Topic: 11 & 12 none contentious ?  (Read 63443 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Kroma BaSyl

  • Romulan Tart
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2276
  • Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #100 on: August 04, 2004, 12:18:06 pm »


Losing your ship is not a good enough penalty?


Exactly, the cost of another DF+ is inconsequencial to  even the casual player.

Quote

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


They aren't removed from play though, just from that one hex, and your experience on LB5 aside, there are usually other hot hexes (NOT hot Hexxs) to go play in. Thus by lowering the ban time to 30-40 minutes, even if you then get banned from the second hex you will be about ready to re-enter the first.

Quote

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

Maybe, but not over this issue, as a change as drastic as that would have other consequences for game play that would need to be closely examined.
♥ ♥ ♥  GDA Kroma BaSyl  ♥ ♥ ♥
GCS Prima Ballerina
GCS PHAT Gorn
GCS Queen Kroma


Because this game makes me feel like  a thirteen year old girl trapped in a lizards body.

Offline Bonk

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13298
  • You don't have to live like a refugee.
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #101 on: August 04, 2004, 12:33:56 pm »
I'm definitely for reducing the time, or other modifications to the rule (like drb's suggestion?), or a three strikes deal... something to that effect.

I agree, making the map all low DV is drastic and would change the gameplay but I think it is worthy of exploration.

Offline Gook

  • Catbert
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 405
  • Gender: Male
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #102 on: August 04, 2004, 12:48:33 pm »


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.

I understand it perfectly, it allows those who only want to fly one big ship to joust the night away, with the luxury of not really having to do anything until such time as a "worthy" opponent turns up. Everybody else "can get outta Dodge" , or in this case the hex in question.

Again it's a question of whether you want to regulate or not. If you really wanted to, you to could jump into a fast flipper and counter what the flipper was doing to you. Disenagaement just allows you to be lazy in one ship all the time. Now some will say BORING (to counter flipping), but just sitting around for an hour waiting for another ship to turn up is boring to some to, some actually fly none command cruisers, nothing wrong with either way of playing, all legal and legit, but one player gets penalised for up to an hour for playing the legal way he wants, just to pander to another players preferences. That is not good.

As for draft radius being increased, I would have thought the "meaningful" PvP crowd would have liked it, but of course not, as that would interfere with the joust and the show must go on.
KAT-Gook, OBS,OoW,MTA,SoK.
KAT-Fleet
Kzinti Hegemony

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



Offline Bonk

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13298
  • You don't have to live like a refugee.
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #103 on: August 04, 2004, 12:50:04 pm »


Losing your ship is not a good enough penalty?


Exactly, the cost of another DF+ is inconsequencial to  even the casual player.


Hmmm, I'm looking at:

PrestigeModiferOnShipGrant   = -100
DeathShipBPVPenalty         = .75

in the Ship.gf in the serverkit and thinking evil thoughts like:

PrestigeModiferOnShipGrant   = -10000
DeathShipBPVPenalty         = .25

Can the kit handle a negative PP though or will it just go to zero? I may test this out to find out.


edit:
Quote
I understand it perfectly, it allows those who only want to fly one big ship to joust the night away, with the luxury of not really having to do anything until such time as a "worthy" opponent turns up. Everybody else "can get outta Dodge" , or in this case the hex in question.

I feel much the same way Gook.

Offline Kroma BaSyl

  • Romulan Tart
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2276
  • Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #104 on: August 04, 2004, 01:03:01 pm »



I understand it perfectly, it allows those who only want to fly one big ship to joust the night away, with the luxury of not really having to do anything until such time as a "worthy" opponent turns up. Everybody else "can get outta Dodge" , or in this case the hex in question.


Ahhhh...so you really don't understand it then.

Quote
Again it's a question of whether you want to regulate or not. If you really wanted to, you to could jump into a fast flipper and counter what the flipper was doing to you.

What Gorn hex flipper am I suppose to jump in to counter that drone destroyer again?

Quote
Disenagaement just allows you to be lazy in one ship all the time. Now some will say BORING (to counter flipping), but just sitting around for an hour waiting for another ship to turn up is boring to some to, some actually fly none command cruisers, nothing wrong with either way of playing, all legal and legit, but one player gets penalised for up to an hour for playing the legal way he wants, just to pander to another players preferences. That is not good.

He only gets penalised if he loses, as it should be.

Quote
As for draft radius being increased, I would have thought the "meaningful" PvP crowd would have liked it, but of course not, as that would interfere with the joust and the show must go on.

Once again I don't follow the logic of your conclusions or your premise that increasing the draft radius has any effect on the meaningfulness of the PvP encounter.
♥ ♥ ♥  GDA Kroma BaSyl  ♥ ♥ ♥
GCS Prima Ballerina
GCS PHAT Gorn
GCS Queen Kroma


Because this game makes me feel like  a thirteen year old girl trapped in a lizards body.

Offline Lepton

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1620
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #105 on: August 04, 2004, 01:03:15 pm »
Gook,

Your perspective is bizzare.  You expect everyone to play your hex-flipping game by saying things like that people can switch off ships and counter the hex-flippers action with their own boring repetitive mission running.  That is not what people who like PvP want to do.  They want to be in a decent PvP ship and to have that PvP mean something hence the disengagement rule.  You have absolutely no idea what people with command cruiser are doing on servers.  You just make sh** up that supports your position and from your addled memory of servers past.

Hex-flippers are not meant to set the standard of how the D2 is played yet you expect people to act as they act.  The disengagement rule gives people another option and makes player encounters meaningful.  I guarantee you that if you try to kill the disengagement rule you will see people quit this game en masse.  You continue to demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about and are only concerned with advancing your agenda at the peril of the community. :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:


System Specs:

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

Offline SPQR Renegade

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #106 on: August 04, 2004, 01:15:59 pm »

If you really wanted to, you to could jump into a fast flipper and counter what the flipper was doing to you.

Damn, how silly of me not to think of that myself. I could always jump into a small hex flipper to counter the other guys hex flipper <smacks head>. Lets see, the SparrowHawk-J has tons of mojo for an NCL, lets try that! Oh man, that thing draws cruisers and doesn't have the power to even arm and get there in 3 min... Lets see... Oh the KE4R is a nice little ship, lets try that! Doh! 2 Plas-Fs aren't enough firepower to kill much of anything in one pass... Maybe a KE can do the job. Nope. Sea-L? Nope. KFR? Nope. ad nausium.

Don't you think we might have tried that? Short of PFs, there are no plasma based ships that have the damage/turn/BPV ratio of a drone based ship. Until there is one, the plasma races cannot fight fire with fire against the hex-flippers and MUST resort to other tactics or loose. Peroid.

Offline Mog

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 610
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #107 on: August 04, 2004, 01:34:55 pm »
Gook, in case you missed it:

"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."

I am fed up to the back teeth of your snide jousting remarks, when it's been proven to you time and again that not all of us who believe in the rule a) fly the big ships, and b) believe that only equal sized opponents are worthy of engaging.

D2 nowadays has something for everyone. Pvpers and hex-flippers both have their place, working together. In the past, as you so clearly showed with Sockfoot's campaign guide, pvpers had no real place. In fact, according to that, we were a burden, as we weren't always killing ai.

By lowering the time penalty for losing a fight, I think that makes it even better than what it was before. Also, the reverse of this: "If you really wanted to, you to could jump into a fast flipper and counter what the flipper was doing to you." applies to the hex-flippers too.

You call us pvpers "lazy". Why are we lazy? I've done the death drag droner thing many , many times. It's mind-numbing. It's simple. A pvp battle, where a strategic target depends on you winning that battle requires intense concentration and cleverness. It is far from lazy. I take that as an insult. Thing is, both types of play are needed on the D2 nowadays. Can you accept that?


Merriment is All

Fear the Meow!

Offline Mog

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 610
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #108 on: August 04, 2004, 01:43:49 pm »

If you really wanted to, you to could jump into a fast flipper and counter what the flipper was doing to you.

Damn, how silly of me not to think of that myself. I could always jump into a small hex flipper to counter the other guys hex flipper <smacks head>. Lets see, the SparrowHawk-J has tons of mojo for an NCL, lets try that! Oh man, that thing draws cruisers and doesn't have the power to even arm and get there in 3 min... Lets see... Oh the KE4R is a nice little ship, lets try that! Doh! 2 Plas-Fs aren't enough firepower to kill much of anything in one pass... Maybe a KE can do the job. Nope. Sea-L? Nope. KFR? Nope. ad nausium.

Don't you think we might have tried that? Short of PFs, there are no plasma based ships that have the damage/turn/BPV ratio of a drone based ship. Until there is one, the plasma races cannot fight fire with fire against the hex-flippers and MUST resort to other tactics or loose. Peroid.

Ren, Gook, sadly, is only looking at this from the Kzinti perspective. I would even hazard a guess that he isn't aware that non-drone using races don't have frigates that can put out 144 damage per turn without using power. Don't give me that "but drones are so eaily defeated in many ways" argument. When it comes to ai, that means bugger all and you know it, Gook. The ai in this game is so dumb when it comes to drones that it's a joke.

I suggested long ago, that a simple fix could be done to the ai to markedly improve their survivability. Limit the range that ai use phasers. Stop them firing phaser 3s and Gs outside of range 2, ph2s to no greater than range 5, and ph1s to max of range 8. I would suggest that if the source code does become available, this become a high priority for implementation.
Merriment is All

Fear the Meow!

Offline Laflin

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Gender: Male
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #109 on: August 04, 2004, 02:25:13 pm »
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.

You forgot the E4D  ;D

Offline Laflin

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Gender: Male
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #110 on: August 04, 2004, 02:30:44 pm »
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?

That is a very odd situation - with that number of opponents they should have been able to stagger missions against that hex while you were in pvp.  Very unlike the Kzirak to waste an opportunity like that...must have been free catnip night or something  :P

Offline Gook

  • Catbert
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 405
  • Gender: Male
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #111 on: August 04, 2004, 04:31:17 pm »
Gook, in case you missed it:

"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."

I am fed up to the back teeth of your snide jousting remarks, when it's been proven to you time and again that not all of us who believe in the rule a) fly the big ships, and b) believe that only equal sized opponents are worthy of engaging.

D2 nowadays has something for everyone. Pvpers and hex-flippers both have their place, working together. In the past, as you so clearly showed with Sockfoot's campaign guide, pvpers had no real place. In fact, according to that, we were a burden, as we weren't always killing ai.

By lowering the time penalty for losing a fight, I think that makes it even better than what it was before. Also, the reverse of this: "If you really wanted to, you to could jump into a fast flipper and counter what the flipper was doing to you." applies to the hex-flippers too.

You call us pvpers "lazy". Why are we lazy? I've done the death drag droner thing many , many times. It's mind-numbing. It's simple. A pvp battle, where a strategic target depends on you winning that battle requires intense concentration and cleverness. It is far from lazy. I take that as an insult. Thing is, both types of play are needed on the D2 nowadays. Can you accept that?




We all have an opinion, and I'm as tired of your line as you are of mine. That being said both are valid stances and the horns of the dilemma we face.

I get banned for an hour in a flipper so the jouster doesn't have to chase me about. Now that may seem equitable to you but it doesn't to me. It seems to favour one style of play over another, but again that's opinion.

I either change my style of play to suit yours, or I am marginalised in a potentially crucial area, may seem just to you, does not to me, but that's an opinion.

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

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



Offline Cleaven

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 375
  • Gender: Male
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #112 on: August 04, 2004, 05:01:14 pm »


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.

I understand it perfectly, it allows those who only want to fly one big ship to joust the night away, with the luxury of not really having to do anything until such time as a "worthy" opponent turns up. Everybody else "can get outta Dodge" , or in this case the hex in question.

Again it's a question of whether you want to regulate or not. If you really wanted to, you to could jump into a fast flipper and counter what the flipper was doing to you. Disenagaement just allows you to be lazy in one ship all the time. Now some will say BORING (to counter flipping), but just sitting around for an hour waiting for another ship to turn up is boring to some to, some actually fly none command cruisers, nothing wrong with either way of playing, all legal and legit, but one player gets penalised for up to an hour for playing the legal way he wants, just to pander to another players preferences. That is not good.

As for draft radius being increased, I would have thought the "meaningful" PvP crowd would have liked it, but of course not, as that would interfere with the joust and the show must go on.


I have never heard such a stupid, out of touch with reality, suggestion. It's taken me 2 days to find a KRC in the shipyard so I can get out of a BH, and then you want me to just give it away so I can get a SNB? or a WE? or a KR? or another BH? Are you serious? Just where are you keeping your brains? Do tell, I'm keen to know?

So now which ship do I get in to do this "fast hex flipping" or are you speaking complete and utter BS because you can't be bothered to get drunk at the pub and speak BS to people who don't give a rat's about what you think. Because that's what we have here, a complete loss of touch with reality, disguised as some sort of care and concern. Well don't bother beating your gums (or keyboard) until you can get reconnected with reality or sober up.

Not sure I can be bothered, but as you are the Doc, can you run an AI standard patrol in 2 minutes in a KRC? If so, there is no problem and I am utterly wrong. If you cannot, then the KRC is a worse ship for AI missions than ones I know can.

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: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #113 on: August 04, 2004, 07:45:52 pm »
Gook, in case you missed it:

"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."

I am fed up to the back teeth of your snide jousting remarks, when it's been proven to you time and again that not all of us who believe in the rule a) fly the big ships, and b) believe that only equal sized opponents are worthy of engaging.

D2 nowadays has something for everyone. Pvpers and hex-flippers both have their place, working together. In the past, as you so clearly showed with Sockfoot's campaign guide, pvpers had no real place. In fact, according to that, we were a burden, as we weren't always killing ai.

By lowering the time penalty for losing a fight, I think that makes it even better than what it was before. Also, the reverse of this: "If you really wanted to, you to could jump into a fast flipper and counter what the flipper was doing to you." applies to the hex-flippers too.

You call us pvpers "lazy". Why are we lazy? I've done the death drag droner thing many , many times. It's mind-numbing. It's simple. A pvp battle, where a strategic target depends on you winning that battle requires intense concentration and cleverness. It is far from lazy. I take that as an insult. Thing is, both types of play are needed on the D2 nowadays. Can you accept that?




We all have an opinion, and I'm as tired of your line as you are of mine. That being said both are valid stances and the horns of the dilemma we face.

I get banned for an hour in a flipper so the jouster doesn't have to chase me about. Now that may seem equitable to you but it doesn't to me. It seems to favour one style of play over another, but again that's opinion.

I either change my style of play to suit yours, or I am marginalised in a potentially crucial area, may seem just to you, does not to me, but that's an opinion.



:soap:

Don't like it when the shoe's on your foot, but you're willing to stuff it on someone elses?

While you're complaining about "being marginalized" by a "jousting" PvP player, you're also advocating that everyone should fly ships that have only one purpose on the server, which is to run missions in the shortest possible time to make the DV move in the player's favor the fastest.

:rant:
From the sounds of this comment, combined with the other comments made so far, you sound like you're not happy unless you're given free reign to run sub-2 minute missions in a hex repeatedly till it turns your color.  Anything which interrupts this holy quest, is a distraction.  If you are forced into PvP, you want to be able to completely annihilate, or at least seriously cripple, another player's ship in one salvo with a fleet solely under your control.  Especially if you're crippling a ship that costs 5 times the amount of money your entire fleet does.
:rant:

If I wanted to play that game, I'd be Mirak.  Guess what, I'm still ISC, after all the attempts by the "vocal droner" crowd, and the prior conditions, to marginalize me.

D2 is a "mission matching generator", or at least according to what was advertised lo so many years ago.  And these missions should be worth more than a 5-minute delay (after being drafted, getting into the run, taco-belling, and finally hex-hopping to try again.  They should be worth more than my 15k PP ship blowing up your 5k ship.  Too bad Taldren, in their haste to get the game to work, couldn't make it happen.
Or at least too bad for me, in my Plasma ship, as you get what you want.  The ability to make the "biggest" impact on what counts according to Taldren's released design, which is the fastest ability to move the DV in your direction.

I'll admit, the Disengagement rule was written to make these D2 "matched" missions worth something more than the original content.  And I view it as a bitter pill, while it makes plasma worth flying somewhat, it comes at the cost of affecting droners.  I saw the effect the attempts to make Plasma worth-while have had on the Mirak.  I recall the days when KAT and KOTH were a 30+ person fleet that was a force for any team to reckon with.  Too bad that at that same time we were lucky that the entire Plasma-contingent (Rommie, Gorn and ISC) were equal to the size of the Mirak.

Now, here's the deal.  These threads can be used to search out compromises that would allow both plasma and droner the ability to have fun on a server, with associated, and balanced, costs to both sides.

As long as both sides recognize that things do have to change, and are willing to take penalties along with the gains.

Be honest with me.  Are your 72 or 144 point of damage a turn Mirak DFs or DWs significantly (I mean more than 1 minute or 2 rounds) slown down against a DD or CL instead of a FF?  And, would your hex filp times change significantly (on the order of needing one additional pilot for a full hour), if your missions were increased by 30 seconds each but the requirement for resupply every mission or 2 in a "hot" area (where you need all your drones in case of a PvP) is removed?

After years of being on the short end of the stick, as it were, according to Taldren's "stock" design (ie, my race is not optimized to flip hexes the fastest, and even if I did engage and destroy the fastest hex-fliipper their loss is best termed Marginal, as they can be back in their original state within an hour or 2, while a loss of a ship that can even remotely compete on the hex-flip side often costs me close to a day's work) , I face a situation where my continued enjoyment, and willingness to stay here, nevermind reason for me to be here, is dependent on certain steps, not necessarily my steps, being taken to insure that I have a reason to be here, and that I play on the most level playing field we can provide within the limitations of the game, it's source, and what we can manipulate within it.  And I want these steps to preserve the core fundamentals of the ISC (ie, the biggest bunch of barbarian-ship @$$-whoppers in the game, that can find and engage in a combat that means something more than a short delay to the opponent), not make me a Mirak-clone in a blue hull saying "ribbit" instead of "meow".

I have been patient.  I am remaining patient as long as I humanly can.  Yet the fact that I am here on a soapbox ranting reminds me that, in the overall scheme of things, my patience is wearing quite thin.  I feel that I am still capable of comprimizing, and maintaining an overall (hopefully) fair sense of balance.  I realize that certain avenues won't accomplish my wishes, but can still "balance" the game.  If, when all is said and done, the game is balanced, but I cannot stand the balance, probably because I am not an ISC pilot anymore but something that only looks like an ISC pilot, then I will gladly, but solemnly, leave.

I still hold out hope that, when the dust settles, the (returned) KAT / KOTH fleets can still flip a hex unapposed in less than an hour, but if the resurgent Plasma forces do manage to catch some of these kitties, they're out a little more than 4 DV points and 2 hours of PP...  (losses figured as the DV point lost in the death mission, 2 un-run missions waiting for the replacement flipper to be purchased and outfitted, and the 1 mission run by the victor in the loser's absence.  At approx. 300 PP a mission, 5000 gross PP is earned in approx. 17 missions, which can be run on average (assuming a 2:00 mission) within 34 minutes, with additional time being spent travelling to resupply points, returning to the hex in question, and suffering through the briefing screen and load times.  It is theorized by me that 5000 net PP can be easily earned within this time if certain cost-saving measures (ie, relying more on stock reloads or cheaper munitions rather than buying expensive drones every mission, resupplying every 2nd or 3rd mission in quieter areas, being right on top of a supply point instead of a few hexes off, etc. are in use.)

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

el-Karnak

  • Guest
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #114 on: August 04, 2004, 08:43:24 pm »
Quote
If I wanted to play that game, I'd be Mirak.  Guess what, I'm still ISC, after all the attempts by the "vocal droner" crowd, and the prior conditions, to marginalize me.

:goodpost: :multi: What he said!!  :multi: :goodpost:
:multi: I AM AN ISC PILOT :multi:
  Not an Frogo-Mirak >:( OR a Klingo-Mirak >:( OR a Fedo-Mirak  >:(  OR a Gorno-Mirak  >:(  OR a Rommie-o-Mirak >:( OR a Lyrano-Mirak >:( OR a Hydra-farto-Mirak  >:(  Pilot

Offline KAT Chuut-Ritt

  • Vice Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 26163
  • Gender: Male
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #115 on: August 05, 2004, 12:10:52 am »
Sorry Gook but I don't back you on this one.  I like the disengagement rule as long as there is a 0 draft radius.  If you can't field a ship that can compete wingmen are often available, and superior teamwork in 2 inferior ships can often prevail against 2 opponents in superior ships.  True it can be an uphill battle but all the more rewarding as such.

Hell I've managed to defeat 2 Klingons in D7C's in my lone CC in CW 1, likely I'll never pull it off again, but sometimes fate just smiles on ya when you fight long odds.

I will say as far as mission times however, although the Kzin have some of the fastest, they are not so far ahead of the pack as some would believe.  One of the reasons has been the Kzin willingness to fly the ship for the job, sometimes going big, sometimes going small.  Many of the other races, (Especially plasma chuckers in my experience )  have been more reluctant to switch out of their p v p hulls and thus often suffer for it in someways.  Some help for early era plasma chuckers may be warranted however, as they really do have limited options then.

Now on GW3 the map is small, and this will be to the liking of the p v p ers, well so be it.  It wont be the standard size map for all future servers, so don't sweat it too bad, its just 1 server.  Besides, as you and I both know, we will devise new ways to make use of the tools at hand even in a disadvantageous situation, always have always will.  Now should small maps and trench warfare become a majority of server setups, I'll be more willing to back you to a greater degree.

I also advocate a slot system to be considered for more future servers so we don't have to see those in BCHs and DNs driving all others off from 1 hex to the next in trench warfare.  I've heard this complained about by many.  Maybe even a fighter free area for Moggy who gets as wound up about figthers as you do about disengagement rules. 

Offline Cleaven

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 375
  • Gender: Male
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #116 on: August 05, 2004, 01:07:32 am »
... 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 missed this earlier, so could you please explain how the fast AI optimised ship captain loses his ship? And even if he lost his ship it wouldn't be a penalty when you consider some of the prices those boats cost. Nope most of the time you see the situation you've already described for your own conduct. You'd have a go to see if you are facing a fool in a big ship, decide you are not and leave. You have lost nothing except a DV shift of one, which you can get back in 5 min or so.

Not sure I can be bothered, but as you are the Doc, can you run an AI standard patrol in 2 minutes in a KRC? If so, there is no problem and I am utterly wrong. If you cannot, then the KRC is a worse ship for AI missions than ones I know can.

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #117 on: August 05, 2004, 01:22:04 am »
I'm curious Chuut. Just exactly which plasma ship (of any size) can put out 144 points of damage every turn to get "plasma chuckers" out of their "PvP" hulls? Plasma players must fly a CL at the lightest to get reasonable mission times and that is using every trick in the book to speed up the mission. Destroyers and Frigates just don't have the firepower and the charging speed to do fast missions on par with a six rack DF.

Offline KAT Chuut-Ritt

  • Vice Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 26163
  • Gender: Male
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #118 on: August 05, 2004, 01:52:25 am »
I'm curious Chuut. Just exactly which plasma ship (of any size) can put out 144 points of damage every turn to get "plasma chuckers" out of their "PvP" hulls? Plasma players must fly a CL at the lightest to get reasonable mission times and that is using every trick in the book to speed up the mission. Destroyers and Frigates just don't have the firepower and the charging speed to do fast missions on par with a six rack DF.

Never said your mission times could be the same Corbo, just that you had ships that were lighter tht could run faster than your best p v p ships, as you yourself have often stated.  Not everyone is is quick as you are to use the right ship for the job however.

Offline Mog

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 610
Re: 11 & 12 none contentious ?
« Reply #119 on: August 05, 2004, 02:06:45 am »
Corb, didn't you see Gook's post where he recommended a ship for the Roms, Gorn and ISC that are pretty fast at missions?

R-SphG, G-COM and I-CLG. Problem sorted.

Well, apart from the fact that commando ships have been restricted from play for quite some time now, for whatever reason (was it because of the D6G?).

Chuut, a fighter-free area sounds jubbly :)

I think there could be a way to remove the disengagement rule, without having the plasma races disadvantaged as of old. Cleaven first suggested this many moons ago. Give a greater DV shift for a pvp mission (SQL required?).

Merriment is All

Fear the Meow!