Topic: Gw2 Post-Mortem

[Durin]

To clarify my remarks, no indictment of any side intended, but when it comes down to it, it is just who runs more missions that wins and since those extra missions are all vs the AI by definition and since almost all AI missions are a fair d'accompli, more mouse clicking wins the day.  Pretty silly all around no matter what side wins.  Might as well just pick two people to enter a pen clicking race and see who gives up first.

There's got to be a better way than this to run a "competitive" campaign.

Wow all I need is this?

Durin sits in a corner..  click..click..click..click..click...click.. the klingon homeworld  soon shall l fall!!



OMG.. a magic pen to replace my magic photons..

[Lepton]

There is no strategy. No offense to the lead planners for either side, but more missions is more missions. If 3700 missions are deployed on the map in any sensible way, that side wins.  People aren't going to run missions that don't support VCs as VC conditions are usually sensible and transparent.  Capture bases, capture planets.  People want to do this anyway as it extends supply lines and adds supply nodes as well as making simple sense.

It would be one thing if mission numbers and/or server number were more equal, then I could see making a strategic claim, but 3700 is alot of missions.  I mean, by definition the side that takes more hexes has to have run more missions.  That is a given.  As far as I can tell, this is way more missions than would be needed to take the territory that was taken on this server, so what strategy can be pointed to?

[Hexx]

Actually Lepton I think there's about as much strategy as one can reasonably expect from any sort of game we're playing now. What else would you suggest?
All I can think of is A) hex flipping
                          B)Having the whole thing center around PvP, which penalizes those players and/or
                             races that aren't as good at it.

 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Very true, but these post-mortems will point out the the winning side of a campaign has never run fewer missions than the losing side.

I think there are at least 2 cases when this didn't hold true.  Storm Seasons I and II just going from memory here, so if you have data that shows otherwise please share.

However, in both those cases the percentage differential was not so great.

[KBF-Crim]

To clarify my remarks, no indictment of any side intended, but when it comes down to it, it is just who runs more missions that wins and since those extra missions are all vs the AI by definition and since almost all AI missions are a fair d'accompli, more mouse clicking wins the day.  Pretty silly all around no matter what side wins.  Might as well just pick two people to enter a pen clicking race and see who gives up first.

There's got to be a better way than this to run a "competitive" campaign.

You realise we're talking a difference of only 11 missions per hour....or aprox one extra mission every six minutes...

I often wonder....what is your point?

If you hate it so much...why play at all?

[[KBF]MuadDib]

. . .  we didn't get the D5D until the server was approx half over.

Do I have to give you a lesson in Klingon FYAs?  Please know what you are talking about when posting stuff like that.   

The D5D was available in 2270 which was the second day of the server.

And I would say the majority of the Coalition players in general weren't flying droners anyway.

 


EDIT:  Just pulling your chain Krueg, you I respect greatly, just need to correct some factual errors in your post.

Was it? I didn't realize it came out so early. Excuse me if I was incorrect. Flew one for one day, on a day when there were hardly any Alliance on to challenge. The only other droner I few was the DWD, again only on a couple short occasions. I don't spend hours looking over such details in the shiplist such as "when do we get XXship?" I usually simply make due with what we have. Therefore, obviously I'm not as knowledgeable in the FYA on the ships as some.
Thanks for noticing my error DH.

flying a hydran LM...i was flipping hexes faster than the d5d could do it...at least on GW2 during the "restart test again" period...most missions were 3-4 minutes in a d5d...in the LM i was completing them in under 3 minutes...unless i got the 1 on 1 sceanario...then it usually wasnt more than 2 minutes for the d5d...but that mission didnt come up very often...this was one of the reasons i chose to fly lyran through the last half of GW2...i could continue with the same mission times and actually fly something that could stand up  to a PvP fight...and alot of alliance folk didnt see Futar coming...had one even alt out on me when he took another hard hit to his rear...shame that this nonsense seems to insue during a game when you "think" alting out is normal...when you are getting your arse kicked by someone you think is a nOOb!!!

[zilly]

To clarify my remarks, no indictment of any side intended, but when it comes down to it, it is just who runs more missions that wins and since those extra missions are all vs the AI by definition and since almost all AI missions are a fair d'accompli, more mouse clicking wins the day.  Pretty silly all around no matter what side wins.  Might as well just pick two people to enter a pen clicking race and see who gives up first.

There's got to be a better way than this to run a "competitive" campaign.

You realise we're talking a difference of only 11 missions per hour....or aprox one extra mission every six minutes...

I often wonder....what is your point?

If you hate it so much...why play at all?

What crim said.

[kbf-jd]

There is no strategy. No offense to the lead planners for either side, but more missions is more missions. If 3700 missions are deployed on the map in any sensible way, that side wins.  People aren't going to run missions that don't support VCs as VC conditions are usually sensible and transparent.  Capture bases, capture planets.  People want to do this anyway as it extends supply lines and adds supply nodes as well as making simple sense.

It would be one thing if mission numbers and/or server number were more equal, then I could see making a strategic claim, but 3700 is alot of missions.  I mean, by definition the side that takes more hexes has to have run more missions.  That is a given.  As far as I can tell, this is way more missions than would be needed to take the territory that was taken on this server, so what strategy can be pointed to?

Easy,  It's not just the VP hexes, but the supply lines.  Because you have to have a LOS and keep it to collect points.  We often has our LOS cut and had to take them back and repair them.

The only exception was the "hail Mary".  They only needed to run 86 missions to get the objective, but even then, I bet they had to run closer to 300, because of opposition and the fact that we kept cutting the LOS, while vastly out numbered...(Scockfoot used to call this, "When out numbered, hit them where they ain't.")  There was even that last "server burp" that caused more confusion.

You fail to see strategy in D2 because you DO NOT WISH TO SEE IT.

When everyone else around you sees something you cannot, it's a good idea to step back and think about why...

The alliance put together a plan and made it work for hail Mary, that's called strategy, like it or not.

Likewise, I saw the alliance take a "just hex flipping" approach on one of the SS servers. it did not work, because the collation fought for the specific hexes that counted.  And that made the difference...

jd

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Additionally, strategy is being able to dictate where the fighting occurs by intelligent use of assets available.  Sometimes this is through hex flipping, sometimes its by use of major fleet assests and the heavy iron, sometimes its by diversions, sometimes deepstrikes. 

Planning has 3 major aspects.

1 Organization

2 Timing

3 Resources

If all are used in conjunction, the impact can be greater than a larger force using pure hex flipping.

[FPF-AJTK]

Not sure if you guys think I was whining about droners in D5D's but if I am the one your talking about, please re-read my post without the crap-brown colored glasses you put on as soon as you saw D5D, rofl!

I was saying that the fact that you were using D5D's was not that big a deal. Indeed, I said that even I, a Hydran n00b was able to do a 3 ship ai mission in about 7 minutes, and that 762 or a similar skilled Hydran pilot could do it alot faster. So I was saying that the droners didnt make that much of a difference, just that you guys wanted to win more than we did.

Re-read it without the automatic chip on the bumpy-dome and you will see I was not dissing the Coalition, I was dissing the Alliance side, I.E, US!

Crim, 11 missions an hour equals a 22 hex gain in 20 hours, lol, assuming straight hex-flipping with no PvP. Just FYI. 

Anyways, I have ZERO problem with anyone flying whatever ship they want, which is why I have been rather sceptical of the DIP list and other methods being brought up to "even hex flipping out" or to restrict "specialty ships."  As you have seen in my posts, IMHO you know what race you are picking, what strengths and weaknesses they have, so choose wisely.

Yeah, every time I fought a D5D or DWD I was thinking "Man, I cant WAIT until GW3 and my CAD+, or a CB, etc."

I had an awesome time on GW2 and have no complaints about anything, except Doomstone telling me starcastling was cheating, rofl. 

[Mazeppa]

. . .  we didn't get the D5D until the server was approx half over.

Do I have to give you a lesson in Klingon FYAs?  Please know what you are talking about when posting stuff like that.   

The D5D was available in 2270 which was the second day of the server.

And I would say the majority of the Coalition players in general weren't flying droners anyway.

 


EDIT:  Just pulling your chain Krueg, you I respect greatly, just need to correct some factual errors in your post.

It may have been available, but I did not see it in the shipyard for a time. 

We learned early that it was pretty stupid to try and face a Hydran in a drone boat.  I took a D6D the first day.  Mind you, I usually kill at least two unsuspecting people who do not fear the D6D before I move up to another ship.  Not this server.  I got run off hexes three time and then blown up.  Hydrans have too much point defense.  Hornet fighters sneer at scatterpacks.   

I am sure some people may think that there were a bunch of hex-munchers out there, but that is really not the case.  Drone boats either flew with a wing, or tried to run misions UNDER people.  Even then, there were no 2 minute missions.  the AI were prety tough to kill.  I know of one AI mission where a Hydran ship and its fighters took a 12 missile barrage, and all the missiles got killed.  Very disconcerting, if you have just tractored a Hydran, and he yawns at your best effort.  And is an AI.  And about to unoad Hellbores

I got in a PvP ship as soon as I could, and stayed there.  Mission times were not great, but we were effective.

[Soreyes]

Have to agree with Mazeppa there. Before My Computer burned up and I could not Play any more on G2. I found that any time I came across eather a D6D or a D5D, They were always winged up with another player. It never got me mad, because that's just a very smart way to play.

Hat's off to the Coalition   They had a game plan and stuck with it.

[Lepton]

To clarify my remarks, no indictment of any side intended, but when it comes down to it, it is just who runs more missions that wins and since those extra missions are all vs the AI by definition and since almost all AI missions are a fair d'accompli, more mouse clicking wins the day.  Pretty silly all around no matter what side wins.  Might as well just pick two people to enter a pen clicking race and see who gives up first.

There's got to be a better way than this to run a "competitive" campaign.

You realise we're talking a difference of only 11 missions per hour....or aprox one extra mission every six minutes...

I often wonder....what is your point?

If you hate it so much...why play at all?

Where are you getting this information to make this numeric assessment? Are you dividing the total number of missions by the amount of time the server was up??  What are you using for a standard mission time?  If we even assume what you say is true on average, which I don't at this point, those missions are not likely to be evenly distributed over the time the server was up.  The situation becomes even worse if we assume a relative equality in mission times.  Assuming 6 minute mission time that would be like 22,200 minutes or 370 hours additional server time, conservatively. No small sum.  It all may seem inconsequential when spread out over the life of a server, but it does not translate into a mission rate per hour as far as I am concerned as people are not automotons that are logged on 24 hours a day playing at a constant rate.

Be that as it may, my point is simple.  The winning side need only play more missions to win, first by definition, second by design or consequence of server numbers or hours.  Victory is no victory when all those missions are by definition against the AI.  It's mouse-clicking.

I don't hate it whatever you mean by that. I enjoy SFC in small doses.  If there is anything I hate about D2 campaigns is the repetitiveness of participating in one.  I'm not going to play the "I had fun" game here.  I am offering an objective assessment. To me, the interpretation is clear from my point of view.

[Lepton]

Very true, but these post-mortems will point out the the winning side of a campaign has never run fewer missions than the losing side.

I think there are at least 2 cases when this didn't hold true.  Storm Seasons I and II just going from memory here, so if you have data that shows otherwise please share.

However, in both those cases the percentage differential was not so great.

Chuut, that is physically impossible nearly as I can tell.  The winning side must run more missions than the opposition, unless the losing side spent a good deal of time running missions in hexes that were already maxed out or had no effect on VC goals. To get the DV shift, one has to by definition run more mission in that hex than the opposition.   What other classes could we put these extra missions into expect either involved in active DV shifts or irrelevant to them and aren't they likely to be 95% in the active DV shift category??

[FireSoul]

Lepton,

May I remind you that the Alliance managed the LOS to the Federation? How many missions was required to do this 1-time needed objective compared to the total # of missions run on the server?

[Green]

Though I agree w/ most of the points (above) you've made Lepton, I have to agree w/ chuut that the winning side can win with fewer missions run.  All that is required is that the missions they run are done in the hexes (or against humans) that matter in terms of VCs.

It isn't common (as far as I can recall), but it does happen.

[Lepton]

Additionally, strategy is being able to dictate where the fighting occurs by intelligent use of assets available.  Sometimes this is through hex flipping, sometimes its by use of major fleet assests and the heavy iron, sometimes its by diversions, sometimes deepstrikes. 

Planning has 3 major aspects.

1 Organization

2 Timing

3 Resources

If all are used in conjunction, the impact can be greater than a larger force using pure hex flipping.

No strategy is necessary with such a large difference in mission numbers.  Take the collective DV shifts for both sides from those missions. Deploy them on a map a thousand bigillion times in a random placement of the missions.  A large majority of the simulations would yield a victory for the side with the most missions.  But of course, the placement of the missions is not random in the D2.  It is focused in areas of LOS and toward  VC targets.  Now take all those missions again with some sort of algorithm that would assign them in a reasonable goal seeking fashion.  Do a bizillion simulations.  I would guarantee 99.99999999999% to 100% victory to the side with the most missions. 

Remember the disparity between the two sides in missions are all AI missions, so they are uncontested by defintion, meaning an disengagement rule/PvP likely had absolutely no effect on their placement on the map or their effect on the map.

The only possible case of a victory without a mission advantage would be a very bizzare scenario or one in which PvP VCs could exceed the gap of VCs gained from hexflipping.

[Lepton]

Lepton,

May I remind you that the Alliance managed the LOS to the Federation? How many missions was required to do this 1-time needed objective compared to the total # of missions run on the server?

What the heck does this mean??  I suppose you offer it as a case of strategy.  That makes my case stronger.  The alliance had even fewer "on the frontline" missions than is shown in the actual numbers.  The only thing that could possibly make up for mission gaps would be the victory conditions and their criteria.  The Alliance was only able to save their bacon in terms of VCs by pushing for this goal which for some reason was not sufficiently fought by the Coalition, but I take that as the exception to the rule.  In general, if the goal is to take land, planets, bases, strategy is pretty inconsequential given the huge gap in mission numbers.

[Fluf]

Wrong again Lepton.  Strategy, timing and using of resourses is critical to any campaign.  Not missions run.    Coalition won SS2 and had fewer missions.  Mirak/Hydran won IDSL in the final minutes before the campaign ended with 7 players vs 10 coaltion players.  Both strategy and timing and command of the game won these, not flipping hexes.

See some of us really enjoy the game for that aspect of it.  Playing as a team for a common goal and trying to out flank you opponent is what I love about this game.  I guess you don t get in on some of the planning and "operations" that have been done over the last 2 years.  Maybe you should try.  I think you would enjoy the game more.

Since the disengagement rule has come about, now PvP, hexflipping, and strategic planning are all important parts of the game.  I enjoy them all.  Maybe you should hang out on Ventrillo or TS with the guys and gals and learn to enjoy the commaradire and actual gamesmanship that happens during these dynas.  Then maybe you would enjoy it more.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I agree with you to some degree Lepton, in that the side which runs the most mission will usually win if the difference substantial.

However when looking at mission run stats you must also consider a couple of things.

1 win or loss in p v p  this mission would be productive for the winning side only and although the losing side ran a mission as well, they reaped no benefit from it.

2 a mission run by a solo player or one with a wing will yield the same DV result.  So although 3 players running solos will show up the same on the statistics as 3 running together, the result of the 3 solos will be greater.

3 mission types may influence the figures.  A planet assault takes longer than a patrol but if a planet can be taken without an encirclement the missions run will be less.  

4 many missions might be used to make a defense, this will make the enemy choose to fly elsewhere.  It achieves its objective yet fewer missions run at a different target while ignoring the heavily defended one making the fewer missions more effective.

there are other aspects as well, but this is enough for now I think.  I do think that a large differential in missions run is hard to overcome.  A smaller differential can be seen as a minor disadvantage.  My rule of thumb is a 10-15% differnece where strategy comes more into play. I see it kinda as depicted below:

say 5% strategy making the only real difference

10% strategy making most of the difference

15% strategy making a large part of the difference

20% strategy making a  significant contribution, but missions run being a significant part of the result

25% strategy making some contribution, but missions run differentials being the primary factor

30%+ strategy not overcoming most of the missions run differentials