Topic: Last one you will be glad to hear

[Gook]

12. Fleets allowed, no restrictions. If it becomes a real problem look at it again, but large CV fleets will be implausible at the current prices for all but a few and if they get gangbanged they will soon be bankrupt and they are slower to flip. The most hated fleet the 3 PFT fleet is in the least played races so it should not be a problem and again costs will have their part to play.

Numbering seems to have gone awry, but no matter.

I had thought this the one to be the most contentious in current climate but maybe wrong

Post away "me hearties"

[Bonk]

Fleets allowed according to SFB CnC. <--- That's what I want to see.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Never had a big problem with fleets if a good CNC accompanies them, but I do like to have some servers with 1 ship per pilot as well.

Chuut

--Supporter of Diversity

[Cleaven]

Fly whatever you want, but I don't ever see myself being able to use more than one ship effectively, and therefore immediately fleeing the scene in my one cruiser whenever I'm faced by a fleet player.

[C-Los]

Fly whatever you want, but I don't ever see myself being able to use more than one ship effectively, and therefore immediately fleeing the scene in my one cruiser whenever I'm faced by a fleet player.

I too would also be fleeing...BUT.... ....If I can I'd try and pick one of those "buggers" off, not likely though, anyone with any since would have a tight formation. 

So I'd be doing what, avoiding the fleets as they followed me around making me leave hex after hex until I was just a hex bumper...I hate being a pinball...    Although they do serve a purpose, and theres always "Deep Strikes"     

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

Try policing Cnc.   "oh I didn't know that was a no-no to have that ship in my fleet".   One ship thanks.

[Bonk]

Try policing Cnc.   "oh I didn't know that was a no-noto have that ship in my fleet".   One ship thanks.

It is doable... just need to get the flatfile webmap as far along as the SQL webmap (to display a roster that displays owned ships like the SQL webmap), but I've been "nipless" for a time now and just can't find the motivation to sift through the binary data... even without a webmap the CnC can be policed at the weekly db clean.

SFB CnC is not that complicated however, it is simple common sense. A leader is just that, a leader. An escort is just that, an escort. A carrier is ... I think most of us here know naval fleet architecture well enough that we probably don't even need to post it.

In my view that is not a good enough reason to leave out more than half of the game...

[Bonk]

Fly whatever you want, but I don't ever see myself being able to use more than one ship effectively, and therefore immediately fleeing the scene in my one cruiser whenever I'm faced by a fleet player.

Go on, that's kind of defeatist... In terrain especially, one stands a reasonable chance of isolating one ship of the enemy's fleet (since they are so uncontrollable ) for destruction at significant cost to the enemy. I'd at least give it a go, the same way I won't just run away from a DN but at least try and give 'im a whack.  (not trying to insult, just making a counter-point)

[Lepton]

No fleeting. Hex flipper/drone race/mirak/Gook agenda.   Move along.

Players already have fleets.  They are called AI allies in missions.  Of course, Gook would like to see the "standard" mission pack (a BS non-issue) to be dominated by 1v1 mission.  And, of course EEK missions already offer fleet control, but he doesn't want those missions either.  I'm sorry, Gook.  You can't have it both ways, claiming you want less AI and faster missions, then ask for fleets that add more AI to the game, but of course just more AI added to your side and none to the opposition.  Do you actually think about what you are saying when you post this stuff and the consequences?  The contradictory nature of your posts speaks to me of your desire to have as much useless overwhelming force over one whimpering AI enemy.  Can't you flip a hex fast enough by overdroning the poor bastard with one ship?  You continue to demonstrate to me that you have no idea what you are talking about and/or are advancing a ridiculously transparent agenda.  You can pick whether you are a fool or machiavellian.

[FireSoul]

I like SFB-style CnC because it makes sense: escorts with carriers..  no more than 1 Drone cruiser per 3 ships of that class, etc.. .. it just makes sense.


.. however..  fleets interfere with the 1 rule that has more or less saved this community's game: the disengagement rule. How would one apply the disengagement rule to a fleet? Must all players fly in fleets to be able to be up to par, competitively?

.. what if 1 ship encountered 3 ships controlled by 1 player? What if the 1-ship player destroys 1 of the ships of the 3-ship player, then disengages? How does the disengagement rule apply?

-- Luc

[Lepton]

I'll make this simple.  Let's have some fleeting servers and some no fleeting servers.  That should satisify folks, but creating one or the other as the standard is probably not the best course of action.  However, let's remember when one person decides to fleet up everyone will need to follow suit to compete so there is no place for a single ship on a fleeting-permitted server, so no matter what the rules might claim that server will be a fleeting-required server, if you get my meaning.  Just have fleeting and non-fleeting servers. I'm sure there are any number of admins who would be willing to put up a fleeting server.  So there you go.  Problem solved.

[Lepton]

I like SFB-style CnC because it makes sense: escorts with carriers..  no more than 1 Drone cruiser per 3 ships of that class, etc.. .. it just makes sense.


.. however..  fleets interfere with the 1 rule that has more or less saved this community's game: the disengagement rule. How would one apply the disengagement rule to a fleet? Must all players fly in fleets to be able to be up to par, competitively?

.. what if 1 ship encountered 3 ships controlled by 1 player? What if the 1-ship player destroys 1 of the ships of the 3-ship player, then disengages? How does the disengagement rule apply?

-- Luc

Ah, but Firesoul, you forget Gook is trying to undermine the disengagement rule.  He doesn't care what the effect is. He doesn't think that far ahead as he is a fool.  Or he is a machiavellian.  Just so that it advances his little agenda is his only concern.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I'll make this simple.  Let's have some fleeting servers and some no fleeting servers.  That should satisify folks, but creating one or the other as the standard is probably not the best course of action.  However, let's remember when one person decides to fleet up everyone will need to follow suit to compete so there is no place for a single ship on a fleeting-permitted server, so no matter what the rules might claim that server will be a fleeting-required server, if you get my meaning.  Just have fleeting and non-fleeting servers. I'm sure there are any number of admins who would be willing to put up a fleeting server.  So there you go.  Problem solved.

on past servers where fleets were allowed but only in CnC acceptable ways there was little problem dating back to my time with illegal fleets.  Occasionally someone was found in violation mainly new players or confused vets who werent aware of the restrictions and all were handled quicky and efficiently.

Another interesting note, on these servers very few pilots if any spent much time in the fleet formation as it is too expensive to maintain for long in drone ships and pf tenders.  The main use was to combat single enemy ships which were dominant in the particular period, the CCY was one I remember, having to take an escorted CV to fight em.   

[FireSoul]

I like SFB-style CnC because it makes sense: escorts with carriers..  no more than 1 Drone cruiser per 3 ships of that class, etc.. .. it just makes sense.


.. however..  fleets interfere with the 1 rule that has more or less saved this community's game: the disengagement rule. How would one apply the disengagement rule to a fleet? Must all players fly in fleets to be able to be up to par, competitively?

.. what if 1 ship encountered 3 ships controlled by 1 player? What if the 1-ship player destroys 1 of the ships of the 3-ship player, then disengages? How does the disengagement rule apply?

-- Luc

Ah, but Firesoul, you forget Gook is trying to undermine the disengagement rule.  He doesn't care what the effect is. He doesn't think that far ahead as he is a fool.  Or he is a machiavellian.  Just so that it advances his little agenda is his only concern.

*blink* .. nasty, Lepton. Be nice..
Also, .. do you have an answer to my question?

[Bonk]

I like SFB-style CnC because it makes sense: escorts with carriers..  no more than 1 Drone cruiser per 3 ships of that class, etc.. .. it just makes sense.


.. however..  fleets interfere with the 1 rule that has more or less saved this community's game: the disengagement rule. How would one apply the disengagement rule to a fleet? Must all players fly in fleets to be able to be up to par, competitively?

.. what if 1 ship encountered 3 ships controlled by 1 player? What if the 1-ship player destroys 1 of the ships of the 3-ship player, then disengages? How does the disengagement rule apply?

-- Luc

I think drb's suggestion is very appropriate here:
http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163344707.msg1122418085.html#msg1122418085
it is a realistic solution that encourages genuine fleet behaviour. Perhaps he will elaborate?

[Bonk]

... let's remember when one person decides to fleet up everyone will need to follow suit to compete so there is no place for a single ship on a fleeting-permitted server...

That is just not true, I see a role available for both styles of play on the same server, no need to keep them on seperate servers but that would of course work as well.

(See my response to Cleaven above for clarification)

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Ah, but Firesoul, you forget Gook is trying to undermine the disengagement rule.  He doesn't care what the effect is. He doesn't think that far ahead as he is a fool.  Or he is a machiavellian.  Just so that it advances his little agenda is his only concern.

Perhaps he is more clever than you think Lepton and his agenda involves debate to examine all these aspects for a better understanding at times playing devil's advocate.  Look at all the new ideas that have come out, and the next thoughts regarding old ones, is this a bad thing?  Could this be the sinister ulterior motive you are looking for?

Maybe he does prefer the old way and just wants people to consider it again by saying his peace, seems to me like he just wants to understand how people feel and make us substantiate our beliefs about which way is the best way to go.

It isn't like he's the first to promote his own view on the forums here in hopes of influencing others to consider a different possibility.  In fact isn't that what you have been striving for?  Just something to consider before calling him a "fool".

[Bonk]

Players already have fleets.  They are called AI allies in missions.

Again, not true; no fleet control, a very different situation.
Though you did appropriately mention Karnak's missions (which I'm a fan of, of course):

And, of course EEK missions already offer fleet control, but he doesn't want those missions either.  I'm sorry, Gook.  You can't have it both ways, claiming you want less AI and faster missions, then ask for fleets that add more AI to the game, but of course just more AI added to your side and none to the opposition.  Do you actually think about what you are saying when you post this stuff and the consequences?

It is important to present an intelligent opposition as you have, but I gotta say ease up on the ol Gookster there, he's gonna need a little time to adjust... He's no stranger to the game, knows it quite well, a bit one-sidedly I admit but he's really not the cyan meanie you make him out to be. (I know he is a lawyer... ) You do seem to be putting words in his mouth and interpreting his posts for us a bit much. Give him a little credit for stirring some good discussion and a re-evaluation of our "progress".

[Lepton]

... let's remember when one person decides to fleet up everyone will need to follow suit to compete so there is no place for a single ship on a fleeting-permitted server...

That is just not true, I see a role available for both styles of play on the same server, no need to keep them on seperate servers but that would of course work as well.

(See my response to Cleaven above for clarification)

You decry not being able to get a large enough ship to be competitive in a disengagement rule environment.  How do you think that you are going to be able to afford a fleet in the ensuing arms race as fleeting becomes the standard?  The single ship server is the great leveling of the playing field.  One ship, one person.  I'd like to be able to fly fleets and yes, it does cut out 50% of the game to not have it on D2 servers, but those nutters with huge ships and big pp banks will just have bigger fleets and more of an advantage.  If fleeting were to be permitted, it would likely be regulated into obscurity.  I suggest we have two types of servers.  I'll call them the "Wild, Wild West" and the serious server.  The first, anything goes, no rules. The second, Gook's perception of the status quo. We'll see who shows up.

The fleeting I like is the simple and no cost one.  Fleet control of AI allies in EEK missions.  To me this is far superior to the arms races and distortions that will likely occur with player generated fleets.  Seriously, I don't want to spoil anyone's fun.  You all want fleeting?  Go for it, but I really don't think it should be a "standard" by any means.

[Bonk]

The fleeting I like is the simple and no cost one.  Fleet control of AI allies in EEK missions.  To me this is far superior to the arms races and distortions that will likely occur with player generated fleets.  Seriously, I don't want to spoil anyone's fun.  You all want fleeting?  Go for it, but I really don't think it should be a "standard" by any means.

I like the fleet control over the AI in EEK missions too and as you suggest is a good compromise that avoids further escalation of "PP banking" wars.

I don't think anyone is trying to force a standard really, lets just give the different options a try for some fun. It's kind of counter productive to suggest that it only be on one server that will be avoided by those who don't like it. Further division of the playerbase is not something we want to see right? I say we try fleets on a serious server for some fun, you just might find it works out... if it doesn't fine, the next server will be different... I pretty much always play on whatever serious server is on the go whether I like all the rules or not, I think its kind of silly to sit out a server just because you don't like a rule or think you'll be at a disadvantage. I'll often go as far to intentionally fly on the disadvantaged side just to up the numbers and provide myself a challenge, its about having fun and wasting time for me....

[SPQR Renegade]

The only fleet I have ever been successful with is the PFT fleet, and only if the tenders did not need to engage. Maybe it's just poor flying on my part, but any time there has been a second or third ship in my squadron, it's going to die, and soon.

Keeping your wingmen in formation is near to impossible if the enemy closes range.
Power management means poping from ship to ship to enable or disable phaser re-charging.
Multiple weapon types means poping from ship to ship telling them to fire ONE plas-S, not the Fs, and not the phasers.
AIs seem to love t-bombing targets, lowering shields on ships that are all too fragile. They also have a tendency to drop t-bombs on their cloaked allies, just before the bad guy overruns them. All bad.
You can choose to fly without t-bombs, but that leaves you with no NSM or SS.
AIs love to WW at the wrong time, splitting them from the group and leaving them volnurable.
Cloaked AI will move at best speed to maintain formation, meaning they're weapons will not recharge, unless the entire fleet fleet moves at minimum speed.

Some of these items affect all races equally, some do not.

[FireSoul]

I personally dislike flying with AI fleet wingmen, as I consider myself a Captain, not a Commodore. However, if I face a player with a fleet, MUST I also fly fleets to be able to compete?!

.. hence the problem.


EDIT: *AI* Wingmen in my own fleet. Sorry for any possible confusion.

[el-Karnak]

Fleets allowed according to SFB CnC. <--- That's what I want to see.

BONK!!!  LEPTON!! WOULD YOU STOP TELLING THEM THE SECRETS OF EEK!!     I MEAN WHAT IS THIS!! THE GOD-DAMN SIEVE CHIT-CHAT CNN NETWORK!! 

You know that hardly anyone around here reads SFB stuff. So, they will never know that a basic from of SFB CnC was put in the EEK missions.

STOP TELLING THEM THAT TO RUN SFB CnC KINDA STUFF WITH FLEETS THAT THEY SHOULD JUST PLAY:

Enemy Sweep Patrol, Skirmish Patrol, Hold-the-Line Patrol, Squadron Action, Fleet Action and all the Planet/Base/Shipyard Assault/Defence missions.

NOW CUT THAT OUT RIGHT NOW!! 

MUM's the WORD!!  ALL RIGHT!!    

No secret is safe around here, hehe.

[Bonk]

  Go Karnak Go!

Ok, Ok,  we're a bunch of blabbermouths!  You should know that by now. Only the SPQR can be trusted to keep a secret...

[Gook]

any particular "hate" fleets?

[Julin Eurthyr]

Fleets:

Fleets are a nifty but evil idea at the same time.

You see, the 3-ship CW or CA fleet is the answer to the OOB player's DN.

Unfortunately, all consumable-reliant fleets, like the carrier which can sit back after the computer deploys fighters, or the droner that can fire a full spread of drones from whatever angle they want, are much stronger / easier to operate than a 3-Fed Photon fleet or a 3-plasma boat fleet.

Also, certain fleets have a cheaper startup costs.

I wouldn't mind flying on a fleet allowing server with the following conditions:

1.  Ship costs are equailized across the board.  A Mirak for example can buy a 3 DD or 3 FF fleet for about 20% cheaper than most anyone else's matching DD or FF, and closer to 30% cheaper than the ISC (but that's my lot in life for having the spiffy starships...).  Operating costs of certain ships / fleets should also be adjusted to help droners maintain their fleet longer, or the PP payout for a fleeting player is substantially increased to represent the fact that he is a fleet officer.
2.  Karnak's "free fleet" missions are standard, and keeps the freebie AI for the player if he is outnumbered in a PvP, granting ships that would be logically bought by the player in question (if I have a CCY, I get 2 CAYs as my allies, even if the enemy is a 3 FF fleet...)
3.  SFB CnC for fleets, including mandatory use of fleets for DN/BB, carrier and tender pilots.  Tenders are, after all, Taldren's bright "carrier substitution" for the PF races...

Rule 1 means people are paying the same (and it should be a lot) for the firepower involved in a fleet.
Rule 2 is there for casual players that can't afford (or really don't want to) a 3-ship fleet, possibly of a size to be useful.
Rule 3 adds to the balance, and cost, of operating the "cheesier" ships.  You want line ship use, here's a way to make them useful.

The thing is monitoring the SFB-compliance of player fleets may be a hard thing to do, without a good webmap or something else.

[Lepton]

The problem with fleeting is going to be the natural tendency to make restrictions on it.  Those restrictions will just start a whole other round of "belly aching" at not being able to fly whatever ships people want in fleets.  So the best way this can be done to me is the totally unrestricted "Wild, Wild West" server, and the more serious SFB-like server that may involve fleeting but is likely to be pretty restrictive in their use and constituents.  I thought the command/specialty ship accompanied by a vanilla ship CnC we had some servers past was fine.  Anything more complex than that may just end up being too much for people.  I like intense OoBs and CnCs but I don't think you are going to find alot of takers for that.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Lepton:

You don't remember the days of unrestricted fleets.

You're a Romulan, right?  Tell me about a Romulan fleet you can build that can stop 18-21 drones per turn long enough to wipe out 3 Z-MDCs or F-CADs.

Or a fleet that can stop 12 4-hellbore fighter squadrons.

These fleets need to be buildable with pre-2275 ships, as both fleets can be built handily before the Rommies get INTs, nevermind real PFs like the CENd...

[FPF-DieHard]

Now that were are at the last number I would like to add that searching for a standard is pointless. 

All this really did was piss a lot of people off.  Was damn amusing reading though 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

If anyone got pissed off it was their own fault mostly, as per usual.

[SPQR Renegade]

Lepton:

You don't remember the days of unrestricted fleets.

You're a Romulan, right?  Tell me about a Romulan fleet you can build that can stop 18-21 drones per turn long enough to wipe out 3 Z-MDCs or F-CADs.

Or a fleet that can stop 12 4-hellbore fighter squadrons.

These fleets need to be buildable with pre-2275 ships, as both fleets can be built handily before the Rommies get INTs, nevermind real PFs like the CENd...

Reminds me of the days of CW3(4?). Hydrans Vs Rommies in unrestricted fleet warefare. Fleets of 3 KDPs vs 3 Rangers or whatever the Hydran NCVL is with all their Hellbore fighters. 6 ships, 12 PFs, & umpteen million fighters go in, 1 smoking ship limps out. The sky was thick with plasma & hellbore fire. Talk about a meat grinder, I don't even want to think about the PP that front chewed up.

Where were the Sth-Ds when we needed them....

[FireSoul]

the CENd+s are worse, IMHO.

[Lepton]

Lepton:

You don't remember the days of unrestricted fleets.

You're a Romulan, right?  Tell me about a Romulan fleet you can build that can stop 18-21 drones per turn long enough to wipe out 3 Z-MDCs or F-CADs.

Or a fleet that can stop 12 4-hellbore fighter squadrons.

These fleets need to be buildable with pre-2275 ships, as both fleets can be built handily before the Rommies get INTs, nevermind real PFs like the CENd...

Hey, Julin.  I agree.  I have no racial bias as I fly as many races as I can, although I have never flown a major campaign as Gorn.  Be that as it may, these fellows aren't looking for anything that makes any sense to me.  They just want to fly what they want to fly.  So I say give them what they want and see how far it gets them.  I personally would like to see some very restricted fleeting, but people are not going to go for that.  Every restriction will be countered by someone saying, "Hey, it's possible in that game.  Why can't I do it??"  They want rule simplicity. Give it to them.  No rules.  Then let's see who shows up and who stays.  I guarantee you that if players can form the kind of fleets you cite above, plasma flyers will say bye-bye.  This stuff is all going backwards.  You've all been there and done that.  The community has moved passed such silliness.

[Julin Eurthyr]

DH:

I don't think anyone in particular's looking for an actual "standard", that will be the rule for all future servers, but they are debating the rules and guidelines that make up a majority of the current servers.

It's been quite a while since I've seen a server use 3 ship fleets, have 100% unrestricted and cheap DNs / BBs, run with free disengagement, etc.  Most if not all of our current servers use mostly the same ruleset, varied according to the wills of the particular Admin (like LB5 had 2/2/1 limited ships, while GW uses limited assignments and build points, while other servers use Field Marshalls).

A healthy reminder of the old days (which quite a few people prefer, as indicated by Gook's current threads, and the fact that how many people have left over the different rules...) is necessary, and it may be useful in helping us refine the current rules from "knee-jerk reactions" to previous cheese complaints to rules that address the core issues with as much liberty to do what was done before as possible, of course, all in a balanced environment...

[Commander Maxillius]

I say fleet 'em up!  I remember Litterbox 3 when I had the ultimate cheese fleet with an IC and 2 ID wingmen.  Great fun, especially with over 40 Hornet III's :grin:  My most memorable mission was when I took the fleet through an astreroid field slalom course (remember, I was using the original models then where the Hydran carriers were the widest ship in the game)!  Lost both ID's to rocks since they couldn't keep up with speed 20 in close quarters.  I forget who I was fighting, but I think I still won. 

I think DarkElf admined that server and gave gobs of free PP to whoever wanted it.  I'll never drive that kind of cheese in a "real" server.  But, if I see it in my CL, I'll proceed to pick away at the offenders.  Do it all the time against AI.

That's a point I'd like to bring up, though.  Most mission matching for the more difficult servers will put you up against 2 or 3 ships at equal size class or lower.  I wouldn't use a fleet if I had to face 2x or 3x more opponents under those circumstances, especiall considering how retarded the allied AI can be.

[Lepton]

DH:

I don't think anyone in particular's looking for an actual "standard", that will be the rule for all future servers, but they are debating the rules and guidelines that make up a majority of the current servers.

It's been quite a while since I've seen a server use 3 ship fleets, have 100% unrestricted and cheap DNs / BBs, run with free disengagement, etc.  Most if not all of our current servers use mostly the same ruleset, varied according to the wills of the particular Admin (like LB5 had 2/2/1 limited ships, while GW uses limited assignments and build points, while other servers use Field Marshalls).

A healthy reminder of the old days (which quite a few people prefer, as indicated by Gook's current threads, and the fact that how many people have left over the different rules...) is necessary, and it may be useful in helping us refine the current rules from "knee-jerk reactions" to previous cheese complaints to rules that address the core issues with as much liberty to do what was done before as possible, of course, all in a balanced environment...

Julin,

Reread Gook's original proposal post here:

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163343857.0.html

If that is not advocating for a new "standard", I don't know what is.  He indicates community disparities on what servers should be that he has distorted by the way.  He submits that this will all be good for the community, limited serious servers, yada yada.  That's advocating for a new "standard" as if there ever were an old one.  Since he has been called on advocating for an agenda so often, he has backtracked and said that he only meant to spur on discussion.   Please.  Look at his series of posts.  Artic Fire reminiscence.  Sookfoot's Manifesto.  Then his agenda of stock mission, deepstriking, fleeting, etc.  It's all in pursuit of the fastest possible drone race hex flipping.  Little fleets of DF+ running about everywhere.  It's transparent.

[Rolling]

I know I'm thoroughly pissed. 

[Corbomite]

I know I'm thoroughly pissed. 

You shouldn't be drinking so early in the day Kim.  Tsk, tsk!

[Rolling]

I know I'm thoroughly pissed. 

You shouldn't be drinking so early in the day Kim.  Tsk, tsk!

How else am I suppose to handled the twice minced beefcakes who have fallen from their throne of sensablility?


Minus a few post, this is a very good discussion. 

[Laflin]

any particular "hate" fleets?

Yeah, anything Dunzel used to put together 

[Gook]

any particular "hate" fleets?

Yeah, anything Dunzel used to put together 

Now there is a player I'd like to see back, the original "nutter"

[Gook]

IF fleets were considered acceptable in polite society again, how simple or complicated would people like the CnC to be?

For example would:

No fleet without a Command vessel, which may command up to 2 ships of equal or smaller hull size (Command vessels would include CV/L/S/A/E) but no more than one command vessel in any one fleet.

Be acceptable or would a much more complicated system be required?

Thoughts please.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I like the system used in CW 6.0 aka SS I.

[KBF-Dogmatix_XC]

Fly whatever you want, but I don't ever see myself being able to use more than one ship effectively, and therefore immediately fleeing the scene in my one cruiser whenever I'm faced by a fleet player.

Same here.


I don't quite understand why some people should automatically be given the field because they choose to fly three ships.

[Gook]

I like the system used in CW 6.0 aka SS I.

I trawled my CW6 stuff, (loadsa maps and stuff) can't find the fleet rules. Can yo post please.

[KBF-Dogmatix_XC]

any particular "hate" fleets?

Nope...not for me.


I don't like any of them as a single-ship flyer.  Karnak's missions are fine because you can control a little bit what AI ships do and they aren't "yours" so you need not worry too much what happens to them.  You didn't pay for them and the AI would be there anyway.  you just have some control over them.


That said....there is possibly some middle ground that will work out for people.  Either that...or do as somone suggested...have some servers that allow the fleets and some that don't.  It needn't be an all or nothing thing.  Those that don't want to face fleets in their single ships will probably just not play (much).


Sometimes faving a fleet player with a single ship can be fun, but when it comes right down to it, the result is pretty much pre-determined (with few  exceptions) and that result was really determined by nothing more than a choice of one guy to fly three ships and the other guy to only fly one.  For my part, I don't think that's a great situation.  If you want multiple ships...fly with a wingman or use Karnak's missions.  That's good enough for me...but maybe I'm in the minority on this issue.

[Lepton]

any particular "hate" fleets?

Nope...not for me.


I don't like any of them as a single-ship flyer.  Karnak's missions are fine because you can control a little bit what AI ships do and they aren't "yours" so you need not worry too much what happens to them.  You didn't pay for them and the AI would be there anyway.  you just have some control over them.


That said....there is possibly some middle ground that will work out for people.  Either that...or do as somone suggested...have some servers that allow the fleets and some that don't.  It needn't be an all or nothing thing.  Those that don't want to face fleets in their single ships will probably just not play (much).


Sometimes faving a fleet player with a single ship can be fun, but when it comes right down to it, the result is pretty much pre-determined (with few  exceptions) and that result was really determined by nothing more than a choice of one guy to fly three ships and the other guy to only fly one.  For my part, I don't think that's a great situation.  If you want multiple ships...fly with a wingman or use Karnak's missions.  That's good enough for me...but maybe I'm in the minority on this issue.

If you are in the minority, add one to the total as I completely agree with you.

[Bonk]

any particular "hate" fleets?

Nope...not for me.


I don't like any of them as a single-ship flyer.  Karnak's missions are fine because you can control a little bit what AI ships do and they aren't "yours" so you need not worry too much what happens to them.  You didn't pay for them and the AI would be there anyway.  you just have some control over them.


That said....there is possibly some middle ground that will work out for people.  Either that...or do as somone suggested...have some servers that allow the fleets and some that don't.  It needn't be an all or nothing thing.  Those that don't want to face fleets in their single ships will probably just not play (much).


Sometimes faving a fleet player with a single ship can be fun, but when it comes right down to it, the result is pretty much pre-determined (with few  exceptions) and that result was really determined by nothing more than a choice of one guy to fly three ships and the other guy to only fly one.  For my part, I don't think that's a great situation.  If you want multiple ships...fly with a wingman or use Karnak's missions.  That's good enough for me...but maybe I'm in the minority on this issue.

This is exactly how I feel about DNs... (especially CnC violating unescorted ones... )

[KBF-Dogmatix_XC]

Ah, but Firesoul, you forget Gook is trying to undermine the disengagement rule.  He doesn't care what the effect is. He doesn't think that far ahead as he is a fool.  Or he is a machiavellian.  Just so that it advances his little agenda is his only concern.

Perhaps he is more clever than you think Lepton and his agenda involves debate to examine all these aspects for a better understanding at times playing devil's advocate.  Look at all the new ideas that have come out, and the next thoughts regarding old ones, is this a bad thing?  Could this be the sinister ulterior motive you are looking for?

Maybe he does prefer the old way and just wants people to consider it again by saying his peace, seems to me like he just wants to understand how people feel and make us substantiate our beliefs about which way is the best way to go.

It isn't like he's the first to promote his own view on the forums here in hopes of influencing others to consider a different possibility.  In fact isn't that what you have been striving for?  Just something to consider before calling him a "fool".

These are good points, Chuut.  I  think it should also be noted that we really have covered all of this before during the past 2-3 years or so.  I guess that's probably why I haven't been as active in these discissions as I have been in the past.  I've just lost some of my interest in continually re-hashing the same issues over and over.  I haven't yet seen a single new idea or something we haven't already tried offered up in these threads.


I do, however, thinks it's great that we do continue to talk about this stuff because sentiments about certain things change over time.  That's the main benefit I see in this series of threads.  It's a good way to measure the current opinions of those of us that are left.  It's not groundbreaking, but it is useful, I think.


My post in this thread have been relatively short because I keep getting interrupted by RL...heheh. 


While I have come to not particularly care for fleets on servers, especially on those where a disengagement rule is in effect, I do think it is possible to work them in from time to time.  I believe that if fleets are allowed, they should be restricted by a CnC structure (which has worked fairly well in the past...this is also not a new idea).  It might even be a decent idea to restrict the number of players who can field such fleets as an extension of the "FM"-style rules we've used in the past.


As some have mentioned, even the ability to deply fleets isn't fair amongst all the races because of the rdifferences in the way the AI behaves with certain weapons.  It seems to me that increasing a player's access to the "easier" weapons makes it that much harder for those races who don't have it so "easy."  I think this is something that must be given consideration.


Urgh..RL is hitting me again.  That's it for now...another unfinished thoughy...heheh...