Topic: Discussion document Dyna development

[Gook]

Having had a flurry of activity on future Dynaverses recently and several polls, I think it is time to put up some proposals for discussion.

Firstly the Polls.

Type of Dyna. 39.1 % wanted KISS. The largest vote. 26.1% Rules and Mods (R&M), 26.1% combinations of alternate servers R&M and KISS.

The Stock mission vote was a surprise in some ways and is no way a reflection on the people who have worked hard to produce new scenarios. People got what they asked for, its just many seem to have changed their minds. Last time I looked it was 51.6% for stock, 48.4% for moded scenarios.

BCH poll was interesting as the least played races had the most popular BCHs with ISC, Rommie and Lyran in top places. I was a little surprised about the Gorn as that was least popular as it was my 2nd choice.

There has also been a flurry of old timers popping in and I even saw Mu playing.

There have been some excellent suggestions for maps like Toten?s shippling lanes and linked star systems.

In LB5 destructable bases have been great and just about everybody thinks that is a good idea.

The biggest problem we have is people or lack of them. Without something to help we will like the Ooozalum bird eventually disappear up our own sphincters, as we go round in ever decreasing circles.

So, what to do?

Firstly I think there ought to be a background server which is up all the time. Big map, traditiional alliances, based on Triangle, or Rooks or even AF itself . It should be very big, with lots of neutral stars and possibly incorporate the shipping lanes/connected planets. It should be totally stock. The neutral hexes be set around 10 with outer reaches of empires being weaker and getting harder as you move into them. Destructable bases also. It should be set for one year equals one week IRL, and start around 2250. That way it will be up for a year before the turn of the game millennium. It is stock so new players and returnees can get back into the game without masses of DLs and might get a few people hooked enough to play other campaigns. Regular players can hang out there in between campaigns so there is somewhere to go, and can experiment with other races. There should be no restrictions at all. Like walll paper it just stays in the back ground with possibly some VCs but more likely a straight land grab.

The time limited ?serious? servers need to provide what people want, so as many play as possible, and admins need to take this into account, especially as we have a more accurate idea of what people say they want, rather than just a few opinions.

I will not include detailed explanations of my reasoning in this post, no doubt these will come out in the course of discussions.

In the theme if KISS I?d propose the following.

1. OP+ ship and fighter list, with many parts restricted out, but that can be done server side

2. An agreed mission pack to be 65%-70% stock missions with the remainder ED/EEK, such missions to be agreed.

3. Map size depends on Admin and campaign in question

4. Destructable bases as standard

5. Shipping lanes and planet linkage at Admins discretion

6. Public and secret VCs

7. All parties encouraged to politik and use ruse guerre and anything else to make the peripherals and game build up fun.

8. Spying probably out but is a Rommie trait

9. Rather than make droner missions harder, drop BPVs (which only affect AI battles) for Plasma races by 10% to help their mission times as there is a perception if not a reality they are slower. This would encourage more people to play the under played races and speed up the game as all players would be able to approach droner flip times. This would obviously have to be put into OP+ list to be downloaded. I am suggesting it as there have been many attempts to slow down the droners, but none have worked, and frankly I for one am tired of being experimented on. Lets make eveybody flip equally fast and speed the game process up as whole.

10. Deepstrikes no reason that these should not be permitted anywhere. A combination of missions makes them more difficult and NOT having a secure flank and rear adds piquancy.

11. Disengagement rule in place

12. No Alt/F4 out to save ship

13. Ship prices to be discussed but all ships to be achievable by Rear Admiral status

12. Fleets allowed, no restrictions. If it becomes a real problem look at it again, but large CV fleets will be implausible at the current prices for all but a few and if they get gangbanged they will soon be bankrupt and they are slower to flip. The most hated fleet the 3 PFT fleet is in the least played races so it should not be a problem and again costs will have their part to play.

That?s about it really, fewer rules, more chances to exploit the map and less chance of having a secure back door. Also you have the chance to meet something other than a single ship. I have kept out much reasoning in the interest of brevity as I know how reading can tax some J

This is a discussion paper and does propose changes as there does seem to be an appetite for them and the ?new? Dyanas are clearly not to everybody?s taste and so lets try some change and see how it goes, without nerfing anyone and making them LESS likely to play. Nerfing always PO's someone and the object is to keep players and get new ones, not drive off existing ones.

[FPF-DieHard]

15.   D2 admins will do whatever the heck they what and are accountable to nobody 

16.  Players can vote with their feet, look at the total player numbers of a server to see if it is a hit or not.

[Laflin]

If fleets are perceived as a problem, assign them the same type of VC kill points that pilots of BC/DN have - for that matter include specialty ships (such as solo escorts) in the point list, too, perhaps at a reduced kill value.

[Gook]

15.   D2 admins will do whatever the heck they what and are accountable to nobody 

16.  Players can vote with their feet, look at the total player numbers of a server to see if it is a hit or not.

Fine, nice and constructive.

Yes peeps will vote with their feet as they have been.

<sighs>

[FPF-DieHard]

15.   D2 admins will do whatever the heck they what and are accountable to nobody 

16.  Players can vote with their feet, look at the total player numbers of a server to see if it is a hit or not.

Fine, nice and constructive.

Yes peeps will vote with their feet as they have been.

<sighs>

Just being honest.   This has been disussed add nauseum and no further debate is going to get this community to all agree, no matter how much BS is used to paint it.

[Cleaven]

Single biggest issue to improving things. How to make the campaign fair. Total player hours for each side is a factor, but there is no way to control this. Total missions run for each side can now be counted, and then it won't matter if missions are fast or slow. Total up missions run for each side to get a balancing factor. At least it will look fair and not like mob rule.

[Julin Eurthyr]

My thoughts:

I agree with most of your concepts.  The ones that I would like to see changed are:

9.  To take a line I threw at Die Hard back in the LB5 testing, a fully-loaded with fast drones & state of the art fighters Mirak CVS is alone worth 2 line F-BCFs in SFB.  In SFC, you're lucky if you've paying much more than 1 CB's worth of PP for it, and still facing "only" 1 BCH per mission.  The Mirak (the consumate consumable-reliant race) have long enjoyed the fact that Taldren didn't count all consumables among a ship's BPV in both mission matching and PP costs.  Your typical 2xB 2xC rack Mirak boat is supposed to be "normal" BPV as quoted from the shiplist in early, +10 BPV with medium drones, +20 BPV with fast drones, +xx for the various refits.  The Z-DF+ (6 drone rack supreme hex-flipper) is supposed to naturally progress from 80 BPV to 98 BPV to 116 BPV as the drones advance in speed.  Tell me you're paying I-DDLZ (exactly 116 SFC BPV of plasma-DD), G-HDD+ (117), or R-KR (115) prices to buy the Z-DF+ with fast drones, or consistently facing what us plasma-users would face in "equal" BPV missions while in that (nominally FF-priced) ship.  Figuring out a way to make this happen might be better done in it's own thread.  
I also disagree with the concept of making "plasma" race mission times = drone boat mission times.  It is becoming common knowledge that fast hex-flipping boats are not optimized for PvP, and that each race plays it's part.  Once the disengagement rules / PvP kill systems are tweaked enough to make both styles of combat (hex flip & PvP) equally important, "big plasma" will be in a position to make a comeback, if the plasma players are willing to return.
I will agree on one point.  A flat 10%, or 15% decrease in plasma BPV will have a "beneficial" effect.  Slightly cheaper plasma ships, and plasma drawing smaller and therefore easier to destroy AI.  However, the side effect is that all non-adjusted ships will draw proportionally larger plasma boats, whether they are consumable-laden Mirak, Drone boats, carriers, or line Fed / Klink / Lyran / Hydran boats with little to no consumables.  Also, while plasma now gets Mirak-esque hex-flip times against DF races, how does this adjustment help the Mirak in PvP against the Plasma ship, typically a position of weakness in the Mirak fleet?
Ultimately, a program needs to be put into place.  Whether it's adjusting things in a SFB-oriented manner (adding BPV to ships as a reflection of it's consumables loadout, does not have to be SFB values though) or dropping BPV in appropriate places to reflect the "inherent BPV gains" enjoyed by the drone users but currently not reflected in SFC.  DIP/LB5 has gone with the first option, adding BPV for SFB-oriented things, such as drone racks, fighters / PFs, etc.  Granted, we're using arbritrary SFC-oriented numbers instead of SFB-oriented numbers, yet I feel it is a step in the right direction.  If the DIP / LB5 system is further explored, there will be further adjustments made to help line things up better.

10.  There should be some restrictions to deepstrikes, whether they are stuck behind a long line of mandatory missions, or there are limits to the range that enemy ships can travel to strike.  While unsecured flanks should be kept to add to the strategy, there also needs to be some way to secure areas against all but the most determined and skilled strikers.

13.  Not all players can make Rear Admiral, Most "casual" players on short-term servers are capable of making Commodore.  I'd use either Commodore or just semi-arbritrary prices that do take into account limited casual-player ship loss.  I've been just about effectively priced out of the 40k "Carriers" on LB5 because I lost 3 20k BCHs, and still need 18k to make Commodore.  If I do make Commodore, I might be able to finally (with the bonus and some shipyard tricks) get into a CCZ.  I fully don't expect to be able to fly any of the bigger ships or try more than an X-FF.  Non-stock missions with their higher payouts may change this viewpoint some, but to be inclusive we have to plan for the casual player's availability while limiting the nutters from running the map / making it ineffective for the casual player.

14.  Not all fleets are created equal.  Once again, the advantage goes to consumable-laden fleets.  You cite the 3x Carrier / tender fleets, and the costs inherent with operating 3xDDs / CWs / CAs limiting them.  I'll cite 3x 80-SFC BPV Z-DF+ fleets with fast drones (348-ish SFB BPV) as a counter.
Both fleets are operating from the same strength.  The maneuvers of the main ships are of little concern, since the combat is mainly handled by masses of AI-operated consumables.  The DF fleet probably costs as much PP as just the PFs.  The loss of 1 medium tender makes the PF pilot spend more PP to replace his losses than the DF pilot needs to in order to replace his fleet.  Stock prices used.  That same cheap-o DF fleet can just as easily take down a much more expensive line-ship fleet.  Fleets also require fleets to counter, whether ad-hoc draft fleets that are hoping and praying for a good draft or other nutters building their own personal fleets in order to counter them.  Soon, we're back into the situation of fleets are mandated by the arms race, and therefore people who cannot afford a Carrier / Tender fleet are out of the server at that point.  Goodbye casual plasma yet again...

For the record, I'm not out to nerf anyone either.  However, for a game that is "strongly based on SFB", what I consider a significant portion of the SFB rules as to strength (BPV), especially in reguards to consumables, are not included in the game.  Whether we add BPV as recommended by SFB, with special consideration given to the differences in the 2 mediums, or we subtract BPV from everyone else that doesn't get BPV additions is not my concern.  I'd rather adjust the limited selection of ships that would need to go up per "SFB recommendations" than knock down all starships that don't.
Fleets are a different concern.  Consumable-using fleets are much more effective than non-consumable fleets.  Often times you need 2x or even 3x the BPV of the consumable-using fleet to maintain a credible threat to the consumable-user due to AI stupidity, or your fleet needs to be laden with masses of automated anti-consumable (AMD / Pl-D) weaponry.  Balancing those fleets without a major CnC rule, or adjusting costs / BPVs of ships to reflect their fleet-uses (which obviously skews their single-ship use value) is a lot tougher than I think.  So tough, IMO, that the current system of "1 player / 1 ship" is much more acceptable than the other choice...

[FPF-DieHard]

Holy p00p, I agree with everything Julin said! 

[Lepton]

I had a diatribe worked up but I will squelch it and say something simple, Gook.  I wish you had separated your own ideas of what makes a good D2 server from what you perceive the votes have revealed that people want.  It makes me think you are trying to advance an agenda by piggybacking it on popular demand.

There are so many issues that you have conflated or misstated here that I do not know where to begin, but for one I will not crap on the countless hours scripters have put in to create these great missions by suggesting that they be relegated to only 30% of the server's compliment.  It's 100% non-stock or nothing for me.

I wholeheartedly support people putting up whatever kind of server they want, but I don't like the idea of creating some sort of norm that we all need to follow in formulating a D2 server which I feel this proposal is an example of, as you make a specific point of referring to what you consider the norm, the "new" dynas, and seem to suggest as you have elsewhere that it is this type of server that has driven folks away.

[SkyFlyer]

It's 100% non-stock or nothing for me.

Please think of the 56kers... there are many more here than me.

[Gook]

Julin.

9. This game is not SFB, it cannot ever be SFB, it is a seperate game with roots in SFB and that's it. So far as Kzin are concerned everybody forgets we have to pay in PP for the those consumables, only droners have to do this no one else, there is no maintenance cost for their complex ships, and as has been noted elsewhere photons don't have to their "coffins". The penalties come in PvP.

I have to say I am not sure I understand the rest of you point on #9

I think you have to grasp the concept that AI battles are just a mechanism for adjusting what I have called the "currency" of conflict in SFC, that is DV. They bear no resemblence to any "reality" (see answers to Toten in another thread). It is not credible that any pilot will kill several hundred ship in the course of any campaign, but it is the only mechanism we have to hand other than PvP which occurs increasinly rarely to actually affect the campaign map. Just saying Kzin get free reloads is a meaningless as me saying Rommie boats don't have maintenace elements. It just isn't a part of the game. Now If I had only to kill real pilots there maybe an arguement, but we do not just kill piloted ships, we kill mostly AI. Consider any modern Ship or aircraft and how much time is spent on maintenace etc to keep them battleworthy, now extrapolate that to a complex starship allegedly fighting hundreds of ships.

One good thing about this game is there are no boats that will do everything well, and good PvP boats tend to be less efficient flippers. You just have to be prepared to swap boats around a bit, thie Kzin do it all the time. When PvP required then bigger boats come, when flipping required, smaller faster boats, quite simple.

So far as the BPV drop for plasma boats and everyone elses AI is concerned, drone boats will not notice the difference, I can't see Hydrans being affected, that leaves the Lyrans who are pretty god AI hunters anyhow.

10. Deep strikes, I still see no "raison d'etre" for the restrictions, again I 'd direct you to the discussions with Toten in another thread. I will also rehash the big space arguement. I am shamelessly cribbing a JPL example of big space.

Imagine the earth is a grain of sand in LA, the sun at the same scale is a large light bulb 40' away. Pluto is 1/4 of a mile away. The next nearest star is in Chicago 2000 miles away, the next in New York, then London etc. That is just in a 2d horizontal plane, add in 3d space and you start to get some idea how BIG we are talking. TACintel on SFB and SFC is around 100 hexes each of 10K Kilometers so around a million kliks, say a scout has 10 times the tacintel rang, thats 10m kliks, say a base has 100 times the scout range or 1 Billion kliks that still doesn't get you to Jupiter, let alone Pluto or Chicago. Then there is all the space debris etc in the way and radiation of differing sorts all tending to "jam" sensors with distance. Now a hex in SFC I don't recall having a size given, but judging that Stars like Rigel and Antares are in the Federation, means a scale in the region of parsecs rather than Lightyears. So hiding a ship in such a panorama should not be too difficult.

As for seizing terrirtory even that is transient once defenders turn up, it is the lack of defenders in a given area which allows the deepstriker, when defenders are moved in they reimpose their authority. Destructable bases means they are unlikely to be dropped behind lines without significant backup (they are sitting ducks) and taking a planet with one ship for a droner is impractical and for a none droner big boat will give plenty of warning in News, with webmaps now available as well DSers can be buttoned quite easily and are not as effective as may be thought. A pain in the butt yes, but that's the whole point.

13. This was just an example for discussion, perfectly open to views on the subject.

14. I disagree with the analysis that the advantage lies with the consumable fleet. Firstly if you load up with fast drones and great fighters all the time you will soon be bankrupt AND the on board stocks are finite. Secondly if you rely on free reloads you have an even more finite supply of heavy wepons making you more vulnerable. AI CVs always launch their fighters immediately and if you switch between vessels the one you just left launches its fighters and starts making weasels! The advantage if there is any is with the patient non consumable armed pilot and his fleet, plasma jocks are definately NOT disadvanteged.

Se comments above about SFB.

This is a discussion document, but we have tried lots of different things, this is another view.

The other obvious answer is alternate servers, but if a group of players from either of the polarised camps say they will not play on X server, then we lose even more numbers of players on that server which means those playing have a les enjoyable experience.

Cleaven,

yep play times are a big factor, but frankly I have no answers to that connundrum.

DH Admins do have the final say, but if they want lots of people to play and make the server a succes, they would do well to heed the players views, after all a server with few or no players is worthless. I wouldn't have bothered with any of these posts if there had benn overwhelming support for the status quo, the fact is there is in most cases less than 50% support for the status quo (no not the band either ) I may have made the error of judgement that we would deal in the issues that face us democratically, and not in a dictatorial way, if the latter is the case well, no arguement will help. Perhaps we could hear from the admins what they want to?

[Mog]

Gook, you know very well that by the time fast drones and the top fighters come around, the drone race players have banked tremendous amounts of prestige to pay for running those fleets. After all, slow drones are free (and against ai, slow drones suffice even through to late era).

Re adjusting BPVs, I actually think the DIP shiplist is on the right track, It needs some tweaking (I'm still not happy with the smaller DNs being freely available, for example), but overall I think the matchups (with the stock missions at least), have been ok, apart from the Asteroid base Assault mission, which, for some reason, has the tendency to throw my war destroyer against a Battleship lol.

[FPF-DieHard]

Gook, you are sorely mistaken if you beleive your views represent anything besides your own aggenda.

I woulld read all of your new post, but I'm allergic to bullsh*t 

[Gook]

Gook, you know very well that by the time fast drones and the top fighters come around, the drone race players have banked tremendous amounts of prestige to pay for running those fleets. After all, slow drones are free (and against ai, slow drones suffice even through to late era).

Re adjusting BPVs, I actually think the DIP shiplist is on the right track, It needs some tweaking (I'm still not happy with the smaller DNs being freely available, for example), but overall I think the matchups (with the stock missions at least), have been ok, apart from the Asteroid base Assault mission, which, for some reason, has the tendency to throw my war destroyer against a Battleship lol.

Well I know this that even using minimal drone reloads and only having lost one DWD my PP is around 120K but earned PP is around 155K. If I were reloading every time there would be a significant deficeit. If I were using a fleet I'd be on the way to bankruptcy. I have done that before, and ended up using slow drones on the AI fleet ships and mediums on my boat.

The DIP list for Kzin, well I will comment on thta in a different thread, just trying to find common ground here and most would not disagree with the OP+ list (I think).

I get the BBV on asteroid assault too and I'm only in a DWD so much for stock

 

[Gook]

Gook, you are sorely mistaken if you beleive your views represent anything besides your own aggenda.

I woulld read all of your new post, but I'm allergic to bullsh*t 

Isn't there a proverb about taking the plank out of your own eye?

You may think what you like I am just addressing views given in the polls and what has been said here and to me personally. I believe (I may be wrong) that even if I have an "agenda" you too may be guilty of the same offence. My agenda is to get  a game more people want to play not less, if that contradicts your view of how the game should be played, then so be it. As for BS well I think you have me trumped there, all hot air and no substance.

[Cleaven]

Cleaven,

yep play times are a big factor, but frankly I have no answers to that connundrum.

Well wouldn't it be a good idea to try harder to solve a major issue instead of making excuses for drone fleets?

[FPF-DieHard]

Start investing in canned-food and shotguns people, the end is near.   Cleaven and I are in agreement 

[Julin Eurthyr]

Here goes:

Let it be known that my using SFB, just like Taldren has done, is strictly for reference.  My rules binder is not leather bound, I don't have strings marking off important sections, and there is no "Holy Bible" printed anywhere on it.
I've also been around for a very long time.  With the exception of the I-CCZ, every ship that has been flamed on these SFC fora have one thing in common.  They are affected by at least 1 SFB rule that is not implemented in SFC.

Now, for the purposes of this discussion, let's start with one SFB rule that is not implemented in SFC.  The rule I'm talking about is the one that says "consumables", whether drones, fighters, PFs, or marines on a commando boat (taking only the SFC-applicable materials), are to have their cost added directly to the base BPV of the ship before that ship is to be compared to other ships for balance.

As long as SFC does not do that, Taldren's intent to balance all ships using SFB's base as a starting point, is a failure.  Therefore, IMO, any ship that uses drones, fighters, PFs, or is a marine-laden commando boat is obviously not correctly represented in this game and unbalanced.  Of course, the imbalance is in the consumable-users favor right now, but I didn't omit that section of code...

Tell me that I am completly wrong.  Tell me that I have completely misread the source material, and that I am barking up the wrong tree in this case.  Cite me rule numbers if necessary.  Please.

Operating under the assumption that I am, however unfortunately, right, where do we go from there?  Do we jack up the "consumable reliant" ships, or do we jack down the non-reliant ships?

Since the source material decided that it's easier to jack ships up in BPV for consumables, instead of dropping ship prices that are not-consumable laden, I feel it's easier to go in the direction that the game, source and all, seems geared to go.  Consumable-laden ships should go up, it's easier than dropping the rest of the fleet.

I am sorry that the Mirak, which is the only fleet in SFC to rely heavily on consumables, ie, 100% of their ships have lots of them, are the hardest hit.  Don't forget that other races, Feds, Klinks & Hydrans have 80-90% of their fleet under the microscope too, but their lesser reliance on consumables has meant that many adjustments are a lot smaller than the Mirak hit.  And every race has had at least 1, more often a small handful or 2, of ships affected.

SFB guidelines advise a fixed rate of BPV additions to drone ships.  Each 4-space rack (A,C,F,G) with medium drones are supposed to go up 2 BPV per rack, and 4 BPV with fast drones.  Each B-rack with it's 6 drone spaces is worth 3 BPV with medium drones, and 6 with fast drones.  All additions are to be added directly to the ship's BPV value before it's taken on the field.

Currently, the DIP has implemented a lesser rate of addition.  DIP ignores the first 2 drone racks, and adds a fixed 5 BPV per additional drone rack.  The Typical Mirak ship (2xB 2xC rack) gets 10 more BPV where SFB advises up to 20 BPV for fast drones.  6 B-rack Drone Bombardment ships like the DF only get +20 BPV, where recommendations advise up to 36 BPV with fast drones.  Same with fighters and PFs.  There is a BPV cost added to the ships as per the recommendation, but it is smaller than the actual addition would be per SFB.  We understand that SFC consumables aren't worth exactly what SFB mandates, and are keeping that in mind when we do our work.

Now that consumable ships are closer to SFB-mandated balance, there are obviously other conerns to address.  Keeping the Mirak, ultimate consumable users that they are, in mind, but remembering that what we do needs to be applied to all affected ships, it's time to address SFC and D2 only concerns.

The first thing I want to change, is the entire "stock" PP system.  While Mirak/droners pay for constant reloads, exactly how much are you paying?  Staying strictly in the DF+ range, I'd estimate you're paying approx. 2000 PP for the DF itself.  Each full load of fast drones runs approx. 200 PP.  My I-DDLZ runs approx. 5000 PP.  For you to pay, in PP, what I paid in PP for "116 SFB-BPV of combat ability", you need to resupply 15 times, picking up a full load of fast drones each resupply.  If you lose that Z-DF+ before you've invested 15 reloads into it, you've fought with 116-ish BPV for less than I need to pay for it.  Once you go over 15 reloads, then your DF+ has waylaid you more PP than my ship.
We've changed the base price, we also need to change the rest.  I understand that.  Ultimately, I would love to see my entire concept applied.  We've started with the BPV.  You're paying closer to what I'm paying for the proper combat ability.  You're facing somewhat tougher AI, like I have all my SFC career.  Now, we need to make drone upgrade prices cheaper, or if possible non-existant.  We need to give more drones out as "free reloads" to compensate for SFC's doubled internals.  We would need to make carrying extra drones above and beyond the "stock reload" rate a proper price per drone, reflecting the "commander's option" portion of SFB.

Way back when, I advocated an increase, using SFB recommendations, to all drone ships.  Added directly to the shiplist, so it's reflecting the SFB-BPV as ADB advises in the shipyard and mission matching.  I also advocated a new reload system.  To be brief, I think that the "SFB-rack" drones are meant to punch down shields, and the "SFB-reload" drones are meant to cause internals.  Since SFC has doubled internals, I'd advocate the following rates of "free drones" be handed out:
For any ship that has 0 SFB-reloads, it only gets the base rack drones (4-6 per rack)
For any ship that has 1 SFB-reload, it gets the base rack drones (4-6) and 2 full reloads to counter the doubled internals (12-18 drones total per rack, including initial load)
For any ship that has 2 SFB-reloads, which effectively includes all 2275 and later ships, it's base rack + 4 full reloads (we're talking 20-30 free drones per rack)
Free drones are restored every mission.  If you are paying 5000 PP (or whatever I-DDLZs, G-HDD+s are paying in PP) for a Z-DF+ w/fast drones, then you need to maintain 116 SFB-BPV operations like a plasma boat.  I think having your overall drone count on that Z-DF+ pushed up to 180 total drones after each mission, for free, will let you stay in the field longer without resupply.

And I've even given the implementation of the above some thought.  IIRC, drone prices are affected by 2 numbers in the gf files.  The first is a multiplier for each drone speed, and the second is a multiplier for each extra drone above the free reloads.  Is it possible to make the drone speed multipliers the same for all 3 speeds (effectively allowing a drone-ship to switch drone speeds freely), but make the per-drone multiplier a large number so buying more than the free reloads costs more PP than normal?

This is what I'm advocating for, as the situation presents itself.  If there was only 1 thing I could change in the source code, it would be to add the SFB-balancing rules that Taldren omitted.  All of them.  Starting with the above rule, and adding in limits for the "U" or "L" ships, ie, those that have strict build limits, like 1 BB or 3 F-BCFs, limits or cost increases on all conjectural ships, shock damage, proper fleet construction to include mandatory escorts for carriers, no solo escorts in the field, DNs / BBs working with line ships, mandatory carrier & tender loadouts, PFs and fighters for all, a working ISC 1/2 strength fighter heavy weapon, offensive Dro-D to go with the Defensive Pl-D, etc.

Since I don't have the source code, all we can do is take what we have and try to implement the missed rules.  Somehow.  I try to look past my ISC heritage, and by extension plasma heritage, in these discussions.  Hopefully I am doing a good job in that...

Discussion on the other gripes being withheld till later...

[Mog]

Gook, you know very well that by the time fast drones and the top fighters come around, the drone race players have banked tremendous amounts of prestige to pay for running those fleets. After all, slow drones are free (and against ai, slow drones suffice even through to late era).

Re adjusting BPVs, I actually think the DIP shiplist is on the right track, It needs some tweaking (I'm still not happy with the smaller DNs being freely available, for example), but overall I think the matchups (with the stock missions at least), have been ok, apart from the Asteroid base Assault mission, which, for some reason, has the tendency to throw my war destroyer against a Battleship lol.

Well I know this that even using minimal drone reloads and only having lost one DWD my PP is around 120K but earned PP is around 155K. If I were reloading every time there would be a significant deficeit. If I were using a fleet I'd be on the way to bankruptcy. I have done that before, and ended up using slow drones on the AI fleet ships and mediums on my boat.

The DIP list for Kzin, well I will comment on thta in a different thread, just trying to find common ground here and most would not disagree with the OP+ list (I think).

I get the BBV on asteroid assault too and I'm only in a DWD so much for stock

 

*blinks* So, in 2 weeks, you have a nett 120k prestige, and you don't consider that enough to run a fleet. I mean, do you think you would need a fleet from the get-go? Again, I stress, slow drones (which are compulsory in early era) are free, thus costing you zero prestige, allowing you to build up a good reserve for if/when you feel you need to pop in your fleet.

Do you go to medium speed drones as soon as they are available, even if you're just facing ai? Bear in mind that you get 2 reloads free per ship per mission, so, if you're flying 3 ships, surely you have enough drones to complete a mission  by being more patient and flying more cleverly?

The DIP list IS an OP+ list, just an older one, from SS2, which contains beneficial changes to some Kzinti ships for pvp purposes (MCC+, BCH to name 2). I say this because I see a veiled insinuation from you that the Kzin have been screwed by BPV adjustments. Whilst you're examing the dyna setups in such detail, don't forget to look at it from the point of view of all races, and not just your favoured one.

[Lepton]

Gook, the problem with your search for "common ground" is that you have remarcated it exactly on the piece of ground you are standing on.  Here's how the system has worked from my perspective.  People put up whatever type of servers they want.  You seem to be under the impression that this trend in D2 servers is somehow imposed on people.  It's been a collaborative relationship between the community and the admins that resulted in these type of D2 servers that are in themselves solutions to long-perceived problems in the D2.  This has never prevented anyone from putting up just exactly  the type of server you'd like to see.  So put one up and people will vote with their feet.

That said, I'd like to advocate for an SFB view of SFC for a moment.  While the two are certainly not the same, you certainly would not have one without the other. If it weren't for SFB, you wouldn't have an SFC to decry that it isn't SFB.  So, I give all deference to SFB as the standard, as the reference, and as the source.  In a similar vein, the type of fleet and production restrictions encompassed in an OoB that is the standard in ADB's Starfleet Universe, to me, forms the proper basis of any campaign, be it D2- or GSA- based.  Frankly, we would have none of this without the ground that ADB laid out for us and I believe there is alot to be said for acknowledging that legacy and seeing that it is well-trodden and well-tested as opposed to all our willy-nilly new ideas.  And, there is no game that I can think of that is closer to SFB than SFC.  If people don't want the SFB world in their space combat game or acknowledge its primacy in this game, you might as well go play Bridge Commmander or some other game.

The basis for the D2 is F&E itself, therefore it has been a natural trend that people have drifted it or been attracted to it as a basis for D2 campaigns.  To me, this trend has been a great advance in adding complexity and depth of meaning into what occurs on the D2.  People who have gone in this direction have been trying to add what they think was lacking from the D2 from the very start.  It seems to me that you take the D2 at its face value and say this is the best we can do.  Others do not agree.  The whole intent of the SQL project and that there even should be an SQL-based server pack suggests that not only the community but also Taldren realize that there are severe restrictions to the D2 engine that could be overcome by an SQL interface.  The potential there is enormous and looks well beyond taking the D2's flaws as its inherent and proper state of affairs as you would do.  There would be absolutely no drive to an SQL solution if people did not want meaningful ship production and restrictions, a meaningful economic system, and a meaningful set of victory condition and campaign design options.

To me, the trend has been to turn away from a hex flipping paradigm  and to add a layer of meaning and interest to D2 campaigns.  Scripts have been written to add complexity and challenge into AI missions.  PvP VCs have been added to an additional element of meaning to D2 play.  You say that DVs are the currency of our D2 system and that AI missions are inherently unrealistic and meaningless.  This is precisely what server development has addressed.  Complex VCs are a far cry from a mere conquest server.  Server development has gone towards making AI missions less meaningless by adding complexity to mission scripts.  The currency of the D2 may be DVs in one sense, but it is also VCs and it is precisely the trend that flipping hexes is deployed in a manner to make it more meaningful rather than less.  Let me ask you something.  If I were to offer you two jobs for the same money, one that is burger-flipping and one that is a complex, engaging management task, which one would you choose?? It seems you would choose the meaningless burger-flipping job.  I'd rather spend my time doing something difficult than something easy and repetitive.  That is more rewarding.  I'd rather spend a half an hour or an hour in PvP play struggling over a single DV increment than use that time running 5 to 10 or more meaningless AI missions.  Your solution is to turn a blind eye to the meaninglessness of the system of exchange of the currency of the D2 system (AI missions).  The community's solution thus far has been to make playing a campaign and what is done in a campaign more meaningful, not less.

There is no common ground in these two views.  The only solution is to have different types of campaigns and let people vote with their feet.