Topic: 11 & 12 none contentious ?

[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 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.

I've lost a hex flipper by trying to catch a DN pilot sleeping. If he's quick he'll not only not take the drones on the nose but give you a whack to slow you down and then chew off your warp in nice big bites as you run away, it can be funny... (most likely to happen in nebula, you need to get close...).

The big ship can raise the DV by one in less than 5 minutes too, he just needs a freindly small ship to draft him...

As you can see I'm exploring options other than the disengagement rule here, I just tested the:
PrestigeModiferOnShipGrant   = -10000
DeathShipBPVPenalty         = .25
lines in the ship.gf and the PrestigeModiferOnShipGrant has no effect at all...  (damn undocumented, unused gf settings... arg! nothing like a black box to keep you guessing...). The DeathShipBPVPenalty does work however.

I'm looking for a way to duplicate the effect of the disengagement rule without removing players from play.All too often now I see players that just lost a PvP simply log off for an hour, never used to see that. Never see players beaten down to a freighter anymore either, that used to be pretty funny...

Have you any ideas to add meaning to PvP that do not require removing players from the game? (no SQL scripting yet...). Dig through those undocumented gfs and see what you can come up with, there has to be something...

Yet more AI battles and players logging off is just not an acceptable solution to me.

[Bonk]

I wonder if people who don't spend long streches of time on a server just don't see the punishment a losing player takes without a disengagement rule.. you can only afford to replace so many ships...

Setting most hexes to a max DV of one is the best solution I have come up with yet it seems, that way a DV shift of one is significant...

[GDA-Agave]

Alright, I've read all the posts and would now like to interject a few thoughts of my own.

First, the disengagement rule is a good thing to me.   I believe there should be consequences from disengaging/being killed in a pvp match.    To me, being able to force the other team's pilots out of a particular hex is good.   Saying that I would like to talk about a few specific points brought up here about the current disengagement rule.

(1) DNs being used to force enemy pilots out of highly contested hexes.   Hey, I have no problem with this.   The DNs should be used in such a fashion.  Does anyone here think that the US will send their aircraft carriers to the areas of the world where they won't have the most impact?  There are ways around letting a DN take over a hex.  Killer packs, go around the hex, etc.  I do see a few ways that we might be able to reduce this complaint in future servers.

Limit the DN (and DN equivalent ships)  more!!

I know we have limited these type ships to a degree, but I don't think we have done it enough.   Whether a server lets you get a DN on mere collection of PP or by a production schedule, we are still seeing a good number of these ships on the server.   Their impact can be devatasting when flown in packs.   This can be very frustrating for part time players when they see all the nutters in these large ships.  I like the idea of limiting each side (NOT EACH RACE) the number of these large ships that can be fielded.   For example, 2 x DNs, 3 x CV, 5 x BCH.  Hey, it's easy to check anytime on the server.

Secondly, make these DN (and equivalents) available to EVERYONE

Here, I'm talking about NOT assigning these type ships, and if possible, pricing these ships so low that even the casual player can jump into one anytime he feels like it.  I think we might all agree that usually the casual player gets screwed out of flying a large ship even if they are assigned.    Doing this, you'll always have the ability to fly up the limit of these DN type ships at any time of the day.   Completely better all the way around here.

(2)  I would like to see the disengagement time penalty reduced.  I think 30 minutes would be about right.  I really understood the point someone made above about "well, what happens if you get run out of a hex for an hour, and you only have an hour to play".  I think WE DO NEED a time penalty, but reducing the time here will help this complaint.  

Now, saying that, I DO THINK the time penalty need to be EQUAL for disengaging as well as being killed.   Sure, you also lose you ship if you get killed, but I have seen the "well, I'll just get killed" tactic used by pilots trying to get back into an important hex because the time penalty was not the same.    This is totally bogus.    Killing a pilot who is not even trying to put up a good fight is defeating my whole purpose of playing on these servers.  (whoa, don't want to get off on that rant, must focus)   Anyway, you get the point.

Again, I do think the disengagement rule is a nice addition.  To me, it gives the PvP pilot more to focus on, and hence, have fun..  Hell, there will always be ton's of ai crunching to do in servers.   If that's your thing, crunch away.   If not, take you ship and fly into the nearest hot zone.  The disengagement time penalty is just extra encouragement to fly well so you can take/defend that important hex.

Just my humble thoughts.  


Agave

[Bonk]

Does anyone here think that the US will send their aircraft carriers to the areas of the world where they won't have the most impact?

But what happens once they leave? Is the area still magically protected?  (just to be a bugger )

[GDA-Agave]

As far as other races having ships that can "hex-flip" at times close to the Mirak.    Sure, the plasma races have 'em, but they are usually much bigger or armed with nasty fighters/PFs.   Until us "plasma chuckers" can get into these type ships the disengagement rule gives us a chance to attempt to force the Mirak on equal fighting terms.

Once we do get into larger ships, it is not our fault that you guys tend to prefer your small "hex-flipping" wonder frigates.   Moggy's BCH variant was certainly a step in the right direction towards giving you guys a very playable large ship.    But, even in the last few servers where that ship was available, I did notice that the majority of the Mirak pilots stayed in there small hex-flippers.

Agave

[Bonk]

Yes, but how does the DN magically protect the hex after it usually immediately leaves after banning the player working on it from the hex?

P.S. I prefer a good CC or BCH but rarely can amass enough PP to buy one... I just go looking for PvP instead of banking PP...

[Mog]

Bonk, if the sector is that important, the "jousters" will stay there till it's secured.

Also, something else I see continually being focussed on in this thread is the idea that all the action is going on in one solitary hex. Is that often the case?

[GDA-Agave]

Does anyone here think that the US will send their aircraft carriers to the areas of the world where they won't have the most impact?

But what happens once they leave? Is the area still magically protected?  (just to be a bugger )

No, lol.  It usually does take the potential enemy a period of time to either recover from getting bombed back into the stoneage, confirm that the carrier is not longer there, or have the balls to do anything anyway.   Then again, maybe they leave the Lucky Charms leprachaun there.   It's magically protected, Hah!

Silly bugger  

[Bonk]

Bonk, if the sector is that important, the "jousters" will stay there till it's secured.

Also, something else I see continually being focussed on in this thread is the idea that all the action is going on in one solitary hex. Is that often the case?

That is not what I observe, often the hex is not that important, but the DN captain knows he can effectively stop enemy progress in just one mission and moves on.

No the action is not in one solitary hex, but because the DN is not required to continue protecting it he can just follow you from hex to hex, banning you from all strategically meaningful hexes.

(Remember someone asking why we were working on planets at the maps edge behind the empire on LB5?)

[Bonk]

It usually does take the potential enemy a period of time to either recover from getting bombed back into the stoneage, confirm that the carrier is not longer there, or have the balls to do anything anyway.

Good point.

[GDA-Agave]

Bonk, if the sector is that important, the "jousters" will stay there till it's secured.

Also, something else I see continually being focussed on in this thread is the idea that all the action is going on in one solitary hex. Is that often the case?

Good point here Mog.   I've always thought that if there is a very conceived plan of attack being used that there will always be other important hexes you can put your efforts in.   Granted, if you're only interested in focusing on pvp matches, then you're kinda screwed.    But, I never really known anyone to be disappointed if they send out a pvp challenge and a hex number.  

Each to their own preferences.  I just like the rule because I think it creates a nice balance between hex-flipping and pvp.

Agave
the balance nut

[Bonk]

Bonk, if the sector is that important, the "jousters" will stay there till it's secured.

Also, something else I see continually being focussed on in this thread is the idea that all the action is going on in one solitary hex. Is that often the case?

Good point here Mog.   I've always thought that if there is a very conceived plan of attack being used that there will always be other important hexes you can put your efforts in.   Granted, if you're only interested in focusing on pvp matches, then you're kinda screwed.    But, I never really known anyone to be disappointed if they send out a pvp challenge and a hex number. 

Each to their own preferences.  I just like the rule because I think it creates a nice balance between hex-flipping and pvp.

Agave
the balance nut

The significance of this abuse of the rule cannot be ignored:
<quotes self repetitively>

That is not what I observe, often the hex is not that important, but the DN captain knows he can effectively stop enemy progress in just one mission and moves on.

No the action is not in one solitary hex, but because the DN is not required to continue protecting it he can just follow you from hex to hex, banning you from all strategically meaningful hexes.

[Mog]

I have no objection to the "jousters" having to stay in the hex for some time to continue to secure it. It's a good point about it being open to abuse, and if I didn't state agreement with it the first time, I do now.

[GDA-Agave]

The significance of this abuse of the rule cannot be ignored:
<quotes self repetitively>

That is not what I observe, often the hex is not that important, but the DN captain knows he can effectively stop enemy progress in just one mission and moves on.

No the action is not in one solitary hex, but because the DN is not required to continue protecting it he can just follow you from hex to hex, banning you from all strategically meaningful hexes.

Yes, I understand you point completely.  I have been a victim of this tactic many times myself, usually at an off-hour when outnumbered.    That is why I suggested making large ships non-assigned and cheap, but limited.   This way, you can fight fire with fire and know that their will be only so many large ships who can counter you, and thus, be countered by.

Hell, if they want to follow me around, I attack an area of hexes.   If they sit rock on a hex and I can't defeat them, I hop around and let them try to guess where I'm gonna be working next.

Sorry, but the rule just makes strategic sense to me.  I do fly Gorn afterall, so hardheadedness just kinda comes with the persona.

Agave

[Holocat]

Well Non-contentious not quite.

Let's talk about the arena we live in.

First, all this talk of jousting.  It is true we live in a perpetual joust when it comes to player versus player;  After all, the arena doesn't support very many ships before stablity is a greater factor in success than prowess.  The DN/CV/BCH fest as many people, including myself, have called it.

Now.  The dynaverse, as mentioned, has been invented in such a manner as to make the primary issue of our imaginary war the issue of flipping hexes.  This is the mechanic of the game, and everyone needs to accept that.

Still, this is not how we want to play the game, entirely.  We can also engage one another in this game.  In joust.

But it matters nothing, this joust.  One person loses his ship, yes.  Perhaps even an expensive, rare ship that took some time and suffering to obtain.  

However, as we have all seen and all know, the balance lies heavily in favour of who can take territory in the most efficient manner.  As I have said, this is the game mechanic.  This, more than anything else, is what lies behind the droner arguments, the pft and fighter arguments, mission time arguments, and this argument.

This, I believe, is not an opinion.  It is a testable theory.  Can ten mirak prevail over ten romulans?  It seems likely, given how our universe is built.  By no means assured, but everyone feels the advantage.

The disengagement rule gives meaning to this joust.  Before, it was meaningless, or even worse, discouraging.  Given the nature of the dynaverse, it was counterproductive to what needed to be done.

Is it accurate?  No.  Indeed, it is a jousting sandbox.  However, what did we have before, really?  Before, it was only the destruction of those clones, AI, that mattered.  It was to take territory and that was all.  

I believe that it has added something to the game, this rule.  Now we can attack, and take that space, but what of the evil knight guarding the bridge inward?  Send one in to suffer the rule and stagger the others to effectively cut of his arms and legs perhaps.  Call it a draw.  Perhaps you should band together and throw him off his horse.

Before, it was only merry men.  We have knights and merry men now, but this is more than simply and only merry men.

We can abuse this rule, of course.  But we can abuse any rule, really, or even that arena with no rules other than what cannot be done.  We create new problems, but this is no reason to cease our progress and return to the old ones.

[Mog]

I for one think we are better off with it then without it,  but the rule is not perfect and has it's faults.


Say you are a skilled player, and have the PP and ship  to go with it.  You get into a damn nice fight, but you just get edged out and have to retreat.  You just KNOW you could of did better, but you'll never know as you can't fight them again for x amount of time.   You log off because if you can't be where the action is, then why play....

I hate adding rules, but what about something like this?

"If you disengage from a battle in PvP, you have the right to immediately ask for a rematch.  If you lose again, the disengagement rule applies.  If you win, it doesn't"

This way, the rule is still working the way it was intended.  The person trying to fly quick missions in a little ship will not challenge the rule.  

Sorry I missed this the first time. I like this idea, along with a shorter time.

[Cleaven]

The big ship can raise the DV by one in less than 5 minutes too, he just needs a freindly small ship to draft him...

Oh come on, are you serious? In response to a claim that an AI optimised ship can drop a DV in less than 5min, you are saying that the other side should work in hi-lo drafting pairs so that they can drop the DV just as fast. Okay, I'll bite. How do you get that as an answer? To me it seems that your answer will simply be twice as slow since it would take two people to get the same rate of DV shift as one player using the AI optimised ship.

As you can see I'm exploring options other than the disengagement rule here, I just tested the:
PrestigeModiferOnShipGrant   = -10000
DeathShipBPVPenalty         = .25
lines in the ship.gf and the PrestigeModiferOnShipGrant has no effect at all...  (damn undocumented, unused gf settings... arg! nothing like a black box to keep you guessing...). The DeathShipBPVPenalty does work however.

I'm looking for a way to duplicate the effect of the disengagement rule without removing players from play.All too often now I see players that just lost a PvP simply log off for an hour, never used to see that. Never see players beaten down to a freighter anymore either, that used to be pretty funny...

Have you any ideas to add meaning to PvP that do not require removing players from the game? (no SQL scripting yet...). Dig through those undocumented gfs and see what you can come up with, there has to be something...

Yet more AI battles and players logging off is just not an acceptable solution to me.

Regarding logging off after a PvP, yep that was me in the old days. I'd need to calm down after losing a 25000 PP heavy cruiser (because the 10% cloak pushed the BPV up into the level of BC's) to a player who was fielding about 4000 PP of ship loaded to the gunnels with disposable weapons.

[Bonk]

Oh come on, are you serious? In response to a claim that an AI optimised ship can drop a DV in less than 5min, you are saying that the other side should work in hi-lo drafting pairs so that they can drop the DV just as fast. Okay, I'll bite. How do you get that as an answer? To me it seems that your answer will simply be twice as slow since it would take two people to get the same rate of DV shift as one player using the AI optimised ship.

I realised that as I typed it, no it is not a valid comparison, I agree. It is an option, so I left the comment.

Regarding logging off after a PvP, yep that was me in the old days. I'd need to calm down after losing a 25000 PP heavy cruiser (because the 10% cloak pushed the BPV up into the level of BC's) to a player who was fielding about 4000 PP of ship loaded to the gunnels with disposable weapons.

Come on now, drones are pretty easy to deal with, just don't make any mistakes. (you know that as well as I).
How does this relate to people logging off because they no longer have anything useful to do? (Being chased off meaningful hexes by DNs)

Also please note my statement above that I would prefer a CC or BCH I just don't usually have the time to amass the necessary PP by running repetitive missions against the AI to bank PP, I usually just go right for the PvP and take my chances. (to counter your insinuation)

[Gook]

I can live with disengagement in most circumstances, but it has to be recognised that it favours one style of play over another.

As for my references to "Jousters", well if people take offence I'm sorry, but having been called a "cheesy droner" on and off for the past four years (despite the fact I am supposed to use them), and not complained once, I find the "Jousters" self righteousness somewhat amusing. So Like styles of play, insults (not that it was meant to be an insult just a short hand way of characterising a style of play), can only go one way.

I didn't really think this part of the thread would be contentious, I assumed (wrongly) everybody loved and cherished the rule, but it is obvious from the thread that is not so, it is not unanimously approved of.

With this string of threads I have asked certain questions and the replies have been most enlightening. What I was told when I came back about certain things just do not have the massive approval that some had lead me to believe. They certainly have the approval of a vocal few, but it's always the same few.

Anyhow, disenegaement is probably here to stay, whatever the reasons for its existance.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

As far as other races having ships that can "hex-flip" at times close to the Mirak.    Sure, the plasma races have 'em, but they are usually much bigger or armed with nasty fighters/PFs.   Until us "plasma chuckers" can get into these type ships the disengagement rule gives us a chance to attempt to force the Mirak on equal fighting terms.

Once we do get into larger ships, it is not our fault that you guys tend to prefer your small "hex-flipping" wonder frigates.   Moggy's BCH variant was certainly a step in the right direction towards giving you guys a very playable large ship.    But, even in the last few servers where that ship was available, I did notice that the majority of the Mirak pilots stayed in there small hex-flippers.

Agave

actually some of your smaller ships seem to run better mission times in my personal experience, at least before Pfs arrive and after early era.  Those Gorn :Medium cruisers have performed well for me as well as the R-SPZ.  Not mirak times but not that far off, and an escort will not slow you down at all.

I flew the Z-BCH quite a bit on the last server and the Z-BCH and the Z_DNH on GW1.  BTW Z_BCH doesn't come out untill 2280 so until then we are owned by the C7 for a few years when i do jump in a hex flipper.  Also a G-BCS with 4 plasma D fighters will quickly make me switch out of a p v p ship.  This was what happened on LB5, after I ran into Alfman.

And lets not forget its not only the Mirak, we see lots of D5Ds and NCDs as well.....

like Gorns with pfs, Roms with Kestrels, ISC with Caveats, Hydrans with hornets, Lyrans with LDR if available, everyone plays with what they thinks allows them the best chance at victory and complains about the other races tactics/ships/etc.  Each have their advantages and disadvantages.  I think the way to go is to preserve the racial flavor but to bring the advantages and disadvantages a bit closer to the middle.