Topic: Discussion document Dyna development  (Read 10247 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Lepton

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1620
Re: Discussion document Dyna development
« Reply #40 on: July 21, 2004, 12:47:00 am »
Crim, I think you have missed my point.  I am all for people putting up whatever servers they want.  We can agree to disagree on the particulars of what keeps people in this game or what has driven them off.  I believe what has kept the D2 going is what people have added to it, not anything that is inherent to it such as hex-flipping, etc.  We can also disagree as to what the D2 is about.  For me, it's about what we have added to it, not how it came out of the box.

I honestly don't know how people could be driven away by rules or downloads.  That just seems silly to me.  If it's just about playing the game, then they should do what 90% of us seem to be able to do without any assistance, understand the rules and get the downloads, and then just play the game.  It seems to me those who leave are just as guilty of belly-aching as those they would decry as belly-achers for trying to achieve some balance in the D2 excpet that those who left are merely showing that they don't know how to operate a computer.  What I suspect is the real case for those who leave is as the D2 developed they saw their style of play, their easy living on servers diminishing and they felt squeezed out, so they got angry at something else like downloads and left.  That seems like a bit of sour grapes to me.

And what are these rules I keep hearing about?  I glanced over the rules for LB5 and said to myself, these aren't really my concern as they are mostly concerned with VCs and such.  So, I just go on the server and fly.  What's hard about that??  Or if there is an OoB on a server, I just find out what it is I can and can't fly which is usually made abundantly clear to everyone and I just fly what I want from what is available to me.  I don't crap myself over not being able to fly a DN.  There are plenty of other ships.

I think this "rules" issue boils down to ship restrictions.  If people want unrestricted servers, let's put some up and see what happens, but I think the ensuing arms race will make it more difficult for people rather than less.  I think your reverse system is a great idea and I did indeed understand it the first time around.  However, I think we all need to understand that there will be people who are actually looking to balance out things in the D2 and that that is a good thing not a bad thing.  Part of the source of balance has been laid at the doorstep of SFB and F&E and I think that is rightly so.  These rules that people have developed are meant to help the game not hinder it and they only hinder one if one allows one's self to be hindered.  I mean, these "rules" didn't come out of thin air.  They were created to address issues, not to merely inconvenience people.  If these "rules" are so complicated, how is it that servers seem to go off without a hitch where rules are concerned?

Anyway, I think this "rules" issue is merely a proxy for ship restrictions.  If that is the true issue, your solution is one of many that may be tried.


System Specs:

Dell Dimension E521
AMD64x2 5000+
2G DDR2 RAM
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB GDDR3
250GB SATA HD

Offline Lepton

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1620
Re: Discussion document Dyna development
« Reply #41 on: July 21, 2004, 12:58:35 am »
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!  I just looked at this poll that Gook is claiming is the word down from on high that proclaims what people want in the D2.  There were only 30 people who even responded to this poll, and 11 people voted for KISS.  Just 11 people!!!!  HAHAAHAAHAHA!!!  And it was a poll posted by Leroy.  Who is going to respond to that seriously?  That is certainly no mandate considering that there are more like 200 people in the D2 community.  Put up a serious poll and I will take the results seriously.  This is a non-issue now as far as I am concerned until I see some real numbers.

And, and, and, and, DH's poll about stock missions has only 32 respondents and is currently tied.  Neither of these is any mandate to take any substantial course of action.

What a tempest in a teapot this has all been.  Back to your regularly scheduled program.


System Specs:

Dell Dimension E521
AMD64x2 5000+
2G DDR2 RAM
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB GDDR3
250GB SATA HD

Offline KBF-Crim

  • 1st Deacon ,Church of Taldren
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12271
  • Gender: Male
  • Crim,son of Rus'l
Re: Discussion document Dyna development
« Reply #42 on: July 21, 2004, 01:22:31 am »
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!  I just looked at this poll that Gook is claiming is the word down from on high that proclaims what people want in the D2.  There were only 30 people who even responded to this poll, and 11 people voted for KISS.  Just 11 people!!!!  HAHAAHAAHAHA!!!  And it was a poll posted by Leroy.  Who is going to respond to that seriously?  That is certainly no mandate considering that there are more like 200 people in the D2 community.  Put up a serious poll and I will take the results seriously.  This is a non-issue now as far as I am concerned until I see some real numbers.

And, and, and, and, DH's poll about stock missions has only 32 respondents and is currently tied.  Neither of these is any mandate to take any substantial course of action.

What a tempest in a teapot this has all been.  Back to your regularly scheduled program.

I just noticed your sig.....My bad...I'll stop trying to have a logical disccusion with you...you allready KNOW it all... ::)

BTW...I wouldnt  brag about 200 peeps still here...we had over 600 signed up for the open beta alone... :banghead:

Offline Julin Eurthyr

  • Veltrassi Ambassador at Large
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Gender: Male
  • Back in Exile due to Win 7 - ISC RM/Strat Com.
Re: Discussion document Dyna development
« Reply #43 on: July 21, 2004, 02:08:17 am »
Lepton:

If I were nutter enough to afford it, I have a fleet that's easier to use than the Z-DF fleet.
I-BCV, I-CVZ, I-CVDZ.  By pressing the "launch all fighers" button on my keyboard, I am sending 9 4-packs of Caveat III fighters, carrying 108 gatling phasers, into the belly of the beast.  K-B11Ks and Z-DF or Z-DWD fleets would wither in seconds under the sheer firepower of that many gatlings.  Then toss the Cav's 36 phaser 2's into the action, and I wouldn't expect any ships, or fleets, to make it to strike range of my force, so I might not even need to go to red alert.

For the totally lazy, I could just let the computer do it for me.  7 packs of Cav IIIs are launched from the CVZ and CVDZ by the AI.  That's still enough fighters to wipe out many a lesser fleet.

At least the Mirak have to hit the fire button for each wave of drones... ;D

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?

Okay.  792-300=492.  Say -500 PP per mission lost with your fleet.
Set aside 20k of your 120k bank account for ship replacement.
That leaves you with enough cash to fully resupply your fleet 200 times.

Question:  How does the Z-DWD get 80 drone slots?  4xB 2xC racks = 32 "rack drones", reloads should be in multiples of 32 (64 with 2 reloads, 96 with 3 reloads, and 128 with 4 reloads).

I'll work with what I know.  Z-DWD has 128 drones.  64 get replaced for free each mission.  You need to burn 64 drones to completely use up your purchased reloads and force resupply at the maximum PP payout rate.
Every 30 seconds you can launch 6 drones.  At that rate, you burn through your 64 bought drones in 5 minutes 20 seconds.
Taking and adding 2 minutes to each mission for travel time, you need to spend 7:20 in each mission just to burn all your bought drones.
200 missions @ 7:20 each = 24:26:40 of time spent "in mission" to burn 100k PP supplying your fleet.  That's a full day's worth of being in mission.  After adding the time spent to travel to base, resupply, travel to front, find mission, accept mission, wait through briefing, and all the other waits that goes with SFC, and you're looking at closer to 36 hours of playing to burn through 100k of your PP stock.
Playing 12 hour days, that's still 3 days of playing.  Playing 8 hour days, that gives you 4 days of playing.  You could just about finish off LB5 at this point in a fleet and still not go bankrupt.
And this time frame assumes that you're needing to fly 5:20 in combat every mission, and burn through 64 drones per ship each time.  While I've never flown a DWD fleet, I don't think you're consistently spending this much time and drones each mission.  So, the bank account will stretch longer, from cheaper resupply.  Putting into practice drone conservation, like only resupplying to full load every 2 missions (turning loss per resupply from 500 to 200 PP each trip), or even banking money by running a few missions with only your free reloads (assuming conditions are allowing you to use less than 64 drones per ship per mission, and you aren't at high risk of being hit with a 2-ship PvP), can suddenly stretch a 100k bank account into a fund able to supply a 3 ship fleet for a week or 2 of "average" 12 hour nutter-like days.

Bankrupcy takes quite a while to kick in for a nutter.  Perhaps longer than you thought.  Too long, in my opinion, to be the crux of an argument that PP will limit the time a fleet remains active.

Thank you for the reminder I've desperately needed.  We've been focusing on Drall's old master plan without considering all the facets of what we're doing here.  Once we have at least the drone ships onto a Plasma-type buy schedule, then we need to argue that the drone ships should be able to operate on a plasma-type operations style, to include large amounts of free reloads for their ships.  If possible, I'd like to see carriers and tenders get the same treatment, perhaps with a mandatable CnC, sadly I don't think that's possible.

:soap:
Being a soapbox here, if you're tired of being picked on whenever people discuss consumables, and their effect on the premier consumable-user race, why don't you shift over to a non-consumable race and let those who are willing to experiment play Mirak for a while?  At least you can judge the effect of the tests and we don't have to delete Mirak in a knee-jerk reaction...

AKA: Koloth Kinshaya - Lord of the House Kinshaya in the Klingon Empire
S'Leth - Romulan Admiral
Some anonymous strongman in Prime Industries

Offline Julin Eurthyr

  • Veltrassi Ambassador at Large
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Gender: Male
  • Back in Exile due to Win 7 - ISC RM/Strat Com.
Re: Discussion document Dyna development
« Reply #44 on: July 21, 2004, 02:16:54 am »
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!  I just looked at this poll that Gook is claiming is the word down from on high that proclaims what people want in the D2.  There were only 30 people who even responded to this poll, and 11 people voted for KISS.  Just 11 people!!!!  HAHAAHAAHAHA!!!  And it was a poll posted by Leroy.  Who is going to respond to that seriously?  That is certainly no mandate considering that there are more like 200 people in the D2 community.  Put up a serious poll and I will take the results seriously.  This is a non-issue now as far as I am concerned until I see some real numbers.

And, and, and, and, DH's poll about stock missions has only 32 respondents and is currently tied.  Neither of these is any mandate to take any substantial course of action.

What a tempest in a teapot this has all been.  Back to your regularly scheduled program.

Hmmm.  1/10th of the community has bothered to even voice an opinion.  And I don't expect a 200 vote poll at any time in the future.
So, while this isn't a mandate that will determine the direction of all future servers, discussions generated in these debates will influence future servers.

For a cheesy 30 response poll to open a debate like this, there's obviously something wrong that needs to be looked at.  The question is how shall we address the problem?

Obviously, if you don't want to consider things and even agree or disagree, you are free to consider the issue closed.  Just understand that many dances the D2 has danced over the years are repeat performances, and we're still trying to find the right answer...

AKA: Koloth Kinshaya - Lord of the House Kinshaya in the Klingon Empire
S'Leth - Romulan Admiral
Some anonymous strongman in Prime Industries

Offline GDA-S'Cipio

  • Brucimus Maximus
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 5749
  • Gender: Male
  • If I took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy.
Re: Discussion document Dyna development
« Reply #45 on: July 21, 2004, 03:22:04 am »
OK basic Math 101 (jeez I hate Math :) )

Heavy fast drones cost 5 PP on LB5

5 points is a bit high for my scheme.  I think I'd only charge two points for a fast drone that wasn't already included in the ships BPV.

If it was included in the ships BPV, I suspect I'd give the ship enough free reloads to account for it.

-S'Cipio
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."  - James Madison (chief author of the Constitution)

-----------------------------------------
Gorn Dragon Alliance member
Gorn Dragon Templar
Coulda' used a little more cowbell
-----------------------------------------


Offline Gook

  • Catbert
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 405
  • Gender: Male
Re: Discussion document Dyna development
« Reply #46 on: July 21, 2004, 03:22:43 am »
As for DWD drone racks I said that was what the computer charged me for a full reload, how it worked it out I do not know. It has 4 B racks and 2 C  racks. Heavy drones are double space, hence 80 drone loadout.

As for for missions generally, no I don't use a full load, but then have to make the concious decison to fly my ship without a full load of ammo on board, not knowing what the next mission will be, PvP or AI. So I have to chose, PvP in the bank or full weapons load. Ohter ships always fly to their max potential and have infinite ammo.

With a fleet the problems are multiplied.

Anyhow enough of that. Issues seem to be therefore:

1. Fleets

2. Deepstrikes

3. Shiplist

Any others to add to the list?

KAT-Gook, OBS,OoW,MTA,SoK.
KAT-Fleet
Kzinti Hegemony

The God of War hates those who hesitate
.....Eurypides



Offline GDA-S'Cipio

  • Brucimus Maximus
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 5749
  • Gender: Male
  • If I took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy.
Re: Discussion document Dyna development
« Reply #47 on: July 21, 2004, 03:41:55 am »
As for DWD drone racks I said that was what the computer charged me for a full reload, how it worked it out I do not know. It has 4 B racks and 2 C  racks. Heavy drones are double space, hence 80 drone loadout.

I'm not doubting your math.  I'm saying, under my scheme, I'd charge you less in the resupply screen than the computer is currently charging you.

Or maybe I'd just make all drones free, and increase your base BPV accordingly.

I'm just thinking out loud.

Quote
Anyhow enough of that. Issues seem to be therefore:

1. Fleets

2. Deepstrikes

3. Shiplist

Any others to add to the list?

4. Price of consumables

5. Missions pack (lots of fleet action?  lots of one-on-one? lots of variety?)

6. Grateful donations sent to S'Cippy, because he's just so darn pretty.

-S'Cipio

Quote
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."  - James Madison (chief author of the Constitution)

-----------------------------------------
Gorn Dragon Alliance member
Gorn Dragon Templar
Coulda' used a little more cowbell
-----------------------------------------


Offline FPF-Jem

  • D.Net VIP
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 149
  • Gender: Male
Re: Discussion document Dyna development
« Reply #48 on: July 21, 2004, 06:58:37 am »
hmm... well I think I'll stick this here because it's related to the discussion at hand....  sorta....

From playing on LB5 I've noticed the dipshiplist still needs a fair amount of tweaking (just from what I can see from a Fed perspective) though I'm sure that additional tweaking was expected, I just want to bring out some observations I've had.

For one, the pirates don't seem to have had any adjustment so they're quite easy to blow up currently and secondly The BPV's of some ships just don't seem right, ex. compare the 175 F-CVL to the 170 F-NVS.
The CVL has only has half the fighter complement, a weaker phaser suite and poorer power curve but its 5 BPV higher. Just seemed kind of amusing when I saw it.

On a side note about destructable bases and custom missions, what is the average time to do a base assault on LB5 withits stock missions? I've done three and other than the first one (which was a fluke 20 minute mission) they've been over an hour with a human wing in a DN. If the stock mission typically has a Starbase and runs around an hour even with a wing, do we need a custom base assault?
Capt. Jem


Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: Discussion document Dyna development
« Reply #49 on: July 21, 2004, 07:35:52 am »

On a side note about destructable bases and custom missions, what is the average time to do a base assault on LB5 withits stock missions? I've done three and other than the first one (which was a fluke 20 minute mission) they've been over an hour with a human wing in a DN. If the stock mission typically has a Starbase and runs around an hour even with a wing, do we need a custom base assault?

You are correct, stock missions and destructable bases are silly.

This DIP list is going through MAJOR revisions before it sees the server so i really wouldn't worry about this incarnation too much.
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline SSCF-LeRoy

  • Kim's Clubhouse Painter
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 923
  • Gender: Male
  • Captain
    • SSCF.net
Re: Discussion document Dyna development
« Reply #50 on: July 21, 2004, 09:00:03 am »
And it was a poll posted by Leroy.  Who is going to respond to that seriously?

:skeptic:

Offline GDA-S'Cipio

  • Brucimus Maximus
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 5749
  • Gender: Male
  • If I took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy.
Re: Discussion document Dyna development
« Reply #51 on: July 21, 2004, 10:52:33 am »
And it was a poll posted by Leroy.  Who is going to respond to that seriously?

:skeptic:

I take polls from you very seriously, LeRoy.  For when you ask a question, I think it is safe to assume that you actually want to hear the answers.

And I just love talking.

-S'Cipio the prattler
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."  - James Madison (chief author of the Constitution)

-----------------------------------------
Gorn Dragon Alliance member
Gorn Dragon Templar
Coulda' used a little more cowbell
-----------------------------------------


Offline SSCF-LeRoy

  • Kim's Clubhouse Painter
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 923
  • Gender: Male
  • Captain
    • SSCF.net
Re: Discussion document Dyna development
« Reply #52 on: July 21, 2004, 11:32:28 am »
And it was a poll posted by Leroy.  Who is going to respond to that seriously?

:skeptic:

I take polls from you very seriously, LeRoy.  For when you ask a question, I think it is safe to assume that you actually want to hear the answers.

And I just love talking.

-S'Cipio the prattler

Actually I was somewhat amused by that particular statement 'cuz to me that means I must must be doin' somethin' right :lol:

I just had to give Leppy the eye (:skeptic:) just fer kicks and giggles ;D

I was really tempted to say "Well, nobody takes you seriously so I guess that makes us even.", but I decided to keep a civil tongue in my head ;)

Thanks fer the sentiment.

Offline Lepton

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1620
Re: Discussion document Dyna development
« Reply #53 on: July 21, 2004, 11:42:00 am »
My meaning is that people would have been much more likely to vote if the poll were posted by an server admin or someone with enough cache in the community to actually be able to do something about the results.  They would have also been much more like to vote if the poll were presented as a serious vote with actual consequences and presentations arguing for each of the positions found in the poll.  No slight of Leroy intended.


System Specs:

Dell Dimension E521
AMD64x2 5000+
2G DDR2 RAM
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB GDDR3
250GB SATA HD

Offline SSCF-LeRoy

  • Kim's Clubhouse Painter
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 923
  • Gender: Male
  • Captain
    • SSCF.net
Re: Discussion document Dyna development
« Reply #54 on: July 21, 2004, 11:52:57 am »
The whole aim of my poll was simply to put an issue out there for other people to chew on, and it worked. Others with more cache as you say (specifically Gook) are now referring to the opinions espressed there. I kinda figured other people harbored similar questions to what was posed by my poll, so I decided to go ahead and put it out in the forefront to let the more credible motivators in the community mull over it. Every now and again I like to pose questions to make people think about certain things in the community (just look at what has come about just because I posted a link to Mu's rant page ;D). No slight taken. I've always considered myself to be a peon around here :D