Topic: Discussion document Dyna development

[Gook]

Julin,

The increased drone prices consumables have ben tried many times before, startng with CW3.

As I have said many times before, if the droners cause such a problem, just delete the Kzin, and remove drone racks from  klink and fed boats. I'll play Rommie or something.

As for source material for this game you simply can't use SFB, it is a different game, and none of the nuances of SFB are possible, if you want to start using it what about ESGs not affecting friendlies, that is HUGE, but no account is taken of it. What about the infamous G Rack, what about double internals, lack of specialist drones, etc etc etc. You have to use what is in this game not another. In SFB you play only PvP, the AI is none existant, the scenarios are "balanced" for that particular game not this one. New rules are made mainly so ADB can shift product and stay in business, not for the benefit of players who already have a weighty Tome to lug around and learn.

The Kzin are always hit when this debate comes up, let's just TRY a different approach. As I said before I am fed up of being experimented on, try it on some other race for a change.

We have also digressed somewhat. Your specific objections are to the plasma races being boosted and using the OP+ list which has general acceptance? Anything else?

Mog

120K will buy a fleet but will not run it for long.

Medium dromnes are used straight away for quicker missions

So far as your last para is concerned that is exactly the angle I am looking at it from and why I suggest using a an accepted ship list with BPV reductions for plasma boats rather than the "Combat effectiveness" approach of the DIPers, which ever way you look at is just dressing for nerf drones. I have previously posted my concerns and having now used the DIPlist in anger, yes I am still concerned.

Now apart from the above and your well known aversion to fleets of any kind, what other objections do you have to the suggestions made. I am just trying to narrow down issues. If we can all agree several principals, we can debate the ones we least agree with.

I assure everybody (again) that I would not be wasting my time discussing all of this if there was a clear cut majority for the status quo, but there is not. You can accept that or reject it, but that is my agenda, when we get to specifics of shiplists I'll adopt a much more partisan approach. Currently there have only been one or two comments on one or two areas of the discussion document, am I to take it that the rest is agreed?

Lets get the issues narrowed down.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Wow, doesn't this thread topic look familiar?   

I think there have been lots of good points on all sides so far.  I'll weigh in on just one or two.

Consumables:  (drones/fighters/PFs)

These should absolutely be included -- at full value -- in the BPV of every ship purchased in the yards.  I've always thought this, and I think it worked rather well in the campaign I tried it in.  It evens out the AI opposition, it evens out how many PP each player is "betting" in a combat, and it evens out the racial combat balance.  It doesn't fully solve mission time issues, but that's OK.

That being said, of course, prices in the resupply screen would have to be lowered.  No fair charging someone with equal firepower equal price, and then bilking him at resupply.  Resupply prices would need to be down around repair prices.

Fleets:

Fleets are a tricky subject.  Some ships simply are better at fleet control than others.
*I hate using fighters in fleets, for example, because the idiot AI launches too soon and all the fighters dive straight into the oncoming AMD.  That's OK, though, because carriers shouldn't operate in groups.
*I loathe using photons and plasma ships in fleets, because they need to get good alignment on the enemy in oder to even fire, let alone land, their heavy weapons on the enemy. 
*Disruptor ships aren't as bad, because they fire so much more often.  But then, it is hard to get all those pin-pricks to land on the same shield.
*I love using bombardment cruisers in fleets, because I don't have to worry about which way they are facing or even so much about exactly how close they are.  The weapons fire in any direction and have a long life without degradation of warhead.

Fleets can thus be problematical and unbalancing.  On the other hand, they can be fun from time to time.  Perhaps a few "fleet slots" could be passed around the way DN slots are these days.  This would give players the chance to fly the famous Klink frigate squads or Rom WE squadrons, while still ensureing most of their opponents were still in single ships.  (Not meaning to exclude any other race, those were just the two most famous cases that leapt immediately into my mind.)

CnC

I love it.  For ships, fighters, and PFs.

Anyway, that's it for now.

-S'Cipio

[FPF-DieHard]

Wow, doesn't this thread topic look familiar?   

I think there have been lots of good points on all sides so far.  I'll weigh in on just one or two.

Consumables:  (drones/fighters/PFs)

These should absolutely be included -- at full value -- in the BPV of every ship purchased in the yards.  I've always thought this, and I think it worked rather well in the campaign I tried it in.  It evens out the AI opposition, it evens out how many PP each player is "betting" in a combat, and it evens out the racial combat balance.  It doesn't fully solve mission time issues, but that's OK.

That being said, of course, prices in the resupply screen would have to be lowered.  No fair charging someone with equal firepower equal price, and then bilking him at resupply.  Resupply prices would need to be down around repair prices.

-S'Cipio

Define "full value."  Drones IMHO are overpriced in GSA for their actual worth.   SFB full value is more resonable.

[Dizzy]

Hey Gook, you sure do type a lot, but you dont say much.

Can you sum up everything your typing in 20 words or less for me? Since a new server is about to launch, I'd like to consider what you have to add b4 I make any final changes. So... 20 words or less bro, if you can.

[Lepton]

Let me say that the community may have voted for KISS, but they voted for it in name not form.  Trying to co-opt that desire to advance a specific iteration of it as if it were exactly what they have called for is disingenous.  At best, people have called for less restrictions and less downloads.  That's about it and almost none of what is being discussed here or what Gook is proposing.  There is no consensus here, although Gook supposes so.  Hell, this topic has only 5 or 6 respondents.  That is certainly not representative and it certainly is no mandate. 

If there were a simple way of executing an OoB/CnC, which is actually not hard at all in the first instance,  people would likely be all for it.  I'm all for opening things up if that is what people want, but there is a substantial contingent of people who like the "status quo" and I am sure when they have a taste of the "old school"  D2, they will think it is interesting but not better.  The GW series has been one of the most popular series of servers in recent memory and it bears no resemblance to anything "old school".

Your presumption that there is a status quo is the first mistake.  There is none.  You are free to create whatever server you want, but don't couch it as if you are addressing community needs as the community has been free the entire time to make any choices they wanted and they have done just that.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Define "full value."  Drones IMHO are overpriced in GSA for their actual worth.   SFB full value is more resonable.

By all means, brother Die Hard.  Whenever you hear me speak of "full" or "fair" or "faithful", I am referring to SFB.

-S'Cipio 

[KBF-Crim]

posted by lepton:

Let me say that the community may have voted for KISS, but they voted for it in name not form.  

Well.. heck...let me say that you dont speak for the "community" and unless you poll every person who voted...you have no idication of WHY they voted for any of the choices...

Let me squash a misnomer here...

For quite some time...there has been only ONE serious POPULATED server up at anyone time...this is a common courtesy extended by server admins to other server admins so as not to split the player base that still plays online...

But this also means there is no choice for peeps who want to play online against other players (in the DV)....

You either play what is up....or sit out...

And since every major server now runs OP+ as a baseline....you either like it..or dont play anymore...

and since almost every major server now runs custom missions.....you either like them...or dont play...

Lepton make the point that the DV hardly resembles the days of old...

I make the counter point....neither does the player base...

Every major revision has driven off a few more casual players who dont want to be bothered anymore...it becomes to much hassle to just simply play....

The effort to counter the effects of nutters have left casual players in the dust...so they dont play anymore...

The answer is right in front of your faces and you simply refuse to address it...

An inverse CNC restriction.....the higher you go in rank...the more restrictions you face...

Explanation....

Casual players by definition...dont play much per day....or might only play one or two nights a week for a few hours...

THIS IS THE BULK OF THE PLAYER BASE!!!!!

Nutters by definiton play almost every day, usually for multiple hours at a sitting...(these are the guys who are allways on no matter what time of day you log in...or which day.....even *cough* ..on fathers day)....

Traditionally....DV CnC attempts have centered on ease of restrictions upon gaining rank...(IE...multiple ships...BCH's...etc etc...)

The effect?

The very person who needs to be restricted (the nutter)....gains PP AND rank faster than the casual players.....so they face less restrictions SOONER...so they can bank even more PP or fly classes that casual players simply cannot afford...nor compete with...

The result?

Casual players pack it in and head off to greener pastures....

Solution?

I propose JUST ONE TIME....FOR ONE FREAKIN SERVER....we turn the CNC restrictions on their head...

Allow people to fly multiple ships until they gain such rank that they are putting in serious hours (gaining rank)...then phase in restrictions based on rank...

This controls the very people who can sway a server by the sheer amount of time they spend playing...and eases restrictions on people who dont effect the server as much because they dont play as much...

I mean ...really....is someone wants to fly a mini fleet of FF's or DD's...for a few hours a week....who the hell cares?

Also....we got working Tenders and carriers for the off races....PUT THEM IN ALREADY!!!!!! ....restrict high rankers from using them and you'll have no worries of nutters running around with invincible fleets...

Price em high enough that by the time you can afford one...you wont play it long becuase you'll rank your self OUT of one...

If the current trend doesnt change....only nutters will be playing....and what fun will that be?

No..I dont have a system worked out...

But use the concept of turning the CNC on its head....

By the time someone can afford the big guns...they should be high enough rank to face restrictions...

At least kick it around for a few eh?

[FPF-DieHard]

Crim, want to try your idea?  I'll provide the hardware if you're willing to do the admining work.


As far as PF tenders for the fighters races, GW3 is coming up in a few weeks . . .   (Stay tuned)

[KBF-Crim]

That's a generous offer DH....but I know absolutely nothing about running a server....I'd prefer to leave that to more experienced hands...or even Fluf...heh heh

I didnt mean to yell....I'm just frustrated at what I view to be a paradoxical paradigm....

As the "wargame" has gotten better...the player base has gotten smaller....

When the game becomes perfect...no one will play....LOL

I know that is an oversimplification of the player drop off...but it must be at least a factor...

It's high time to throw the casual players a bone...*woof woof*

And I'm looking forword to trying out a real tender on a real server under real pressure...if they become a problem...they can be tweaked...

[FPF-DieHard]

And I'm looking forword to trying out a real tender on a real server under real pressure...if they become a problem...they can be tweaked...

Trust me, they ain't going to be that hot.   The tenders will be introduced on an experimental basis and it is only going to be the crappy "vannila" CL PFTs with basic PFs.  No battle controls ships, no casual tenders, no ubber-PFs, and hopefully no balance issues.

This means K-D5P, not K-C7S.  BIG difference in the cheddar-factor. 

We admins will need to make clear that we reserve the right to use the letter "R" if I am wrong  before the server goes live.

Baby steps . . .

[Gook]

OK basic Math 101 (jeez I hate Math )

Heavy fast drones cost 5 PP on LB5

80 slots on a DWD

free reloads taken into account means load out costs  264 (thats what the ship yard tells me).

Average Mission payout 300 PP

average Droner mission requiring full loadout nets 36 PP or 10% a none droner total for the same mission. That's paying for it.

Use a fleet and you are rapidly running out of cash, (792 per mission if full load out)

Use a none stock mission and you use more drones so more likely to need full load out.

That's the basic math on current server settings and you want to tweak it more! Jeesh.

Who else pays for their primary weapon, and has that weapon have so many countermeasures, and has a finite supply of ammo?

[KAT J'inn]

GW3 is coming up in a few weeks

MOMMY!!!

<shudder>

Note to Self:  Order more scotch, Prozac, and Ronco Tushy Hugger Hemmroid Friendly Seat Cushions (as seen on T.V.).

[Mog]

OK basic Math 101 (jeez I hate Math )

Heavy fast drones cost 5 PP on LB5

80 slots on a DWD

free reloads taken into account means load out costs  264 (thats what the ship yard tells me).

Average Mission payout 300 PP

average Droner mission requiring full loadout nets 36 PP or 10% a none droner total for the same mission. That's paying for it.

Use a fleet and you are rapidly running out of cash, (792 per mission if full load out)

Use a none stock mission and you use more drones so more likely to need full load out.

That's the basic math on current server settings and you want to tweak it more! Jeesh.

Who else pays for their primary weapon, and has that weapon have so many countermeasures, and has a finite supply of ammo?

For starters, I've seen 2 people mention LOWERING the cost of supplies, one of whom is a server admin, because oif the increased prices of the ships. I heartily agree with this.

Second, if you are using 80 heavy drones in a stock mission, you're doing something wrong (unless it's a planet assault). It's plausible to use those 80 in a custom mission, however, the payouts are generally higher in those.

My aversion to unrestricted fleet use comes from the fact that they multiply imbalances in the game heavily. I, however, have no objections to DH's suggestion of using the SG3 setup of 2 ships, one of which has to be "vanilla". That still gives an advanatge to the Kzin, because your vanilla ships tend to have 4 drone racks on them anyway.

Crimmy, that's an unusual idea and it would be interesting to see its effect.

Lepton, your last 2 posts have been very well written in tone and substance. Much better than your usual abrasive style I recommend you keep that up, they provoke a far more favourable reaction (in my case at least, if that means anything).

[KBF-Crim]

Posted by Moggy:

Crimmy, that's an unusual idea and it would be interesting to see its effect.

Thank you....been floatin it for a while...but it allways get trampled in the flurry of posts...

An unusual Idea needs and unsual server theme.....I wouldnt be so bold as to upset the apple cart of a current set up or series of servers.....maybe this could be tried for "Mirror Mirror"...or even "Mirror Mirror 2"

If it proves worthy of further attention, that would be cool...

[Lepton]

I have supported a reverse CnC for some time but mostly as a joke, i.e. making nutters fly smaller and smaller ships, but this is the most workable suggestion I have seen on this idea.  I think it is a good idea.

As for me not speaking for the community, I am at least attempting to articulate my view of what the community has been working toward.  We do have a shrinking player base, but I guarantee you that if a Gook style server were worked into the regular server schedule people would certainly be there for it, but I am not sure they would like it better.  So, I think there is no danger of splitting up or fragmenting or running off a portion of the player base.

I don't agree with the contention that revisions have driven off the player base.  In fact, I am not even sure what Crim is referring to here.  I'd say what has lost players for this games is merely the growth in the gaming industry i.e. more choices, and the age of the game, in addition to the rabid in-fighting that has occured in the community. 

The innovations in this game and the D2 have been what have kept people here, not what has driven them away.  I mean, can we imagine playing a server now without OP+ as a base, which has infused more SFB content into this game than Taldren put in in terms of ships, or without the new missions?  Do we really want to go back to stock servers??  That sounds like a step backwards instead of forwards.  For crying out loud, we have people developing installers now that makes it so simple to get the content needed to play on servers especially when you consider that all that was ever needed usually was to swap out shiplists and fighter lists.  Need I remind people that in the D3 community there are hosts of multiple megabyte mods that people are required to download to even get on any server.  Here in the D2, the worst thing you'll need to do is download a custom shiplist and fighter list and some mission packs.  Nowhere near the size of D3 mods.

If there is really a sentiment against "complicated" server, I just don't see why we can't mix in "simpler" ones and go from there, although I don't  find recent servers to be complicated, nor Gook's idea of a server to be simple but merely slanted towards hex-flippers and nutters.

[alfman]

Lepton, that was a well thought out post. I agree about the reasons for player loss.
I left, but I came back. I encourage all old players to try D2 now.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Solution?

I propose JUST ONE TIME....FOR ONE FREAKIN SERVER....we turn the CNC restrictions on their head...

That's........ brilliant!

-S'Cipio

[Julin Eurthyr]

Julin,

The increased drone prices consumables have ben tried many times before, startng with CW3.

As I have said many times before, if the droners cause such a problem, just delete the Kzin, and remove drone racks from  klink and fed boats. I'll play Rommie or something.

No.  Droners aren't a problem at all.  Drones, in their full glory and proper balance add a dimention to this game.  Let's discuss balance for them.

As for source material for this game you simply can't use SFB, it is a different game, and none of the nuances of SFB are possible, if you want to start using it what about ESGs not affecting friendlies, that is HUGE, but no account is taken of it. What about the infamous G Rack, what about double internals, lack of specialist drones, etc etc etc. You have to use what is in this game not another. In SFB you play only PvP, the AI is none existant, the scenarios are "balanced" for that particular game not this one. New rules are made mainly so ADB can shift product and stay in business, not for the benefit of players who already have a weighty Tome to lug around and learn.

And I've always thought that for a game strongly based off of SFB, you should be able to at least look to SFB's treatment of things to make ships work.  To reiterate my stance:
After watching ships get flamed for 4 years, I've noticed one trend.  Outside of the I-CCZ, every flamed ship has at least 1 limit in SFB that is not reflected in SFC.
You've been around here almost that long yourself there Gook.  Am I right?  What other ship outside the CCZ has been flamed that is not "SFB limited"?
I admit this.  SFC is not SFB, and therefore we shouldn't jump right into the SFB rulebooks and say "since this is how SVC said it shall happen, we must do it this way."  We should say "SFB knew these affected/limited ships would give us grief, and SFB does __________ to correct that.  How much of _________ do we need to correct this in SFC?"

The Kzin are always hit when this debate comes up, let's just TRY a different approach. As I said before I am fed up of being experimented on, try it on some other race for a change.

It's hard to discuss wholesale revamps of the consumables issue without it whacking the masters of the consumable.  Just like it was hard to discuss changes to plasma without the ISC being dragged into it.  Remember the "rise and fall of the plasma torpedo"?  One thing in there was buff up plasma for Rommies / Gorns but not the ISC...

We have also digressed somewhat. Your specific objections are to the plasma races being boosted and using the OP+ list which has general acceptance? Anything else?

A am not against a drop off in BPV.  If we are going to weaken Plasma in a response to the speed / power of consumable users (including Fed / Klink drone boats), we need to apply the same benefit to all non-consumable using ships.

Meanwhile, I am also against your proposed deepstrike changes.
Consider this:  If human captains are individually blowing up hundreds or thousands of ships, exactly how big are the navies of Starfleet Command?  We know that SFB's navy sizes aren't applicable, each person probably blows up a race's OOB within the first week on a server, nutters can take it out in a day.  Millions of ships per race is a good starting point.  What are these millions of ships doing when people aren't blowing them up?  Maybe off patrolling / garrisoning space, doing duties that us live players, who can readily be considered the elite captains of these million ship navies, aren't going to do while we're off killing a thousand ships...

Fleets:  As I said before, until someone finds a way to properly represent the force multiplication certain fleets enjoy over other fleets, without screwing up the single-ship balance, then I'd agree to re-allow fleets.  Until then, 1 player / 1 ship is the best alternative we have.  And, having flown line plasma fleets with the EEK missions, the fleet-control AI does not grant me the control that I need to ensure that on the second or third pass my fleet is exactly where I want them to be so that all my weapons are right in arc for a massive 3-ship alpha strike.  When I've gotten it to happen, then it's beautiful.  Otherwise, I'm struggling uphill... Consumable fleets, to include your 3xDF fleets, Gorn PF Tender fleets, or even an ISC carrier fleet doesn't worry much about lining up weapon arcs in a certain order, we just hit "target ________ ship", "deploy consumables", watch target wither and die in seconds...

[KBF-Crim]

I have supported a reverse CnC for some time but mostly as a joke, i.e. making nutters fly smaller and smaller ships, but this is the most workable suggestion I have seen on this idea.  I think it is a good idea.

I'm sorry...guess you misunderstood what I meant...

I dont favor forcing anyone into any ship...much less smaller ones...thats just too authoritarian...

What I am proposing is raising the point where CnC rules kick in by rank...rather that giving rank LESS restrictions....the higher in rank...the more restrictions....

Low ranks should be able to fly mini fleets based on common sence rules as before....one command...one specialty..and one vanilla... max....by the time they gain enough PP to buy more dangerous (cruisers and such) ships....the rank restrictions should kick in.....

As for me not speaking for the community, I am at least attempting to articulate my view of what the community has been working toward. 

I understand.....but you use absolute terms....instead of "I think"...or "my view"...

We do have a shrinking player base, but I guarantee you that if a Gook style server were worked into the regular server schedule people would certainly be there for it, but I am not sure they would like it better.

Well..as long as players are wiling to play a server they "MIGHT" not care for so much....maybe other players would stick out an OOB server...

Some players dont like OOB so much either...

So, I think there is no danger of splitting up or fragmenting or running off a portion of the player base.

Thats why I'd like to see ALL types of servers in a rotation...as soon as a standard is set....we'll lose a couple more players...no matter what that standard may be...

I don't agree with the contention that revisions have driven off the player base.

Ofcorse not...your allways pushing for more revisions...to admit that revisions might have driven anyone off is to admit that those same revisions should be done with extreme care...

In fact, I am not even sure what Crim is referring to here.

?...thats funny...your line above is a direct disagreement with what I refered to...

  I'd say what has lost players for this games is merely the growth in the gaming industry i.e. more choices, and the age of the game,

Heh...well.. I KNOW people who have quit playing because of the constant rule revisions  to hamper this race or that race..or this weapon or that weapon...or these ships...but not those ships...

in addition to the rabid in-fighting that has occured in the community.

You mean how some peeps allways slam the DV style of play...or DV players?

The innovations in this game and the D2 have been what have kept people here, not what has driven them away.

*looks around*...so where the hell is everyone?

 

I mean, can we imagine playing a server now without OP+ as a base, which has infused more SFB content into this game than Taldren put in in terms of ships, or without the new missions?

Thus the "standard"...and suppose just for one second...that some people might not like fighting three escorts EVERY mission....suppose that some people LIKE AI help when fighting a human player who's ship is 3 classes up...

  Do we really want to go back to stock servers??

Wasnt that the whole point of Gooks poll!?!....and why asume that all servers MUST be the same...or based on OP+?...or have custom missions?

  That sounds like a step backwards instead of forwards.

In my book...that smacks of "elitism"...why not include the want of ALL people...rather than just yours...variety is the spice of life...

For crying out loud, we have people developing installers now that makes it so simple to get the content needed to play on servers especially when you consider that all that was ever needed usually was to swap out shiplists and fighter lists.

Yeah...and thats cool....but how many servers have required a second or third DL to fix stuff?...

  Need I remind people that in the D3 community there are hosts of multiple megabyte mods that people are required to download to even get on any server.

One need only look at the amount of posting done in ALL D3 forums to see what this has done to the SFC3 community...it is fragmented and dropping off faster than we are at this point....to many mods...to few players...hard feelings amongst modders....no thanks...I'll pass...

Here in the D2, the worst thing you'll need to do is download a custom shiplist and fighter list and some mission packs.  Nowhere near the size of D3 mods.

Thats because people like firesoul have been kind anough to figure out "no models" versions of these mods...otherwise...they WOULD be mega MB mods...and the player base would be even smaller than it is now...

If there is really a sentiment against "complicated" server, I just don't see why we can't mix in "simpler" ones and go from there,

Isnt that the whole point? ....sheesh!...V A R I E T Y ...

although I don't  find recent servers to be complicated,

Try and wade through the rules....better yet...wade through Maxes rule set....how complicated will a F&E style server be?

nor Gook's idea of a server to be simple but merely slanted towards hex-flippers and nutters.

Ya know...this game takes ALL types to survive...and thank you for comming full circle to my original point...

The constant effort to put a leash on flippers and nutters have drivin off casual players who dont want to be botherd , who could care less about flippers or nutters, and just want to play...and can see with their own eyes that nothing done so far has curbed hex flipping or nutting...BECAUSE ITS PART OF THE FREAKIN GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The ONLY thing you can do to counter the effect of nutters is to give casual players MORE tools to work with...such as the disengagment rule...

If things dont change a bit....the ONLY people left playing will be flippers and nutters...and lepton...

[Lepton]

Julin, I totally agree. "Fire and forget" races like the Kzin don't need to line up arcs for anything.  They just need to press that button to launch the other fleet members' drones.  That is the other huge problem with fleets.  Imagine three DF+s vs an ISC or Rom equivalent fleet.  Scratch 2 AI plamsa ships in that situation and perhaps one human plasma race ship if we are talking about fast drones.  This is the real problem with fleeting.  It's amazing how people don't seem to see these issues and bandy about adding fleets back into the D2 without seeing the implications of doing so. 

I'd be willing to wager that it was exactly these type of issues that brought about the single ship server.  It seems there is a great deal of forgetting going on here in this discussion.  Hasn't the reason that things have headed the way that they have in the D2 been to address problems with D2 servers?  I mean, things just haven't developed willy nilly.  There has been a reason for all of it.  Going back to previous incarnations of the D2 is just going to crop up the same set of problems.  Seems like a step backward to me.