Topic: 11 & 12 none contentious ?

[Bonk]

So why do we have fewer players now?

Because it is a 4 year old game.

Right, and most of us that remain will not leave because of a rule that is implemented or not. I think the disengagement rule is severely detrimental to the game (I play all races), but I remain.

[Kroma BaSyl]

What is meaningful PvP Kroma?

I know some people caught in a D5D, NCD, DF that can't PvP to save their life.  Their only purpose is to run fast missions and flip hexes.   I also know people in the same ships that can give people in larger ships a real go at it.

Meaningful, means that it has some effect on the larger campaign than if you had simply played the match on GSA. A single DV shift for winning an PvP or the PP lose that is suffered when a ship is killed was never enough of an effect to influence anything. In the past PvP was little more than a side note to the unfolding of the campaign. With the disengagement rule it now has a greater effect on the outcome.

[Bonk]

Let me post this again so it is not missed:


I think if a losing player has to leave a hex for an hour, then the victor has to stay in that same hex for an hour, to avoid abuse of this rule.

I mean how can a ship defend a hex for multiple turns when it is not even there?

[Kroma BaSyl]

So why do we have fewer players now?

Because it is a 4 year old game.

Right, and most of us that remain will not leave because of a rule that is implemented or not. I think the disengagement rule is severely detrimental to the game (I play all races), but I remain.

Wrong, you can not draw that conclusion logically from the supposition above. It may very well have happened that without the rule there wouldn't be anyone (or the necessary critical mass at least) left.

I also don't buy your agruement about the DN driving off every player from every hex. Never happens. One DN can only be in on place at a time. Both sides have DNs. Both sides have multiple players in smaller ships. The team that uses their resources in a coordinated fashion will win the hex. Nutters and non-nutters all have valid meaningful roles to fill.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Let me post this again so it is not missed:


I think if a losing player has to leave a hex for an hour, then the victor has to stay in that same hex for an hour, to avoid abuse of this rule.

I mean how can a ship defend a hex for multiple turns when it is not even there?

Yeah I noticed that. It ain't a bad idea, although I think unnecessary and overly complicates things. The type of "abuse" you allude to is easily countered, if you have a big ship on the board at all for your team or if you have more than one small ship out there.

[Capt Jeff]

Nice, civil debate guys 

Made for some good thinking as well.

+ 1 karma for you both.

Hmm.. Karma for Kroma....

[GDA-S'Cipio]

You also assume that any players in small ships are arseholes with no honour that will tie up a large ship in mission without engaging it... we had a rule against that.

That's not the problem being addressed by the disengagement rule.

Suppose the small ship *isn't* an areshole.  Suppose he sees the big ship and then honorably leaves immediately.  (Or charges in, does his best, and dies.)

Either way, he's back in the hex five seconds later running yet another mission. 

EDIT:  Jeez! a lot of posting happened in the few minutes since I started mine!  Never mind, this has been covered already.

-S'Cipio (the slow)

[Bonk]

Thanks Jeff, it is not that hard to debate such things calmly. (And of course the big lizard in a tutu is the picture of civility... hehe , really he is...)

Both sides have DNs. Both sides have multiple players in smaller ships. The team that uses their resources in a coordinated fashion will win the hex. Nutters and non-nutters all have valid meaningful roles to fill.

I can't really argue that, but I'm a bit biased by recent experiences on LB5, where there were few players on the defending team and a marked rarity of DNs. Leaves you pretty much neutered for any strategic defence, thus I gave up on strategy and started watching the news to hunt players, running all over the map looking for good matches regardless of strategic importance.  (I actually kind of like playing on the side of the underdog, it provides motivation...)

I like PvP on the D2 because it is easier to get a good match going than on GSA (no room politics etc...) you find and draft an enemy and he has no choice but to fight. There is little more disheartening than setting up a GSA room and sitting there for an hour or more trying to get people to play against you...

[Kroma BaSyl]

You also assume that any players in small ships are arseholes with no honour that will tie up a large ship in mission without engaging it... we had a rule against that.

That's not the problem being addressed by the disengagement rule.

Suppose the small ship *isn't* an areshole.  Suppose he sees the big ship and then honorably leaves immediately.  (Or charges in, does his best, and dies.)

Either way, he's back in the hex five seconds later running yet another mission. 

EDIT:  Jeez! a lot of posting happened in the few minutes since I started mine!  Never mind, this has been covered already.

-S'Cipio (the slow)

You said it more succinctly though.

Yes I agree Jeff, good "Kroma" for everyone involved in the debate. Lucky there is enough of me to go around.

[Mog]

Bonk. I am a casual player nowadays, and I've only ever had one assigned ship. Yet, I find that I can often have an effect even when flying a light cruiser.

For example, one evening on GW1, I logged on, in my CWLP, to find that the base captured by the Lyrans on the Kzinit border was under attack by 7 Kzinti players, and I was the only Lyran on. So, they drafted me in 1s and 2s, and I defeated every single one of them, some by chasing them off the map, some by destroying them and some were captured, thus securing the base for some time. In the end, the base was captured some time later (after I'd gone to bed). Prior to the disengagement rule, I'd have lost that base quickly despite defeating the opponents.

I still say that pvp needs more importance placed on it, by having a small number of VPs for destroying/capturing enemy players, a la RDSL. Perhaps impelementing this could allow for the removal of the disengagement rule?

[Capt Jeff]

Yes I agree Jeff, good "Kroma" for everyone involved in the debate. Lucky there is enough of me to go around.

Thinks about what that could mean.....

<shudder>

 

[Kroma BaSyl]

I can't really argue that, but I'm a bit biased by recent experiences on LB5, where there were few players on the defending team and a marked rarity of DNs. Leaves you pretty much neutered for any strategic defence, thus I gave up on strategy and started watching the news to hunt players, running all over the map looking for good matches regardless of strategic importance.  (I actually kind of like playing on the side of the underdog, it provides motivation...)

I can see how that experience would turn one against the rule. However, LB5 sounds like the exception of servers that have used the rule. Lots of dumb stuff goes on when the numbers are that low or uneven.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I still say that pvp needs more importance placed on it, by having a small number of VPs for destroying/capturing enemy players, a la RDSL. Perhaps impelementing this could allow for the removal of the disengagement rule?

Not unless you also get the VPs for driving them off.

[el-Karnak]

Disengagement rule save Dyna2.  Without it the game would have died a silent death a long time ago cuz most players and techies would abandon the game.  Not to mention the Mirak would be subject to a continual flame roasts 24/7 due to their superior hex flipping ability. So, the Mirak players would run too.  It happened big time with some GFL Mirak players 2 years ago. They got sick of all the "hex flipping" flames and moved on to other games.

I guess if like playing on stock dynas with stock missions then not having the disengagement rule is for you.

So why do we have fewer players now?

3 major reasons:

1)  Not enough regular dynas of SS2/SG3 quality being run.  There was a dry spell after SS2 that lasted 6 months that really was a downer.  Simply put, there were way too many vicious flamewars of WT caliber going on in 2003 that really messed everything up.

which led to => #2

2)  Lack of cohesive direction in dyna tech.  Too many horses were pulling in way too many different directions.  When DIP was formed too many productive techies refused to participate in the organization for various reasons, one of which was the dubious signup requirements.  That last thing many techies are going to do is submit to an entrance vote by DIP members that don't do techie stuff. The fact they do techie stuff is more than good enough.  I think the community has figured that out by now after going through a few patches of little dyna campaign activity.  Bottom-line, it wasn't until SGODev started up again in conjuction with the GW dyna series that things started to move meaningfully in OP dynas.

3) Last but not least: the game is old beyond belief.  If there was no disengagement rule the game would have died and D2.net may not have had a raison d'etre to exist.  The scripters would have no reason to make new missions or update the old ones.  Everyone would just hang out on GSA for weekend party IP games.

[Bonk]

For example, one evening on GW1, I logged on, in my CWLP, to find that the base captured by the Lyrans on the Kzinit border was under attack by 7 Kzinti players, and I was the only Lyran on. So, they drafted me in 1s and 2s, and I defeated every single one of them, some by chasing them off the map, some by destroying them and some were captured, thus securing the base for some time. In the end, the base was captured some time later (after I'd gone to bed). Prior to the disengagement rule, I'd have lost that base quickly despite defeating the opponents.

Good case to look at. What was preventing the other six Kzin from flipping the hex while you were in mission with the first one? Seems the boys are getting slow in their old age... hehe. I do see the advantage and utility of the rule in such situations, but is it realistic that one light cruiser can hold off seven? (I know, its a game and realism can be iffy sometimes.). After you logged off and the hex was undefended, it is still somehow magically defended by a ship that is not there? Seems odd to me.

What if the first battle was against a DN and you had to run away or were destroyed and being the only Lyran on you had no DN for backup... so you have to go fly boring missions against the AI in some other hex that is not important? How does that encourage PvP? If there is seven enemies there is little to no chance that you will be repeatedly engaging a larger ship and running away... why can't you have another chance in the ship you've been knocked down to? Why not something like three strikes in a hex and you're out - your commander deems you unworthy of the front and sends you back home for training.

If we want that kind of thing then I'd be more for something that has been suggested: if you are destroyed or captured you must start a new account but can fight wherever you please... that would sufficiently discourage the "irritating-mosquito" factor...

What I object to is an ememy DN coming into a hex you have been working on for some time, running you off in one mission, then leaving the hex for his own hex-flippers to undo your work and you can do nothing about it, and are denied a fair match against a ship of your own class. The DN can move along the front repeating this again and again, making all smaller enemy ships effectively useless.

[Bonk]

Disengagement rule save Dyna2.  Without it the game would have died a silent death a long time ago cuz most players and techies would abandon the game.  Not to mention the Mirak would be subject to a continual flame roasts 24/7 due to their superior hex flipping ability. So, the Mirak players would run too.  It happened big time with some GFL Mirak players 2 years ago. They got sick of all the "hex flipping" flames and moved on to other games.

I guess if like playing on stock dynas with stock missions then not having the disengagement rule is for you.

So why do we have fewer players now?

3 major reasons:

1)  Not enough regular dynas of SS2/SG3 quality being run.  There was a dry spell after SS2 that lasted 6 months that really was a downer.  Simply put, there were way too many vicious flamewars of WT caliber going on in 2003 that really messed everything up.

which led to => #2

2)  Lack of cohesive direction in dyna tech.  Too many horses were pulling in way too many different directions.  When DIP was formed too many productive techies refused to participate in the organization for various reasons, one of which was the dubious signup requirements.  That last thing many techies are going to do is submit to an entrance vote by DIP members that don't do techie stuff. The fact they do techie stuff is more than good enough.  I think the community has figured that out by now after going through a few patches of little dyna campaign activity.  Bottom-line, it wasn't until SGODev started up again in conjuction with the GW dyna series that things started to move meaningfully in OP dynas.

3) Last but not least: the game is old beyond belief.  If there was no disengagement rule the game would have died and D2.net may not have had a raison d'etre to exist.  The scripters would have no reason to make new missions or update the old ones.  Everyone would just hang out on GSA for weekend party IP games.

I can roughly accept this assesment, I just don't agree that the lack of a disengagement rule would have killed the D2. There are other solutions that actually encourage PvP, not discourage it. Also, as I have expressed, the D2 is a much better environment for PvP than GSA, it adds meaning and variability to the matches and avoids the politics that leave some players out in the cold on GSA. Simlilarly, allowing fleets would add additional variability and realism to the game in my view, and make much of the current rules issues moot. Unlike some claim, allowing fleets does not force everyone to fly them, there are times and places to fly a single ship or a fleet, each have their own advantages (but that is another issue, though not entirely unrelated).

[C-Los]

BTW....#12

I agree with completely....

[Kroma BaSyl]

I just don't agree that the lack of a disengagement rule would have killed the D2. There are other solutions that actually encourage PvP, not discourage it. Also, as I have expressed, the D2 is a much better environment for PvP than GSA, it adds meaning and variability to the matches and avoids the politics that leave some players out in the cold on GSA.

I feel that it is the disengagement rule that gives D2 PvP that very meaning now. In the past PvP in the D2 just seemed like a sideshow to me, although still a fun one as compaired to some of the PvP in GSA as you mention.

Simlilarly, allowing fleets would add additional variability and realism to the game in my view, and make much of the current rules issues moot. Unlike some claim, allowing fleets does not force everyone to fly them, there are times and places to fly a single ship or a fleet, each have their own advantages (but that is another issue, though not entirely unrelated).

I would love to see fleets back in vogue. With a GZ like PBR (patrol battle rules) even 3 ship fleets of CA or CL class ships and below would be perfectly OK to me.

[Bonk]

BTW....#12

I agree with completely....

No arguement there! (unless the double-fire bug is at play...)

[Kroma BaSyl]

BTW....#12

I agree with completely....

No arguement there! (unless the double-fire bug is at play...)

Or your opponent is a starcastling tw*t.