Topic: 11 & 12 none contentious ?

[Bonk]

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.

I can live with the disengagement rule, I just don't like it or agree with it's goals and implementation. I understand its significance from the Gorn perspective where it adds meaning to PvP, but I still think it discourages PvP overall and is way too open to abuse.

[Bonk]

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. 

  ...but a starcastling Fed facing a skilled Gorn is dead meat as I see it. (or have I misundersood?)

[Gook]

Good arguments for and against. I have to say I'm suprised. But given the choice I'd do without it, I think as does Bonk with the numbers, especially in off peak times, being driven off for an hour from a hot spot, when you only have an hour to play can be very off putting, especially if you don't fly the usual <insert heavy FOM for race X>.

[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. 

  ...but a starcastling Fed facing a skilled Gorn is dead meat as I see it. (or have I misundersood?)

Just something I was called while flying Hydran on GW2, just before my opponent broke rule number #12.

[Mog]

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.

First mission I was drafted by 2 Kzinti. One in a CVS, and one in a DF+. A convoy raid, I believe. I captured the DF+ (still don't know how Soreyes escaped to command another ship ) and chased the CVS off. Meanwhile, the others would have been assaulting the base and possibly getting long missions. I am not sure, but all I know is that I was getting cussed to hell on their Teamspeak and I was having a ball, possibly my most enjoyable session ever.

As for how realistic it is for 1 ship to fend off seven, maybe I'm a legendary captain, a la Kosnett, Kumerian etc ? Certainly, it could be said that my opponents were a bit intimidated by me and my ship, and thus weren't very aggressive in their battle plans (I hope this doesn't sound like I'm blowing my own trumpet - prolly does). If I'd faced all 7 at once, in the same mission, undoubtedly I would not have won, but because it was a series of engagements I had a chance, and I don't think that is unrealistic at all (consider that I was not the only defender of the sector - ai involved in the other missions).

Funny you should mention a DN. The last engagement found me in another convoy raid, facing a player CVS and an AI F-DN (what the Feds were doing there I still don't know to this day). I captured both ships in that one. As for facing a human DN, I'd most likely have been forced to disengage or die, but stranger things have happened (I felt very lucky that night).

I didn't log off straight away after driving them off. I ran missions to boost the defences back up, staying in the area to chase them away when they could return.

I do see your point about using a DN to secure several sectors in a short space of time, and think that you have a good point in that maybe the victor should stay in the hex they won in for a similar amount of time, but, if that hex is maxed out in DV, what would be the point - you'd have a player sat there twiddling his thumbs/claws.

As the one who suggested that if you lose your ship or are captured then you have to make a new character in one of Gook's other threads (easily done by changing the capitalisation of a character in your login email address), I'm glad to see someone else take notice of it and even approve of it. I'd like to see that tried in a campaign to see if it's a viable (and more realistic) alternative.  

[Bonk]

Mog is my hero! Captured a DF and chased off a CVS, in a Lyran CL! Probably rip-snortin stoned too! 
(seriously, not being sarcastic here...) No harm in tooting your own horn, not like you're Dizzy or anything.. (God love 'im)

I just don't see the disengagement rule as the cut-and-dried solution that many do. I'm glad to see someone else interested in exploring other solutions to the complicated issues involved, and acknowledge the potential problems of the curernt rule.

Thanks for the opportunity to ramble on this Gook.

[Lepton]

I have to agree with almost everything Kroma has said.  It is way too easy to avoid being drafted.  Once drafted, the disengagement rule makes the confrontation mean something as there is a definitive outcome.  Little hex flippers should not be able to dodge the heavy iron in a hex, but this is the consequence of the D2 system.  In the D3, you may choose whom you attack directly.  That was a significant improvement to me as you could see exactly who is in the hex and who is attacking whom.  D2 drafting is too much of a crapshoot.  The disengagement rule makes PvP count in a major way.  People can still run missions under you, but at least this one bloak won't be back.  Need we all be reminded of Gook's strategy manifesto that he posted that claimed PvP to be totally meaningless and useless.  The disengagement rule has changed that, not enough to my mind, but still it is better than it used to be.

[Mog]

Stoned? Moi? Never For some reason, I fly much better in that state.

Digression aside, I'm trying to think of other alternatives without it getting too complex. Let's start by examining what the rule is/does.

Basically, the disengagement rule is akin to gaining air superiority so that the ground troops can work on overoming the defences. The defences, in this game, mostly being ai. What it does then is allow the side victorious in battle to fight ai relatively unmolested by the other side. It gives a more meaningful role to those races that don't excel at hex-flipping, but are more suited to pvp. It makes a campaign more about racial teamwork.

Hmm, perhaps what needs to be looked at is the time involved in the banning from the hex. Perhaps, an hour is too long. There again, I find myself going back to this:

"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..."

But, then again, that does nothing to prevent a fleeing opponent returning almost immediately and avoiding the defender(s) to out-mission them. Back to square one. (Hmm, think I'm rambling here, need a joint lol).

Back to the time question. Would half an hour be sufficient penalty? I guess, if we had more players online at any given time, the lack of pvp hexes would be moot.

Hmm, don't think much of the above makes much sense but after typing all that I'm not going to delete it and start again lol. Hopefully someone will make sense of it.

[Kroma BaSyl]

"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..."

Probably because I am not "currently" stoned, but I am having a hard time understanding 'what' exactly this would do about the irritating-mosquito" factor, since even with a brand new account the player can by another hex flipper right off the bat. This basically just makes the disengagement penalty a 5-10 minute one as the player creates a new account and orders a new ship.

[Mog]

Aye Kroma, I kinda came to that conclusion myself in the next paragraph, lol. I can't really see a viable alternative yet. All I can think of, to make it less of a game spoiler to the casual player who wants pvp, is to reduce the time penalty to say 30 minutes.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Aye Kroma, I kinda came to that conclusion myself in the next paragraph, lol. I can't really see a viable alternative yet. All I can think of, to make it less of a game spoiler to the casual player who wants pvp, is to reduce the time penalty to say 30 minutes.

Yeah, I saw that you came to that conclusion, was wondering what the original idea as to it's effect was though.

Going to 30 minutes might not be a bad idea. It even kind of simulates the stay and defend idea posted above. As the DN guarding the hex won't be able to stray since 30 minutes is barely 1 or 2 missions for some races.

[Bonk]

..It is way too easy to avoid being drafted.  Once drafted, the disengagement rule makes the confrontation mean something as there is a definitive outcome.  Little hex flippers should not be able to dodge the heavy iron in a hex, but this is the consequence of the D2 system...

That is not my concern at all, my concern is being denied participation in anything significant because you do not have a big ship for whatever reason. As a player in a small ship I do not want to dodge drafts, I'm looking for them! I thought you were one of the people interested in seeing a decrease of AI battles... the disengagement rule only serves to discourage PvP and encourage endless AI battles to bank PP, or because you have been banned from all the active hexes...

[Bonk]

"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..."

Probably because I am not "currently" stoned, but I am having a hard time understanding 'what' exactly this would do about the irritating-mosquito" factor, since even with a brand new account the player can by another hex flipper right off the bat. This basically just makes the disengagement penalty a 5-10 minute one as the player creates a new account and orders a new ship.

Not if you start in a frigate with 300PP...

If that is not good enough then how about a three-strikes disengagement rule?

I sill like the idea of requiring the victor to stay in the hex the other player was banned from, in order to enforce the idea of a large ship protecting a strategic hex instead of just running players off the map or server one hex at a time...  So what if the hex's DV is maxed out, he's there to defend it... but this is rarely the case usually the DN comes in just as you are about to flip their hex, bans you from it then moves on to do the same to more players in more hexes.... thrilling PvP there... 

[Kroma BaSyl]

..It is way too easy to avoid being drafted.  Once drafted, the disengagement rule makes the confrontation mean something as there is a definitive outcome.  Little hex flippers should not be able to dodge the heavy iron in a hex, but this is the consequence of the D2 system...

That is not my concern at all, my concern is being denied participation in anything significant because you do not have a big ship for whatever reason. As a player in a small ship I do not want to dodge drafts, I'm looking for them! I thought you were one of the people interested in seeing a decrease of AI battles... the disengagement rule only serves to discourage PvP and encourage endless AI battles to bank PP, or because you have been banned from all the active hexes...

You are confusing "a decrease in AI battles" with "a decrease in the importance of AI battles on the outcome of the campaign".  The disengagement rule wasn't designed to increase the number of PvP battles, it was designed to increase their strategic importance. While I see the potential unintended consequences you outlined on a server like LB5 that was unbalanced, in reducing PvP for you in a small ship, it just hasn't been my experience flying a small ship on other servers with the disengagement rule. I have always been able to find another active hex to get kicked around in.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Not if you start in a frigate with 300PP...

Wait a minute, aren't you the guy trying to make the game more accessible to casual players?

What do you think about lowering the time to 30 minutes. Starting to sound like a better idea to me. Thus by the time you get banned from the second active hex you are just about ready to come back to the first. Does require the DN to stay close to the hex he is defending, without the draw backs associated with having to remain in the hex only.

[Bonk]

Still accessible to casual players; the nutters will have the same hill to climb regardless of the starting point, and destroying a large ship would have some meaning as the nutter with the 200K PP account is forced to start again, as opposed to just buying a new CVA, it can be argued that this does indeed favour the casual player!


in reply to the previous post:

I'll give you that, which means that balance is critical if the disengagement rule is to be used, but balance has been very difficult to achieve with all the fleet politics and all...

Bottom line for me is that I had way more fun and even PvP battles on the D2 before the disengagement rule that allows DNs to monopolize many hexes at once...

Insignificant hex munching and PP banking is OK I guess, but some players will have none of it.

If I have to live with the disengagement rule I'd like to see one or more of the following implemented:
1) The victor must remain in the hex the defeated player is banned from for a length of time equal to the ban (or the disengagement rule is way too open to the kind of abuse I have observed)
2) Perhaps change it to a three-strikes disengagement rule.
3) Force player registration like the RT series.

[Mog]

Thing is, Bonk, 2 players in CLs can take out a DN. One occasion I remember is on IDSL, Doggy and I in D5Cs v Fluffy's obligatory CVA. If he hadn't dropped he'd have either died or been forced to disengage. I miss the Doggy amd Moggy show

I do like the idea of lose your ship, start from scratch but I seriously doubt it will have many fans (maybe just us 2 lol). It just doesn't make sense to me to have lost 20 odd ships and still be able to get into another biggy. Separate point though.

I think lowering the time penalty will make the disengagement rule more palatable for casual players, and, like Kroma said, will mean the opposition will need to keep their bigger ships in the area for longer, cutting down on the chance that they can do what you fear. Worth a try at least.

[Lepton]

..It is way too easy to avoid being drafted.  Once drafted, the disengagement rule makes the confrontation mean something as there is a definitive outcome.  Little hex flippers should not be able to dodge the heavy iron in a hex, but this is the consequence of the D2 system...

That is not my concern at all, my concern is being denied participation in anything significant because you do not have a big ship for whatever reason. As a player in a small ship I do not want to dodge drafts, I'm looking for them! I thought you were one of the people interested in seeing a decrease of AI battles... the disengagement rule only serves to discourage PvP and encourage endless AI battles to bank PP, or because you have been banned from all the active hexes...

While it certainly is my perception that the D2 is an endless parade of AI missions, it is not my impression that those AI battles are in pursuit of PP banks.  It's just what happens when one flies alot of missions on the D2.  It sounds more to me as if you want PvP but are in too small of a ship to be effective.  I hardly play on servers and I usually manage to get into a CA at least.  I also think starting ships are hardly frigates any more.  CLs and sometimes even CAs. 

I applaud your desire to be involved and I see your perspective on how the disengagement rule might reduce PvP of one kind, that kind being useless missions that tie folks up for no consequence.  The rule on the D2 is hex-flipping.  Most people would rather run missions under folks than encounter live prey.  The disengagement rule is a mere stop gap to the hex-flipppers.  I'm glad you want PvP.  Perhaps,we just need larger starting ships to get the causal players involved immediately in the goings-on.  That I have no problem with.

[Gook]

I have to say being busted to an FF is a good idea. Lose any ship IRL and you are unlikely to get another command, (unless its something truly heroic for a good reason). I have reservations about acceptance, however.

Shorter elimination periods would be better(than present), so would 3 strikes and out ( I quite like that).

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

[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.