Dynaverse.net
Taldrenites => Dynaverse II Experiences => Topic started by: FPF-DieHard on January 28, 2006, 01:07:31 pm
-
Hexx said something very enlightning in his most recent bi-weekly resignation speach, it just goes to show that occasionally a good though can come from a small mind:
. . .over the last severs it's become all about
getting the best 3 players together with the best ships and then jumping players that you outnumber and or outgun to drive them off/kill htem.
Oh and then complaing when the other guys do it to you.
Flown for both "coalition" and "Alliance" seen it form both sides, in equal intensity.
He is absolutely right, I myself guilty of doing the above. I don't think any finger pointing is needed, it's the nature of the game. Some of us, including myself, take this game too seriously. There is nothing wrong with the competitive spirit, it's what makes America great and Canada, um . . . .
Anyway, I like the disengament rule. I like that PvP actually has some effrect on the map and the overall strategic outcome of the server. But I have to admit that there have been some negative spill-over effects that I for the life of me cannot figure out how to remedy.
- Nobody flies alone: I love fleet engagements, they are a lot of fun. They were more fun when they were the exception and not the rulle. I miss the days of the 1v1 BCF/C7, CLC/D5L, D7C/CC+ fights which don't happen often enough. Iv1 only happen on accident these days or if wingmen drop.
- Jumping people 2v1 and 3v1 is a best practice. D2 is a came about controlling hexes, that's pretty much it, nothing deeper. Whatever you can do to control a hex should be done if you are playing to win (even if you don't take it seriously, everyone is playing to be competitive, ever wonder why nobody plays on "fun" servers?). Kicking an enemy out of a hex in the quickest manner is best for your side. Jumping frigs in a DN based fleet is a very good way to kick them out of a hexx, but is it really very sportsman like? Is this really what we want the game to be? This is too much chess, not enough bar-room brawl.
I'm curious as to others thoughts, am I wrong in think the above is a problem? If i'm right, what options do we have to make it better?
Yes, I'm actually asking for people's opinions ;D
-
I believe one of the ways to help has already been started. This server you can directly challenge 1v1 or other numbers(you could on other servers, but to be flown only on map. Now we can do it via GSA or IP for points. It may not effect a hex, but it brings back a lot of the fun practice, without necessarily costing the dead pilots a mess of points.
Flying all PvP on map only, in uberships only, limits nearly all matches to the nutters as they would be the only ones to afford the ship, and the first to afford it a second time. We dont have that problem on this server, and there is not a single pilot on my team who has logged any complaint. I remember several such complaints over time in other servers that used the top-line shiplists for battles. I am in no way saying they weren't fun, or didn't have their place, only mentioning an opinion.
I hope Hexx is willing and able to come back as he has a lot of fresh ideas that, as we can see, have good merit.
-
Hmmm, this fire needs some gas...
. . .over the last severs it's become all about
getting the best 3 players together with the best ships and then jumping players that you outnumber and or outgun to drive them off/kill htem.
Oh and then complaing when the other guys do it to you.
Flown for both "coalition" and "Alliance" seen it form both sides, in equal intensity.
Ive said it many times and I'll continue saying it, the disengagement rule must go. People can argue that is is necessary till they are blue in the face, i still don't buy it. I won't repeat myself any more that that, except to say that its only in recent years that it is seen to be necessary, we all got along just fine without it for ages, and had more players before it was introduced... coincidence? I think not... :skeptic:
One way to improve the situation is to remove all gang-up missions. I never put ambush, scout etc on my servers anymore for this very reason. All dynaverse missions should draft 3vs3 if that's what's present in the hex. 2vs1 missions defeat the prupose of flying with a wing and gives the impression of drafting issues for the less experienced players.
-
I'm sorry, are there 2v1 missions on KCW? If so, that is bleep, expletive, deleted. What kind of hooey is that on a server with PvP victory points? If there aren't, forgive the outburst.
-
I'm sorry, are there 2v1 missions on KCW? If so, that is bleep, expletive, deleted. What kind of hooey is that on a server with PvP victory points? If there aren't, forgive the outburst.
There are not, to my knowledge. I was speaking in general. I have not put the ambush, scout or scan missions in a server installer for some time now.
-
Killing the disengagement rule will kill D2. No one will fly except the Mirak.
We need less mind-numbing hex flipping chores, not more.
I noticed something that started to pick up more on SGO5: people were calling each other out for PvP more, even without formal challenge rules.
Having flown for both sides, I have heard the same thing from both, and more of it lately. People are getting bored running missions over and over and over. PvP is fun. Hex flipping is work.
-
Hehehe, thought you'd like that t00l... :flame: I won't argue with ya, its clear we have differing views on this and have been over it a thousand times.
DNs vs DDs ≠ fun PvP.
I think our views differ on this because you're usually in the DN and I'm usually in the DD. ;)
edit: OK, I can't resist... the Mirak arguement just does not hold water on a server like KCW now does it?
-
Hehehe, thought you'd like that t00l... :flame: I won't argue with ya, its clear we have differing views on this and have been over it a thousand times.
DNs vs DDs <> fun PvP.
This is why I , and it looks like many others according to how many are on the KCW server, love the smaller more balanced shiplist. It cant have the DNvsDD problems and the ships are comparable.
-
I've got a few beers in me, so I feel like sounding off.
I slightly disagree with T00l that hex flipping is work, it's part of the game and some of us do it because we like the strategic angle. But I do agree that getting rid of the disengagement rule is not the answer. One of the reasons KCW has been such a blast is that there are no D5D's or other droners. But you can't eliminate them altogether as to do so would be to eliminate the Kzintis, which I don't think anyone really wants.
I know the Holy Grail is SQL, but has anybody tried a true OoB server without it? Klink production of D5D's never amounted to more than 20% of all D5 production, and if we looked hard enough through all the SFB books, I'm sure you'd find similar numbers for Z-MDC and F-NCD production. We've lived long enough with limited DN and BCH numbers, and we've neutered and restricted the escorts. Why not try the same with other specialty ships? D6D's, maulers, etc. were never meant to fly alone, but were reserved for planet and base assaults. Let's get the Kitties, Klinks, and some Feds out of those drone boats and make them fly a regular line ship.
-
Music to my ears.
-
I believe one of the ways to help has already been started. This server you can directly challenge 1v1 or other numbers(you could on other servers, but to be flown only on map. Now we can do it via GSA or IP for points. It may not effect a hex, but it brings back a lot of the fun practice, without necessarily costing the dead pilots a mess of points.
Flying all PvP on map only, in uberships only, limits nearly all matches to the nutters as they would be the only ones to afford the ship, and the first to afford it a second time. We dont have that problem on this server, and there is not a single pilot on my team who has logged any complaint. I remember several such complaints over time in other servers that used the top-line shiplists for battles. I am in no way saying they weren't fun, or didn't have their place, only mentioning an opinion.
I hope Hexx is willing and able to come back as he has a lot of fresh ideas that, as we can see, have good merit.
The challenges only really work ina KCW type setup. Let's be "realistic" here, 2 starship captains arranging a duel in open space in not going to happen in a "real" war. It just doesn't make any sense though it works in KCW because of the TNGish klingon aspect of bushido and stuff like that.
I'm very bored on KCW, got bored after the first 3 days. I'm in a PvP house in the middle of nowhere, only fights were reallt got into were challenges which after a while became meaningless. D2 is a game about strategic objectives, take away the strategic objectives and the PvP becomes meaningless because it is pointless (hence the need for the disengament rule). Might as well have fun IP games for 4 hours a night if the PvP is meaningless in the strategic context, and that is what you get with the challenge system of KCW.
-
Ive said it many times and I'll continue saying it, the disengagement rule must go. People can argue that is is necessary till they are blue in the face, i still don't buy it. I won't repeat myself any more that that, except to say that its only in recent years that it is seen to be necessary, we all got along just fine without it for ages, and had more players before it was introduced... coincidence? I think not... :skeptic:
I don't think the Disengament rule should go away, I just think it needs to be tweaked, at this time I'm not quite sure how. D2 is a game about hex-flipping, any other believe is delusional. I like that the disengament rule give PvP the ability to have an affect on the strategic outcome, I just want to find som ways arounf the spill over affects mentioned in Hexx's original quote.
I'm thinking Fleeting rules, on SGO5 we had rules preventin cap ships from flying togehter and this was a great thing in keeping the amounts of firepower limited, I'll delve more into this later . . .
One way to improve the situation is to remove all gang-up missions. I never put ambush, scout etc on my servers anymore for this very reason. All dynaverse missions should draft 3vs3 if that's what's present in the hex. 2vs1 missions defeat the prupose of flying with a wing and gives the impression of drafting issues for the less experienced players.
Agreed.
-
Killing the disengagement rule will kill D2. No one will fly except the Mirak.
We need less mind-numbing hex flipping chores, not more.
I noticed something that started to pick up more on SGO5: people were calling each other out for PvP more, even without formal challenge rules.
Having flown for both sides, I have heard the same thing from both, and more of it lately. People are getting bored running missions over and over and over. PvP is fun. Hex flipping is work.
D2 is a game about flipping hexes, that IS D2. Don't forget that and don't forget that not every pilot is a PvPer.
The game needs to remain compelling for all
-
I've got a few beers in me, so I feel like sounding off.
I slightly disagree with T00l that hex flipping is work, it's part of the game and some of us do it because we like the strategic angle. But I do agree that getting rid of the disengagement rule is not the answer. One of the reasons KCW has been such a blast is that there are no D5D's or other droners. But you can't eliminate them altogether as to do so would be to eliminate the Kzintis, which I don't think anyone really wants.
I know the Holy Grail is SQL, but has anybody tried a true OoB server without it? Klink production of D5D's never amounted to more than 20% of all D5 production, and if we looked hard enough through all the SFB books, I'm sure you'd find similar numbers for Z-MDC and F-NCD production. We've lived long enough with limited DN and BCH numbers, and we've neutered and restricted the escorts. Why not try the same with other specialty ships? D6D's, maulers, etc. were never meant to fly alone, but were reserved for planet and base assaults. Let's get the Kitties, Klinks, and some Feds out of those drone boats and make them fly a regular line ship.
I don't think the holy grail is SQL, I think it is PBR. I don't think we need many restrictions on what you can fly, variety is the spice of life. I think the restrictions need to be on what can be flown together. Or I could be full of sh*t, haven't thought this all the way out yet. . .
-
Hehehe, thought you'd like that t00l... :flame: I won't argue with ya, its clear we have differing views on this and have been over it a thousand times.
DNs vs DDs ≠ fun PvP.
I think our views differ on this because you're usually in the DN and I'm usually in the DD. ;)
edit: OK, I can't resist... the Mirak arguement just does not hold water on a server like KCW now does it?
Bonk, you have DN versus DD before the disengaemnet rule. You will ALWAYS have 1v1 disparities (unless you resort to the KCW communist setup).
I want this discussion to focus on Hexx's Deep thought (nobody flies solo, jumping people with 2v1 - 3v1 is a best practices).
-
Yuck! I hate Pabst Blue Ribbon! ;)
I'm not saying we ban droners altogether, but be more realistic about it. You can't have a server without War Sears in a D5D, but we don't need the entire KBF, or KOTH, or KAT or half the Feds in drone boats.
-
Ted, did you play Littebox 4? That was FULL OOB, everything heavy cruiser and up (and spec ships).
Huge amount of admin/RM overhead. Players were terrified to lose their ships.
But, the fleet dispositions were realistic as hell (well aside from all the CWL's), and PvP victories really meant something when you took a piece off the board.
-
Which one was LB4, because I think I did fly that one, but can't say for sure.
-
Ted, did you play Littebox 4? That was FULL OOB, everything heavy cruiser and up (and spec ships).
Huge amount of admin/RM overhead. Players were terrified to lose their ships.
But, the fleet dispositions were realistic as hell (well aside from all the CWL's), and PvP victories really meant something when you took a piece off the board.
This server was also about as interesting as watching paint dry, though admittedly the OOB had nothing to do with that ;D
-
But, the fleet dispositions were realistic as hell (well aside from all the CWL's), and PvP victories really meant something when you took a piece off the board.
STICK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND. This has nothing to do with what the thread is meant to address. Leave OOB out of it, start your own thread if you wish to go over the pros/cons of OOB.
Does anyone atleast agree that jumping people 2v1/3v1 as a best practice means something is inherrently wrong?
-
KCW has done something remarkable. Its brought people out to play. Who are these people?
1. Leader\Str[spoiler][/spoiler]Sratagists leading terrain grabbers and PvP players alike with common objectives yet warry of each others intentions.
2. PvP--these folks for the most part lived (and died) in GSA to them hex fliiping was as fun as watching paint dry. All to often AI lacked the "challenge" of a human brain. Ive been on a few of these servers in the early years, I think after the 100s hexfliiping mission only to come back to a changed map lacked any strategy whatsoever....he with the most time on his hand wins.
3. Hex Flippers- they serve a vital function. Most PvP people despite todays much improved PvP would agree that just flipping hexes gets old. There are people out there that love this...this function along with PvP is whats making this server novel at least for me.
I know each house can win this , but im looking at it from 2 sides. 2 warring factions dueling it out for control of the Empire.
Our hexFlippers are sent in to grab a stategic peace of space, then there is an attempt to drive them off, usually by overwhelming force of 2-3 heavy Cruisers. The Frigate falls back and calls in his own big guns to clear the area for him. Folks Aint this what war is really about?
Ive seen the complaints and i find them selfish to an extent.
Reality is not some loan frigate assaulting enemy space only to be confronted by some Phaser 3 bearing tug.
I love the fact the AI is winning games, rightfully so. To invade and control space you need the forces to control it.
One of our allies the Hydrans guys were cut off in a corner, we are stuck in the middle between two very rowdy houses (KBF and Demons) yet we managed to open a whole to them and have even tried to kill the Demons C7 together. Though we failed, it showed comrodership to try.
I spent most of Friday exchanging the same 5 hexes with Demons. Normally Id be playing another game after 2 hours of that. As they sought to cut off my planer I found myself hopelessly out manned. I avoided them jumping into vacated hexes to cut off their supply lines. occasionally id have to fight them to continue this went on for hours till my fellow pilots arrived to help me. We fought well into the night about 10 hours for 5 hexes!!!!!
(Your hearing this from a GSA pilot who avoided D2 like an ugly girlfriend.)
It is reality that if your in a loan frigate you might meet a superrior force. That happens in fact in military theatre its common place. The key is to have your allies uproot the entrenched enemy. Its not reality to think you can just depend on solo matches to make it through a War.
Which brings me to my final thoughts and theme...people need people to win this. Working together, cooperating not only in game but personally online in chat. And thats the best thing this KCW server is accomplishing.
I hope we all realize that.
Great job Hexx, hats off to you and the folks here at Dynaverse.
Im having the best fun ive had in years. It has all the elements of the so promised campaigns of the SL days. It has some roleplaying, some Warriror code, and some strategy.....Im having a freaking blast.
Where do I send the check... ;)
Slider
Gunz
-
But, the fleet dispositions were realistic as hell (well aside from all the CWL's), and PvP victories really meant something when you took a piece off the board.
STICK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND. This has nothing to do with what the thread is meant to address. Leave OOB out of it, start your own thread if you wish to go over the pros/cons of OOB.
Does anyone atleast agree that jumping people 2v1/3v1 as a best practice means something is inherrently wrong?
It means that some folks are too chicken**** to try a 1v1 in equal ships. I got jumped in a 3v1 the other night and didn't even bother to charge weapons. I just Taco Bell'd because it was a waste of time and I don't give up ships unless it's worth it for my team. I won't mention names, but is a territorial house member that frightening to a PvP house that they need three members to hunt down one<snicker>?
-
But, the fleet dispositions were realistic as hell (well aside from all the CWL's), and PvP victories really meant something when you took a piece off the board.
STICK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND. This has nothing to do with what the thread is meant to address. Leave OOB out of it, start your own thread if you wish to go over the pros/cons of OOB.
PPPPPTTTTHPHPPTHPPTTTTHHHHHH :P :P :P
Does anyone atleast agree that jumping people 2v1/3v1 as a best practice means something is inherrently wrong?
Why is it wrong? Because 1v1's are relatively rare?
-
Slider said a lot of good stuff, I'm going to focus on just the below
Ive seen the complaints and i find them selfish to an extent.
Reality is not some loan frigate assaulting enemy space only to be confronted by some Phaser 3 bearing tug.
I think he might be right. The "complaints" are selfish, I miss the 1v1 duels of the past and Hexx hates flying with wingmen. we could simply be being selfish in only focssuon on the negatives over the positives oaf the modern rule set.
-
Why is it wrong? Because 1v1's are relatively rare?
It MIGHT be wrong because I think intentionally ganging up on people should not be encouraged. This is bad for PvP in my opinion, you aren't looking for a fight when you jump people 2v1/3v1, you are looking for a slaughter.
With the current rule set, ganging up on people is the best way to secure hexes. That is what I feel is wrong with the rule set.
-
It means that some folks are too chicken**** to try a 1v1 in equal ships. I got jumped in a 3v1 the other night and didn't even bother to charge weapons. I just Taco Bell'd because it was a waste of time and I don't give up ships unless it's worth it for my team. I won't mention names, but is a territorial house member that frightening to a PvP house that they need three members to hunt down one<snicker>?
Exactly my point, how can jumping people 2v1/3v1 as a best practice be considered looking for PvP?
-
There is nothing dishonerable by running someone off a hex using superior force. If you think about it its saves lives on both sides.
BTW Ive asked for 1 v 1 when outgunned, I won and the remaining pilots let me go. Dude thats right out of a movie.....
In another chance encounter we turned and looked the other way as neither of us were looking to fight each other......again cool role playing stuff.
Later that night I was fighting with some of the players i most repect in this game against another group of guys I hold in high esteem. (any Lyran pilot qualifies) They killed us.....I felt no shame in it...I flet bad for letting my partners down, but there is no shame to losing to people I respect.
Winning requires respect, so does losing.
To quote my friend Ronin...
*steps off soapbox*
*tips hat*
Slider
Gunz
-
There is nothing dishonorable by running someone off a hex using superior force. If you think about it its saves lives on both sides.
Not implying it is dishonorable, I just don't liked the game better before it was the best practice for controlling a hex.
-
So what if you get gangbanged? Disengage and work somewhere else for an hour.
-
So what if you get gangbanged? Disengage and work somewhere else for an hour.
You might be right, Hexx and I might be making a big deal out of nothing.
I would like an explanation as to how jumping somebody 2v1/3v1 is even considered PvP
-
It's not PvP in the tactical sense. It's a strategic maneuver.
It should be said that the fleet doing the jumping does not always know what they are going to draw.
It should further be said that flying solo on the front lines is an inherently risky process, unless the soloer does not mind getting run off.
-
I agree 762
-
2 points
1. PvP was not meaningless on KCW. One garners VPs or VCs or whatever you want to call them from PvP, so I would hardly consider that meaningless and frankly that's the way most servers have been in recent history.
2. 2v1s and 3v1s are a part of the way the D2 works. Do I think it is dumb? Damn right, I do. This is not how naval/space battles occur. 3 ships don't just stumble upon a lone ship in naval engagements or at least they never should. This is why I have advocated time and time again for some sort of either PvP only campaign, or advocated some sort mandatory fleeting rules/lots of AI in missions to give battles a sense of a large scale engagement, not some border skirmish. This is war, right??
And I'll ask a question. Is KCW over? Has KBF quit? Didn't see those guys on the server today.
And looking specifically to jump someone with a superior force i.e. 3v1 or 2v1 is not PvP. It's, well, strategic bullying and I don't like it.
-
I don't know if this is the SFC we all remember, or if there's been a general evolution to an eve-crack type game.
Consider the following changes:
EEK missions: FFs / DDs are drawing CA (at 140%+ BPV of the initiating ship's strength) and BCHs up get extra AI to destroy.
Disenagement Rule: When we slipped into "trench warfare" mode, there wasn't much perceived strategic option (at least, not something immediately gratifying like watching the important hex flip your color while online that night) besides fighing in one extra-special hex. The problem was when the poor droner / Mirak players in their hex-flip-o'matic DDs were jumped by CAs / BCHs / DNs.
OOB: Made certain ships important. So important that their loss was irreplacable, no matter what the shipyard might have said.
Now, what is the fix for each problem.
EEK missions: Since no extra AI is generated due to player-count, then get a wing 2 players can handle that toughened AI.
Disengagement rule: Droners forced to fight big ships were encouraged to get a wing so that their 2 droners approximated the BPV of the CA / DNs attempting to bounce them from the daily ultra-special hex.
OOB: Once the hit of "we lost our only DN" was felt a few times, DNs / other specialty ships were preety-much ordered to fly with a wing (sacrificial chicken perhaps?) to protect the "heavy iron".
3 design choices / rules, 1 common answer.
And now we wonder why there's no one-on-one action.
What was that famous quote... "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past"...
-
Ive been getting pleanty of 1 v 1 along with 2 v 2s and 3v3s.
When a 2 v 1 occiurs I offer the soloist the chance to fight 1 v 1 ......not a rule but a wrinkle to just being run off. Its up to them based on their ability to by ships. So Far ive offered 3 times and got 3 one on ones.
Gunz
-
Here's an idea - how bout a variation on "The Slot"?
Instead of limiting what size ships can be flown, why not designate a region of space where pilots can only fly solo. Throw some VC's in there for good measure.
If a player accidentally drafts an ally along with an enemy, the enemy can decide which one has to disengage.
-
"The Slot" is good, single ships no heavy metal. :thumbsup:
-
Hehehe, thought you'd like that t00l... :flame: I won't argue with ya, its clear we have differing views on this and have been over it a thousand times.
DNs vs DDs ≠ fun PvP.
I think our views differ on this because you're usually in the DN and I'm usually in the DD. ;)
edit: OK, I can't resist... the Mirak arguement just does not hold water on a server like KCW now does it?
Bonk, you have DN versus DD before the disengaemnet rule. You will ALWAYS have 1v1 disparities (unless you resort to the KCW communist setup).
I want this discussion to focus on Hexx's Deep thought (nobody flies solo, jumping people with 2v1 - 3v1 is a best practices).
Difference being that in the past you could not be followed around by a superior force being banned from hex after hex until you are relegated to running hex flipping missions behind the lines and it is just salt in the wounds when there are VPs associated with it, and the insult is compounded by any kind of OoB which should just not happen. (i.e OoB is a good thing which should not be fouled by the disengagment rule)
-
I thinking no DREADS, but BCH's ok. Reason being BCH's are balanced to fight it out 1v1, whereas dreads are not.
-
I thinking no DREADS, but BCH's ok. Reason being BCH's are balanced to fight it out 1v1, whereas dreads are not.
OK Mr Overlord/Overseer... ;D That works for me... 2 DDs winging have a good chance against a BCH. edit: wait, whoops, that doesn't jibe with your 1vs1 proposal... Duh!
-
maybe the disengagement rule needs options to it on some of these servers...say an hour out OR 1 VP. This would allow droners and loners to decide whether that "one special hex" is worth a VP or the time.
-
I could live with a disengagement rule of 15 minutes but one hour is just sadistic.
What if: the server did not offer missions in hexes where a mission is already underway? hmmm...
I resolve to get back to work on adding PvP detection logic to the serverkit so that PvP battles can be awarded higher DV shifts which makes the above suggestion redundant.
-
2 points
1. PvP was not meaningless on KCW. One garners VPs or VCs or whatever you want to call them from PvP, so I would hardly consider that meaningless and frankly that's the way most servers have been in recent history.
It is to me, there is no strategic value to any of the fights I've been in on KCW. If it ain't over real estate, it doesn't mean anything to me.
I guess I'm a flipping after all . . .
-
"The Slot" is good, single ships no heavy metal. :thumbsup:
The "slot" is a good concept but with the Dynamic nature of a map, the "slot" must move with the front.
Something to ponder . . .
-
I could live with a disengagement rule of 15 minutes but one hour is just sadistic.
What if: the server did not offer missions in hexes where a mission is already underway? hmmm...
I resolve to get back to work on adding PvP detection logic to the serverkit so that PvP battles can be awarded higher DV shifts which makes the above suggestion redundant.
Not be be overly facetious, but...
Is that before or after you solve the Q3 sprite issue, finish SQL stability, troubleshoot the world's supply of badly designed routers, and solve world peace?
And 15 minutes turns it fom being run out of a hex into a forced coffee/bathroom break.
-
Bonk, dont think of it as a punishment. It's merely a way to keep droners and other efficient hex flippers from taking over the server and making it boring for everyone else.
IMHO, it is barely effective at an hour and just one hex. But I am admittedly PvP-centric.
An hour on a large map is NOTHING. There are always 2-3 hexes that can be worked minimum, and by the time you get hunted down in the others you are back in the first one.
-
I could live with a disengagement rule of 15 minutes but one hour is just sadistic.
What if: the server did not offer missions in hexes where a mission is already underway? hmmm...
I resolve to get back to work on adding PvP detection logic to the serverkit so that PvP battles can be awarded higher DV shifts which makes the above suggestion redundant.
Not be be overly facetious, but...
Is that before or after you solve the Q3 sprite issue, finish SQL stability, troubleshoot the world's supply of badly designed routers, and solve world peace?
And 15 minutes turns it fom being run out of a hex into a forced coffee/bathroom break.
No BS, we are closer than you think. I could tell you more but Frey would have me killed ;D
-
I could live with a disengagement rule of 15 minutes but one hour is just sadistic.
What if: the server did not offer missions in hexes where a mission is already underway? hmmm...
I resolve to get back to work on adding PvP detection logic to the serverkit so that PvP battles can be awarded higher DV shifts which makes the above suggestion redundant.
Not be be overly facetious, but...
Is that before or after you solve the Q3 sprite issue, finish SQL stability, troubleshoot the world's supply of badly designed routers, and solve world peace?
:rofl: Point taken... good one... its a question of priorities I guess... (Don't forget forums maintenance too..)
+1 for Risky.... (I never say that, usually I just do it.)
-
BTW Bonk, I don't know if this gives you any incentive to work on SQL, but consider this scenario.
Successful PvAI mission = 1 DV shift
Successful PvP mission = 5 or 6 DV shifts
Net Result = disengagement rule not needed
I believe SQL IS the Holy Grail.
-
BTW Bonk, I don't know if this gives you any incentive to work on SQL, but consider this scenario.
Successful PvAI mission = 1 DV shift
Successful PvP mission = 5 or 6 DV shifts
Net Result = disengagement rule not needed
I believe SQL IS the Holy Grail.
If this can work, I agree.
-
2 points
1. PvP was not meaningless on KCW. One garners VPs or VCs or whatever you want to call them from PvP, so I would hardly consider that meaningless and frankly that's the way most servers have been in recent history.
2. 2v1s and 3v1s are a part of the way the D2 works. Do I think it is dumb? Damn right, I do. This is not how naval/space battles occur. 3 ships don't just stumble upon a lone ship in naval engagements or at least they never should. This is why I have advocated time and time again for some sort of either PvP only campaign, or advocated some sort mandatory fleeting rules/lots of AI in missions to give battles a sense of a large scale engagement, not some border skirmish. This is war, right??
And I'll ask a question. Is KCW over? Has KBF quit? Didn't see those guys on the server today.
And looking specifically to jump someone with a superior force i.e. 3v1 or 2v1 is not PvP. It's, well, strategic bullying and I don't like it.
Battle of the River Plate, 1939 - 3 v 1.
Battle of the North Cape, 1943, many v 1.
Ganging up v smaller numbers is the obvious thing to do in war. In a game, it's morally dubious. Depends on your sense of sportsmanship I guess.
-
BTW Bonk, I don't know if this gives you any incentive to work on SQL, but consider this scenario.
Successful PvAI mission = 1 DV shift
Successful PvP mission = 5 or 6 DV shifts
Net Result = disengagement rule not needed
I believe SQL IS the Holy Grail.
This works to a certain degree, but is chasing out a ship 3 hull classes smaller than you worth a 5 DV shift?
A system such as this only forces players into heavy metal and into flying in fleets once again jumping the solo pilot or small ship. Again the same answer to a situation as Julin points out, the error of history repeated.
The only way to make a variable DV shift sytem work is if it is scaled based on the matchup.
Something like:
Win vs ai = 1 DV shift
Win with 3v1 advantage = 0 DV shift
Win with 2v1 advantage 1 DV shift
Win with +2 hull class advantage = 1 DV shift
Win with +1 hull class advantage = 2 DV shift
Win with equal hull = 3 DV shift
Win with - 1 hull class = 4 DV shift
Win with -2 hull class 5 DV shift
Win a 1 v 2 = 5 DV shift
Win a 1 v 3 = 10 DV shift
(of course some way to measure hulls would be needed, as 3 frigates vs a DN would be more fair than the reverse)
Some missions might have the scale altered such as base assaults but the general principle holds. Winning with superior numbers or a much larger hull is probably easier than fighting ai, why should it be rewarded more. Also a scale such as this would lessen the merits of fleeting and everyone flying around in heavy metal. Anyother approach to a weighted system will finish off the game for many players just as other rules additions have for many who have already left.
Changing a variable DV shift system without this would make the game no longer "Starfleet Command", it would make it "Gangbang & Heavy Metal Command" even more than it is now.
It is a game I would not play.
-
As far as the disengagement rule, I still believe that the forerunner of it was far superior.
We used this on the origional AOTK, where there was brutal fighting on several fronts and massive PvP because noone was forced off any front.
For those who didn't play that campaign, the rule was that if you ran off the map you were banned for 1 hour from that hexx, UNLESS you came back with a friend or a larger hull class ship. There was no penalty if you lost your ship I think. Pure armageddon to please the most avid PvPer. I remember holding one hex with Fluf for over 18 hours versus a large number of federation and Hydran pilots. Funny thing was, for some reason I never had anything other than a 1 v 1 on that hexx despite 14 kills and even more runoffs. Since the pilots knew they could come back they wanted to be the one to beat us in that hex. Poor Dizzy got killed 3 times during that period as did a couple of others, but not one of them tried to gangbang me. The current disengagement rule changed all this, and even if its done away with the gangbang mentality (I've been guilty of it too) may well remain.
I think this older system is far superior, but I could see it tweaked to the point where losing your ship in battle would force the same considerations as running off the map, ie, a disengagement period UNLESS you got a bigger hull or brought a wing. An additional side effect is, that if you get chased off or destroyed in heavy metal you likely cant go bigger for a rematch, this may help keep heavy metal from being flown so much as well. Get chased off in a 2 v 1, no problem you grab your wing and go get those big meanies. A much superior system IMHO.
-
One more thought. If you want to do away with gangbanging, eliminate the disengagement penalty for an outnumbered side. This takes away alot of the motivation for gangbanging. It would also allow the person gangbanged the opportunity to go back and get the bullies if he had a wing available, and if he didn't he could continue to do his best to defend a strategic hex vs those who resorted to gangbang tactics.
-
Killing the disengagement rule will kill D2. No one will fly except the Mirak.
:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:
:stopposting:
-
BTW Bonk, I don't know if this gives you any incentive to work on SQL, but consider this scenario.
Successful PvAI mission = 1 DV shift
Successful PvP mission = 5 or 6 DV shifts
Net Result = disengagement rule not needed
I believe SQL IS the Holy Grail.
Adding this capability (gf configurable PvP DV shift) is independent of SQL, though I have been testing it on The Forge SQL server (no success yet). It is tricky to add it using the existing logic in the kit. Amazingly, PvP detection in the battle results does not exist at all and it is considerable work to add it (the bulk of the battle results code conditionals relate to Pure AI battles). Yes, it would make these disengagement rule debates obsolete... thus my resolution to accomplish it.
-
One more thought. If you want to do away with gangbanging, eliminate the disengagement penalty for an outnumbered side. This takes away a lot of the motivation for gangbanging. It would also allow the person gangbanged the opportunity to go back and get the bullies if he had a wing available, and if he didn't he could continue to do his best to defend a strategic hex vs those who resorted to gangbang tactics.
As a fairly new player to the D2 servers this has been my total perception of why people gangbang:
Run as many enemy pilots out of the hex until your side controls it. Best way to do that is to try and jump them 3v2 or 3v1. Not a lot of reasonable players are going to stick around to fight those odds no matter how skilled of a pilot the one may be.
For me I use to get into a lot of trouble from leadership as I relished in the chance of pvp no matter the odds, I would normally lose my ship (and VC/VP) to the superior force and get tossed from the hex.
Over the servers I think we are getting close on perfecting the rules the one that had a PBR element of certain ships not able to fly together seemed to work best, however there was still the time penalty of getting run out or a reduced time for getting killed.
What about a system where the out numbered player get a VC for fighting the odds.
In an even 3v3 2v2 1v1 the time out of hex would be 30 minutes regardless and VC to the victors for the kill(s)
In an out numbered situation 3v2 3v1 the side that is out numbered will earn one VC for fleeing per ship they are out numbered (3v1 = 2 VC for fleeing) and they will be barred from the hex for 30 minutes. The 3 or the 2 will earn 1 VC period no matter the odd for making them flee.
If the out number side choses to stay an fight the award for bravery should also increase say X2 and will eliminate any time penalty from the hex, however they must fight to the death. The higher side will only get VC(s) for the ship(s) they kill. If the out numbered side takes down ships again more VC for fighting the odds.
If the 1 happens to be a Dred or BCH and the 3 FF's the Dred must kill all three for any VC to be awarded or time penalty to take effect. This will keep one big ship from jumping the strategic hex flipping DF's or the like.
I am sure there maybe other similar ideas; but for me I think lower penalties for the out number side to chose to flee or fight will increase PVP and help those that are flippers the safety to operate with out taking big time penalties for getting run out or killed in a key hex. With the bonus of getting a VC or two for fleeing or fighting.
Or perhaps I am still just a newb to all this and talking out of me arse as usual. I am sure there is a happy middle ground out there we are just a hex away from finding it.
"Impossible is a word to be found only in the dictionary of fools."
- Unknown
-
Killing the disengagement rule will kill D2. No one will fly except the Mirak.
:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:
:stopposting:
:lame:
-
Win vs ai = 1 DV shift
Win with 3v1 advantage = 0 DV shift
Win with 2v1 advantage 1 DV shift
Win with +2 hull class advantage = 1 DV shift
Win with +1 hull class advantage = 2 DV shift
Win with equal hull = 3 DV shift
Win with - 1 hull class = 4 DV shift
Win with -2 hull class 5 DV shift
Win a 1 v 2 = 5 DV shift
Win a 1 v 3 = 10 DV shift
Not only is this horrendously complicated, it does nothing to stop DF's from spamming the map.
-
The controlling of hexes is only controlling with respect to being able to run AI missions on it, ne c'est pas? If you kick live players out of a hex, there is nothing to prevent other live players from entering that hex. So to maintain control of a hex vs live players, you'd be committed to some very lengthy live engagements. The idea of controlling a hex via PvP really for the exclusive purpose of running alot of AI missions on it seems kind of silly and counterintuitive. It would almost make me suggest that getting more of a DV shift for PvP would be the answer, yet this is effectively what happens anyway. It's just that the guys controlling the hex need to run the AI mission to get the benefit of controlling the hex.
Similarly, the difference between a disengagement rule with or without the "right of return" is merely one of degree. Kick someone out, two other people may come back OR kick someone out and he and another come back. Largely the same except perhaps the timing of one is more immediate than the other. Be that as it may, I really think people do not like running AI missions. If there is anything that can be done to cut that down, I'd be all for it.
Frankly, we are living in a world of gaming choices where 64 or more players can occupy the same mulitplayer gaming environment at one time. I am not sure SFC can keep pace with that. However, I ask myself what is satisfying about those games. I have no idea as I hardly play them, except they have more immediacy. What's so good about EVE? It would seem that in the abstract one is largely doing the same thing in both games. Amassing points, getting a bigger ship, controlling space. Yet, MMORPGs and multiplayer FPS are where it is at, supposedly. I don't really get it as I don't like FPS and really can't see doing a pay-to-play system.
-
Win vs ai = 1 DV shift
Win with 3v1 advantage = 0 DV shift
Win with 2v1 advantage 1 DV shift
Win with +2 hull class advantage = 1 DV shift
Win with +1 hull class advantage = 2 DV shift
Win with equal hull = 3 DV shift
Win with - 1 hull class = 4 DV shift
Win with -2 hull class 5 DV shift
Win a 1 v 2 = 5 DV shift
Win a 1 v 3 = 10 DV shift
Not only is this horrendously complicated, it does nothing to stop DF's from spamming the map.
If its automated it ain't complicated ::)
I do think that certain ships should be classed as larger hull sizes. A drone boat would certainly rate a +1 at least, as would carriers.
-
Win vs ai = 1 DV shift
Win with 3v1 advantage = 0 DV shift
Win with 2v1 advantage 1 DV shift
Win with +2 hull class advantage = 1 DV shift
Win with +1 hull class advantage = 2 DV shift
Win with equal hull = 3 DV shift
Win with - 1 hull class = 4 DV shift
Win with -2 hull class 5 DV shift
Win a 1 v 2 = 5 DV shift
Win a 1 v 3 = 10 DV shift
Not only is this horrendously complicated, it does nothing to stop DF's from spamming the map.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
And when was the last server that even had enough Mirak to cause a threat ;)
I can see where 762 is coming from. I do tend to SPAM the Map when I'm flying one ;D
-
That DF might return and blow up a Lord Bishop you know Soreyes ;)
That being said t00l does have a valid point about mission times, but then again he well knows that flying a Hydran escort on AOTK II he was just about able to equate these times. 5 gatling phasers can wreck havok. With that type of issue in mind I had the statement in my system about the specialty ships being considered larger hull classes, this would alleviate some of the concern. If you want to starcastle vs ai, you deserve the slow times you recieve in my opinion.
-
Every race has flippers, but only one race has a 6-rack flipper @74 BPV.
What that means is a high frequency of one-pass kills, and 1:40 missions, even without using your one SP. Even other droners do not do this as well. The D5D draws higher AI; the NCD draws higher AI and can't HET. The CAD can HET but draws horrendous AI.
Hydran escorts make good flippers, relative to other ships in the Royal Navy. But they need at least 2 passes to kill any ship unless they are lucky enough to draw a very small ship (infrequent). Fighters can help at the risk of making you more supply-depndent. Mission times usually run 2 1/2 to 3 minutes on average for a 1v1. Rarely you get the 1:40.
Because of this, Mirak (especially in early-mid) have a map effect all out of proportion to their player numbers. We've seen this since the very first Taldren server went up.
-
Well, at least we made to page 3 before the flame war broke out ;D
-
Don't disagree in general with what you say t00l but the Hydran escorts are a bit faster, I timed you on AOTK II and you were averaging 2 min 5 seconds, still not 1 min 40 but a bit closer, and Die Hard tells me he can do 2.5 min missions in the Ranger, a vanilla ship. Not all races can do this I realize, why Ive supported plasma races having the basic PFT in their list at the beginning of early with the basic plasma PFs, so that they had a hex flipper.
There are other resons why Kzin pilots tend to have more effect as well. We tend to fly alone, we are coordinated, we don't try to save our hull to much or take time to capture ai, we know what targets are achievable and which are not and don't waste time on those, we set up our targets beforehand, we are good at deepstriking, we tend not to spend excessive amounts of time organizing gangbangs on our foes (although we sometimes have), and we make our foes react to us whenever possible.
So yes we can run missions twice as fast as some foes, but we likely have 3 times the effect, it goes beyond the mission times. ;)
***there are pilots in just about every races that have these effects due to good organization and strategy, these I by no means wish to imply that they are purely Kzinti qualities, nor are they limited to those equipped with Kzinti ships.
I can name a few pilots of other races that muliply their effect if you wish, even a few plasma chuckers. These are the guys I have to kep and eye one when they are the enemy ;)
-
Don't disagree in general with what you say t00l but the Hydran escorts are a bit faster, I timed you on AOTK II and you were averaging 2 min 5 seconds, still not 1 min 40 but a bit closer, and Die Hard tells me he can do 2.5 min missions in the Ranger, a vanilla ship. Not all races can do this I realize, why Ive supported plasma races having the basic PFT in their list at the beginning of early with the basic plasma PFs, so that they had a hex flipper.me a few pilots of other races that muliply their effect if you wish, even a few plasma chuckers. These are the guys I have to kep and eye one when they are the enemy ;)
Ask Icehawk, the low DV plasma carriers make excellent hex-fillppers, that was kind of what I was going for when I put them in the mod.
We now return to the Chuut and t00l flamewar . . .
-
Well, at least we made to page 3 before the flame war broke out ;D
Hardly a flame war, but I do believe we have drifted a bit off your topic DH, apologies for that. ;)
I respect t00ls honor and integrity as a player and as a forum admin, I'd never question those traits of his, we just want different things from a Dynaverse server and if you can manage to please us both you will have a winner. I do like using t00l as a sounding board for ideas for this very reason, he often has some very valid points which I might overlook from my own personally biased point of view. Its just when he makes statements such as "only the Mirak would play on such a Server" or the like that I find his attitudes inappropriate for a civil discussion and start being a smartass myself.
Apologies for the DF/Lord Bishop shot at you t00l, wasn't called for.
-
Apologies for the DF/Lord Bishop shot at you t00l, wasn't called for.
But it was still funny ;D
-
762 dose have a valid point. But we do more with our DF's then just hex flip. I for one enjoy flying solo in my DF. I know for a fact that 95% of the time when I'm caught by a opposing player I'm going to go BOOM. It's that 5% of the time when I suprise some people in CA's that make it worth it ;)
I don't have a problem with the 1 hour hex ban if I have been kicked out of a hex. As 762 pointed out, I just go and work on another part of the map.. Or as what happened on the last Slave Girls. We were just getting Hammered on the front lines and it was something like 20 coalition to 3 alliance on. I just took my trusty DF on a Deep strike to find the Klingon Home world. After a few minutes I found that I was being chased around Klingon space by a CV, and 2 CA's. 3 less capital ships on the front lines ;D
-
Just when I thought I was out...
The way to get by the 3 ships fleeting together and driving people off is simple, I tried to set it up for KCW, but didn't go far enough
Many,many, more VC hexes.
Right now most of the last servers have been fought over control of 5-10 hexes.
Given the amount of time that it takes to get secure LOS to the hexes , and the numbers of players on after the first weekend, it's rare to be fighting for control of more than 3 hexes or so on any given night.
If -instead of having between 5- 10 major VP hexes to fight over,a server had 30 or 40, each worth fewer VP, and having less DV in the hexes things would change.
A 3 ship fleet could knock someone out of a hex, but they'd have another 10-15 hexes to hit.
A three ship fleet would still be a powerhouse, but a force organized around individual pilots would
be far more nimble in attacking objective hexes.
Given lower DV's, slightly smaller maps,and many more VP hexes you'll minimize the trend to fleet up
and likley increase 1v1 PVP's.
-
One of the things I really like about KCW is the vast amount of empty(neutral) space yet it is a small map. Each house gets to more or less mould their territory shape to what they need. Each house gets near equal chance to "run for the cash" so to speak. And I also agree that with more target hexes out there, well, if you cant get to that one, there are many others out ther to get to. And to get to them quicker is not 3 men teams.
-
Just when I thought I was out...
The way to get by the 3 ships fleeting together and driving people off is simple, I tried to set it up for KCW, but didn't go far enough
Many,many, more VC hexes.
Right now most of the last servers have been fought over control of 5-10 hexes.
Given the amount of time that it takes to get secure LOS to the hexes , and the numbers of players on after the first weekend, it's rare to be fighting for control of more than 3 hexes or so on any given night.
If -instead of having between 5- 10 major VP hexes to fight over,a server had 30 or 40, each worth fewer VP, and having less DV in the hexes things would change.
A 3 ship fleet could knock someone out of a hex, but they'd have another 10-15 hexes to hit.
A three ship fleet would still be a powerhouse, but a force organized around individual pilots would
be far more nimble in attacking objective hexes.
Given lower DV's, slightly smaller maps,and many more VP hexes you'll minimize the trend to fleet up
and likley increase 1v1 PVP's.
Have to bookmark this post...
-
Its just when he makes statements such as "only the Mirak would play on such a Server" or the like that I find his attitudes inappropriate for a civil discussion and start being a smartass myself.
Well, maybe that was a jerky comment.
I blame Bonk for pushing my buttons. Bastard! ;D
-
If -instead of having between 5- 10 major VP hexes to fight over,a server had 30 or 40, each worth fewer VP, and having less DV in the hexes things would change.
A 3 ship fleet could knock someone out of a hex, but they'd have another 10-15 hexes to hit.
This would make the disengagement rule (and PvP) almost totally ineffective. It only has an effect now if there are bottlenecks on the server where hex flippers must go. If you homogenize the map, it just becomes a flip-fest with no strategy.
-
FYI Chuut, at the time you were clocking me on AOTK2 I was flying an HR w/ 6 St-2, a combo only available from 2270-2272. This is far better than what we usually flip with because you can get 6 Stinger-2 @ 95 BPV. On the Mirak front I was drawing FFK's and the occasional DD and getting 1-pass kills almost all of the time. In '73 the HR+ obsoletes it and you start drawing war cruisers with nasty PD, throwing the whole thing off.
The RN does not normally get one pass kills, and has to replace fighters more often. With RA gatlings and 6 x Ph2 it is one of the most BORING ships I have ever flown!
-
Its just when he makes statements such as "only the Mirak would play on such a Server" or the like that I find his attitudes inappropriate for a civil discussion and start being a smartass myself.
Well, maybe that was a jerky comment.
I blame Bonk for pushing my buttons. Bastard! ;D
:-* ;D
-
-instead of having between 5- 10 major VP hexes to fight over,a server had 30 or 40, each worth fewer VP, and having less DV in the hexes things would change.
A 3 ship fleet could knock someone out of a hex, but they'd have another 10-15 hexes to hit.
Would this map do the trick?
(http://67.85.119.36:9000/images/wch_map2.jpg)
-
OK, here's something that may be attainable (stems from Bonk's idea of using the split-mission bugs to attain multiple DV shifts). Don't get your hopes up, there's not even a proof of concept yet, but it may be doable:
Winning a PvP battle with equal number (of human pilots) on each side: +/- 2 DV shift
Winning a PvP battle when you outnumbered your opponent: +/- 1 DV shift
Winning a PvP battle when you were outnumbered: +/- 2 or 3 DV shift
Winning an AI battle: +/- 1 DV shift
If it worked, would that alleviate some of the issues?
Right now only the host returns the win/loss DV claim - we might be able to rig it so that at the end of PvP battles multiple different players send won/loss claims (as happens with some of the split missions). Maybe. If it doesn't work then the mess it creates should be pretty spectacular ;D
EDIT: maybe I need to stick a couple more mights ifs and maybes in there ;)
dave
-
I have a gf configurable PvP DV shift test ready on The Forge right now... Not sure it will work, but theoretically it should, its a bit of a kludge but I can refine it further if this works. (It would be more complicated to account for 2vs1s etc but possible, for now it should just detect PvP vs AI/Coop battles.)
-
If -instead of having between 5- 10 major VP hexes to fight over,a server had 30 or 40, each worth fewer VP, and having less DV in the hexes things would change.
A 3 ship fleet could knock someone out of a hex, but they'd have another 10-15 hexes to hit.
This would make the disengagement rule (and PvP) almost totally ineffective. It only has an effect now if there are bottlenecks on the server where hex flippers must go. If you homogenize the map, it just becomes a flip-fest with no strategy.
Not at all, different VP hexes can have different VP values. Different VP hexes can have different terrain features, different DV values and different
"strategic" (if anything on the D2 counts as strategic) value.
VP objective hexes can be linked ( ie hold these three hexes for VP hold these four/two whatever)
The bottlenecks are useful, but they contribute to the issue of the three player fleets dominating the necessary areas.
With multiple VP objective hexes the three player fleets can dominate any areas they wish to- but single players will also
be able to have some effect on the map without having to gather themselves into a fleet and grabbing the appropriate ships.
The disengagement rule is still effective as long as both sides fight the same way. If one side concentrates their fleets into
3 player units and the other flies as singles, the 3 player units will control whatver area they wish to control, but the single player will still
be able to achieve something other than be continously run off by the big fleets.
It presents a side with options- something completely lacking on most of the "serious" servers.
-
I have a gf configurable PvP DV shift test ready on The Forge right now... Not sure it will work, but theoretically it should, its a bit of a kludge but I can refine it further if this works. (It would be more complicated to account for 2vs1s etc but possible, for now it should just detect PvP vs AI/Coop battles.)
Coolness Bonk!
I was just going to set a Desired_Shift flag based on the odds, then mod the InvokeGameStatus so that player numbers 1..Desired_Shift could submit results, rather than just the host. Having it server-configurable would be even better!
dave
-
OK, here's something that may be attainable (stems from Bonk's idea of using the split-mission bugs to attain multiple DV shifts). Don't get your hopes up, there's not even a proof of concept yet, but it may be doable:
Winning a PvP battle with equal number (of human pilots) on each side: +/- 2 DV shift
Winning a PvP battle when you outnumbered your opponent: +/- 1 DV shift
Winning a PvP battle when you were outnumbered: +/- 2 or 3 DV shift
Winning an AI battle: +/- 1 DV shift
If it worked, would that alleviate some of the issues?
Right now only the host returns the win/loss DV claim - we might be able to rig it so that at the end of PvP battles multiple different players send won/loss claims (as happens with some of the split missions). Maybe. If it doesn't work then the mess it creates should be pretty spectacular ;D
EDIT: maybe I need to stick a couple more mights ifs and maybes in there ;)
dave
Dave, is this something you would have to do script-by-script? Or could it be done server-side?
What I'm really wondering if it would be possible for a server admin to use different values than the ones you specified above.
-
The way I'm talking about is script-by-script. I haven't played with (or looked at) any of the server kit stuff, just the mission side.
dave
-
... I haven't played with (or looked at) any of the server kit stuff, ...
Ahem, I'm reasonably sure you'd be welcome to join the development team if you're interested or have the time... I don't think we're at the "too many cooks" stage yet. No pressure though, more missions is good! ;D Perhaps you'd be our man to update the scripting API to VC8 (as we're doing for the serverkit)? I've almost got a mission script compiled in VC8 to test, but I'm hung up on a few linking steps...
-
I'll be the first to just openly say,
Holy #$%@#!! This thread has a lot of great ideas!!
(This coming from someone not known to curse, ever... well almost ever.)
Many different slants on the same problems; sounds like a matter of figuring out which slants are easiest/possible to implement to me.
Seriously, let's face whatever flames/sparks here head on and continue brainstorming. It's worth it and I really think even the heated players manage to show respect for one another while disagreeing. Not sure how that counts as flaming but I'm a relatively new pilot here compared to a lot of you and never saw any of these near-legendary forum brawls I've heard about. I think I just officially wasted my first few hours at work daydreaming about multi colored maps and people screaming on voice comms to Move in, Quick!!!....
Ah, good times. Keep 'em coming.
-
... I haven't played with (or looked at) any of the server kit stuff, ...
Ahem, I'm reasonably sure you'd be welcome to join the development team if you're interested or have the time... I don't think we're at the "too many cooks" stage yet. No pressure though, more missions is good! ;D Perhaps you'd be our man to update the scripting API to VC8 (as we're doing for the serverkit)? I've almost got a mission script compiled in VC8 to test, but I'm hung up on a few linking steps...
Might take you up on that Bonk (though I don't know what kind of masochist would willingly tackle the VC8 conversion ;) ;) )
There are a bunch of mission-side issues I'd like to clean up first [thanks DH for some of the ideas BTW] then I'll be looking around for some new ways to cause irritation ;D
dave
-
That masochist would be me, and it was going just fine until real life took me away for a few weeks, but I'm getting myself uncovered from the pile of dog poo that built up at work.
-
That masochist would be me, and it was going just fine until real life took me away for a few weeks, but I'm getting myself uncovered from the pile of dog poo that built up at work.
LOL - cool! Good t'see ya!
Good luck and thanks! ;D
dave
-
A shabby figure strolls into the conference hall. He's wearing a dirty robe. His hair is in tatters. His fingernails are at least 4 inches long. He's mumbling. And yet, he looks vaguely feline. . . . .
The hobo stumbles up to the microphone reeking of cheap scotch and Tender Vittles.
And then . . . it speaks . . . .
<hic>
Well I've been a reading this thread. And a thinking bout it. and I have to say that it is the most shocking thread I have ever read in my life!!!
EVER!!!
I mean I cannot believe my own eyes. IT'S JUST INCOMPREHENSIBLE!!!
Allow me to cut and paste . .. . . .
Yes, I'm actually asking for people's opinions ;D
Suddenly, the stranger passes out on the stage.
-
Wow, who knew you could edit the names of threads :)
BUMP
-
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
-
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... ;D
-
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
-
I HATED that mission that split you off from your wingman/men. :smackhead:
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.
-
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
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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... ;)
-
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.
-
Don't forget Die Hard. ;D
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?
-
I consider a CCH and above a big ship t00l, doesn't take a DN to be considered big.
-
Then it's hardly a descriptive term, since you are talking about 95% of D2 players.
-
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.
-
. . . 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" ;D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Are you saying before the disengagement rule people in general DIDN'T gravitate towards bigger ships?
-
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.
-
DWLP is a droner type ship with lots of offense for a small price.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Gotta love a good Jinn you Bastard thread! ;D
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.
-
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
-
Gotta love a good Jinn you Bastard thread! ;D
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.
Good to see ya Fluf!
Yes, J'inn is still a bastard, and its all still your fault. ;D
We will soon have PvP DV shifts on regular servers!
-
To address the commentary:
The purpose of this thread (besides the veiled commentary in the title ;)), is DH's original "Where has all the 1 on 1 PvP / solo pilots gone" question.
To me, there's 3 reasons. EEK, Disengagement, OOB.
Now, my commentary is aimed at answering that question, and presenting ideas that lead to the return of the solo pilot and conditions condusive to DH's requested 1 on 1 PvPs. However, if you (the community) prefer the Eve-crack type game where working in teams is the norm, then by all means ignore me and continue on your course. Us solo-pilots (myself included) will be forced to reexamine our fit in the community and act accordingly (either putting up with the increased difficulty / need for certain ships, playing only when we can get a wing, or departing...)
-
Oh for Pete's Sake!! Just play it and shaddup!!
<snicker>
although the debating = interest in the game which = good.
As for me. I tried a few missions. Still trying to get back into it.
Problem is . . . I raised the term "bastard" to a whole new level on "the game that shall not be mentioned" Where else can I actually spam entire areas of space with tacky billboards???
But seriously, I do hope D2 keeps going. I still read the forums everyday.
-
I do hope D2 keeps going.
Yes, about that...
-
Problem is . . . I raised the term "bastard" to a whole new level on "the game that shall not be mentioned" Where else can I actually spam entire areas of space with tacky billboards???
bribe the admins to spell out Eat At j'inn's on the hex map
-
Oh for Pete's Sake!! Just play it and shaddup!!
<snicker>
although the debating = interest in the game which = good.
As for me. I tried a few missions. Still trying to get back into it.
Problem is . . . I raised the term "bastard" to a whole new level on "the game that shall not be mentioned" Where else can I actually spam entire areas of space with tacky billboards???
But seriously, I do hope D2 keeps going. I still read the forums everyday.
I suggest giving Jinn's current RM the ability to control his acess to the forums.
As current holder of that position I promise more of Jinn on the server, or a big fat bribe for me, knowing J'inn and his love of the dollar, expect nutter status from him if this can be done.
Hows that for Bastardly J'inn ;D
-
I figured someone needs to explaine to the new guys about J'inn. J'inns a great wingman <snikerS> and he always follows these simple rules with his Main gal Shopasaurus rex.
1. Women love to shop. It is the one area of the world where they feel like they're actually in control.
2. Women especially love a bargain. The question of "need" is irrelevant, so don't bother pointing it out. Anything on sale is fair game.
3. Women never have anything to wear. Don't question the racks of clothes in the closet; you "just don't understand."
4. Women need to cry. And they won't do it alone unless they know you can hear them.
5. Women will always ask questions that have no right answer, in an effort to trap you into feeling guilty.
6. Women love to talk. Silence intimidates them and they feel a need to fill it, even if they have nothing to say.
7. Women need to feel like there are people worse off than they are. That's why soap operas and Oprah Winfrey-type shows are so successful.
8. Women don't need sex as often as men do. This is because sex is more physical for men and more emotional for women. Just knowing that the man wants to have sex with them fulfills the emotional need.
9. Women hate bugs. Even the strong-willed ones need a man around when there's a spider or a wasp involved.
10. Women can't keep secrets. They eat away at them from the inside. And they don't view it as being untrustworthy, providing they only tell two or three people.
11. Women always go to public restrooms in groups. It gives them a chance to gossip.
12. Women can't refuse to answer a ringing phone, no matter what she's doing. It might be the lottery calling.
13. Women never understand why men love toys. Men understand that they wouldn't need toys if women had an "on/off" switch.
14. Women think all beer is the same.
15. Women keep three different shampoos and two different conditioners in the shower. After a woman showers, the bathroom will smell like a tropical rainforest.
16. Women don't understand the appeal of sports. Men seek entertainment that allows them to escape reality. Women seek entertainment that reminds them of how horrible things could be.
17. If a man goes on a seven-day trip, he'll pack five days' worth of clothes and will wear some things twice; if a woman goes on a seven-day trip she'll pack 21 outfits because she doesn't know what she'll feel like wearing each day.
18. Women brush their hair before bed.
19. Watch a woman eat an ice cream cone and you'll have a pretty good idea of how she'll be in bed.
20. Women are paid less than men, except for one field: modeling.
21. Women are never wrong. Apologizing is the man's responsibility, "It's there in the Bible." Hmm, who was it that gave Adam the apple?
22. Women do not know anything about cars. "Oil-stick, oil doesn't stick?"
23. Women have better restrooms. They get the nice chairs and red carpet. Men just get a large bowl to share.
24. The average number of items in a typical woman's bathroom is 437. A man would not be able to identify most of these items.
25. Women love Kats. Men say they love cats, but when women aren't looking, men kick kats.
Stephen
-
Bump, because while this might not be the original, at least it is the right title and original thread starter and it belongs on page 1.
And a link to the original
http://web.archive.org/web/20020615100933/http://216.203.248.212/ubb/Forum2/HTML/007837.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20020615100933/http://216.203.248.212/ubb/Forum2/HTML/007837.html)
-
:D Dam You Chuut-Ritt stop bumping jinn threads :police: :angel:
-
I will bump it some more. Of course, I still think that Jinn is still a bastard.
Now as for playing SFC? I will be quite rusty. I have been playing BF3 lately. ;D
-
Bump, because while this might not be the original, at least it is the right title and original thread starter and it belongs on page 1.
And a link to the original
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20020615100933/http://216.203.248.212/ubb/Forum2/HTML/007837.html[/url] ([url]http://web.archive.org/web/20020615100933/http://216.203.248.212/ubb/Forum2/HTML/007837.html[/url])
now that I needed, thanks you mangy kat!
dave
-
Dave!!!!! We need your help!!!!!!!
-
Dave!!!!! We need your help!!!!!!!
Is he the one with J'inn locked in his basement?
-
I figured that would be Kroma.
-
Just Had to bump this again and hi all
f9th Sir X :BoeseSmilies (71):
-
Stopping by to say hello
-
Moooo....I mean Q'plah!!!!
-
Wow, all you old bastiges are still alive?
-
Stephen has claimed he is dead. Since he is still posting I guess he is a zombie.
-
AJTK, good to see you're still kicking. Hope you're doing well and had a great holiday season.
-
Thanks, Javora. Still kicking. Cant for the life of me remember my old login info so I had to make a new account. meh.
Good to see you too!
-
Bump
-
I'm bored. Can't someone smarter than me come up with something SFC related? I mean really. My boredom is a high priority issue here. Step it up smart people.
Damn slackers . . . I mean hell it's been like 10 years. I think your frikking coffee break is over.
-
I'm bored. Can't someone smarter than me come up with something SFC related? I mean really. My boredom is a high priority issue here. Step it up smart people.
Damn slackers . . . I mean hell it's been like 10 years. I think your frikking coffee break is over.
Is there any space game out that's actually any good at all? I'm getting nostalgic.
-
I've been playing Wargame: air land battle...it's kinda like modern micro armor for the PC...
-
Playing World of Warships here, so are Punisher and Buckstrider and Die Hard from SFC. Gook was playing but is taking a break doing Echo of Soul with Sockfoot. Moggy is also playing World of Warships but on the EU server.
-
#@$ smartass bored lawyer b*stard!
cheers y'all!
:)
-
MOO! :moo:
-
#@$ smartass bored lawyer b*stard!
cheers y'all!
:)
Another example of a perfectly good computer guy who should be working harder to make me a game . . . but no . . . Too busy posting slander.
What the hell do they teach in Computer Science Colleges these days?
Posting 101
Advanced Posting 201
J'inn Bashing 101
Online Porn, a Comparative Study, Levels 1 - 36785 with Doctorate Degrees available.
But back to stuff those of us of pure of soul, heart and mind (Read: Not Computer Guys) care about . . .
KOTH - GREEN told me about some game call Star Citizen coming up. You guys got any info on it? He is kinda geezing and wheezing so I am not sure if it is really something or just another one of his delusions.
-
KOTH - GREEN told me about some game call Star Citizen coming up. You guys got any info on it? He is kinda geezing and wheezing so I am not sure if it is really something or just another one of his delusions.
We'd tell you but it is restricted to humanoids (no Kzinti or lawyers allowed) and the under 50's. So no fun for you.
-
At a convention of biological scientists, one researcher remarks to another, "Did you know that in our lab we have switched from mice to lawyers for our experiments?" "Really?" the other replied, "Why did you switch?" "Well, for three reasons. First we found that lawyers are far more plentiful, second, the lab assistants don't get so attached to them, and thirdly there are some things even a rat won't do.
-
It does work on Linux and there is no Wikipedia article about it so don't bother to look.