Topic: Socky's campaign guide VERY LONG

[FPF-DieHard]

. . .  without resortin' to hate mail or flame wars.   

Oh, this ain't a flame war.   If you want to see flame wars, you should have seen the posts people made when "that" kind of server was the norm.   brez versus Dizzy anyone?

Gook and I actually get along, we just disagree as to what is "fun."

[FireSoul]

mew?

[Bonk]

... lol I always remebered Dagger's *hit stirring activities on the boards, we used to have roaring bonfires back then, not little flames. anyway...

Have fun fighting AI, i'll play a real game.

I think you're missing Gooks point here... as I see it there used to be more emphasis on map strategy and less on tactical battles. You werent here for those old servers right? We werent fighting AI on the map by any stretch of the imagination - it was usually a tense strategic battle... more of an F&E game than an SFB game...

Back in the days of CW3,4 RT etc... I used to argue for the removal of AI from the D2 game altogether - if no enemies are logged in then there will be no battles happening - PvP only... but this can't be done without the source. I see it differently now.

I'm still kind of torn on this issue... funnily enough there is a "AllowHumanToHumanMatching" parameter in the gfs, we can set a server to AI battles only (untested I think) but not the converse... if we could, this whole discussion would be moot we could have servers with AI and servers without.... now wheres that source?

Me, I'm for a good OoB, fleets according to CnC (we're missing out on a large part of the game flying single ships IMO)

I'm not so keen on the disengagement rule as it favours nutters... I think if the disengagement rule is to be used then there HAS to be a "slot" where casual players can affect the game.

Everything Socky said above was true, and still is. Make no mistake, he was a hex muncher but an excellent PvP pilot as well.. (can't count how many times he tractored me off the map, lol... he set the standard for conduct back then, in my opinion) - and his partner in crime Squiggy too... As nutters they always had bigger ships than me, but at least I could keep coming back and trying... one of the things missed today is keen observation and strategy - those guys would never leave a key hex unattended (no running missions over them...) not so hard to do...

I played on many servers where hex munching was key, and to be honest I ended up in more PvP battles than I do with the setups on current servers... inevitably hex munching goals collide...

I think I had more to say about this... Oh yea, thanks for posting this Gook, I think it will stir some productive debate and brought back some good memories... (I may have more to say later...)

[Kroma BaSyl]

I'm not so keen on the disengagement rule as it favours nutters... I think if the disengagement rule is to be used then there HAS to be a "slot" where casual players can affect the game.

I think you got this backwards. It actually allows casual players to HAVE an affect on the game.

I wasn't to clear on what Gook meant by disengagement rule with fight to the death combined? Did he mean deep strike rule?

In any case, I think the disengagement rule is essential going forward, and may in fact be the thing that allows the deep strike rule and single ship rule to be scraped. A good CnC (like GZs PBR) is important for making multiple ship fleets viable again though.

VCs are good, mixing in some secret VCs along with the public ones would add strategic value as well.

[Bonk]

I'm not so keen on the disengagement rule as it favours nutters... I think if the disengagement rule is to be used then there HAS to be a "slot" where casual players can affect the game.

I think you got this backwards. It actually allows casual players to HAVE an affect on the game.

I don't think so... "Nutter X" sits on my goal in a DN or BB waiting to be drafted, in my light cruiser I inevitably have to run away or be destroyed, and can't come back for over an hour, "Nutter X" can then move out of the hex, allowing his hex flipping teammates to enter the hex one at a time to boost it up to full DV, comes back in and waits for other enemy light cruisers to come along... ergo: nutter is favoured...

Anyway, I'm ok with the disengagement rule as long as there is a "slot" where I can have an effect.

edit: as I understood it the disengagement rule is in place so that large ships have meaning in terms of occupying/dominating that region of space... which is not necessary with careful "hex tending" as described above...

A good CnC (like GZs PBR) is important for making multiple ship fleets viable again though.

Oh yeah! 

[Age]

A server admin can do whatever the heck they want.   Players can do whatever the heck they want and will vote with their feet.

 

My sentiments exactly. I like playing on both highly structured campaigns and "lazes faire" servers. "Lazes faire" fun servers provide a breath o' fresh air after the conclusion of structured serious servers and the serious servers are a welcome change after cheese fest fun servers. Anybody should be able to put up whatever kind of server they want and the people can vote just by playin' or not playin' without resortin' to hate mail or flame wars.   

Sweet sig pic Leroy, you do that yourself?

Yepper, I did

I liked your sig from RDSL .I am not sure why you didn't stick with it .You just had to remove RDSL from it.I think the pennant number is one that belongs to the F-BCE and I don't think the number goes high.It is a nice jop though.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I don't think so... "Nutter X" sits on my goal in a DN or BB waiting to be drafted, in my light cruiser I inevitably have to run away or be destroyed, and can't come back for over an hour, "Nutter X" can then move out of the hex, allowing his hex flipping teammates to enter the hex one at a time to boost it up to full DV, comes back in and waits for other enemy light cruisers to come along... ergo: nutter is favoured...

Well my experience as a casual player on the last couple of serious servers (GW1 & 2) is the exact opposite of this. I didn't fly a DN or BCH in either of those. I have never been forced to fly a CL or smaller do to not enough PP (I have flown them, but by my own choice). CAs, CCs  & CCHs are as affordable as CLs if you play more than 10 missions verses the AI in friendly space. I was able to seek out enemy pilots in hex munchers and drive them off in 1v1s and I was able to ambush enemies in BCHs and DNs with the help of a wing man in another small/affordable ship. I was also able to play the role of hex filpper in the small ship, and if forced to disengage, there were plenty of other PvP hotspots or tasks that needed doing. Thus I am saying that the disengagement rule didn't prevent me from having an effect do to RL reducing my playing time. It only does that if you are unaware of the bigger picture and overall battle plans and objectives of your team. The only type of casual player it would effect is one in which the term "casual" is meant to mean lazy and stupid.

J/K about lazy and stupid, really just mean one dementional in how one thinks about how and where a casual player can have an effect.

Another thought too, is that how and to whom DNs are assigned (and whether they can be easily reassigned) could effect even the casual players ability to effect the campaign in that one dementional (going to the hottest hex on the map) way.

[FPF-DieHard]

I take issue with the assertation that modern D2 is not strategic.

God forbid you should actually be forced to fight the enemy 

[Mog]

Gook, as one of the principal advocates of making pvp more prominent in D2 play when was the last time you saw me in a BCH, participating in these "jousts"? Time after time you generalise this, and frankly I'm getting tired of it.

Instead of going on and on and on about it, design AF Revisited and prove your points with a campaign, rather than incessant wistful reminiscing over the past.

The reasons we have a small player base nowadays are many. Some were driven off by constant blue plague arguments, others by droners are cheesers arguments, others by not being allowed to fly fleets, or DNs or BBs, others by other rules, some because RL demands too much of their time, some because their race was made ineffectual in a hex munching environment. Need I continue?

I agree with DH. Change was needed, and I suspect it came too late.

[Bonk]

I take issue with the assertation that modern D2 is not strategic.

God forbid you should actually be forced to fight the enemy 

I guess you missed where I said I ended up in more PvP on the "old style" servers, than on the new where the disengagement rule prevents small ships from affecting strategic areas.

Well my experience as a casual player on the last couple of serious servers (GW1 & 2) is the exact opposite of this. I didn't fly a DN or BCH in either of those. I have never been forced to fly a CL or smaller do to not enough PP (I have flown them, but by my own choice). CAs, CCs  & CCHs are as affordable as CLs if you play more than 10 missions verses the AI in friendly space. I was able to seek out enemy pilots in hex munchers and drive them off in 1v1s and I was able to ambush enemies in BCHs and DNs with the help of a wing man in another small/affordable ship. I was also able to play the role of hex filpper in the small ship, and if forced to disengage, there were plenty of other PvP hotspots or tasks that needed doing. Thus I am saying that the disengagement rule didn't prevent me from having an effect do to RL reducing my playing time. It only does that if you are unaware of the bigger picture and overall battle plans and objectives of your team. The only type of casual player it would effect is one in which the term "casual" is meant to mean lazy and stupid.

J/K about lazy and stupid, really just mean one dementional in how one thinks about how and where a casual player can have an effect.

I am always fully aware of all the strategic areas on a map, I just don't always have the time or PP to forfeit my way there and end up running nothing but missions against AI in ineffectual areas... I still say the disengagement rule favors nutters and creates less opportunity for the PvP that so many desire. (including me...)

Also if I see it as strategic, rest assured the enemy nutter will as well and can "tend" the hex waitning for the arrival of the likes of me... (making the disengagement rule unecessary in my view).

There, I've repeated myself enough.  I guess it depends on your perspective and experiences.

I agree with DH. Change was needed, and I suspect it came too late.

One word: "SFC3".

Perhaps you missed Sockys statement: "Every race has a light cruiser that will run two to three minute missions over and over and over.  Yeah, even the early era Gorn and Romulan."
- I do not disagree with him.

[Mog]

SFC3? What's that got to do with the price of chips? Methinks you're mistaking me for someone else, as I don't play or even own SFC3.

I'm also not getting your second point. Only Gorn early era CL that I know of is the G-CL. Having flown that, I know it's not a 2- 3 minute mission maker. Roms, I suppose the WE qualifies as a CL, it can just about reach the enemy in that time, could possibly take a similar sized ship out in one pass, but unlikely.

So, you're saying that the Rom players that have departed because they believed themselves ineffectual in D2 hex munching are wrong? Damn Roms, never tell the truth, do they.

[Age]

    I don't think the average player base has much say when putting a server together.This I speculate is mostly up to the Admins.They petty much have contol on what goes on a server and doesn't.This where the D2 community needs to change as it is already happening in D3.The server Admins need to listen to everyone.I agree with what Mog said as well as DH (I am not sure what he meant by blue plague).I not sure how to make this better?I know I am not in D2 yet but when I do I would like it if those putting a server together would listen to some of average and new players comment or suggestions.

[FPF-DieHard]

Perhaps you missed Sockys statement: "Every race has a light cruiser that will run two to three minute missions over and over and over.  Yeah, even the early era Gorn and Romulan."
- I do not disagree with him.

Sockfoot is full of p00p.

Now, Romulans can be effective in a modern D2.  I think I'm malking a difference on this server.   In a pure hex-munching situation I might as well not even show up.

[Bonk]

No, no...Mog,  I wasn't addressing you as an SFC3 player (I know better ) what I was saying is that a good portion of players were probably lost to SFC3 as that was closer to what they wanted/expected, also that we probably lost some who were disgusted with Taldren/Activision over SFC3. (I very nearly said to heck with it myself, I was so grossed out by SFC3). i.e. I think SFC3 has more to do with a decreasing D2 playerbase than any D2 rules or lack thereof.

The reference to Gorn and Rom hex flippers was in response to the part of you post that read:
" some because their race was made ineffectual in a hex munching environment.".. i.e.: I think anyone who left over an inability to figure out how to hex munch with their race gives up too easily... (fair enough if they just don't like hex munching though...)

[Bonk]

Perhaps you missed Sockys statement: "Every race has a light cruiser that will run two to three minute missions over and over and over.  Yeah, even the early era Gorn and Romulan."
- I do not disagree with him.

Sockfoot is full of p00p.

Now, Romulans can be effective in a modern D2.  I think I'm malking a difference on this server.   In a pure hex-munching situation I might as well not even show up.

I guess I'll have to stabilise my hastily constructed "Race" server config and try running it again, I'm confident that analysis of the mission data will show otherwise.

wrt to Roms vs Klinks on LB5, inital base distribution has everything to do with it... (clever trick Fluf!)

[SSCF-LeRoy]

. . .  without resortin' to hate mail or flame wars.   

Oh, this ain't a flame war.   If you want to see flame wars, you should have seen the posts people made when "that" kind of server was the norm.   brez versus Dizzy anyone?

Gook and I actually get along, we just disagree as to what is "fun."

I wasn't refering to this thread, but was speaking more in general. I was thinking back to all the grumblings about servers like RDSL and GW2

[FPF-DieHard]

One idea I like is let people fly whatever they want, but excempt vannilla ships from the disengagement rule if killed in combat.

I think we'd see the amount of specialty ships flown drop drasticly.  People could alos return to a hot spot for more PvP quicker.

[Lepton]

I don't see how Gook can call for a more strategic type atomsphere in a D2 and claim that our current system restricts player choices when his D2 poster boy Socky's manifesto claims that there is basically no strategy except flipping hexes and advocates for only flying the most effective CL hex flipping ship.  I can't imagine anything more boring. 

The D2 community has addressed realism from an F&E and SFB perspective which seems totally valid to me.  The idea of the OoB was intend to create a more realistic distribution of ships as opposed to everyone flying NCDs, MDCs, D5Ds, etc, etc. or DNs and BCHs.  As to the idea of an LOS and the strategic map in general, while I do not think there is a specific LOS requirement in F&E, I am pretty sure there is a requirement to be in supply or at least a penalty for not being in supply based upon the distance from supply points.  The corollary to that in the D2 is LOS.  Just because the concept has been used in ground-based strategic endeavours doesn't mean that it has no place in space-based environment.  In fact, I think if you were to set up as stock D2 server you'd find that there are mandatory missions in neutral and enemy hexes.  This in fact seems to imply an intent on the part of the designers to in fact have LOS as part of D2 strategy in general.

Finally, this suggestion that the current system is somehow restrictive on playing styles is ridiculous.  In fact Stocky's suggestions here would put everyone in hex-flipping mode with absolutely no PvP.  The current system gives people a hex-flipping/PvP choice although to my mind it is still the hex-flippers that win the day.

Personally, I view this trip down memory lane as a mere campaign to set up servers that hex-flippers can win again as I have seen little real critical commentary by the presenter.  I say, "Death to hex-flippers".  Go fiddle with the single player campaign if all you want is to trounce the AI.

[Bonk]

I'll say it again, I had way more PvP battles on the old "hex-flipping" servers.

[Laflin]

Mogster, I agree that change was needed, but I think that in the process a lot of the fun went out of the game and the constant bickering over what seemed to us <non-SFB fanatics> as inconsequential details soured many on the entire D2 experience.  Lepton, I guess that you could set up a nice sterile server where each move is countered by another move, much like an exciting game of ...zzzz... chess, but your server is going to have a mighty small population unless some elements of F U N are involved, and I don't see that happening at any time in the future.  You speak of ai and balance, but how many times in a GSA environment have you taken a CL up against a BB and actually pushed it, hoping against hope to somehow gain some kind of advantage against a superior ship?  That WAS one of the virtues of D2 play, IMO, but nowadays pvp seems to be a faint shadow of what it was on the earlier servers.  I'll stick with this game until the end, but believe me, something has been lost in the process.