Topic: 11 & 12 none contentious ?

[Cleaven]

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.

Actually it sounds like a justification to do it. That scouting intelligence must be worth something and a more stable server would be an added bonus. Never did like the idea of people getting strategic advantages for free.

[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.

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?

For a moment I was worried and thought you werent making any sense, but I get what you're saying, and no, of course not. I imagine most players take a similarly realistic approach by now, so I consider the value of the disengagement rule overestimated... and of course we must still consider new players even at this point.

[Bonk]

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.

Actually it sounds like a justification to do it. That scouting intelligence must be worth something and a more stable server would be an added bonus. Never did like the idea of people getting strategic advantages for free.

It doesen't have to go all the way back up to 15 seconds to reduce the serverload, 5-7 will do. I was thinking only of reducing serverload and not trying to impede movement. A change from 3 to 5 seconds can make a large difference in serverload and not affect movement much, the increase needn't be drastic.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

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.

Actually it sounds like a justification to do it. That scouting intelligence must be worth something and a more stable server would be an added bonus. Never did like the idea of people getting strategic advantages for free.

Me either but I fail to see how its an advantage since anyone can do so, then again it requires 1/2 a brain at least disqualifying some......

[Gook]

If you can have a draft radius of one, and it seems that is possible with a slight delay in movement time, then the argument for the disenagaement rule goes. The hunted player is almost always going to be able to be drafted by the hunters if they are alert, as he will have to move 2 hexes at a slower speed, and so should be caught.

With 1 hex draft radius in hotspots it is sometimes difficult to get out and resupply and fix battle damage which is good. Many times people fight in less than ideal shape, and people would have to weigh up whether the risks were worth taking before entering a hotspot.

The down side is the DN on a hex can be pulled off, allowing ships onto the now undefended hex. (CW5 was when it changed because of this)

On balance the PvP would be better, more players in PvP and multiple PvP. Kzin always used to hunt in packs and use numbers to counter bigger ships.

Can serious consideration be given by admins to this please.

[Cleaven]

Okay, I've got one reason why people may not want admins to consider an increased draft radius, and that is the difficulties of coordinating drafting of allies. I've fought with a draft radius of one and as long as the action is not too intense you can keep order, but once things get busy you can't control who is in drafting radius and who isn't.

That said, I don't accept that increasing the draft radius negates the need for a disengagement rule. In fact I can't see how you made that great leap of deduction because you still have small AI optimised ships running faster AI missions than heavier PvP capable ships.

 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I always understod it that increasing the draft radius made it more likely players would drop in mission.  Is this true?

[Mog]

That was my thinking too, Chuut.

[Cleaven]

I always understod it that increasing the draft radius made it more likely players would drop in mission.  Is this true?

I don't think it should increase the likelyhood of any one individual dropping, but if you now have a greater number of players being drafted into missions I would guess there is now an increased number of unstable missions.

[Gook]

I always understod it that increasing the draft radius made it more likely players would drop in mission.  Is this true?

I don't think it should increase the likelyhood of any one individual dropping, but if you now have a greater number of players being drafted into missions I would guess there is now an increased number of unstable missions.

Yes there probably would be more unstable missions. But on the plus side there would be more PvP missions with more multiple players (in hot spots) and the odd drop from a game is like the fog of war, you never have complete control of the situation and don't know what you are going to get.

As for hunting DSers, Hunting parties in adjacent hexes as well athe hex under attack will be much more likely to pull the DSer as he has to move 2 hexes from where he was DSing to avoid the draft. When drafted he will meet probably more than one opponent. If he leaves he is likely to be drafted again and again until destroyed or chased from the area.

[Cleaven]

How is he going to be chased from the area? He can quite happily move repeatedly between two adjacent hexes, time and time again. In each hex he is drafted and chased off the map where upon he moves to the other hex, succesfully avoiding destruction but keeping a greater number of enemy players busy. 

[Gook]

How is he going to be chased from the area? He can quite happily move repeatedly between two adjacent hexes, time and time again. In each hex he is drafted and chased off the map where upon he moves to the other hex, succesfully avoiding destruction but keeping a greater number of enemy players busy. 

Allways a possibility

[Cleaven]

So what you're saying is that this really isn't an alternative at all.

[Kroma BaSyl]

That said, I don't accept that increasing the draft radius negates the need for a disengagement rule. In fact I can't see how you made that great leap of deduction because you still have small AI optimised ships running faster AI missions than heavier PvP capable ships.

 

My thoughts exactly. I don't think Gook understands why we have the disengagement rule.

[Bonk]

I understand that the main purpose of the disengagement rule is to give meaning to those hour long PvP missions right? (despite what may be happening in the hex while in that long mission)

[Kroma BaSyl]

I understand that the main purpose of the disengagement rule is to give meaning to those hour long PvP missions right? (despite what may be happening in the hex while in that long mission)

Has nothing to do with whether the PvP is long or not. It is there because in the past the only thing you got for defeating a live human was a single DV shift, which basically meant that PvP was next to meaningless to the overall outcome of the campaign, since even if defeated a player in a cheap ship could be right back looking for AI only battles. This meant that due to game mechanics it was possible for an inferior force to command a hex.

[Bonk]

But what if the superior force remains in the hex and keeps winning PP and DV shifts?

As I always understood it you shouldn't expect a hex to be invulnerable to enemy attack if you leave it after winning a mission in it.

[Kroma BaSyl]

But what if the superior force remains in the hex and keeps winning PP and DV shifts?

As I always understood it you shouldn't expect a hex to be invulnerable to enemy attack if you leave it after winning a mission in it.

point is it doesn't necessarily matter if the winner hangs out in the hex as he still might not get drafted by a returning losing player due to game mechanics. The reality is that without the disengagement rule there is no real penalty (cost)  to losing a PvP match. Thus the balance of strategic power always went to the team that was able to fly the most effecient missions against the AI, when they do get into a PvP it is nothing more than minor inconvienence to be ended as quickly as possible so that they could get back to searching for AI only draws.

I actually had several pilot tell me that they were just going to fly off the map at the beginning of a PvP mission as they didn't want to waste time fighting me since it at best would only give them 1 DV shift, and that they could get 10 times that if they consentrated their efforts on AI only draws.

[Bonk]

... The reality is that without the disengagement rule there is no real penalty (cost)  to losing a PvP match.

Losing your ship is not a good enough penalty?

If not, then perhaps we can come up with some penalty other than removing the losing player from play?

I actually had several pilot tell me that they were just going to fly off the map at the beginning of a PvP mission as they didn't want to waste time fighting me since it at best would only give them 1 DV shift, and that they could get 10 times that if they consentrated their efforts on AI only draws.

Sounds to me like we need to get away from these maps with high DVs...

[Kroma BaSyl]

All of that said, I do see your points about some of the draw backs and unindended consequences to casual players in particular server environements (e.g. unbalanced or lightly populated). I also don't think the disengagement rule is likely to be dropped by most admins for those draw backs, as it seems that the majority of pilots think the rule does more good than harm. Being a very pragmatic type I would suggest that the issues you raised might be realisticly mitagated via a modification of the rule, as I think it unlikely there is enough support to scrap it altogether. That is why I think possibly lowering the ban time to 30-40 minutes for kills or disengagements would be a good thing to try.