Topic: 11 & 12 none contentious ?

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

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  

or use guerilla warfare........

[Cleaven]

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?)

What you seem to be observing is a server with only two players, a DN and you. If there are only two players then what do you expect. If instead there are a few more enemy players and the DN has to drive each of them away for the popular hex then it can take 10-20 min for each one. So the DN has spent 45 min to get rid of three enemy, shifted the DV three in his favour and the enemy has shifted the DV 9 in their favour in that time, as well as another 9 DV in the next hot hex.

Sorry but I don't accept your arguements about being hard done by when facing a DN or BCH in a smaller ship.

[Cleaven]

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)

I must have missed the insinuation, what was it?

As for the "don't make any mistakes" business - now there's an insinuation.

Go up against 10 droners (or one droner 10 times assuming no disengagement rule) in 3 or so hours, chase 8 of them off, maybe kill one, make one mistake and get killed by the 10th. Tell me again about how that PP ratio works again. To me it looks like I'm worse off losing 25000 in exchange for a 4000 kill and say 500 PP for each winning mission. Now you can do an analysis for the margins faced by the drone based ship in those 3 or so hours and let me know how it comes out.

Frustration at pointless engagements, not a lack of usefulness is what causes people to log off after a defeat.

[Mog]

Chuut, the Gorn Medium Cruisers are NCAs, they don't compare in cost and ai draw size to the drone using frigates and destroyers lol.

Gook, ah yes, I forgot about all the times I called you a cheesy droner, so yes it's perfectly justifiable of you to label us jousters. Two wrongs do make a right, after all   What about the "lazy" comment?

A vocal few. It's pretty rare to get the silent majority to post much on topics, especially game balance topics. Put a JYB type thread up and you'll get lots of them posting then. I notice you omit to mention that there is only a vocal few arguing against the rule.

Also, note that the pro vocal few are quite happy to adapt the rule so it is fairer to both sides. Re the rule making it so one play style is favoured over another, where in Sockfoot's campaign guide is the place for pvpers?

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Chuut, the Gorn Medium Cruisers are NCAs, they don't compare in cost and ai draw size to the drone using frigates and destroyers lol.

did I ever claim otherwise?  No.

all I claimed was #1 they could run faster mission times than most of the larger ships, and #2 that many plasma pilots were reluctant to move into them when Hex flipping might have been more useful than p v p so that mission time disparity isnt really as great as some would believe.

[Gook]

Mog,

Two wrongs don't make a right, but at least the point has been made. The barely concealed and in some cases unconcealed contempt which is shown by many to another significant number of players who play in a different manner to themselves needed to be highlighted. As for "lazy" well perhaps too strong a word, but again, its often "shock" tactics which get noticed. But it has been said in this thread when I get X ship I'm not changing, I waited too long etc etc, which is the prerogative of the player, but just because he wants to play in just one ship should the rules be skewed to favour that style or positive choice not to change to circumstances.

There are a vocal few on e both sides of this particular argument, but there are a number of people who are making significant points who do not usually, and overall in these threads there are even a number of "cross dressers" As far as I can see nothing is absoluletly clear cut one way or another, which is not the way things have been presented

There is always room for everybodies game, its just that when one side gains the ascendancy for whatever reason including sheer "bloody mindedness", this can have an adverse impact causing many in worst instances players to leave over the years.

All I have done in these threads is to show there are no sacred cows and those that thought there were, may be fooling themselves. Whatever the out comes are it ultimately comes down to the Admins as to what they put up, but I know from having run all manner of campaigns myself, that it is infinitely more satisfying to run something most people like rather than pander to the whims of a particular faction.

My opinion (and that's all it is) is that things may have gone too far in one direction. I will play with the rule, but given an OPTION, i'd probably vote against it and go for say the one hex draft instead (for example).

[Cleaven]

But it has been said in this thread when I get X ship I'm not changing, I waited too long etc etc, which is the prerogative of the player, but just because he wants to play in just one ship should the rules be skewed to favour that style or positive choice not to change to circumstances.

If you are going to make reference to a post, make full reference: "When I get X ship I'm not changing for a worse ship"

If you can skew the rules to make it convincing for a player to change from a ship which is good at one thing, to a ship which is good at nothing then go right ahead. I'd like to see it explained.

[Kroma BaSyl]

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

Of course it does, it was designed to favor PvP, and act as a counter to the style of play you prefer as the game had previously been out of balance favoring the hex flippers exclusively.

You are right about a vocal few, except I believe it is those against the rule in the minority.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

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

Of course it does, it was designed to favor PvP, and act as a counter to the style of play you prefer as the game had previously been out of balance favoring the hex flippers exclusively.

You are right about a vocal few, except I believe it is those against the rule in the minority.

I think Kroma is right on here.  However Gook's point need be considered as well.  As expressed elsewhere the size of the map will impact the balance of this rules impact on play so that the time penalty for disengagement might need to be adjusted to preserve a relative balance, more time on a larger map perhaps and less on a smaller one.

[Kroma BaSyl]

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

Of course it does, it was designed to favor PvP, and act as a counter to the style of play you prefer as the game had previously been out of balance favoring the hex flippers exclusively.

You are right about a vocal few, except I believe it is those against the rule in the minority.

I think Kroma is right on here.  However Gook's point need be considered as well.  As expressed elsewhere the size of the map will impact the balance of this rules impact on play so that the time penalty for disengagement might need to be adjusted to preserve a relative balance, more time on a larger map perhaps and less on a smaller one.

Since I have already suggested that numerous times I would have to agree.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

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

Of course it does, it was designed to favor PvP, and act as a counter to the style of play you prefer as the game had previously been out of balance favoring the hex flippers exclusively.

You are right about a vocal few, except I believe it is those against the rule in the minority.

I think Kroma is right on here.  However Gook's point need be considered as well.  As expressed elsewhere the size of the map will impact the balance of this rules impact on play so that the time penalty for disengagement might need to be adjusted to preserve a relative balance, more time on a larger map perhaps and less on a smaller one.

Since I have already suggested that numerous times I would have to agree.

I'm just glad you can agree with me when I choose to agree with you.....

Seriously though Kroma I didn't remember who had posted that idea on the other threads but I did at least mentioned that the idea had been expressed elsewhere.  So let me say  for that idea now.

[GDA-Agave]

I think Kroma is right on here.  However Gook's point need be considered as well.  As expressed elsewhere the size of the map will impact the balance of this rules impact on play so that the time penalty for disengagement might need to be adjusted to preserve a relative balance, more time on a larger map perhaps and less on a smaller one.

I quite agree with this as well.   

[Gook]

But it has been said in this thread when I get X ship I'm not changing, I waited too long etc etc, which is the prerogative of the player, but just because he wants to play in just one ship should the rules be skewed to favour that style or positive choice not to change to circumstances.

If you are going to make reference to a post, make full reference: "When I get X ship I'm not changing for a worse ship"

If you can skew the rules to make it convincing for a player to change from a ship which is good at one thing, to a ship which is good at nothing then go right ahead. I'd like to see it explained.

Well I'd have thought in context it was obvious, but if not, changing from a good PvP ship to a good flipper. That doesn't require a skew of the rules, just the willingness to change to circumstances. The rule we have means that player X (none specific not refering to any poster in particualr in case that is not clear) who is in his big fat <insert FOM CC/BCH> does not need to contemplate having to change to accomadate circumstances all he has to do is sit in hex Y (none specific hex purely for illustration and not related in any way to a similar sounding but differently spelt player), watch player Z (no relation to a Kzin but I can see why this may be confusing) see him in mission for 2 minutes while he flies off and know that the little varmint will be gone for an hour. That rule skews the game IMHO. In case you hadn't noticed I was discussing no rule, not implementing one.

BTW I'm reasonably sure I'm not drunk, but I wouldn't know, I'd have to consult you, who obviously know so much more about my mental health than I do, from half a world away. But that is getting personal so we should keep our Doctor/Patient chats off the boards

[Gook]

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

You are right about a vocal few, except I believe it is those against the rule in the minority.

Curious on what do you base this?

[Cleaven]

But it has been said in this thread when I get X ship I'm not changing, I waited too long etc etc, which is the prerogative of the player, but just because he wants to play in just one ship should the rules be skewed to favour that style or positive choice not to change to circumstances.

If you are going to make reference to a post, make full reference: "When I get X ship I'm not changing for a worse ship"

If you can skew the rules to make it convincing for a player to change from a ship which is good at one thing, to a ship which is good at nothing then go right ahead. I'd like to see it explained.

Well I'd have thought in context it was obvious, but if not, changing from a good PvP ship to a good flipper. That doesn't require a skew of the rules, just the willingness to change to circumstances. The rule we have means that player X (none specific not refering to any poster in particualr in case that is not clear) who is in his big fat <insert FOM CC/BCH> does not need to contemplate having to change to accomadate circumstances all he has to do is sit in hex Y (none specific hex purely for illustration and not related in any way to a similar sounding but differently spelt player), watch player Z (no relation to a Kzin but I can see why this may be confusing) see him in mission for 2 minutes while he flies off and know that the little varmint will be gone for an hour. That rule skews the game IMHO. In case you hadn't noticed I was discussing no rule, not implementing one.

BTW I'm reasonably sure I'm not drunk, but I wouldn't know, I'd have to consult you, who obviously know so much more about my mental health than I do, from half a world away. But that is getting personal so we should keep our Doctor/Patient chats off the boards

So you are going to demonstrate your mental health by telling me it's a just a matter of "willingness" to change from a KRC to one of the following, K5R, KR, BH, WE, in order to flip hexes faster. Explain how this works and I'll believe you are not a nut or a drunk on a crusade to return us to the "good ol' days" just for your own benefit. That's all I want, an explanation of how it really works so that flying a KRC is actually worse than the other ships available for fighting AI and PvP.

[Kroma BaSyl]

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

You are right about a vocal few, except I believe it is those against the rule in the minority.

Curious on what do you base this?

Gut feel, but you had made the comment that it was a vocal few that wanted the rule so many times that I felt it was warrented to express that your gut feel isn't necessarily any more valid than mine. Having discussed this very issue on these boards as well as on TS and RW for a couple of years I think my Gut feel is more accurate than yours, but that's JMO.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

SPZ and basic pft fit here but dont come out till later, that sparrowhawk with the extra big torp is decent as well.  But what I'd like to see is the basic PFT and INTs come out year 1 or 2 and cover the early era where there is no hexflipper.

[Corbomite]

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.

You must be getting senile Chuut because I have never, ever said that. All I have ever said is that I have no problem running reasonably fast missions in a plasma boat. Every ship I fly is a PvP ship and a hex flipper from my perspective. The right ship for the job is usually the ship I'm in at the time, whatever it is. I will stick to my previous statement, however, and still say that anything under a CL for plasma is hard pressed to do a mission in twice the time of a DF.

[Bonk]

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)

I must have missed the insinuation, what was it?

As for the "don't make any mistakes" business - now there's an insinuation.

Go up against 10 droners (or one droner 10 times assuming no disengagement rule) in 3 or so hours, chase 8 of them off, maybe kill one, make one mistake and get killed by the 10th. Tell me again about how that PP ratio works again. To me it looks like I'm worse off losing 25000 in exchange for a 4000 kill and say 500 PP for each winning mission. Now you can do an analysis for the margins faced by the drone based ship in those 3 or so hours and let me know how it comes out.

Frustration at pointless engagements, not a lack of usefulness is what causes people to log off after a defeat.

As usual, you're right (dammit  ). I was over-reacting in a defensive knee-jerk style. Sorry if I offended you at all, I value your opinions and the clarity with which you express them.

I just happen to disagree about the cause of increased (in my perception) post PvP log-offs, no sense arguing it, as it is a subjective interpretation on both parts. It is still an issue worthy of note however.

Still, this has been a productive discussion that has raised some important points and led to some good ideas. (which refuses to die... I take a nap and there's another whole page!)

...none conentious!?!? Gook, you sure you're a lawyer?

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

You must be getting senile Chuut because I have never, ever said that. All I have ever said is that I have no problem running reasonably fast missions in a plasma boat.

I stand corrected then, kust looked up the old post and you are correct.  When you said you did 2:40-4:00 missions in plasma boats that others said couldn't be done in less than 5, I had assumed mistakenly you were in a smaller ship.  I generally have better times when flying ROM in smaller ships of the sparrowhawk class myself so thought this was what you were talking about.  My bad.  I trust you know the Rom ships better than I do so maybe i just suck at the larger ship tactics and get better times in the small birds.  But it does depend on the ai of the race I'm fighting.

 

Every ship I fly is a PvP ship and a hex flipper from my perspective. The right ship for the job is usually the ship I'm in at the time, whatever it is. I will stick to my previous statement, however, and still say that anything under a CL for plasma is hard pressed to do a mission in twice the time of a DF.

never claimed otherwise here but it is possible, though not easy.  The NSM does tend to wreck the smaller hulls nicely.