics cards and loads less memory) than we have now and much slower net connections and 10 times the people playing? Is it an OP thing?
No, no, its a server-side processor load issue, more likely to result in DB corruption. Mission matching in the serverkit will max out any processor (EAW on through to OP). A 1 or 2 hex draft radius can work but the db must be cleaned regularly, but will increase the likelyhood of server crashes... especially with >20 players on (and makes SQL hopeless altogether).QuoteShame as with drfat radius of 1 hunting parties after DSers get real fun. So do hotspots, spent over an hour once on CW3 trying just to get out of what we called the "meatgrinder", kept getting drafted into multiple PvP missions, very hairy, but loadsa fun.
I miss that too.
No, no, its a server-side processor load issue, more likely to result in DB corruption. Mission matching in the serverkit will max out any processor (EAW on through to OP). A 1 or 2 hex draft radius can work but the db must be cleaned regularly, but will increase the likelyhood of server crashes... especially with >20 players on (and makes SQL hopeless altogether).
Doesn't anybody see how to prevent a small ship from tying up a larger one without a disengagement rule? I personally think a lot of dyna strategies have been lost or forgotten over the last year or two...
The disengagement rule has been needed since the days of AF, when the Fed player base overwhelmed their shipyard capacity. Romulan policy was to exploit the weak Fed shipyard by hunting down and destroying ANY ship NCL or larger, while ignoring the smaller ships. Fed counter-policy developed to use their superior numbers to draw the superior Rommie Kestrals into combat with the sole purpose of keeping them tied up while other players entered the hex to run missions safe from harm.
(Deny it if you will, but those were the Days of Deceit, when Romulans cared nothing of honor. This is fact)
Even after the "Fight or Leave" rule was implemented, the definition of fighting was always at issue. If a drone refit x-NCL(pick a race) throws 6 drones per turn at a BCH while running away at max speed, he may be fighting using the best tactic available to his skill with that ship. Yes, the heavy can shoot down all 6 drones with phaser fire every turn, but that leaves him short of power to close the distance.
When the Drone ship has spent 10-15 min firing the last of his 100+ drones and executes the better part of valor without scratching the paint of the BCH, does he deserve the right to return in 5 min to take another shot at it?
QuoteNo, no, its a server-side processor load issue, more likely to result in DB corruption. Mission matching in the serverkit will max out any processor (EAW on through to OP). A 1 or 2 hex draft radius can work but the db must be cleaned regularly, but will increase the likelyhood of server crashes... especially with >20 players on (and makes SQL hopeless altogether).
I've often wondered about this myself. We used to have:
1)No DB cleaner
2)Massive maps
3)draft radius of 1
4)more players than the server could accept at once
And yet the servers like AF could run for weeks.
No we have
1) Cool DB cleaner
2) Smaller maps
3)draft radius of 1
4)fewer players throughout most of the day...
And yet if my server runs for more than a day without cleaning the DB, the whole thing goes to heck.
What's going on here?
-S'cipio
Edit: oh and I bet that the movement rate was left at a much longer time on the old servers, like the 15 second default, this is the single biggest factor in reducing serverload.
Doesn't anybody see how to prevent a small ship from tying up a larger one without a disengagement rule? I personally think a lot of dyna strategies have been lost or forgotten over the last year or two...
The disengagement rule has been needed since the days of AF, when the Fed player base overwhelmed their shipyard capacity. Romulan policy was to exploit the weak Fed shipyard by hunting down and destroying ANY ship NCL or larger, while ignoring the smaller ships. Fed counter-policy developed to use their superior numbers to draw the superior Rommie Kestrals into combat with the sole purpose of keeping them tied up while other players entered the hex to run missions safe from harm.
(Deny it if you will, but those were the Days of Deceit, when Romulans cared nothing of honor. This is fact)
Even after the "Fight or Leave" rule was implemented, the definition of fighting was always at issue. If a drone refit x-NCL(pick a race) throws 6 drones per turn at a BCH while running away at max speed, he may be fighting using the best tactic available to his skill with that ship. Yes, the heavy can shoot down all 6 drones with phaser fire every turn, but that leaves him short of power to close the distance.
When the Drone ship has spent 10-15 min firing the last of his 100+ drones and executes the better part of valor without scratching the paint of the BCH, does he deserve the right to return in 5 min to take another shot at it?
Nope, that counts as giving your enemy the runaround as I see it, and should be defined as not fighting. In a D5D for example I'll make a good go of landing some drones on the nose of a careless player in a larger ship (in batches of 12) If he does it right and doesn't take any drones, then I run off if I can. The enemy has the opportunity to catch me in the act. If I get away, he wins the mission gets the PP and gets the DV shift. If he destroys me, the same result is the case, with the bonus of having destroyed my ship, costing me additional PP. If I'm foolish enough to come back and try again then I think I should be allowed to.
Doesn't anybody see how to prevent a small ship from tying up a larger one without a disengagement rule? I personally think a lot of dyna strategies have been lost or forgotten over the last year or two...
The disengagement rule has been needed since the days of AF, when the Fed player base overwhelmed their shipyard capacity. Romulan policy was to exploit the weak Fed shipyard by hunting down and destroying ANY ship NCL or larger, while ignoring the smaller ships. Fed counter-policy developed to use their superior numbers to draw the superior Rommie Kestrals into combat with the sole purpose of keeping them tied up while other players entered the hex to run missions safe from harm.
(Deny it if you will, but those were the Days of Deceit, when Romulans cared nothing of honor. This is fact)
Even after the "Fight or Leave" rule was implemented, the definition of fighting was always at issue. If a drone refit x-NCL(pick a race) throws 6 drones per turn at a BCH while running away at max speed, he may be fighting using the best tactic available to his skill with that ship. Yes, the heavy can shoot down all 6 drones with phaser fire every turn, but that leaves him short of power to close the distance.
When the Drone ship has spent 10-15 min firing the last of his 100+ drones and executes the better part of valor without scratching the paint of the BCH, does he deserve the right to return in 5 min to take another shot at it?
Nope, that counts as giving your enemy the runaround as I see it, and should be defined as not fighting. In a D5D for example I'll make a good go of landing some drones on the nose of a careless player in a larger ship (in batches of 12) If he does it right and doesn't take any drones, then I run off if I can. The enemy has the opportunity to catch me in the act. If I get away, he wins the mission gets the PP and gets the DV shift. If he destroys me, the same result is the case, with the bonus of having destroyed my ship, costing me additional PP. If I'm foolish enough to come back and try again then I think I should be allowed to.
If you are a good player and do manage to score some hits you can successfully draw that battle out for quite a while, getting a few hits here and there. You are fighting, but you are also fighting a losing battle most likely, and have succeeded in tying up your opponent with no penalty to yourself. The hex DV is moving in your direction because similar ships to yours are killing AI by the number while you are in mission. All that happens to you is that you eventually expend all munitions and are forced to retire.
Edit: oh and I bet that the movement rate was left at a much longer time on the old servers, like the 15 second default, this is the single biggest factor in reducing serverload.
Aha! Good thought there. I wonder if people would be willing to put up with a 15 second move time again? Once the DB starts coughing around a busy area it usually takes that long anyway, so increasing it back to 15 seconds may not even be a real inconveniance.
-S'Cipio
We might be doing that right now. ;)
Has anyone considered using movement time to slow down hex flipping?
Also, why can't different ships have different movement times? Take the Z-DF for example. She's small yet holds LOTS AND LOTS of missiles. The space had to be taken from somewhere, so why not cut her warp speed down to reflect the lack of warp power? Make the movement time for the DF be something like 20 seconds, where faster ships like the CLC or SPZ closer to 5 or 7 seconds? Could that be done?
Doesn't anybody see how to prevent a small ship from tying up a larger one without a disengagement rule? I personally think a lot of dyna strategies have been lost or forgotten over the last year or two...
The disengagement rule has been needed since the days of AF, when the Fed player base overwhelmed their shipyard capacity. Romulan policy was to exploit the weak Fed shipyard by hunting down and destroying ANY ship NCL or larger, while ignoring the smaller ships. Fed counter-policy developed to use their superior numbers to draw the superior Rommie Kestrals into combat with the sole purpose of keeping them tied up while other players entered the hex to run missions safe from harm.
(Deny it if you will, but those were the Days of Deceit, when Romulans cared nothing of honor. This is fact)
Even after the "Fight or Leave" rule was implemented, the definition of fighting was always at issue. If a drone refit x-NCL(pick a race) throws 6 drones per turn at a BCH while running away at max speed, he may be fighting using the best tactic available to his skill with that ship. Yes, the heavy can shoot down all 6 drones with phaser fire every turn, but that leaves him short of power to close the distance.
When the Drone ship has spent 10-15 min firing the last of his 100+ drones and executes the better part of valor without scratching the paint of the BCH, does he deserve the right to return in 5 min to take another shot at it?
Nope, that counts as giving your enemy the runaround as I see it, and should be defined as not fighting. In a D5D for example I'll make a good go of landing some drones on the nose of a careless player in a larger ship (in batches of 12) If he does it right and doesn't take any drones, then I run off if I can. The enemy has the opportunity to catch me in the act. If I get away, he wins the mission gets the PP and gets the DV shift. If he destroys me, the same result is the case, with the bonus of having destroyed my ship, costing me additional PP. If I'm foolish enough to come back and try again then I think I should be allowed to.
If you are a good player and do manage to score some hits you can successfully draw that battle out for quite a while, getting a few hits here and there. You are fighting, but you are also fighting a losing battle most likely, and have succeeded in tying up your opponent with no penalty to yourself. The hex DV is moving in your direction because similar ships to yours are killing AI by the number while you are in mission. All that happens to you is that you eventually expend all munitions and are forced to retire.
Myself, I never take it to that point, I recognise a player who can handle drones immediately and cut my losses ASAP, what with current drone prices... either they fall for it or don't - no mucking about.
So now PvP is only available and meaningful for nutters or those in assigned ships? Not acceptable.
Aha! Good thought there. I wonder if people would be willing to put up with a 15 second move time again? Once the DB starts coughing around a busy area it usually takes that long anyway, so increasing it back to 15 seconds may not even be a real inconveniance.
-S'Cipio
I like to roam about the map a bit do scouting etc, a setting like this would make such strategic actions a waste of time.
Doesn't anybody see how to prevent a small ship from tying up a larger one without a disengagement rule? I personally think a lot of dyna strategies have been lost or forgotten over the last year or two...
The disengagement rule has been needed since the days of AF, when the Fed player base overwhelmed their shipyard capacity. Romulan policy was to exploit the weak Fed shipyard by hunting down and destroying ANY ship NCL or larger, while ignoring the smaller ships. Fed counter-policy developed to use their superior numbers to draw the superior Rommie Kestrals into combat with the sole purpose of keeping them tied up while other players entered the hex to run missions safe from harm.
(Deny it if you will, but those were the Days of Deceit, when Romulans cared nothing of honor. This is fact)
Even after the "Fight or Leave" rule was implemented, the definition of fighting was always at issue. If a drone refit x-NCL(pick a race) throws 6 drones per turn at a BCH while running away at max speed, he may be fighting using the best tactic available to his skill with that ship. Yes, the heavy can shoot down all 6 drones with phaser fire every turn, but that leaves him short of power to close the distance.
When the Drone ship has spent 10-15 min firing the last of his 100+ drones and executes the better part of valor without scratching the paint of the BCH, does he deserve the right to return in 5 min to take another shot at it?
Nope, that counts as giving your enemy the runaround as I see it, and should be defined as not fighting. In a D5D for example I'll make a good go of landing some drones on the nose of a careless player in a larger ship (in batches of 12) If he does it right and doesn't take any drones, then I run off if I can. The enemy has the opportunity to catch me in the act. If I get away, he wins the mission gets the PP and gets the DV shift. If he destroys me, the same result is the case, with the bonus of having destroyed my ship, costing me additional PP. If I'm foolish enough to come back and try again then I think I should be allowed to.
If you are a good player and do manage to score some hits you can successfully draw that battle out for quite a while, getting a few hits here and there. You are fighting, but you are also fighting a losing battle most likely, and have succeeded in tying up your opponent with no penalty to yourself. The hex DV is moving in your direction because similar ships to yours are killing AI by the number while you are in mission. All that happens to you is that you eventually expend all munitions and are forced to retire.
Myself, I never take it to that point, I recognise a player who can handle drones immediately and cut my losses ASAP, what with current drone prices... either they fall for it or don't - no mucking about.
Does this mean we have to get down to a rule for you and those you play like you, and a rule for those who cannot recognise other players abilities?
I like to roam about the map a bit do scouting etc, a setting like this would make such strategic actions a waste of time.
Actually it sounds like a justification to do it. That scouting intelligence must be worth something and a more stable server would be an added bonus. Never did like the idea of people getting strategic advantages for free.
I like to roam about the map a bit do scouting etc, a setting like this would make such strategic actions a waste of time.
Actually it sounds like a justification to do it. That scouting intelligence must be worth something and a more stable server would be an added bonus. Never did like the idea of people getting strategic advantages for free.
Me either but I fail to see how its an advantage since anyone can do so, then again it requires 1/2 a brain at least disqualifying some...... ;D
I always understod it that increasing the draft radius made it more likely players would drop in mission. Is this true?
I always understod it that increasing the draft radius made it more likely players would drop in mission. Is this true?
I don't think it should increase the likelyhood of any one individual dropping, but if you now have a greater number of players being drafted into missions I would guess there is now an increased number of unstable missions.
How is he going to be chased from the area? He can quite happily move repeatedly between two adjacent hexes, time and time again. In each hex he is drafted and chased off the map where upon he moves to the other hex, succesfully avoiding destruction but keeping a greater number of enemy players busy.
That said, I don't accept that increasing the draft radius negates the need for a disengagement rule. In fact I can't see how you made that great leap of deduction because you still have small AI optimised ships running faster AI missions than heavier PvP capable ships.
I understand that the main purpose of the disengagement rule is to give meaning to those hour long PvP missions right? (despite what may be happening in the hex while in that long mission)
But what if the superior force remains in the hex and keeps winning PP and DV shifts?
As I always understood it you shouldn't expect a hex to be invulnerable to enemy attack if you leave it after winning a mission in it.
... The reality is that without the disengagement rule there is no real penalty (cost) to losing a PvP match.
I actually had several pilot tell me that they were just going to fly off the map at the beginning of a PvP mission as they didn't want to waste time fighting me since it at best would only give them 1 DV shift, and that they could get 10 times that if they consentrated their efforts on AI only draws.
Losing your ship is not a good enough penalty?
If not, then perhaps we can come up with some penalty other than removing the losing player from play?
Sounds to me like we need to get away from these maps with high DVs...
That said, I don't accept that increasing the draft radius negates the need for a disengagement rule. In fact I can't see how you made that great leap of deduction because you still have small AI optimised ships running faster AI missions than heavier PvP capable ships.
My thoughts exactly. I don't think Gook understands why we have the disengagement rule.
Losing your ship is not a good enough penalty?
Exactly, the cost of another DF+ is inconsequencial to even the casual player.
I understand it perfectly, it allows those who only want to fly one big ship to joust the night away, with the luxury of not really having to do anything until such time as a "worthy" opponent turns up. Everybody else "can get outta Dodge" , or in this case the hex in question.
I understand it perfectly, it allows those who only want to fly one big ship to joust the night away, with the luxury of not really having to do anything until such time as a "worthy" opponent turns up. Everybody else "can get outta Dodge" , or in this case the hex in question.
Again it's a question of whether you want to regulate or not. If you really wanted to, you to could jump into a fast flipper and counter what the flipper was doing to you.
Disenagaement just allows you to be lazy in one ship all the time. Now some will say BORING (to counter flipping), but just sitting around for an hour waiting for another ship to turn up is boring to some to, some actually fly none command cruisers, nothing wrong with either way of playing, all legal and legit, but one player gets penalised for up to an hour for playing the legal way he wants, just to pander to another players preferences. That is not good.
As for draft radius being increased, I would have thought the "meaningful" PvP crowd would have liked it, but of course not, as that would interfere with the joust and the show must go on.
If you really wanted to, you to could jump into a fast flipper and counter what the flipper was doing to you.
If you really wanted to, you to could jump into a fast flipper and counter what the flipper was doing to you.
Damn, how silly of me not to think of that myself. I could always jump into a small hex flipper to counter the other guys hex flipper <smacks head>. Lets see, the SparrowHawk-J has tons of mojo for an NCL, lets try that! Oh man, that thing draws cruisers and doesn't have the power to even arm and get there in 3 min... Lets see... Oh the KE4R is a nice little ship, lets try that! Doh! 2 Plas-Fs aren't enough firepower to kill much of anything in one pass... Maybe a KE can do the job. Nope. Sea-L? Nope. KFR? Nope. ad nausium.
Don't you think we might have tried that? Short of PFs, there are no plasma based ships that have the damage/turn/BPV ratio of a drone based ship. Until there is one, the plasma races cannot fight fire with fire against the hex-flippers and MUST resort to other tactics or loose. Peroid.
What is meaningful PvP Kroma?
I know some people caught in a D5D, NCD, DF that can't PvP to save their life. Their only purpose is to run fast missions and flip hexes. I also know people in the same ships that can give people in larger ships a real go at it.
Bonk. I am a casual player nowadays, and I've only ever had one assigned ship. Yet, I find that I can often have an effect even when flying a light cruiser.
For example, one evening on GW1, I logged on, in my CWLP, to find that the base captured by the Lyrans on the Kzinit border was under attack by 7 Kzinti players, and I was the only Lyran on. So, they drafted me in 1s and 2s, and I defeated every single one of them, some by chasing them off the map, some by destroying them and some were captured, thus securing the base for some time. In the end, the base was captured some time later (after I'd gone to bed). Prior to the disengagement rule, I'd have lost that base quickly despite defeating the opponents.
I still say that pvp needs more importance placed on it, by having a small number of VPs for destroying/capturing enemy players, a la RDSL. Perhaps impelementing this could allow for the removal of the disengagement rule?
Gook, in case you missed it:
"Basically, the disengagement rule is akin to gaining air superiority so that the ground troops can work on overoming the defences. The defences, in this game, mostly being ai. What it does then is allow the side victorious in battle to fight ai relatively unmolested by the other side. It gives a more meaningful role to those races that don't excel at hex-flipping, but are more suited to pvp. It makes a campaign more about racial teamwork."
I am fed up to the back teeth of your snide jousting remarks, when it's been proven to you time and again that not all of us who believe in the rule a) fly the big ships, and b) believe that only equal sized opponents are worthy of engaging.
D2 nowadays has something for everyone. Pvpers and hex-flippers both have their place, working together. In the past, as you so clearly showed with Sockfoot's campaign guide, pvpers had no real place. In fact, according to that, we were a burden, as we weren't always killing ai.
By lowering the time penalty for losing a fight, I think that makes it even better than what it was before. Also, the reverse of this: "If you really wanted to, you to could jump into a fast flipper and counter what the flipper was doing to you." applies to the hex-flippers too.
You call us pvpers "lazy". Why are we lazy? I've done the death drag droner thing many , many times. It's mind-numbing. It's simple. A pvp battle, where a strategic target depends on you winning that battle requires intense concentration and cleverness. It is far from lazy. I take that as an insult. Thing is, both types of play are needed on the D2 nowadays. Can you accept that?
That said, I don't accept that increasing the draft radius negates the need for a disengagement rule. In fact I can't see how you made that great leap of deduction because you still have small AI optimised ships running faster AI missions than heavier PvP capable ships.
My thoughts exactly. I don't think Gook understands why we have the disengagement rule.
I understand it perfectly, it allows those who only want to fly one big ship to joust the night away, with the luxury of not really having to do anything until such time as a "worthy" opponent turns up. Everybody else "can get outta Dodge" , or in this case the hex in question.
Again it's a question of whether you want to regulate or not. If you really wanted to, you to could jump into a fast flipper and counter what the flipper was doing to you. Disenagaement just allows you to be lazy in one ship all the time. Now some will say BORING (to counter flipping), but just sitting around for an hour waiting for another ship to turn up is boring to some to, some actually fly none command cruisers, nothing wrong with either way of playing, all legal and legit, but one player gets penalised for up to an hour for playing the legal way he wants, just to pander to another players preferences. That is not good.
As for draft radius being increased, I would have thought the "meaningful" PvP crowd would have liked it, but of course not, as that would interfere with the joust and the show must go on.
Gook, in case you missed it:
"Basically, the disengagement rule is akin to gaining air superiority so that the ground troops can work on overoming the defences. The defences, in this game, mostly being ai. What it does then is allow the side victorious in battle to fight ai relatively unmolested by the other side. It gives a more meaningful role to those races that don't excel at hex-flipping, but are more suited to pvp. It makes a campaign more about racial teamwork."
I am fed up to the back teeth of your snide jousting remarks, when it's been proven to you time and again that not all of us who believe in the rule a) fly the big ships, and b) believe that only equal sized opponents are worthy of engaging.
D2 nowadays has something for everyone. Pvpers and hex-flippers both have their place, working together. In the past, as you so clearly showed with Sockfoot's campaign guide, pvpers had no real place. In fact, according to that, we were a burden, as we weren't always killing ai.
By lowering the time penalty for losing a fight, I think that makes it even better than what it was before. Also, the reverse of this: "If you really wanted to, you to could jump into a fast flipper and counter what the flipper was doing to you." applies to the hex-flippers too.
You call us pvpers "lazy". Why are we lazy? I've done the death drag droner thing many , many times. It's mind-numbing. It's simple. A pvp battle, where a strategic target depends on you winning that battle requires intense concentration and cleverness. It is far from lazy. I take that as an insult. Thing is, both types of play are needed on the D2 nowadays. Can you accept that?
We all have an opinion, and I'm as tired of your line as you are of mine. That being said both are valid stances and the horns of the dilemma we face.
I get banned for an hour in a flipper so the jouster doesn't have to chase me about. Now that may seem equitable to you but it doesn't to me. It seems to favour one style of play over another, but again that's opinion.
I either change my style of play to suit yours, or I am marginalised in a potentially crucial area, may seem just to you, does not to me, but that's an opinion.
If I wanted to play that game, I'd be Mirak. Guess what, I'm still ISC, after all the attempts by the "vocal droner" crowd, and the prior conditions, to marginalize me.
... The reality is that without the disengagement rule there is no real penalty (cost) to losing a PvP match.
Losing your ship is not a good enough penalty?
If not, then perhaps we can come up with some penalty other than removing the losing player from play?
I'm curious Chuut. Just exactly which plasma ship (of any size) can put out 144 points of damage every turn to get "plasma chuckers" out of their "PvP" hulls? Plasma players must fly a CL at the lightest to get reasonable mission times and that is using every trick in the book to speed up the mission. Destroyers and Frigates just don't have the firepower and the charging speed to do fast missions on par with a six rack DF.
... The reality is that without the disengagement rule there is no real penalty (cost) to losing a PvP match.
Losing your ship is not a good enough penalty?
If not, then perhaps we can come up with some penalty other than removing the losing player from play?
I missed this earlier, so could you please explain how the fast AI optimised ship captain loses his ship? And even if he lost his ship it wouldn't be a penalty when you consider some of the prices those boats cost. Nope most of the time you see the situation you've already described for your own conduct. You'd have a go to see if you are facing a fool in a big ship, decide you are not and leave. You have lost nothing except a DV shift of one, which you can get back in 5 min or so.
Does anyone here think that the US will send their aircraft carriers to the areas of the world where they won't have the most impact?
QuoteDoes anyone here think that the US will send their aircraft carriers to the areas of the world where they won't have the most impact?
But what happens once they leave? Is the area still magically protected? (just to be a bugger ;))
Bonk, if the sector is that important, the "jousters" will stay there till it's secured.
Also, something else I see continually being focussed on in this thread is the idea that all the action is going on in one solitary hex. Is that often the case?
It usually does take the potential enemy a period of time to either recover from getting bombed back into the stoneage, confirm that the carrier is not longer there, or have the balls to do anything anyway.
Bonk, if the sector is that important, the "jousters" will stay there till it's secured.
Also, something else I see continually being focussed on in this thread is the idea that all the action is going on in one solitary hex. Is that often the case?
Bonk, if the sector is that important, the "jousters" will stay there till it's secured.
Also, something else I see continually being focussed on in this thread is the idea that all the action is going on in one solitary hex. Is that often the case?
Good point here Mog. I've always thought that if there is a very conceived plan of attack being used that there will always be other important hexes you can put your efforts in. Granted, if you're only interested in focusing on pvp matches, then you're kinda screwed. But, I never really known anyone to be disappointed if they send out a pvp challenge and a hex number.
Each to their own preferences. I just like the rule because I think it creates a nice balance between hex-flipping and pvp.
Agave
the balance nut
That is not what I observe, often the hex is not that important, but the DN captain knows he can effectively stop enemy progress in just one mission and moves on.
No the action is not in one solitary hex, but because the DN is not required to continue protecting it he can just follow you from hex to hex, banning you from all strategically meaningful hexes.
The significance of this abuse of the rule cannot be ignored:
<quotes self repetitively>QuoteThat is not what I observe, often the hex is not that important, but the DN captain knows he can effectively stop enemy progress in just one mission and moves on.
No the action is not in one solitary hex, but because the DN is not required to continue protecting it he can just follow you from hex to hex, banning you from all strategically meaningful hexes.
I for one think we are better off with it then without it, but the rule is not perfect and has it's faults.
Say you are a skilled player, and have the PP and ship to go with it. You get into a damn nice fight, but you just get edged out and have to retreat. You just KNOW you could of did better, but you'll never know as you can't fight them again for x amount of time. You log off because if you can't be where the action is, then why play....
I hate adding rules, but what about something like this?
"If you disengage from a battle in PvP, you have the right to immediately ask for a rematch. If you lose again, the disengagement rule applies. If you win, it doesn't"
This way, the rule is still working the way it was intended. The person trying to fly quick missions in a little ship will not challenge the rule.
The big ship can raise the DV by one in less than 5 minutes too, he just needs a freindly small ship to draft him...
As you can see I'm exploring options other than the disengagement rule here, I just tested the:
PrestigeModiferOnShipGrant = -10000
DeathShipBPVPenalty = .25
lines in the ship.gf and the PrestigeModiferOnShipGrant has no effect at all... :banghead: (damn undocumented, unused gf settings... arg! nothing like a black box to keep you guessing...). The DeathShipBPVPenalty does work however.
I'm looking for a way to duplicate the effect of the disengagement rule without removing players from play.All too often now I see players that just lost a PvP simply log off for an hour, never used to see that. Never see players beaten down to a freighter anymore either, that used to be pretty funny...
Have you any ideas to add meaning to PvP that do not require removing players from the game? (no SQL scripting yet...). Dig through those undocumented gfs and see what you can come up with, there has to be something...
Yet more AI battles and players logging off is just not an acceptable solution to me.
Oh come on, are you serious? In response to a claim that an AI optimised ship can drop a DV in less than 5min, you are saying that the other side should work in hi-lo drafting pairs so that they can drop the DV just as fast. Okay, I'll bite. How do you get that as an answer? To me it seems that your answer will simply be twice as slow since it would take two people to get the same rate of DV shift as one player using the AI optimised ship.
Regarding logging off after a PvP, yep that was me in the old days. I'd need to calm down after losing a 25000 PP heavy cruiser (because the 10% cloak pushed the BPV up into the level of BC's) to a player who was fielding about 4000 PP of ship loaded to the gunnels with disposable weapons.
As far as other races having ships that can "hex-flip" at times close to the Mirak. Sure, the plasma races have 'em, but they are usually much bigger or armed with nasty fighters/PFs. Until us "plasma chuckers" can get into these type ships the disengagement rule gives us a chance to attempt to force the Mirak on equal fighting terms.
Once we do get into larger ships, it is not our fault that you guys tend to prefer your small "hex-flipping" wonder frigates. Moggy's BCH variant was certainly a step in the right direction towards giving you guys a very playable large ship. But, even in the last few servers where that ship was available, I did notice that the majority of the Mirak pilots stayed in there small hex-flippers.
Agave
QuoteDoes anyone here think that the US will send their aircraft carriers to the areas of the world where they won't have the most impact?
But what happens once they leave? Is the area still magically protected? (just to be a bugger ;))
No, lol. It usually does take the potential enemy a period of time to either recover from getting bombed back into the stoneage, confirm that the carrier is not longer there, or have the balls to do anything anyway. Then again, maybe they leave the Lucky Charms leprachaun there. It's magically protected, Hah!
Silly bugger :lol:
Bonk, if the sector is that important, the "jousters" will stay there till it's secured.
Also, something else I see continually being focussed on in this thread is the idea that all the action is going on in one solitary hex. Is that often the case?
That is not what I observe, often the hex is not that important, but the DN captain knows he can effectively stop enemy progress in just one mission and moves on.
No the action is not in one solitary hex, but because the DN is not required to continue protecting it he can just follow you from hex to hex, banning you from all strategically meaningful hexes.
(Remember someone asking why we were working on planets at the maps edge behind the empire on LB5?)
QuoteRegarding logging off after a PvP, yep that was me in the old days. I'd need to calm down after losing a 25000 PP heavy cruiser (because the 10% cloak pushed the BPV up into the level of BC's) to a player who was fielding about 4000 PP of ship loaded to the gunnels with disposable weapons.
Come on now, drones are pretty easy to deal with, just don't make any mistakes. (you know that as well as I).
How does this relate to people logging off because they no longer have anything useful to do? (Being chased off meaningful hexes by DNs)
Also please note my statement above that I would prefer a CC or BCH I just don't usually have the time to amass the necessary PP by running repetitive missions against the AI to bank PP, I usually just go right for the PvP and take my chances. (to counter your insinuation)
Chuut, the Gorn Medium Cruisers are NCAs, they don't compare in cost and ai draw size to the drone using frigates and destroyers lol.
But it has been said in this thread when I get X ship I'm not changing, I waited too long etc etc, which is the prerogative of the player, but just because he wants to play in just one ship should the rules be skewed to favour that style or positive choice not to change to circumstances.
I can live with disengagement in most circumstances, but it has to be recognised that it favours one style of play over another.
I can live with disengagement in most circumstances, but it has to be recognised that it favours one style of play over another.
Of course it does, it was designed to favor PvP, and act as a counter to the style of play you prefer as the game had previously been out of balance favoring the hex flippers exclusively.
You are right about a vocal few, except I believe it is those against the rule in the minority.
I can live with disengagement in most circumstances, but it has to be recognised that it favours one style of play over another.
Of course it does, it was designed to favor PvP, and act as a counter to the style of play you prefer as the game had previously been out of balance favoring the hex flippers exclusively.
You are right about a vocal few, except I believe it is those against the rule in the minority.
I think Kroma is right on here. However Gook's point need be considered as well. As expressed elsewhere the size of the map will impact the balance of this rules impact on play so that the time penalty for disengagement might need to be adjusted to preserve a relative balance, more time on a larger map perhaps and less on a smaller one.
I can live with disengagement in most circumstances, but it has to be recognised that it favours one style of play over another.
Of course it does, it was designed to favor PvP, and act as a counter to the style of play you prefer as the game had previously been out of balance favoring the hex flippers exclusively.
You are right about a vocal few, except I believe it is those against the rule in the minority.
I think Kroma is right on here. However Gook's point need be considered as well. As expressed elsewhere the size of the map will impact the balance of this rules impact on play so that the time penalty for disengagement might need to be adjusted to preserve a relative balance, more time on a larger map perhaps and less on a smaller one.
Since I have already suggested that numerous times I would have to agree.
I think Kroma is right on here. However Gook's point need be considered as well. As expressed elsewhere the size of the map will impact the balance of this rules impact on play so that the time penalty for disengagement might need to be adjusted to preserve a relative balance, more time on a larger map perhaps and less on a smaller one.
But it has been said in this thread when I get X ship I'm not changing, I waited too long etc etc, which is the prerogative of the player, but just because he wants to play in just one ship should the rules be skewed to favour that style or positive choice not to change to circumstances.
If you are going to make reference to a post, make full reference: "When I get X ship I'm not changing for a worse ship"
If you can skew the rules to make it convincing for a player to change from a ship which is good at one thing, to a ship which is good at nothing then go right ahead. I'd like to see it explained.
I can live with disengagement in most circumstances, but it has to be recognised that it favours one style of play over another.
You are right about a vocal few, except I believe it is those against the rule in the minority.
But it has been said in this thread when I get X ship I'm not changing, I waited too long etc etc, which is the prerogative of the player, but just because he wants to play in just one ship should the rules be skewed to favour that style or positive choice not to change to circumstances.
If you are going to make reference to a post, make full reference: "When I get X ship I'm not changing for a worse ship"
If you can skew the rules to make it convincing for a player to change from a ship which is good at one thing, to a ship which is good at nothing then go right ahead. I'd like to see it explained.
Well I'd have thought in context it was obvious, but if not, changing from a good PvP ship to a good flipper. That doesn't require a skew of the rules, just the willingness to change to circumstances. The rule we have means that player X (none specific not refering to any poster in particualr in case that is not clear) who is in his big fat <insert FOM CC/BCH> does not need to contemplate having to change to accomadate circumstances all he has to do is sit in hex Y (none specific hex purely for illustration and not related in any way to a similar sounding but differently spelt player), watch player Z (no relation to a Kzin but I can see why this may be confusing) see him in mission for 2 minutes while he flies off and know that the little varmint will be gone for an hour. That rule skews the game IMHO. In case you hadn't noticed I was discussing no rule, not implementing one.
BTW I'm reasonably sure I'm not drunk, but I wouldn't know, I'd have to consult you, who obviously know so much more about my mental health than I do, from half a world away. But that is getting personal so we should keep our Doctor/Patient chats off the boards
I can live with disengagement in most circumstances, but it has to be recognised that it favours one style of play over another.
You are right about a vocal few, except I believe it is those against the rule in the minority.
Curious on what do you base this?
I'm curious Chuut. Just exactly which plasma ship (of any size) can put out 144 points of damage every turn to get "plasma chuckers" out of their "PvP" hulls? Plasma players must fly a CL at the lightest to get reasonable mission times and that is using every trick in the book to speed up the mission. Destroyers and Frigates just don't have the firepower and the charging speed to do fast missions on par with a six rack DF.
Never said your mission times could be the same Corbo, just that you had ships that were lighter tht could run faster than your best p v p ships, as you yourself have often stated. Not everyone is is quick as you are to use the right ship for the job however.
QuoteRegarding logging off after a PvP, yep that was me in the old days. I'd need to calm down after losing a 25000 PP heavy cruiser (because the 10% cloak pushed the BPV up into the level of BC's) to a player who was fielding about 4000 PP of ship loaded to the gunnels with disposable weapons.
Come on now, drones are pretty easy to deal with, just don't make any mistakes. (you know that as well as I).
How does this relate to people logging off because they no longer have anything useful to do? (Being chased off meaningful hexes by DNs)
Also please note my statement above that I would prefer a CC or BCH I just don't usually have the time to amass the necessary PP by running repetitive missions against the AI to bank PP, I usually just go right for the PvP and take my chances. (to counter your insinuation)
I must have missed the insinuation, what was it?
As for the "don't make any mistakes" business - now there's an insinuation.
Go up against 10 droners (or one droner 10 times assuming no disengagement rule) in 3 or so hours, chase 8 of them off, maybe kill one, make one mistake and get killed by the 10th. Tell me again about how that PP ratio works again. To me it looks like I'm worse off losing 25000 in exchange for a 4000 kill and say 500 PP for each winning mission. Now you can do an analysis for the margins faced by the drone based ship in those 3 or so hours and let me know how it comes out.
Frustration at pointless engagements, not a lack of usefulness is what causes people to log off after a defeat.
You must be getting senile Chuut because I have never, ever said that. All I have ever said is that I have no problem running reasonably fast missions in a plasma boat.
Every ship I fly is a PvP ship and a hex flipper from my perspective. The right ship for the job is usually the ship I'm in at the time, whatever it is. I will stick to my previous statement, however, and still say that anything under a CL for plasma is hard pressed to do a mission in twice the time of a DF.
But it has been said in this thread when I get X ship I'm not changing, I waited too long etc etc, which is the prerogative of the player, but just because he wants to play in just one ship should the rules be skewed to favour that style or positive choice not to change to circumstances.
If you are going to make reference to a post, make full reference: "When I get X ship I'm not changing for a worse ship"
If you can skew the rules to make it convincing for a player to change from a ship which is good at one thing, to a ship which is good at nothing then go right ahead. I'd like to see it explained.
Well I'd have thought in context it was obvious, but if not, changing from a good PvP ship to a good flipper. That doesn't require a skew of the rules, just the willingness to change to circumstances. The rule we have means that player X (none specific not refering to any poster in particualr in case that is not clear) who is in his big fat <insert FOM CC/BCH> does not need to contemplate having to change to accomadate circumstances all he has to do is sit in hex Y (none specific hex purely for illustration and not related in any way to a similar sounding but differently spelt player), watch player Z (no relation to a Kzin but I can see why this may be confusing) see him in mission for 2 minutes while he flies off and know that the little varmint will be gone for an hour. That rule skews the game IMHO. In case you hadn't noticed I was discussing no rule, not implementing one.
BTW I'm reasonably sure I'm not drunk, but I wouldn't know, I'd have to consult you, who obviously know so much more about my mental health than I do, from half a world away. But that is getting personal so we should keep our Doctor/Patient chats off the boards
So you are going to demonstrate your mental health by telling me it's a just a matter of "willingness" to change from a KRC to one of the following, K5R, KR, BH, WE, in order to flip hexes faster. Explain how this works and I'll believe you are not a nut or a drunk on a crusade to return us to the "good ol' days" just for your own benefit. That's all I want, an explanation of how it really works so that flying a KRC is actually worse than the other ships available for fighting AI and PvP.
I think there could be a way to remove the disengagement rule, without having the plasma races disadvantaged as of old. Cleaven first suggested this many moons ago. Give a greater DV shift for a pvp mission (SQL required?).
Quote from:I think there could be a way to remove the disengagement rule, without having the plasma races disadvantaged as of old. Cleaven first suggested this many moons ago. Give a greater DV shift for a pvp mission (SQL required?).
Without SQL, the missions can enforce mandatory mission times. If you run out of enemy AI before min. mission time is up then more can be hurl at you to gourge on bonus PPs.
Only one problem: when I suggested it, many in the community shot it down and took great offense.
Quote from:I think there could be a way to remove the disengagement rule, without having the plasma races disadvantaged as of old. Cleaven first suggested this many moons ago. Give a greater DV shift for a pvp mission (SQL required?).
Without SQL, the missions can enforce mandatory mission times. If you run out of enemy AI before min. mission time is up then more can be hurl at you to gourge on bonus PPs.
Only one problem: when I suggested it, many in the community shot it down and took great offense.
Quote from:I think there could be a way to remove the disengagement rule, without having the plasma races disadvantaged as of old. Cleaven first suggested this many moons ago. Give a greater DV shift for a pvp mission (SQL required?).
Without SQL, the missions can enforce mandatory mission times. If you run out of enemy AI before min. mission time is up then more can be hurl at you to gourge on bonus PPs.
Only one problem: when I suggested it, many in the community shot it down and took great offense.
Picks up frog skeet shooting rifle again....... ;D
"Pull"
BANG
Quote from:I think there could be a way to remove the disengagement rule, without having the plasma races disadvantaged as of old. Cleaven first suggested this many moons ago. Give a greater DV shift for a pvp mission (SQL required?).
Without SQL, the missions can enforce mandatory mission times. If you run out of enemy AI before min. mission time is up then more can be hurl at you to gourge on bonus PPs.
Only one problem: when I suggested it, many in the community shot it down and took great offense.
Picks up frog skeet shooting rifle again....... ;D
"Pull"
BANG
You see!! Everybody just L-O-V-E-S me now for mentioning it!! Just look at all the happy smiling faces in Kzin Lounge.
Picks up Bad Ole Putty Tat skeet shooting rifle ;D
"Pull"
BANG Back!!
:P
Chuut, I'm not sure what you were drawing in your Sph-A, but the 80 odd points a Sph-A alpha (plas-G, 2 plas-F, 4 Ph-1s & 2 Ph-3s) will dish out is not going to pop a Fed or Gorn NCL. Going for the fast kill against the Gorn, your going to do little more than trade alphas with a tougher ship than your own.
For that matter, assuming server setting try to produce even AI matches, the 125 point BPV of the Sph-A is more likely to put you up against the beefier 125 BPV F-CA or 122 BPV G-CA than an F-NCL(118) or G-HDD(112). Can you win? Sure. Can you do it in 2-3 min, repeatably? Show me.
Well I'd have thought in context it was obvious, but if not, changing from a good PvP ship to a good flipper. That doesn't require a skew of the rules, just the willingness to change to circumstances. The rule we have means that player X (none specific not refering to any poster in particualr in case that is not clear) who is in his big fat <insert FOM CC/BCH> does not need to contemplate having to change to accomadate circumstances all he has to do is sit in hex Y (none specific hex purely for illustration and not related in any way to a similar sounding but differently spelt player), watch player Z (no relation to a Kzin but I can see why this may be confusing) see him in mission for 2 minutes while he flies off and know that the little varmint will be gone for an hour. That rule skews the game IMHO. In case you hadn't noticed I was discussing no rule, not implementing one.
BTW I'm reasonably sure I'm not drunk, but I wouldn't know, I'd have to consult you, who obviously know so much more about my mental health than I do, from half a world away. But that is getting personal so we should keep our Doctor/Patient chats off the boards
So you are going to demonstrate your mental health by telling me it's a just a matter of "willingness" to change from a KRC to one of the following, K5R, KR, BH, WE, in order to flip hexes faster. Explain how this works and I'll believe you are not a nut or a drunk on a crusade to return us to the "good ol' days" just for your own benefit. That's all I want, an explanation of how it really works so that flying a KRC is actually worse than the other ships available for fighting AI and PvP.
Well I'd have thought in context it was obvious, but if not, changing from a good PvP ship to a good flipper. That doesn't require a skew of the rules, just the willingness to change to circumstances. The rule we have means that player X (none specific not refering to any poster in particualr in case that is not clear) who is in his big fat <insert FOM CC/BCH> does not need to contemplate having to change to accomadate circumstances all he has to do is sit in hex Y (none specific hex purely for illustration and not related in any way to a similar sounding but differently spelt player), watch player Z (no relation to a Kzin but I can see why this may be confusing) see him in mission for 2 minutes while he flies off and know that the little varmint will be gone for an hour. That rule skews the game IMHO. In case you hadn't noticed I was discussing no rule, not implementing one.
BTW I'm reasonably sure I'm not drunk, but I wouldn't know, I'd have to consult you, who obviously know so much more about my mental health than I do, from half a world away. But that is getting personal so we should keep our Doctor/Patient chats off the boards
So you are going to demonstrate your mental health by telling me it's a just a matter of "willingness" to change from a KRC to one of the following, K5R, KR, BH, WE, in order to flip hexes faster. Explain how this works and I'll believe you are not a nut or a drunk on a crusade to return us to the "good ol' days" just for your own benefit. That's all I want, an explanation of how it really works so that flying a KRC is actually worse than the other ships available for fighting AI and PvP.
Still waiting for an explanation .....
Not sure I can be bothered, but as you are the Doc, can you run an AI standard patrol in 2 minutes in a KRC? If so, there is no problem and I am utterly wrong. If you cannot, then the KRC is a worse ship for AI missions than ones I know can.
Either analysis is fine Cleaven as its your time.
I agree about allowing the Commando variants back in, the Sparrowhawk commando ship is a nice hex flipper vs ai with a minimum marine loadout. It is also little threat to p v p so I think Gook has an excellent point here. It also is a helluva PP farmer.
Aye, but when was the last time you saw minumum marine loadout.
Wasn't this all part of the quest to stop one group from sitting in their rear area running "harvest" missions to get those DN's (translate to BC now)?
Isn't it a tad rich to tell one side to use an AI only ship which comes out 3 years after the KRC?
I think Gook was referring to being able to in the SPG as a hexflipping ship, which it is the combination of the alpha and boarding action being enough to take out many ships without waiting for the plasma to recharge. Doesn't help in early era however. I still think the way to go is to have a basic pftender and INTs available at the start. A chickenhawk with 3 INTs shouldn't threaten anyone too badly.
Not sure I can be bothered, but as you are the Doc, can you run an AI standard patrol in 2 minutes in a KRC? If so, there is no problem and I am utterly wrong. If you cannot, then the KRC is a worse ship for AI missions than ones I know can.
I know it's a trick question so I will give it to you again. Please explain which of the available ships (K5R, BH, WE, KR, and eveb the WB+) is better than the KRC at doing quick AI missions. Now you are about to tell me which of those ships is able to "run a standard AI patrol in 2 minutes".
Go right ahead and tell me. Don't keep it to yourself because I am ever so keen to hear. It's quite simple - put up or shut up, and stop prattling on about "ones I know that can", because I think you are getting nuttier by the post.
Not sure I can be bothered, but as you are the Doc, can you run an AI standard patrol in 2 minutes in a KRC? If so, there is no problem and I am utterly wrong. If you cannot, then the KRC is a worse ship for AI missions than ones I know can.
I know it's a trick question so I will give it to you again. Please explain which of the available ships (K5R, BH, WE, KR, and eveb the WB+) is better than the KRC at doing quick AI missions. Now you are about to tell me which of those ships is able to "run a standard AI patrol in 2 minutes".
Go right ahead and tell me. Don't keep it to yourself because I am ever so keen to hear. It's quite simple - put up or shut up, and stop prattling on about "ones I know that can", because I think you are getting nuttier by the post.
No, its pointless, if you can't work out what I have said that's your problem.
Anyhow, what do you think about the PFT/INT suggestion Cleaven? Would this fit the bill to even the hexflipping a bit so we wouldn't have to listen to the mission times complaint so much?
Cleaven ponders my suggestion........hehe
There is little more disheartening than setting up a GSA room and sitting there for an hour or more trying to get people to play against you...
There is little more disheartening than setting up a GSA room and sitting there for an hour or more trying to get people to play against you...
Then show up to our training sessions. 5 hours of straight IP games with D2 loadouts. More fun than actual D2.
Anyhow, what do you think about the PFT/INT suggestion Cleaven? Would this fit the bill to even the hexflipping a bit so we wouldn't have to listen to the mission times complaint so much?
The fastest missions I have ever had were a series of ambushes with a KDP. Less than 2 minutes. If it wasn't for the pricing of the PF's and their tendancy to die easilly in high density AI missions I would have kept doing it.
So I would be wary of a CH with INT's against drone equiped ships. Once the PF's are gone you have to run away.
Cleaven ponders my suggestion........hehe
Nothing to ponder in your suggestions. What's next, fart jokes?
Ahh shove it - go play with Gook's drone fleets. I've got better things to do.
...I just tested the:
PrestigeModiferOnShipGrant = -10000
DeathShipBPVPenalty = .25
lines in the ship.gf and the PrestigeModiferOnShipGrant has no effect at all... :banghead: (damn undocumented, unused gf settings... arg! nothing like a black box to keep you guessing...). The DeathShipBPVPenalty does work however.
There is little more disheartening than setting up a GSA room and sitting there for an hour or more trying to get people to play against you...
Then show up to our training sessions. 5 hours of straight IP games with D2 loadouts. More fun than actual D2.
Sounds like fun. I used to play a lot of direct tcp/ip games, but not so much lately, and have been missing that style of play. I just may come check it out if that's cool, (I don't know about the whole "frickin good guys" thing tho.. ;) - I'm flying klingon on GW3).
I'll repeat again I am more than willing to give up the Kzin if all other drones are removed, if that will solve the problem.
I'll repeat again I am more than willing to give up the Kzin if all other drones are removed, if that will solve the problem.
Sold!! Yank'em!! No droner variants of any kind for other races. Problem solved.
Not sure I can be bothered, but as you are the Doc, can you run an AI standard patrol in 2 minutes in a KRC? If so, there is no problem and I am utterly wrong. If you cannot, then the KRC is a worse ship for AI missions than ones I know can.
I know it's a trick question so I will give it to you again. Please explain which of the available ships (K5R, BH, WE, KR, and eveb the WB+) is better than the KRC at doing quick AI missions. Now you are about to tell me which of those ships is able to "run a standard AI patrol in 2 minutes".
Go right ahead and tell me. Don't keep it to yourself because I am ever so keen to hear. It's quite simple - put up or shut up, and stop prattling on about "ones I know that can", because I think you are getting nuttier by the post.
No, its pointless, if you can't work out what I have said that's your problem.
That's just it, you haven't said anything except that you know how to do 2 min missions in an early Romulan ship and you are not telling. Well what is the purpose in that except malicious nuisance. What am I supposed to do, because you just can't do what you say you can.
2 min early Rom missions, hah, I can feel a new signature coming on.
I'll repeat again I am more than willing to give up the Kzin if all other drones are removed, if that will solve the problem.
Sold!! Yank'em!! No droner variants of any kind for other races. Problem solved.
In a serious, non-snide note . . . Anyone else notice that 90% of the issue in D2/SFC are from Specialty ships that were suppsed to be very rare?
DH, wanna talk about this further sometimes??? I've got some ideas I would like to maybe one day stick into a server. Yes, I've been batting around building a server of my own for a year or 2 now...