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....