Topic: 11 & 12 none contentious ?

[Gook]

What is the problem with having draft radius more than zero again? I forget.

Sick processor load on the server when lots of players on.

Shame as with drfat radius of 1 hunting parties after DSers get real fun. So do hotspots, spent over an hour once on CW3 trying just to get out of what we called the "meatgrinder", kept getting drafted into multiple PvP missions, very hairy, but loadsa fun.

Question Bonk, why could we do it on EAW 3 years ago on dial up with much slower processors (smaller graphics cards and loads less memory) than we have now and much slower net connections and 10 times the people playing? Is it an OP thing?

[Bonk]

Perhaps,we just need larger starting ships to get the causal players involved immediately in the goings-on.  That I have no problem with.

That might be an idea, hadn't occurred to me... I also like the "slot" concept to ameliorate the disengagement rule.

How about this one: standard hexes at a max DV of 1 !  Bases at 2 and planets at 5... the hex flippers would be able to take huge areas yes, but only make certain single hexes have any VC value... no more hex flipping/sniping issues... I'm sure this has been thought of but has it ever really been tested? It would change the dynamic of the game entirely and surely increase PvP.

[Bonk]

What is the problem with having draft radius more than zero again? I forget.

Sick processor load on the server when lots of players on.

Question Bonk, why could we do it on EAW 3 years ago on dial up with much slower processors (smaller graphics cards and loads less memory) than we have now and much slower net connections and 10 times the people playing? Is it an OP thing?

No, no, its a server-side processor load issue, more likely to result in DB corruption. Mission matching in the serverkit will max out any processor (EAW on through to OP). A 1 or 2 hex draft radius can work but the db must be cleaned regularly, but will increase the likelyhood of server crashes... especially with >20 players on (and makes SQL hopeless altogether).

Shame as with drfat radius of 1 hunting parties after DSers get real fun. So do hotspots, spent over an hour once on CW3 trying just to get out of what we called the "meatgrinder", kept getting drafted into multiple PvP missions, very hairy, but loadsa fun.

I miss that too.

[SPQR Renegade]

Doesn't anybody see how to prevent a small ship from tying up a larger one without a disengagement rule? I personally think a lot of dyna strategies have been lost or forgotten over the last year or two...

The disengagement rule has been needed since the days of AF, when the Fed player base overwhelmed their shipyard capacity. Romulan policy was to exploit the weak Fed shipyard by hunting down and destroying ANY ship NCL or larger, while ignoring the smaller ships. Fed counter-policy developed to use their superior numbers to draw the superior Rommie Kestrals into combat with the sole purpose of keeping them tied up while other players entered the hex to run missions safe from harm.
(Deny it if you will, but those were the Days of Deceit, when Romulans cared nothing of honor before the barbarian races. This is fact)

Even after the "Fight or Leave" rule was implemented, the definition of fighting was always at issue. If a drone refit x-NCL(pick a race) throws 6 drones per turn at a BCH while running away at max speed, he may be fighting using the best tactic available to his skill with that ship. Yes, the heavy can shoot down all 6 drones with phaser fire every turn, but that leaves him short of power to close the distance.
When the Drone ship has spent 10-15 min firing the last of his 100+ drones and executes the better part of valor without scratching the paint of the BCH, does he deserve the right to return in 5 min to take another shot at it?

[Gook]

What is the problem with having draft radius more than zero again? I forget.

Sick processor load on the server when lots of players on.

Question Bonk, why could we do it on EAW 3 years ago on dial up with much slower processors (smaller graphics cards and loads less memory) than we have now and much slower net connections and 10 times the people playing? Is it an OP thing?

No, no, its a server-side processor load issue, more likely to result in DB corruption. Mission matching in the serverkit will max out any processor (EAW on through to OP). A 1 or 2 hex draft radius can work but the db must be cleaned regularly, but will increase the likelyhood of server crashes... especially with >20 players on (and makes SQL hopeless altogether).

Shame as with drfat radius of 1 hunting parties after DSers get real fun. So do hotspots, spent over an hour once on CW3 trying just to get out of what we called the "meatgrinder", kept getting drafted into multiple PvP missions, very hairy, but loadsa fun.

I miss that too.

Still confused as to why we could do it 3 years ago with no DB cleaner, but can't now? Sorry I know I'm being dense and missing something, but we did do it.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

No, no, its a server-side processor load issue, more likely to result in DB corruption. Mission matching in the serverkit will max out any processor (EAW on through to OP). A 1 or 2 hex draft radius can work but the db must be cleaned regularly, but will increase the likelyhood of server crashes... especially with >20 players on (and makes SQL hopeless altogether).

I've often wondered about this myself.  We used to have:

1)No DB cleaner
2)Massive maps
3)draft radius of 1
4)more players than the server could accept at once

And yet the servers like AF could run for weeks.

No we have
1) Cool DB cleaner
2) Smaller maps
3)draft radius of 1
4)fewer players throughout most of the day...

And yet if my server runs for more than a day without cleaning the DB, the whole thing goes to heck.

What's going on here?

-S'cipio

[Bonk]

Doesn't anybody see how to prevent a small ship from tying up a larger one without a disengagement rule? I personally think a lot of dyna strategies have been lost or forgotten over the last year or two...

The disengagement rule has been needed since the days of AF, when the Fed player base overwhelmed their shipyard capacity. Romulan policy was to exploit the weak Fed shipyard by hunting down and destroying ANY ship NCL or larger, while ignoring the smaller ships. Fed counter-policy developed to use their superior numbers to draw the superior Rommie Kestrals into combat with the sole purpose of keeping them tied up while other players entered the hex to run missions safe from harm.
(Deny it if you will, but those were the Days of Deceit, when Romulans cared nothing of honor. This is fact)

Even after the "Fight or Leave" rule was implemented, the definition of fighting was always at issue. If a drone refit x-NCL(pick a race) throws 6 drones per turn at a BCH while running away at max speed, he may be fighting using the best tactic available to his skill with that ship. Yes, the heavy can shoot down all 6 drones with phaser fire every turn, but that leaves him short of power to close the distance.
When the Drone ship has spent 10-15 min firing the last of his 100+ drones and executes the better part of valor without scratching the paint of the BCH, does he deserve the right to return in 5 min to take another shot at it?

Nope, that counts as giving your enemy the runaround as I see it, and should be defined as not fighting. In a D5D for example I'll make a good go of landing some drones on the nose of a careless player in a larger ship (in batches of 12) If he does it right and doesn't take any drones, then I run off if I can. The enemy has the opportunity to catch me in the act. If I get away, he wins the mission gets the PP and gets the DV shift. If he destroys me, the same result is the case, with the bonus of having destroyed my ship, costing me additional PP. If I'm foolish enough to come back and try again then I think I should be allowed to.

[Bonk]

No, no, its a server-side processor load issue, more likely to result in DB corruption. Mission matching in the serverkit will max out any processor (EAW on through to OP). A 1 or 2 hex draft radius can work but the db must be cleaned regularly, but will increase the likelyhood of server crashes... especially with >20 players on (and makes SQL hopeless altogether).

I've often wondered about this myself.  We used to have:

1)No DB cleaner
2)Massive maps
3)draft radius of 1
4)more players than the server could accept at once

And yet the servers like AF could run for weeks.

No we have
1) Cool DB cleaner
2) Smaller maps
3)draft radius of 1
4)fewer players throughout most of the day...

And yet if my server runs for more than a day without cleaning the DB, the whole thing goes to heck.

What's going on here?

-S'cipio

Good question. I'm betting smartheap versions have something to do with it.

Edit: oh and I bet that the movement rate was left at a much longer time on the old servers, like the 15 second default, this is the single biggest factor in reducing serverload.

Edit: oh and shorter mission lists were a factor too, with triggering implemented by those who understood it but never documented it for us. (the original developers)

and there is also a tendency to foozle with the mission matching parameters in the gfs which I'm betting was not done in the past which may aggravate the serverload in missionmatching, particluarly with longer missionlists.

as well as the two layered map, effectively doubling the required calculations...

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Edit: oh and I bet that the movement rate was left at a much longer time on the old servers, like the 15 second default, this is the single biggest factor in reducing serverload.

Aha!  Good thought there.  I wonder if people would be willing to put up with a 15 second move time again?  Once the DB starts coughing around a busy area it usually takes that long anyway, so increasing it back to 15 seconds may not even be a real inconveniance.

-S'Cipio

[Bonk]

I'd be game.

[Cleaven]

Doesn't anybody see how to prevent a small ship from tying up a larger one without a disengagement rule? I personally think a lot of dyna strategies have been lost or forgotten over the last year or two...

The disengagement rule has been needed since the days of AF, when the Fed player base overwhelmed their shipyard capacity. Romulan policy was to exploit the weak Fed shipyard by hunting down and destroying ANY ship NCL or larger, while ignoring the smaller ships. Fed counter-policy developed to use their superior numbers to draw the superior Rommie Kestrals into combat with the sole purpose of keeping them tied up while other players entered the hex to run missions safe from harm.
(Deny it if you will, but those were the Days of Deceit, when Romulans cared nothing of honor. This is fact)

Even after the "Fight or Leave" rule was implemented, the definition of fighting was always at issue. If a drone refit x-NCL(pick a race) throws 6 drones per turn at a BCH while running away at max speed, he may be fighting using the best tactic available to his skill with that ship. Yes, the heavy can shoot down all 6 drones with phaser fire every turn, but that leaves him short of power to close the distance.
When the Drone ship has spent 10-15 min firing the last of his 100+ drones and executes the better part of valor without scratching the paint of the BCH, does he deserve the right to return in 5 min to take another shot at it?

Nope, that counts as giving your enemy the runaround as I see it, and should be defined as not fighting. In a D5D for example I'll make a good go of landing some drones on the nose of a careless player in a larger ship (in batches of 12) If he does it right and doesn't take any drones, then I run off if I can. The enemy has the opportunity to catch me in the act. If I get away, he wins the mission gets the PP and gets the DV shift. If he destroys me, the same result is the case, with the bonus of having destroyed my ship, costing me additional PP. If I'm foolish enough to come back and try again then I think I should be allowed to.

If you are a good player and do manage to score some hits you can successfully draw that battle out for quite a while, getting a few hits here and there. You are fighting, but you are also fighting a losing battle most likely, and have succeeded in tying up your opponent with no penalty to yourself. The hex DV is moving in your direction because similar ships to yours are killing AI by the number while you are in mission. All that happens to you is that you eventually expend all munitions and are forced to retire.

[Bonk]

Doesn't anybody see how to prevent a small ship from tying up a larger one without a disengagement rule? I personally think a lot of dyna strategies have been lost or forgotten over the last year or two...

The disengagement rule has been needed since the days of AF, when the Fed player base overwhelmed their shipyard capacity. Romulan policy was to exploit the weak Fed shipyard by hunting down and destroying ANY ship NCL or larger, while ignoring the smaller ships. Fed counter-policy developed to use their superior numbers to draw the superior Rommie Kestrals into combat with the sole purpose of keeping them tied up while other players entered the hex to run missions safe from harm.
(Deny it if you will, but those were the Days of Deceit, when Romulans cared nothing of honor. This is fact)

Even after the "Fight or Leave" rule was implemented, the definition of fighting was always at issue. If a drone refit x-NCL(pick a race) throws 6 drones per turn at a BCH while running away at max speed, he may be fighting using the best tactic available to his skill with that ship. Yes, the heavy can shoot down all 6 drones with phaser fire every turn, but that leaves him short of power to close the distance.
When the Drone ship has spent 10-15 min firing the last of his 100+ drones and executes the better part of valor without scratching the paint of the BCH, does he deserve the right to return in 5 min to take another shot at it?

Nope, that counts as giving your enemy the runaround as I see it, and should be defined as not fighting. In a D5D for example I'll make a good go of landing some drones on the nose of a careless player in a larger ship (in batches of 12) If he does it right and doesn't take any drones, then I run off if I can. The enemy has the opportunity to catch me in the act. If I get away, he wins the mission gets the PP and gets the DV shift. If he destroys me, the same result is the case, with the bonus of having destroyed my ship, costing me additional PP. If I'm foolish enough to come back and try again then I think I should be allowed to.

If you are a good player and do manage to score some hits you can successfully draw that battle out for quite a while, getting a few hits here and there. You are fighting, but you are also fighting a losing battle most likely, and have succeeded in tying up your opponent with no penalty to yourself. The hex DV is moving in your direction because similar ships to yours are killing AI by the number while you are in mission. All that happens to you is that you eventually expend all munitions and are forced to retire.

Myself, I never take it to that point, I recognise a player who can handle drones immediately and cut my losses ASAP, what with current drone prices... either they fall for it or don't - no mucking about.

[Commander Maxillius]

Edit: oh and I bet that the movement rate was left at a much longer time on the old servers, like the 15 second default, this is the single biggest factor in reducing serverload.

Aha!  Good thought there.  I wonder if people would be willing to put up with a 15 second move time again?  Once the DB starts coughing around a busy area it usually takes that long anyway, so increasing it back to 15 seconds may not even be a real inconveniance.

-S'Cipio

Has anyone considered using movement time to slow down hex flipping?  Also, why can't different ships have different movement times?  Take the Z-DF for example.  She's small yet holds LOTS AND LOTS of missiles.  The space had to be taken from somewhere, so why not cut her warp speed down to reflect the lack of warp power?  Make the movement time for the DF be something like 20 seconds, where faster ships like the CLC or SPZ closer to 5 or 7 seconds?  Could that be done?

[Mog]

No Max, it's a general setting for all.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Has anyone considered using movement time to slow down hex flipping? 

We might be doing that right now.  

Also, why can't different ships have different movement times?  Take the Z-DF for example.  She's small yet holds LOTS AND LOTS of missiles.  The space had to be taken from somewhere, so why not cut her warp speed down to reflect the lack of warp power?  Make the movement time for the DF be something like 20 seconds, where faster ships like the CLC or SPZ closer to 5 or 7 seconds?  Could that be done?

No, that can't be done.  There is only one parameter in the gf files that controls how long it takes to move from one hex to another.  This parameter affects all ships equally, regardless of race or size.

Something loosely akin to what you suggest must have been considered at one point or another.  There is a parameter you can set for each hex that is supposed to determine how hard that hex is to move through.  The game code, however, doesn't make use of it.

-S'Cipio

[Cleaven]

Doesn't anybody see how to prevent a small ship from tying up a larger one without a disengagement rule? I personally think a lot of dyna strategies have been lost or forgotten over the last year or two...

The disengagement rule has been needed since the days of AF, when the Fed player base overwhelmed their shipyard capacity. Romulan policy was to exploit the weak Fed shipyard by hunting down and destroying ANY ship NCL or larger, while ignoring the smaller ships. Fed counter-policy developed to use their superior numbers to draw the superior Rommie Kestrals into combat with the sole purpose of keeping them tied up while other players entered the hex to run missions safe from harm.
(Deny it if you will, but those were the Days of Deceit, when Romulans cared nothing of honor. This is fact)

Even after the "Fight or Leave" rule was implemented, the definition of fighting was always at issue. If a drone refit x-NCL(pick a race) throws 6 drones per turn at a BCH while running away at max speed, he may be fighting using the best tactic available to his skill with that ship. Yes, the heavy can shoot down all 6 drones with phaser fire every turn, but that leaves him short of power to close the distance.
When the Drone ship has spent 10-15 min firing the last of his 100+ drones and executes the better part of valor without scratching the paint of the BCH, does he deserve the right to return in 5 min to take another shot at it?

Nope, that counts as giving your enemy the runaround as I see it, and should be defined as not fighting. In a D5D for example I'll make a good go of landing some drones on the nose of a careless player in a larger ship (in batches of 12) If he does it right and doesn't take any drones, then I run off if I can. The enemy has the opportunity to catch me in the act. If I get away, he wins the mission gets the PP and gets the DV shift. If he destroys me, the same result is the case, with the bonus of having destroyed my ship, costing me additional PP. If I'm foolish enough to come back and try again then I think I should be allowed to.

If you are a good player and do manage to score some hits you can successfully draw that battle out for quite a while, getting a few hits here and there. You are fighting, but you are also fighting a losing battle most likely, and have succeeded in tying up your opponent with no penalty to yourself. The hex DV is moving in your direction because similar ships to yours are killing AI by the number while you are in mission. All that happens to you is that you eventually expend all munitions and are forced to retire.

Myself, I never take it to that point, I recognise a player who can handle drones immediately and cut my losses ASAP, what with current drone prices... either they fall for it or don't - no mucking about.

Does this mean we have to get down to a rule for you and those you play like you, and a rule for those who cannot recognise other players abilities?

[Corbomite]

So now PvP is only available and meaningful for nutters or those in assigned ships? Not acceptable.

No it is meaningful for good pilots who want to add their skills to winning for their side. The ship is irrelevant.

[drb]

Hoi Folks,

 Why not have the disengagement rule apply to "fleets" only, in the stead of individual players. In this way a single ship fleet would enter a hex encounter a foe too great, and leave. The single ship reports, the fleet command forbids that single ship fleet to re-enter the hex, unless in another fleet. Same rules apply to that fleet.

Clear as mud?

Take care

drb

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Aha!  Good thought there.  I wonder if people would be willing to put up with a 15 second move time again?  Once the DB starts coughing around a busy area it usually takes that long anyway, so increasing it back to 15 seconds may not even be a real inconveniance.

-S'Cipio

Good Lord No!

P.S.  something that would piss me off more than a midserver change has now been found.
Rather have a DB clean every 6 hours than that!  It drives me nuts enough when it happens right before a db clean to make it every mission would likely leave me looking for another game.  I cannot state strongly enough how oppossed I am to this idea.  I like to roam about the map a bit do scouting etc, a setting like this would make such strategic actions a waste of time.

No No a million times No!

Chuut, the very emotionally distressed.

[drb]

Hoi Folks,

What Chuut said, without being emotionally distressed.

Take care

drb