Topic: The Numbered Flamefest Aftermath.

[Holocat]

In 7 & 8  Politiking and Spying were taken up.

Reduction of Argubate:  Smack talk and other role-play forms of politic wasn't even discussed, it's so much a part of our dynaverse lives.  Spying in the form of breaching fora trust was a can of worms that everyone reacted to.  Negatively.

Ideas that Crawled out of the Blue Lagoon:  Fora breaching is wrong, according to the disscussion, but a form of Role-played spying in the form of Secret VC's was greeted with some warmth.  This idea mostly involves sweat and tears from server administrators to 'simulate' intelligence by making some VC's more obvious or less obvious according to the success or failure of other VC's.


In #9 the idea of mission times and droner arguments were taken up.

Reduction of Argubate:

This falls into two camps.
Gook wishes to see plasma mission times reduced, believing that this may attract more plasma players while leaving droneship mission times relatively intact.  A carrot strategy.
Lepton wishes to see drone mission times increased, and proposed this be done by making more intresting and indepth missions.  Though he sees the increased mission times as a bonus in the flip vs. PvP balance, this idea is lended more towards the ideology that all missions including ones versus AI should be valuable experiences, or at least entertaining ones.


Ideas that Crawled Out of This: 
-Julien wishes to see better Mirak PvP ships to compensate for faster plasma times.
-Gook would have liked to try a cost drop for plasma boats, but Mog has stated that this hasn't worked in the past. 
-Chutt suggested that basic PFT tenders be allowed out earlier to equalize mission times.
-A bunch of people wanted to tinker with the shiplist again, and a bunch of people don't want this, because everyone just starts tinkering with everything.  This particular point is still under contest.
-Karnak suggested using mission scripting to solve this problem, but Chutt got mad.


#10  discusses deepstriking, which generated some discussion with free deepstriking versus limited deepstriking, the former under some qualification making for a simplier ruleset and the latter being less prone to abuse.  And quite a bit of technical problems people started seeing with the former idea.


In 11 & 12 we discussed the disengagement rule, which turned out to be the most contentious argubate in the numbered discussions.

This will be divided into two camps as well for convenience.
One camp is in favour of the disengagement rule since it brings meaning to player versus player battles, given the mechanic of being able to run missions 'under' or 'around' another player in mission.
There is a second camp that is not in favour of the disengagement rule as another mechanic of the dynaverse prevents multiple players greater than a very small number to fight each other at once.  This impedes small ships from challanging large ships easily and has led towards what people in the thread have started calling 'jousts.' 

Ideas that rose from the ashes:

-The first ideas concern large ship use, which has become by steps more and more restricted in recent servers.  Who can use a large ship and when was discussed, some advocating that the Who and When for use of such ships be loosened.

-The next ideas concerned the disengagement rule, and it seemed less disagreeable than most of the ideas bounced around at this point to lower the time-out to half an hour and to place some sort of gentleman's law concerning rematches, if they so desired.  Other things were discussed such as PP loss, draft radius, equalizing times between death and retreat, forcing winning ships to stay in hex(and other abuse prevention strategies) and a lot of beating each other with pointy era sticks.

-Something brought up once before is the Miraki operating procedure of buying a ship that is correct for a specific mission parameter, this being either PvP or Flipping-off hexes.  It is percieved that other races do not generally do this, at least to the extent that the miraki do.  Shiplist and particular ship rarity was brought up as a result.  We closed with several pages of pointy stick beatings, with the single point of which ships are most problematic (these being ships that were 'normally' rare) being brought up.


Unlucky 13 discussed ship pricing and was divided, some people in favour of making very large ships unrestricted, and some in favour of restricting things, but everyone had run out of propane, butane, gasoline, candle wax, and even matches from the previous discussion and as a result this didn't generate much debate.


the thread to end all numbered threads discusses player fleets and is still under discussion. 

So far, the three ideas have been full SFB CnC, a simpler version of Command-Line fleets and mission script provided fleets.  And the usual round of stick beatings and a couple joke posts.

[FPF-Jem]

Good Summary, thanks!

[Lepton]

I think the summary of #9 mischaracterizes my position.  My position on mission times in one aspect is simple.  Hex-flippers want to run missions as fast as possible and for those mission to be easy as possible.  This seems incongruous to me from a group that claims to love to play the game, yet spends as little time as possible in the game engine.  What they actually like is making pretty colors on a map.  Go get a coloring book. The rest of us want to play the game.  I'd prefer AI missions to be interesting and involved if that is what I am going to encounter most of the time as opposed to short and pointless.  This is not merely so that AI mission time will be more on par with PvP missions but so that AI missions will be worth doing, so that the D2 will be even worth playing for me.  2 minute missions are not my idea of fun.  I'd rather missions be challenging not something I can turn my brain off to do.

As to the Kzin perspective on switching ships for different jobs, what Gook has continually failed to see is that we are all hex-flippers.  No ship is a PvP ship that encounters 90% AI missions.  Therefore a CLC or BCF or whatever are all made for hex-flipping but can also do a bit of PvP.  The only reason Kzins need to switch off is 1. They have few good PvP ships therefore by definition they are likely flying a flipper as well as just being Kzin and 2.  they choose the option to fly weak little frigates or whatever to get easy missions as opposed to what everyone else does which is taking a balanced, reliable ship.   How we are all expected to play their game of flipping is beyond me.  What they should be asking for is better PvP ships not expecting everyone else to find those one or two ships in their race that can flip (and that may not exist) but never nearly as fast as a droner.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Hmmm....seems like I have asked for some better pvp ships for the Kzin.  The Moggy z-BCH was a product of this and I like to fly it and often do, except when restricted by OOB.  The last couple of servers I have flown (by choice not replacement ships) 

DF
DF+
DD
DD+
DWD
DWE
DWL
DWV
MDC
MDC+
MAC
MCC+
HDW1
HDWC1
HDWV
CD
CD+
CC
CC+
CCH
BF
BCH
DNH

You can notice 2 things here.  First I tend to stay away from carriers mostly as they are not my style (although in the past I've used the CVS and CVS+ a fair amount)  Secondly that I've flown a large percentage of my races available ships, which I believe has usually been among the smallest list for any race if not the smallest.  The ships I flew the most were the Z-BCH, the Z-DF, the Z-DWD, the HDWC1, the CC (&CC+),the BF, The CCH, and the DNH.

Lets look at the line ships of the Kzin:

Now the CC is a fine ship to start out with but quickly becomes outdated as no AMD and 4 phaser Is get obsolete quickly.  The BF is a dog compared to other races fast cruisers, so the next nice p v p ship is the CCH which arrives in 2275.  I'm not counting the Z-MCC as it is a fine ship but outclassed by many of its comtemporaries.  The appearance of the C7 makes it out of date a few years later, then if you have the prestige and are allowed the Z-DNH is able to fight most single opponents.  Finally the Z-BCH arrives.  All and all not too bad vs a traditional enemy.  At times of disadvantage in p v p match-ups (and others as well depending on strategic situation)  I turn to my hex flipper and use guerilla tactics, the only sensible approach in my view.

Now if you look at them vs a plasma race the usefullness is quite different.  Plasma requires speed to fight, an area which most mirak ships are very deficient as they were not designed to fight plasma. 

Now the problem is how to improve the effectiveness without making them Klingon clones, and how to do it and not make them uber vs their more traditional enemies.  Well, you really can't, and there is no need to aside from improving some of the total dogs, splitting the dizzies (already done), and improving the dizzy arcs on some of the ships where the arcs just dont make any sense (why make a new command cruiser with worse arcs by far than the old one), if a Kzin ship designation starts with "Z-N..." it is a dog.



So if I'm operating on this front and the Z-BCH and fast drones are not out, what is my best course of action.......hmm......hex flipping, lord knows I wont land many slow drones on a plasma D equipped Kestrel, so why try.  Yeah I'll be called a "cheeser" a "droner" etc, but so what?  if it comes from a player who has a ship I can't match is he any less a "cheeser"? 

The reason I proposed creating  hex flippers for the plasma races, is so that they also have the option of using guerilla tactics when the shiplist or tactical situation calls for it.  I do think it unfair on the Dyna when any race does not have at least 1 of the P v P strong or hex flip strong situations available to them.  Not so much to change the game to a hex flipping fest, but to allow for no race to be disadvantaged in both at any time.   



I can't fight his war and he can't fight mine.  Yet it seems to me that I usually have allies than can fight his and he has allies that can fight mine.



So there is a balance of sorts, the advantage going to the group that can use their different assests the most effectively.  All races have a function here and everyone can find areas that suit their style of play.  Key is to compare the alliances not the individual races.  I've never seen a Federation/Klingon/Mirak alliance on a server yet and don't think I ever will.

Now can this balance be tweaked a bit.  Sure it can, the disengagement rule is such an example one I fully support.  Let the admins do the tweaking, based on what they want and what they think would be fun and fair.  Lets not get stuck in too many stagnant standards, and instead experiment with all kinds of different setups.  If some are vastly inferior, they won't likely appear again, if some are greatly preferred, they likely will surface again, if one is used over and over, the game will be dull and players will likely lose interest.  So lets keep it fresh.


BTW:  I don't like coloring books, I prefer Pin-the-tail on the ...............! 



P.S.  guess you missed my mission ideas thread a while back where I proposed lots of interesting and challanging ideas.  Funny thing the biggest opposition to this came from some of the biggest p v p whores who didn't want to spend lots of time in ai missions as it kept them delayed from getting into p v p.

[KBF-Crim]

"One man's cheese is another man's only hope for survival".....KBF-Crim

 

[Holocat]

I think the summary of #9 mischaracterizes my position.  My position on mission times in one aspect is simple.  Hex-flippers want to run missions as fast as possible and for those mission to be easy as possible.  This seems incongruous to me from a group that claims to love to play the game, yet spends as little time as possible in the game engine.  What they actually like is making pretty colors on a map.  Go get a coloring book. The rest of us want to play the game.  I'd prefer AI missions to be interesting and involved if that is what I am going to encounter most of the time as opposed to short and pointless.  This is not merely so that AI mission time will be more on par with PvP missions but so that AI missions will be worth doing, so that the D2 will be even worth playing for me.  2 minute missions are not my idea of fun.  I'd rather missions be challenging not something I can turn my brain off to do.

As to the Kzin perspective on switching ships for different jobs, what Gook has continually failed to see is that we are all hex-flippers.  No ship is a PvP ship that encounters 90% AI missions.  Therefore a CLC or BCF or whatever are all made for hex-flipping but can also do a bit of PvP.  The only reason Kzins need to switch off is 1. They have few good PvP ships therefore by definition they are likely flying a flipper as well as just being Kzin and 2.  they choose the option to fly weak little frigates or whatever to get easy missions as opposed to what everyone else does which is taking a balanced, reliable ship.   How we are all expected to play their game of flipping is beyond me.  What they should be asking for is better PvP ships not expecting everyone else to find those one or two ships in their race that can flip (and that may not exist) but never nearly as fast as a droner.

Noted and summary modified.  I *think* what I have now written is more in line as to what you are cognating here.

I write these sumaries to keep things neat when I search for these threads at later times.  As such, if anything you see here seems inaccurate to you, feel free to append your own rebuttals and notes. 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Well then, i don't know how Gook feels but regarding

Something brought up once before is the Miraki operating procedure of buying a ship that is correct for a specific mission parameter, this being either PvP or Flipping-off hexes. It is percieved that other races do not generally do this, at least to the extent that the miraki do

I'd have to say the Klingons tend to do it about as much as the Kzin.

[Gook]

Holocat,

Thank you very much for your summary, I have to say I am glad someone else has done this.

As to flamefest, I'm not sure it was that, heated debate certainly, but when anyone has a strong opinion thta is bound to happen.

I would like to thank everybody who took part and those that didn't, but read the threads.

I think what it shows once the willy waving has been filtered out (by all), there is a diversity of opinion as to how we play the game we all love so much. I only hope that the powers that be have also read the debates, and have takeninto account the various plebiscites which preceded it, when setting the D2 parameters for individyual servers what ever they may be.

[Rolling]

"One man's cheese is another man's only hope for survival".....KBF-Crim

 

OH YEAH!!!!  THAT IS IT!!!!

With the emphasis on "hope".

[Lepton]

Chuut,

What I think you miss in your post and what Gook misses is that we are all hex-flippers by definition.  Everyone knows what ships to take that don't suck, the AI is easy to beat, and we all strive for fast mission times.  Now, to me the only thing that really matters in the D2 is hex-flipping as 90% of missions are AI-based.  Therefore, if one race or a couple of races have an advantage in that area then it is a serious issue.  PvP is having more of an impact, but hell some peeps want to trash the disengagement rule and we will be back to a flip-fest.  My point is that Kzins should not be relegated to guerilla tactics.  If there is a problem with their shiplist, let's address it so that they have some more balanced ships.  The whole arms race for faster mission times is predicated on the use of droner ships.  If these were not so much in evidence on the D2, mission times would be more equivalent and I think folks would be alot happier.  I am no great Lyran flyer, but I tell you I have nothing that is comparable to the mission times I had as a Kzin when I have played them in the GW series.  Disruptors and ESGs don't make for great mission times and plasma races have their own issues.

While I appreciate the concept of alliances balancing out the strengths and weaknesses of certain races, there can be no balance if those who face flippers are relegated into flying "flippers", which I will assume by definition robs them of a certain amount of PvP capacity, to keep pace with their tactics, or choose to fly more balanced ships then suffer from worse mission times.  It's a no-win situation.  And don't tell me about switching off ships.  We all know how long it can take to get a new ship.  By the time the flippers are encountered and I would "choose" (read forced into) to changing my tactics, the hex or hexes would be overrun by that point. And who wants those tactics??  Faster missions times just mean more and more boring missions.  So the upshot is that everyone needs to fly a flipper to counter those tactics or switch off ships and lose the hex or hope that the flipper can get drafted while his buddies run 10 missions under you while the flipper lobbs drones at you for a half-an-hour.  These are not a great set of options.  I'd rather that, and this is what we have been striving for, mission times were more equivalent as that pretty much solves the problem.

What I would ask is what do the Kzins need to fight this other war that you speak of.  As a long standing Kzin player your perspective is obviously valuable and I know that you know how to use your race's ships for PvP.  So what else do they need for them to be more balanced regarding flipping and PvP?  If there is no issue there, then the Kzins have a bit of an unfair advantage.  If there is, let's remedy it and perhaps people will choose a more sane way of playing on the D2.  You seem to say there is no fix, but I am not aware of what has been tried.  This however is not an ultimate solution as the real issue is mission times.

If the AI weren't so irretrieveably stupid, this would not be at issue, but this is what we are stuck with.  I really tire of this debate.  I just wish people actually wanted to fly interesting missions that took some time as opposed getting it all over with immediately.   It's really counterintuitive to me from those who claim to love the game, yet spend so little time playing it comparatively, yet these are maybe the same folks who love the D2 and have never striven to produce a GSA-based campaign that would alleviate some of these issues.  Like I say, I think some of those folks just prefer seeing action on the D2 map and will do whatever it takes to make that happen whether it is fun for them or not.

[Laflin]

I have flipped hexes quickly in approximately the same amount of time using the M-DF, K-E4D, F-FFG, and L-MP, not to mention various freighters (especially ISC ones ).  The most important element affecting mission time was the race of the ai that I drew in the hex, not the BPV of the ai ship.  For example, Kzirak or Fed ai are easy kills for a Lyran, but Hydrans are somewhat more time consuming.

[Lepton]

Understood, Laflin, but I'll be damned if I let myself be relegated to those ships just to keep up with the Joneses.  This most likely not what you are implying, but your choice of ships to illustrate your point is also illustrative of the problem at hand.

[alfman]

I have flipped hexes quickly in approximately the same amount of time using the M-DF, K-E4D, F-FFG, and L-MP, not to mention various freighters (especially ISC ones ).  The most important element affecting mission time was the race of the ai that I drew in the hex, not the BPV of the ai ship.  For example, Kzirak or Fed ai are easy kills for a Lyran, but Hydrans are somewhat more time consuming.

Before Mid era the Roms have no quick hex flippers. The Gorn do not get a quick hex flipper until the Pf's come out. Even in our quick hex flipper ships the mission times are 2-4 minutes instead of under 2minutes some races can get( kzinti, Fed, Klingon , Hydran, And Lyran).

Light cariers with fighters instead of Pf's might work for early era , but it would up the cheese factor rather than tone it down.

[Rolling]

I wouldn't mind longer "hex flipping" missions if they were more interesting and the hex DV was not set so high.

Most missions I fly take longer than any other player and I find them tedious and repetative.  Others have come out of missons and moved on while I'm still in my mission pecking away.

I wish there was some way of creating different goals in mission;  where you have to complete a task of some sort.  Not a scanning mission, but on that same idea.  You may, or may not, have to fight, then obtain a clue as to what your task would be to complete the mission, then finish the task.

I dunno, I'm just tired of always fighting in every mission when all battles are not always fought with bullets.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Well I posted my ideas for this type of mission before Kim, just waiting for a scriptor to take up the project(s).

Regarding what the Kzin need on a p v p basis Lepton, are ships that are able to combat plasma chuckers who can fly at 31 and recharge weapons.  Most of our ships don't have the power to chase them down and tractor to allow drones to land or even to keep pace and saberdance too well.  The lack of phaser ones on many ships is also problematic vs plasma.  Later on when the plasma line ships get pfs added the plsma D variants add to the difficulty. 

Moggy's BCH at least gives us a fighting chance in late era, but other than that the only choice has been fleeting in the past or getting a 2 v 1.  Its hard to pin a ship against the map edge 1 v 1 when they can chuck plasma back at you knock out drones with Plasma D and/or out turn you.  Thats why the Romulans have always been the toughest race for us after early era.  The Isc being second, the PPD/plasma combo making it tough as always, but lacking the phaser arcs and plasma D of the roms.

Thing is, if you start adding power and phaser 1s it would unbalance us to a large degree vs the Klingons and other Western powers, as well as losing some of the racial flavor.   

One idea that just occured to me, however might be using the E racks again like on AOTK in place of C-Racks on line type ships.  This would give them a bit more survivability on the front if out of resupply or if drafted in consecutive missions.  Might make the line ships a little more desirable for other tasks as well over the drone boats, not sure but would have to try this to know for sure.  The reson they were put on AOTK was so that with the larger number of drones in the free reloads, Kzin drone prices were in effect lower per drone than Fed and Klink drones. 

I agree that some of the drone races advantages (this includes the Feds and Klingons, after all this is not a Mirak issue that Lepton is approaching but a drone race issue)  in mission times, but I have come up with several ideas to assist other races to "speed up" some of which have met with warm response. 

In particualr the idea of softening up missions on planets where the objective wouldn't be to simply knock down the planets marines and capture it but other things that would make the drone advantage less.  Put these in the mix and some of the drone race advantage dissipates. 

I don't want to be forced into a 20 minute planet assault because thats how long it takes the Gorn, I want the Gorn to have a chance to decrease their mission time instead.  Faster mission times sppeds up strategy and the gut call is more important than working out a math problem to figure out the best approach.  If the enemy can see it coming far in advance because everyone is running 10 minute patrols you lose much of the dynamic nature of the map.  Trench warfare has few surprises and there are few masterstrokes of planning and execution, the very reasons I love this game.  I play for the strategy not the p v p.  P v P can be and usually is fun, but I see it as a diversion from the true strategic game. 

I play as an admiral not as a captain in other words.  But I would like to see it where the "captains"  have a crucial role to play as well.  The disengagement rule is part of this.  I'd love to see a slot as well so that the small boat captains can do their thing.  But to keep my interest their must be a dynamic aspect to the map so that the admirals can do their thing as well.

P.S.  Lepton, I really liked the tone of your last post, that is the kind of post that invites discussion and challanges without flaming.  It also got you a good Karma.....

[Lepton]

OK, Chuut.  I'll ask you something point-blank.  Would you prefer 2 minute AI missions or ones that are more involved?  I ask this as Gook who also likes the strategic game I fear would choose the 2 minute option.  That seems incongruous from those who are self-professed lovers of this game.  I understand an affection for the strategic element but that must be supported if not take a back seat to missions as that is what we all do on the D2.  That's the game.  Strategy is layer over it.  If mission aren't interesting and worth doing, then one might as well play F&E or some other strategy game, or go to GSA-based campaign. 

I fear that those who take this "admiral" type position give little consideration or devalue the actual minute-by-minute game that occurs on the D2.  I really wish you had not made a distinction like admirals and captains as that makes it seems you are putting yourself above the "captains".  If it weren't for those captains, there would be no strategy for you to execute.  To me, the grunt is the most important person on the D2, not the elites that are running the show, as there would be no show without the cast, so to speak.  I am sure this was not the intent of your post, but drawing those distinctions to me is part of the problem here.  Not that I am accusing you of being an elitist, but it seems to me that those who value the strategic element to a greater degree also tend to want to streamline strategy's execution to the detriment of the enjoyment of actual gameplay.

Let's just say I prefer the journey, not the outcome.  I often couldn't care less who wins a campaign, except in that it is often discouraging to those on the losing end and people end up not playing because of it.  That's a sad state of affairs, especially when those people wouldn't be here if they didn't like the game, and campaigns can actually end up pushing people away.  I just wish there were an alternative system that would provide interesting scenarios to play wherein the outcome of an individual scenario was of interest, instead of the long term strategic outcome, that to me is neither here nor there.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

IF the longer missions are nothing more than the blowing up of additional ai, with nothing significantly better to do I'd take the shorter ones as most p v p types likely would to, so that if they miss drafting an enemy live player on the front they have to wait less time before trying again.

If the mission can offer other objectives than simply blowing up the enemy, or at least allow for a different way to do it, I'd be all for the longer missions.  In fact I have come up with several mission concepts that fit the bill here, and posted them for commentary a few months back.  Just waiting for the scriptors to deem them worthy of taking a crack at them.

As for the admiral vs captain aspect, both are equally important in my view.  When I'm on the map I'm the admiral looking at where to strike, what to defend, etc., when I'm in mission I'm in captain mode, when to shoot, when to hit and run, etc.  I don't see one as more important to the other, and the challange of both is to out think your enemy.  The captains are indeed the ones who actually execute much of the admirals game, but without the admirals game being emphasized as well, you see missions being run in unimportant areas no matter how skillfully.

[Lepton]

This is a place where we will disagree.  The "captains" so to speak are perfectly capable of organizing themselves, identifying strategic objectives, and carrying them out.  Those strategists who merely wish to push pawns around on a map should fine some automotons or indentured servants.

We will also disagree with shorter mission times and less AI.  If it were true that droners sought out PvP, that would be a fine proposition, but let's not kid ourselves.  Droners are looking to flip hexes which means avoiding PvP as much as possible.  Nope, they can't have their cake and eat it too.  Despite the irretrieveably stupid AI, more of them is still a hassle to those who go for hex-flipping, so I think the more AI the better.  Is there something preventing us from having 4v4s and 5v5s?  I know there are larger AI missions in SFC3.  I loved those missions in SFC3.  Long, drawn out, and lucrative.  If the AI can't be eliminated altogether, then they should blot out the sun to slow the pace of drone-using flippers.

Don't get me wrong.  I'd love a more PvP intensive server, but cutting out AI will just lead to exploitation. That's in part why scritpers started by the AI ante in the first place.  So Karnak or ED, where are the truely massive AI missions?  If there are some, let's use them.  What's the upper limit on AI in a mission? Anyone know? Barring some sort of system wherein missions with larger amounts of AI would produce larger DV shifts, I can't see cutting down on the number of AI as a tenable proposition.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Lepton, you didn't follow me completely accurately on the admiral vs. captain bit.  I wasn't suggesting that any player who plays primarily as a captain couldn't make their own decisions, but most do feel that planning is very helpful to the effort and coordination as well.  When you have some players who cannot connect to voice coms this is especially true.  Also to coordinate the players on at different times towards the same goals can be crucial. 

My style is not to push people around but to let them know what I see on the map and suggest a course of action and give reasons for it, I also want to know what others see and what they think is important, usually such an analysis will suffice and players tend to recognize what the more urgent course of action is.  I'm also for letting players do what they feel is fun for them regarless of this, because if they aren't having fun, they wont be online anyhow in most cases.  An admirals game is this sense is one of information gathering and communication not pawn pushing, if the intell is convincing the "pawns" will naturally fall into place.

As far as increased ai levels, what I've found is that a drone ship will have its advantage multiplied in such situations rather than supressed, and the plasma races will be in mission for exceptionally long periods of time.  The Hydran ships will become a true nightmare as waves upon waves of fighters are present.  Romulan ai will cloak and leave the Rommie pilots likely in a sad situation, etc.  Additionall mission stability is retarded and more drops will be the result.

[Lepton]

I wouldn't think that you would push people about, so for me the distinction between these two types of players is a false distinction based on command and control and strategy. Both have strategic and situational awareness, but the captains are looking for something a bit more than an expedited hex-flip which to me is the unfortunate side of the so-called admirals in this case, those being more interested in strategy than gameplay.

I'd actually like to see it proved out that larger AI missions still favor droners.  Hasn't the whole increase in AI in the present set of EKK and NW missions been to delay droners, in part?   If 3v3 is more difficult for droners, why would not 4v4s or 5v5s be even more cumbersome?

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I wouldn't think that you would push people about, so for me the distinction between these two types of players is a false distinction based on command and control and strategy. Both have strategic and situational awareness, but the captains are looking for something a bit more than an expedited hex-flip which to me is the unfortunate side of the so-called admirals in this case, those being more interested in strategy than gameplay.

I'd actually like to see it proved out that larger AI missions still favor droners.  Hasn't the whole increase in AI in the present set of EKK and NW missions been to delay droners, in part?   If 3v3 is more difficult for droners, why would not 4v4s or 5v5s be even more cumbersome?

Funny I always considered it a strategic game with tactical elements, if I wanted pure tactics I could go to Freelancer or one of the other games that tend to bore me after a few hours.

As for the 4 v 4 and 5 v 5, they quickly become a 2 v 4 or 2 v 5 after a few minutes as the drones pops a few ships, and then can let his ai clean up in quick and easy fashion.

[el-Karnak]

Karnak suggested using mission scripting to solve this problem, but Chutt got mad.

Loser!!     



Thanks for the great summary, Holocat!!

[KAT MRess]

If it were true that droners sought out PvP, that would be a fine proposition, but let's not kid ourselves.  Droners are looking to flip hexes which means avoiding PvP as much as possible. 

I have been monitoring the threads, leaving the debating to those better qualified than I, namely Chuut and Gook. However, I feel I must take issue with this statement. Not so much as the issue in question but more so with the line of thought being offered here.

The sense I get from this is that you are generalizing all droners into a "Avoid PvP and only flip hexes" group on the whole. Not only is it an unfair assessment, it is patently untrue. As another long time Kzin I can honestly say I have never avoided a fight. I have never run out of an area, just to find easier hex flipping grounds or retreated from a battle when I was drafted. I have retreated when I was grossly outmatched or badly damaged from the previous PvP. But I have always complied with the rules governing such.

When leading other captains into battle they have ALWAYS complied and never shied from a PvP conflict. In fact I know that most of them go looking for good PvP.

I have also acted as a RM and I have never dealt with a complaint (for members of KAT and KOTH) of such rule violations. In fact, when such actions were questioned, our members have always VOLUNTARILY self-destructed or paid the appropriate penalty.

Just because you fly a drone ship does NOT automatically mean you avoid PvP.

To base or form any argument on such a statement is flawed and renders any such argument useless. Your line of thought on why certain changes should be made is valid, but please do not base it on a perception. Especially one that can be proven to be wrong.

If it was not your intention to imply such a generalization, then please clarify for me what you did mean.

Is there something preventing us from having 4v4s and 5v5s? 

Unfortunately in D2 I believe there is an IP timing issue due to the nature of the scripting and structure of the servers used.

The intention of D3 was to correct these issues using improved code, resources and updated technolody within the IP protocols. If we could apply D3 methods to D2 that would improve it, that would be great and wonderful, but I fear it would involve an almost complete re-write of everything involved. Feel free to correct me on this.

[Lepton]

The generalization stands as a generalization that is common knowledge and common currency in the D2.  Otherwise, why would klinks be apt to fly a D5D and feds an NCD for hex-flipping?   Droner-based ships are intended for hex-flipping, that there are a preponderance of those ships in the Mirak shiplist is no fault of my own, and that that many Mirak are self-confessed flippers or support flipping as their most viable option is proof-positive.  There is no reason for flippers to leave an active area as drafting is spotty at best and inconsequential with fast mission times.   Avoidance of PvP is the best solution for a hex-flipper.  If you do not utilize that tactic, that is not my fault either.  I'd reference you to Gook's post of Sockfoot's manifesto as representative of the flipper's attitude.

Also, you mischaracterize my remarks.  Avoiding PvP is not the same as breaking server rules to do so.  One may easily avoid PvP legally.

There is nothing wrong with a generalization if it captures elements of truth that are pervasive and in evidence, but need not characterize every particular element it is applied to.  If one starts reasoning from all the particulars, it is easy to get bogged down in exceptions to the rule and contradictions.  For instance I might say that clouds are white, and they often are white, but not always so, yet still the statement is useful as an incapsulation of a general state of clouds.  This would be in opposition to a protracted treatise on refraction, laws of optics, and the principles that govern cloud coloration when they appear different colors due to ambient lighting conditions.  Perhaps not the best analogy, but it demonstrates a principle in that a generalization is useful and conditional truthful without always being true.

[el-Karnak]

All right, let's get real here on the PvP vs. Hex flipping issues.  No Kzin, Klink or Fed droner is ever going to convince me that they don't avoid PvP from time to time.  It's not something to be ashamed of. It's simply good tactics.

Let's use the Russo-German war of 1941 to 1945 as an analogy to the Dynaverse. On one side you have the "Jousters", the Germans. These guys are so good at "PvP" that even when out-numbered the Boche can beat the Russians. Even when they have inferior tanks they did it. The fact is that the old Communists of the now defunct Soviet Union were so embarassed about their performance in WW2 that  they had to keep the actual casualties figures of that war a state secret until the fall of Communism in 1991.  It is simple testament to how badly the Germans could wump them:  30 Million in total or roughly 18% of the USSR's population in early 1940s.  Makes you wonder what the planet would look like if Hitler actually listened to his OKW staff, don't it? Or, if FDR did not ignore the howls of many in the US about giving away so much free weaponry and supplies to the USSR through Lend-Lease acts?    So, it's in the Germans best interest to get the enemy in a PvP lock-down whenever they can.

On the other side, you have the Russians, who are the hex flippers. Last thing they want to do is get entangled with the Germans in a face-to-face battle. Much like what the Allied powers finally figured out with Napoleon at the Battle of Liepzig in 1813, the Russians want to negate superior enemy tactics by avoiding a head-to-head fight and just swarming around the enemy with vastly out-numbering forces to cut off their LOS; otherwise, they are facing another Austerlitz(1805) or Borodino(1812) or Kiev in 1941 or Kharkov in 1943.  So,  as was done in Stalingrad, the hex flippers are going to let the enemy have the target hex but get bogged down holding it, while the other hex flippers use overwhelming numbers to swarm around the target hex and surrond it and cut off the enemy's LOS.

In conclusion, in a real war, if the PvPers have similar numbers or are only slightly out-numbered, then they will win hands-down unless some Hitler-like nut-case royally screws it up (ie. Goering/Hitler in 1940 Battle of Britain, Hitler delaying Operation Typhoon, the march on Moscow, 2 months too late in 1941).  The disengagement rule has striven to bring some of this reality into the SFC game. Otherwise, you truly are playing a pure poppy-cock fantasy that never has a chance of coming true sometime in this millenium (ie. Y2000 to Y2999), a few centuries from now, somewhere out there.

[KAT MRess]

The generalization stands as a generalization that is common knowledge and common currency in the D2.

This would be news to me as I've spent lots of time in PvP and others in the two main fleets have spent more time than me doing the same.

Also, you mischaracterize my remarks.  Avoiding PvP is not the same as breaking server rules to do so.  One may easily avoid PvP legally.

These comments were intended as proof that droners, ergo mirak, by your generalization, are not just hexflippers.

There is nothing wrong with a generalization if it captures elements of truth that are pervasive and in evidence, but need not characterize every particular element it is applied to.  If one starts reasoning from all the particulars, it is easy to get bogged down in exceptions to the rule and contradictions.  For instance I might say that clouds are white, and they often are white, but not always so, yet still the statement is useful as an incapsulation of a general state of clouds.  This would be in opposition to a protracted treatise on refraction, laws of optics, and the principles that govern cloud coloration when they appear different colors due to ambient lighting conditions.  Perhaps not the best analogy, but it demonstrates a principle in that a generalization is useful and conditional truthful without always being true.

There is everything wrong with such a generalization as such. Especially when it blatantly ignores the whole truth. Making a generalization based on only half the facts is as faulty as having wrong facts.

Your analogy works better than you think. No not all clouds are white, quite often that is the case. You just generalized that clouds are all white, but concede that is not always true. To that end, you cannot make any arguments, theories or statments of fact about clouds in general based on your concession. Only WHITE clouds.

The same applies here. You are generalizing that ALL droner pilots are hex-flippers. This statement blatantly ignores the fact that many "Droner" pilots are good PvP players and not merely hex-flippers. My statements are offered as proof that the percentage of skilled PvP "Droner" pilots are vastly larger than you are portraying. So much so that they fall into the same category as the "White cloud" analogy. As a result, your generalization blatantly ignores the large number of pilots that make the generalization invalid. The generalization only applies to droner pilots assigned to Hex-flip duty, a duty I might add, that has a place, and is utilized, in EVERY race.

You cannot generalize droners as Hex flip only just the same as you cannot generalize ESG as a defensive only weapon, or Hydrans as a fighter only race.

I am merely trying to point out that while droners do excel at hex flipping, you cannot generalize them as ONLY hex flippers.

[Lepton]

I never said drone-users were flippers only.  I said they avoid PvP.  That is not the same thing, as avoiding PvP is a real and only available tactic to a hex-flipper.  You made that assumption, not I.

Also while I am no philosopher, I think we can all basically concede that one cannot found any epistemology upon a sum total of particular instances that are all relative, temporary, and conditional in nature.  At some point, we must resort to generalization and abstraction or knowledge itself becomes impossible, therefore my arguement stands.

[el-Karnak]

I never said drone-users were flippers only.  I said they avoid PvP.  That is not the same thing, as avoiding PvP is a real and only available tactic to a hex-flipper.  You made that assumption, not I.

[KAT MRess]

I never said drone-users were flippers only.  I said they avoid PvP.  That is not the same thing, as avoiding PvP is a real and only available tactic to a hex-flipper.  You made that assumption, not I.

No assumption was made, your previous post stated quite clearly that:
"If it were true that droners sought out PvP, that would be a fine proposition, but let's not kid ourselves.  Droners are looking to flip hexes which means avoiding PvP as much as possible.  Nope, they can't have their cake and eat it too."

Since this whole balancing debate has been "PvP vs Hex flipping" (Due to "droners" being able to flip hexes at a superior level) it is quite clear by your statement that you think Droners are nothing more than hexflippers due to their avoiding PvP.

Also while I am no philosopher, I think we can all basically concede that one cannot found any epistemology upon a sum total of particular instances that are all relative, temporary, and conditional in nature.  At some point, we must resort to generalization and abstraction or knowledge itself becomes impossible, therefore my arguement stands.

While it does stand to reason that one cannot generalize due to variences in nature, generalization does occur when there is lack of valid data or concensus.

However, by that reason this instance or debate does not fall into that category as we have a mulitude of participants all trying to input valid data and reach a concensus.

Therefor, your agrument does not stand due to the fact:

1) There are many soucres of vaild data trying to co-operate in reaching an informed opinion or standard.

2) The majority of Droners on D2 do NOT avoid PvP.

[Kroma BaSyl]

2) The majority of Droners on D2 do NOT avoid PvP.

Well they do against me, but that's just because you are a bunch of pussies. ;-)

[Lepton]

2) The majority of Droners on D2 do NOT avoid PvP.

Well they do against me, but that's just because you are a bunch of pussies. ;-)

BOOYA!!

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I would then submit that light cruisers tend to avoid p v p with Heavies, Heavies with BCHs, etc.

Sure sometimes you avoid P v P when you know a superior P v P ship is in the nex waiting.......duh.  The drone boats being inferior to many P v P ships have done this, but they have also been known to grab a wingman and charge in.  Drone boats can be incredibly good wingmen for some larger ships, and after faster drones come out 2 drone boats can be very effective in P v P; even more so than some line combos.

So if I'm in a drone boat all alone in an area where I know a CCZ or such ship is working, sure I wont go looking to grab him in a P v P.  And unless I have a BCH of my own I wouldn't consider it in a line ship either.  Nor would I think anything less of anyother pilot for doing the same.  On SSII I was flying the L-BCHT and I had CCZs that wouldn't come out of nebulas to fight me, did I consider them any lesser for it, hell no!, I thought here is a pilot with a brain that works.  The same for any droneboats that avoided me. 

I remember the ISC getting upset when the Gorn were ordered not to engage in P v P on Storm Season I.  The Gorn were being smart in a strategic sense and not playing to their enemies strength, having learned better after numerous P v P defeats.  So many of them took ships that were better at turning out faster missions or running Small boat Big boat combos, was there something wrong with this?

And while we all like to salute the captain who loses his ship putting up a good fight vs overwhelming odds, as its the politically correct thing to do; I admire his guts but have to shake my head and wonder how much he had to drink before that mission.

I still contend that the way alliances are set there are usually enough pilots who can and do fly drone ships on both sides of the field to create a balance when you take all allied races into consideration, there are usually a good balance of those seeking P v P in larger "non-hexflippers" to keep each other occupied as well.  The disengagement rule allows for both groups to have their importance, so I see no need to make special penaltys or disadvantages beyond what we already have in place, which seems to me to work fine and better than what we had previously.

I suggest anyone who thinks things haven't gone far enough in either direction to put up their own server the way they like it.  I'd be willing to give it a try.....honestly.  However, I think the numbers and PMs to the admin will show for themselves how popular this might be.

[Gook]

LOL I love the idea the Kzin or droners avoid PvP, utter balderdash!

I only ever run when there is no point at all, the opponent is to big or to skilled or both.

Sometimes the object will be to flip faster, rather than engage in PvP (Hail Mary) for instance.

The problem is usually, when I play, having enough opponents, the last time I played when there were plenty of opponents in CW6 I had a good tallly (for me) below is an extract from my report on that server dealing with my personal PvP, oh and I was flying a DWD for most of it (solo)

My personal PvP tally was 24. 10 BCFs ,1BCG,4 CLCs,3DWDs,1PFLP,1,NVS,the rest assorted drone cruisers. Many more limped off the board ruing the day they asked me to leave the area  because I "only" had a  DWD

I was killed (blown up13) times amongst my vanquishers were ACE, 9thGhis,  Lucky, 1AF Maralborough man,  TOC-Bearslayer, and many more. All great games and if I have forgotten to mention you I apologise. I also had to leave with battle damage on many more occasions.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Sometimes the object will be to flip faster, rather than engage in PvP (Hail Mary) for instance.

Which is exactly why we have the disengagement rule.

[Gook]

Sometimes the object will be to flip faster, rather than engage in PvP (Hail Mary) for instance.

Which is exactly why we have the disengagement rule.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Sometimes the object will be to flip faster, rather than engage in PvP (Hail Mary) for instance.

Which is exactly why we have the disengagement rule.

hate to tell you this Gook, but I definately agree with Kroma here, unless I'm reading your banghead differently from what you intended.

[el-Karnak]

Sometimes the object will be to flip faster, rather than engage in PvP (Hail Mary) for instance.

Which is exactly why we have the disengagement rule.

Gook is pretty good at reinforcing the arguments in favor of the disengagement rule.

[FPF-DieHard]

Sometimes the object will be to flip faster, rather than engage in PvP (Hail Mary) for instance.

Which is exactly why we have the disengagement rule.

Gook is pretty good at reinforcing the arguments in favor of the disengagement rule.

<Snicker>

[Gook]

Sometimes the object will be to flip faster, rather than engage in PvP (Hail Mary) for instance.

Which is exactly why we have the disengagement rule.

Gook is pretty good at reinforcing the arguments in favor of the disengagement rule.

<Snicker>

What has the disenagement rule got to do with the accusation that droners don't like PvP? Nothing so why bring it up. It is not a panacea for all, and certainly nothing to do with the point under discussion, so the heads are for frustration at a totally pointless mantra.

I fail to see what the relevance of the example quoted has to do with the disengagement rule, which was in place at the time of the example, and there is nothing wrong or cheesy in going for a VC the most efficient way.

[Kroma BaSyl]

What has the disenagement rule got to do with the accusation that droners don't like PvP? Nothing so why bring it up. It is not a panacea for all, and certainly nothing to do with the point under discussion, so the heads are for frustration at a totally pointless mantra.

I fail to see what the relevance of the example quoted has to do with the disengagement rule, which was in place at the time of the example, and there is nothing wrong or cheesy in going for a VC the most efficient way.

There is nothing wrong with going for the VC in the most efficent way, never was wrong. Just made the game less fun for those that don't like the hex flip marathon, thus we now have the disengagement rule that gives both styles of game their place. Also "I" have never said that droners don't "like" PvP, I have had tons of great PvP with and against droners. However, on servers without the disengagement rule in place, I have had players, even some that I know like PvP, avoid it so that they could get back to the more effecient method of aquiring the VC.

You made the statement:

LOL I love the idea the Kzin or droners avoid PvP, utter balderdash!

Which says nothing about "liking", just avoiding. It is simply not balderdash that hex flippers avoid PvP when trying to take territory in the most effiecent manner possible, there is also nothing wrong with that. Heck some of my best friends are droners, I even walk in their parade to show support.

[el-Karnak]

Sometimes the object will be to flip faster, rather than engage in PvP (Hail Mary) for instance.

Which is exactly why we have the disengagement rule.

Gook is pretty good at reinforcing the arguments in favor of the disengagement rule.

<Snicker>

What has the disenagement rule got to do with the accusation that droners don't like PvP? Nothing so why bring it up. It is not a panacea for all, and certainly nothing to do with the point under discussion, so the heads are for frustration at a totally pointless mantra.

I fail to see what the relevance of the example quoted has to do with the disengagement rule, which was in place at the time of the example, and there is nothing wrong or cheesy in going for a VC the most efficient way.

I am merely and gently, but firmly with the utmost of respect, pointing out that the points that are being brought out in detail, some may say ad nauseum, by your thread, are merely bearing irretrievable elucidation on the inexorable need for the disengagement rule in contemporary dynaverse play.  To which all the players of the plasma races are perhaps satisfied with this riposte of dyna verboseness.

If you wish to discuss "droners don't do PvP" issue.  Many do.  Some do a lot.  A lot of them do lotsa IP games and we all have lotsa fun.

And then there are some that do too much PvP.  For example:  "Fluf wants the name of your ship?  Knight 15, why?"

I rest my case.

However, this does not hide the fact that many droners or any hex flipper specialist will avoid PvP from time to time for tactical reasons which is all find and dandy, IMHO.  I don't even quibble about deliberately owl-timed blitzkreig assaults like the Coalition did in SS2 or Alliance did in GW2.  It's all part of the game.

As long as we can all respect each other's different opinions and still get a pick-up IP game going then me happy frog.

[Lepton]

Ok, so all you Kzins are telling me that when you fly DF+s, it is so that you can engage in effective PvP??  And you're also telling me that flying similar hex-flipping ships that are only effective at drafting inadequate AI are really intended to be PvP competitve?

Running and avoiding PvP are not the same thing.  In fact my expectation would be that flippers would stay in a mission as it ties up ships so that others may avoid PvP.  Let us not forget.  Most of the time we are facing AI.  Flipper boats take advantage of a stupid AI.  These boats are called flippers because they can run fast missions.  By definition for these ships to be effective and to meet the requirements of being called flippers, they need to avoid human players, as they are flown to beat up on AI.  So unless we are prepared to deny that there is any such thing as hex-flipping and flipper ships, then you all need to check yourself on the facts.

[KAT MRess]

Ok, so all you Kzins are telling me that when you fly DF+s, it is so that you can engage in effective PvP??

Quite simply, YES! On a regular basis.

And you're also telling me that flying similar hex-flipping ships that are only effective at drafting inadequate AI are really intended to be PvP competitve?

We fly PvP with what we have and take our chances. I personally have done it regularly (how many people have blown me up while flying a DF?) .

Running and avoiding PvP are not the same thing.

No argument there.

In fact my expectation would be that flippers would stay in a mission as it ties up ships so that others may avoid PvP.

Then your expectation are sorely misplaced. You cannot "tie up" ships by running missions, as the server will always generate more for you to compete against. Additionally, you cannot expect a "hex-flipper" to realistically "tie up" a player opponent as they regularly are outclassed. DISENGAGEMENT RULE: They have to engage or run off the board. If they engage they blow up real quick, a regular occurence for me. If they run, the mission ends quickly. The only tying up that could occur is when you have two evenly matched ships in a very well fought battle. And in that situation, one is hardly "AVOIDING" PvP.

Besides "staying" in mission would defeat the purpose of flipping hexes as it takes longer to shift the DV.

 

Let us not forget.  Most of the time we are facing AI.  Flipper boats take advantage of a stupid AI.  These boats are called flippers because they can run fast missions. 

Are you implying that droners are the only ones that take advantage of Dumb AI? Everyone does. How fast we do it is what the balancing issue comes down to. So this point is moot as this is the very issue that is trying to be balanced.

By definition for these ships to be effective and to meet the requirements of being called flippers, they need to avoid human players, as they are flown to beat up on AI.  So unless we are prepared to deny that there is any such thing as hex-flipping and flipper ships, then you all need to check yourself on the facts.

Definition? There's a definition for this? Are you saying that PvP ships cannot flip hexes?

I have never denied that hex-flipping occurs. It occurs regularly and frequently BY ALL RACES. Each race has ships that are better suited for that particular duty.

What I'm saying is that it is grossly unfair and insulting to generalize ALL droners as "Hex -flippers who avoid PvP", for the reasons stated in previous posts.

[Lepton]

It seems to me that you deny at every turn what is common knowledge and common currency on the D2, so either you have serious differences in perception to the point of being ludicrous, or you are advancing an agenda by denying what is well-held among most in this community.  I don't think you're going to advance much on this line of calling black white or saying it's all grey.

BTW, you are fault-finding with my posts to the degree of obsurdity and contradiction.  You admit that Kzins fly what they have and take their chances implying that the ships are somehow inadequate for PvP (or are they hex-flippers?), yet claim the DF+ is flown as an effective PvP ship.  Further, you failed at first to understand what I was saying about tying up a ship, as of course I am referencing a PvP situation, and proceed to tell me, I assume, that AI can't be tied up or something or perhaps you mean the hex (who knows??  Really I don't know what you are saying and I suspect neither do you).  Then you realize your mistake, or something to that effect and quote the disengagement rule to me, failing of course to register in your agenda-addled mind the common practice of hurling drones at the opposition for a half-an-hour.  Whether engaged in genuine PvP or not,  that's tying up a ship

Finally, you abuse sense and logic by attempting to contradict an arguement that is solid and simple as mathematical proof.  I tried to make it as simple as possible so that we might all agree what is patently true, especially since you seemed to need a demonstration of the perfectly obvious.

Now, if you will remember, I never said that drone boat flyers are only flippers as was your original gripe with me, but that they avoid PvP. 

Look, I can't make it any simpler for you to understand.  If you don't get it, I can't explain it to you.  It's a question of defintiions.

As evidence for my arguements, I point to your own boy Gook's frustration with being a Kzin and being "experimented on" for adjusting mission times and hex-flipping abiliity.  If the flipping ability of Kzins were not at issue, then why all this hullabulloo over the years?  I guess everyone else was deluded and you're the sane one.  It's like you're speaking a foreign language here.  I don't think there has been an universal translator invented that is advanced enough to interpret utterances from a head shoved up the speaker's butt.  If you will kindly remove it and speak clearly into the receiver, perhaps we will all be able to understand exactly what it is you are tripping over your own lack of sense and command of standard English to say.

[KAT MRess]

The way I see it, you yourself have declined in your ability to comprehend what it is that I?m trying to say. This is evidenced by the fact that you no longer have any argument, only criticisms of someone else?s opinion. So here are my facts:

Fact: Yes I am trying to explain my point of view. In support of this I will REPEAT yet again your own statement.

"If it were true that droners sought out PvP, that would be a fine proposition, but let's not kid ourselves.  Droners are looking to flip hexes which means avoiding PvP as much as possible.  Nope, they can't have their cake and eat it too.?

Let?s break this down real simple. ?Droners are looking to flip hexes? That?s says it all right there. Droners want to flip hexes and nothing else.

?which means avoiding PvP as much as possible? This re-enforces the previous statement by confirming the alternate action is avoided. Since there seems to be only two actions being discussed, to avoid one means to engage in the other. This is the basis of the generalization.

Can you deny your own statement generalizes ALL droners are hex flippers by avoiding PvP?


Fact: Yes I admit Kzin fly what they are given, they don?t have a choice. The Kzin shiplist has been pared so much by limiting ?Bombardment? ships and large class ships. But does that that mean we fly only hex flippers? Hardly. Since they?ve been restricted in the last few servers how can we exclusively fly Droners?

Fact: Yes I would like to see Kzin ships improved. That is my agenda. Just like the Feds would like to see theirs improved, and the Roms theirs and so on. I do not deny it. Can you honestly say you DON?T have one yourself? Because if you don?t, you wouldn?t be arguing. In fact I wouldn?t expect any less of you, as everyone wants whats best for them and the community.

Fact: Yes I will take issue with any post (I have in the past, and I will continue to do so) with any post that spouts such a generalization and insult. But I will continue to do so using structured argument and not criticisms of a persons opinion.

I will argue your ?common knowledge? and ?common currency? of the D2. I am assuming that you mean Kzin are droners and ?hex-flippers? as you have never stated what it is you are referring to. Since this is the point of my contention I would ask that you clarify what that "common knowledge" is.

I still stand by my accusation that your generalization of Droners as ?hex-flippers? is inaccurate and insulting. This is the reason why any proposal you may have will meet with resistance from the Kzin. Any suggestion based on such misinformation would (and should) be questioned by anyone.

[FPF-DieHard]

. . . .I don't think there has been an universal translator invented that is advanced enough to interpret utterances from a head shoved up the speaker's butt  . . .

Thank you for the new sig quote!!!!! 

Karma to you!

[Lepton]

I have to admit that I laughed a bit and continue to chuckle over that one.  Goose, I'll reply to you later.  I'm going to have to really simplify it for you for you to get it.  BTW, I don't fly or advocate for any race.  I look for balance, equity, and dare I say justice.  Frankly, it's all you race-mongers that screw this game over.  If you people weren't so entrenched in your racial biases and attitudes, there would be lot more consensus on D2 issues.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Lepton just design your own server, that way you can have it like you want it.  If players like what you do it will be copied, if not maybe you will finally give it a rest, or at least rethink it.

I promise I WILL play on it just to see and try to keep an open mind. 

Your attitude has gone back to flamish behavior and while Die Hard may enjoy your remarks I find them very childish.  You claim to want to understand someone yet when they express themself you post this kind of BS, really makes you look like a troll instead of someone seeking answers via a civil debate.

[Lepton]

Lepton just design your own server, that way you can have it like you want it.  If players like what you do it will be copied, if not maybe you will finally give it a rest, or at least rethink it.

I promise I WILL play on it just to see and try to keep an open mind. 

Your attitude has gone back to flamish behavior and while Die Hard may enjoy your remarks I find them very childish.  You claim to want to understand someone yet when they express themself you post this kind of BS, really makes you look like a troll instead of someone seeking answers via a civil debate.

I can't have a civil debate with someone who will not acknowledge facts.  I well know that Kzins or those who fly droner ships don't only do hex-flipping.  That has never been in dispute.  What is clear is that those who fly those type of droner ships aren't flying them to be effective PvPers.  They may use them to good effect in that respect, but their function is for bull-rushing an addled AI.  Unfortunately, the Kzin are a special case as most of their ships have 4 or more drone racks.  To deny that there has been specific measures taken to curb them as Gook puts forth is to deny the obvious.  Fluf may be referenced at your leisure for his own resentment at being in the gun sights of the D2 community as a Kzin.

Goose is just pissed because he thinks I called him a hex-flipping pu**y so to speak and he thinks this is some d*ck measuring contest.  I'm sure he PvPs as do many others.  Who cares!!!  If the history of the D2 hasn't been to bring hex-flipping under some control, if the Kzins have not been the target of some of those controls, if the community were not reacting to an accurate perception of the Kzin tendency to hex-flip and the perception of drone-based ships as hex-flippers, then we all must have been living a delusion for the past 3 or 4 years.  So which is it?  A whole community of deluded individuals or an accurate tally of the often purposeful use of droner-bases ships as hex-flippers.  Your choice.

[KAT MRess]

You're right Chuut, not only is he incapable of carrying on a debate and ignoring basics fact that I laid out, but now the flamish behaviour is surfacing.

No point in carrying on as it is plain I won't get a straight answer or argument.

[Mog]

From what I can see, Lepton is about right in his assessment of the main role of drone ships. It's to kill ai, re Sockfoot's campaign guide. There are a number of people (nb NOT ALL - warsears springs to mind lol) who fly drone ships that do try to avoid pvp, because, as Sockfoot's campaign guide says, pvp is a waste of ai killing time.

So I'm not really sure what you're arguing about, Mress.

[el-Karnak]

Well, since everyone seems to be open-minded in this thread then I'm sure that without further ado y'all will be most pleased to concur most emphatically that the disengagement rule's banning time for ship destruction will be equal to the banning time for taco-belling.

Well done, y'all. 

[KAT MRess]

Simplified, my point is (because Mog is nice about asking):

Yes, drone ships CAN be used to flip hexes (they are not the only ships that can however).

Yes, the Kzin are exceedingly good at it.

But to generalize ALL Droners as nothing but hex flippers (by AVOIDING PvP) is blatantly wrong and insulting.

What would be even worse, is to bring about (or attempt to bring about) any change based on such a faulty supposition, will only hurt the community more.




BTW: Yes Karnak, that I do agree with. Defeat is defeat whether you blow up or run off.

[FPF-DieHard]

But to generalize ALL Droners as nothing but hex flippers (by AVOIDING PvP) is blatantly wrong and insulting.

To deny that the flaws of the D2 and SFC engine grossly favor drone ships is blantantly wrong and insulting.

[el-Karnak]

BTW: Yes Karnak, that I do agree with. Defeat is defeat whether you blow up or run off.

I believe that's all the non-hex flipping adept races need to hear.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

But to generalize ALL Droners as nothing but hex flippers (by AVOIDING PvP) is blatantly wrong and insulting.

To deny that the flaws of the D2 and SFC engine grossly favor drone ships is blantantly wrong and insulting.

with the disengagement rule hex flipping in ships not as well suited for p v p and with both sides having acess to drone boats on ALL recent servers except GW2, this is in my book a non-issue.

If you want to use your bishops only and I want to use my knights only or both my bishops and my knights, its not my fault that you don't use your knights.  Conversely its not your fault if I don't use my bishops.  As long as each has their role to play and each role has significant importance I'm happy, but don't try to take knights out of the game just because you don't like to use them.

[FPF-DieHard]

But to generalize ALL Droners as nothing but hex flippers (by AVOIDING PvP) is blatantly wrong and insulting.

To deny that the flaws of the D2 and SFC engine grossly favor drone ships is blantantly wrong and insulting.

with the disengagement rule hex flipping in ships not as well suited for p v p and with both sides having acess to drone boats on ALL recent servers except GW2, this is in my book a non-issue.

If you want to use your bishops only and I want to use my knights only or both my bishops and my knights, its not my fault that you don't use your knights.  Conversely its not your fault if I don't use my bishops.  As long as each has their role to play and each role has significant importance I'm happy, but don't try to take knights out of the game just because you don't like to use them.

Not every race has 'bishops."

My race has the best escorts in the game, I don't want them un-restrcited because I know they are unbalanced and the game is better off without them. 

The point that Lepton and I agree on is we feel this game should be more that a contest as to who can hit the Z key the fastest.  I know you agree with that to.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Not every race has 'bishops."

No but every side does.

[Mog]

Not every race has 'bishops."

No but every side does.

Agreed. Combined race shiplists please.

[FPF-DieHard]

Not every race has 'bishops."

No but every side does.

Agreed. Combined race shiplists please.

Yes, we all love servers that burp every time the economy cycles 

Allowing multiple accounts makes more technical sense, the server kit likes it better.

[Mog]

Fairy snuff, that will do.

[TotensBurntCorpse]

Mission times Missions times...

Flipping hexes is fun for some, tedious for others, distainful to a few but in the end is necessary to achieve victory on this game, as the game is basically about total conquest out of the box.

That was then...this is now...

Now we have added other requirements to achieve victory on a server.   VCs for ship kills, specific hexes, and puzzles have become more common place.  Time was once when you "won" by destroying not just the other players ships but their entire empire (ask me about the M-CVS+ Battlestar Miraktica some time).

To support deeper game play we have agreed thru trial and error (and quite a few fur balls, no pun intended hehehe), to add VCs, restrictions on ships and disengagements, new missions (Karnak, ED, NW et al), new models, new ship classes, new maps etc.  To make the game a far greater experience than it has ever been before.  From humble beginnings from taldren, OP has become a great game, rather than EAWs bast*rd child.

Mission times only really count when there is no penalty for being bounced by superior forces in a valid (read here VC) hex.  The "hex flipper" tends to operate alone in a ship that takes advantage of the inherrent stupidity of the game engine AI.  As such a "hex flipper" can be ambushed by PvP killers and forced out of the hex, dead or alive.  As to others running missions under this duel, that is where strategy comes into play.  The smart defending race will set up successive PvP killers to drive off the "hex flippers".

(defn - hex flipper ships IMHO are ships that have a disportionate amount of alpha striking power vs the AI ability to defend against.  Ships of this type include high concentrations of drones on a CL or smaller hull, high concentrations of phasers or heavy weapons on a CL or smaller hull.  However marine ships are also hex flippers but seem to be left out of the discussion at hand.)

A term given some time ago was Crunch Power, IMHO the best "hex flippers" are the ships that have the best Crunch Power for their hull size.  HOWEVER, these ships may also have the detriment of being small hulls that don't stand up well against others in ships of one or two hull sizes bigger.

EX... Any races Drone Boat vs the AI, simple.  Launch drone wave, launch SP, tractor,  launch second drone wave watch AI vanish in nice neat explosion.  This can also be done with just about any ship with sufficiently high alpha striking ability (here I mean most delivery of Damage at ONE TIME) vs the AI hull size that has been mission matched.

HMMMM....

Mission matched.  Is this the real issue with "hex flipping"?  AI being well Actually Ignorant (AI), tends to do very stupid things.  Things players would never do, such as charge into a seeking weapon wave, be it drones or plazma.  AI fires weapons at stupid distances, ex fusions at range 15, phasers at range 25 etc.

To me a real consideration would be is AI mission matching really considering the Crunch Power of the player's ship when selecting an appropriate AI opposing force.

I will freely admit that some ships have orgasmic crunch power, where as others are basically chipping away ships.

Eg...  Klingons have to sabre dance to defeat most enemies because those ships lack crunch ability,  now introduce a wave of drones and the crunch ability of klingon ships increases exponencially per wave launched,  Mirak and Federation ships have the same abilities.  Albiet Mirak ships have less crunch without the drones, and feds have more crunch without the drones compared to klingon ships.

Plazma ships single biggest fault is slow arming cylces to achieve crunchy status, drone equipt ships are basically instantly crunchy.  Lyran, Fed, Hydran and ISC ships tend to fall in the middle.  Mirak and Klingon non drone ships also fall closer to the almost instantly crunchy status.


To balance races more IMHO the following should be considered...

Make Type 4 drones either rare or pricey.
Reduce by about 1/3 the cost of cloaking for romulan ships.
Make all Scenario maps LARGE with the opposing forces as far apart as is possible, to give the plazma races time to arm.
Remove all heavy weapons from fighters and give em all disrupters as weapons.
Remove all Phaser G's from fighters and give em phaser 3's. (or standarize them)
Add more phaser 1's to all hydran ships.
Add more ships to romulan early that are not trying to follow the SFB cannon of the romulans sucking in early.
As the DIP shiplist was trying to do, consider the alpha ability (crunch) of a ship when assigning its BPV.

Just some thoughts...

Meaningful D2 play IHMO is a correct mix of PvP, PvAI and most of all TEAM WORK.  If the VCs of the campaign are correct then the playing of the game will suit everone's style of play and still give a meaningful contribution for PvP wins, and PvAI wins.  I personally find the term "hex flipper" to have negative connotations, but as we all know this game is set up for taking hexes.  We have just chosen to go beyond this and include NON-hex flipping VCs into the mix, such as PvP wins and puzzle solving.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Make Type 4 drones either rare or pricey.

Not sure if this can be done or is desirable, yet I'd be willing to try it.

Reduce by about 1/3 the cost of cloaking for romulan ships.

 

agree

Make all Scenario maps LARGE with the opposing forces as far apart as is possible, to give the plazma races time to arm.

Or, if its possible have all ships start with weapons armed at standard levels.  just gotta make sure ships don't start too close together.  Hate to eat an R torp before being able to move.

Remove all heavy weapons from fighters and give em all disrupters as weapons.

don't like this due to much being taken away from the game, the disadvantage to those who like to fly carriers

Remove all Phaser G's from fighters and give em phaser 3's. (or standarize them)

4 phaser 3s is reasonable

Add more phaser 1's to all hydran ships.

not necessary if you don't mess with the ftrs, or at least not mess with them too much.

Add more ships to romulan early that are not trying to follow the SFB cannon of the romulans sucking in early.

Preaching to the choir here, drop the SFB based nonsense that says Roms suck in early, the Federation has a bigger economy and what not.  Unless you are trying to recreate something from SFB.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Lepton, you have made it clear that you prefer not simply "hex munching in a droner or such ship, and want more emphasis on P v P to have fun. 

My question to you is this, on servers using the disengagement rule have you found any shortage of players on the fronts to fight p v p matches against?


If so please announce yourself and I'm sure someone will oblidge you with a match.  Can't say that I've ever encountered you on the front when I'm there, which is quite often, BTW, unless you are using a different callsign I'm unaware of.  Now if I'm pusuing a hot VC or doing a deepstike I might not respond immediately, but I'll keep a lookout for you and eventually get to the front to give you a match.

In my experience there is rarely a shortage.  And if there is no shortage, why can't you find happiness on the front. 

[el-Karnak]

Make all Scenario maps LARGE with the opposing forces as far apart as is possible, to give the plazma races time to arm.

Or, if its possible have all ships start with weapons armed at standard levels.  just gotta make sure ships don't start too close together.  Hate to eat an R torp before being able to move.

Nien!! Nien!! Nien!!  

We cannot make the ships startup in misson at WS-III.  But, we did resolve the little debate I've been having off and on with others about starting ships at a speed greater than zero.  It's better to start off at speed zero to make sure that the plasma ships  are not put at a sizeable disadvantage.  Far better just to automatically enable red alert at mission startup for those that forgot to hit the 'R' key.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

We cannot make the ships startup in misson at WS-III. 

You haven't solved this yet?  What are ya doing Slacking on us......

maybe if the source code ever gets out we can do this, until then I don't see the distance as being a big factor as the smaller drone boats can out accelerate the big ships anyhow, to the degree of a faster time until ready to alpha target.  But, as I've never measured this, it could be less a difference than currently.

Just figured it might be possible since ships are starting out moving and I've seen ai immediately launch fighters at start of the mission.

[TotensBurntCorpse]

Is it possible to have ships unable to move for the first 100 secs of the mission, where the script burns this time quickly to have red alert occur automatically, THEN the apparent 100secs occurs at cpu speed sped up to really launch the mission for the player at time 101sec.

Dont know if this is possible?

Could all scripts allow for this time to be run very quickly in the puter so we see our ships at WSIII when the mission really "launches"?

[Lepton]

From what I can see, Lepton is about right in his assessment of the main role of drone ships. It's to kill ai, re Sockfoot's campaign guide. There are a number of people (nb NOT ALL - warsears springs to mind lol) who fly drone ships that do try to avoid pvp, because, as Sockfoot's campaign guide says, pvp is a waste of ai killing time.

So I'm not really sure what you're arguing about, Mress.

Bingo!!!

[Lepton]

But to generalize ALL Droners as nothing but hex flippers (by AVOIDING PvP) is blatantly wrong and insulting.

To deny that the flaws of the D2 and SFC engine grossly favor drone ships is blantantly wrong and insulting.

BINGO!!!

[Lepton]

I do like the idea of a mixed race shiplist, but what's to prevent folks from flying more drone-based hex-flippers in this instance?  Equal opportunity cheese is not really an optimal solution for me.

I think what people fail to understand about my point of view is that I am looking for balance, equality, and meaning in the D2.  I tend to find the AI is the site of most of these problems.  Given its inadequacies, we need to correct for its effects on gameplay and game balance.  The effect of the AI's inadequacies does not fall equally on all races therefore measures should be taken to address that.  Finally, given the AI's inadequacies, the D2, which is dominated by AI missions, has a stain of meaningless and senselessness upon it.  The only remedy in my mind to that situation is to create challenging AI missions if that is what is encountered most of the time on the D2 or jettison the D2 for a PvP-based campaign.  If I crap on flippers, it is because I feel they are exploiting the stupidity of the AI to the Nth degree and purposefully, whereas others merely do because one can almost not avoid exploiting the AI.  Given this lesser of two evils situation, I have suggested that PvP is inherently more meaningful and needs to achieve some sort of primacy in the D2 or people need to seriously consider a PvP-based campaign.

What I find quite incongruous is the seeming equating of hex-flipping and beating up on the AI as the strategic portion of the game, as if a more PvP weighted campaign would still not involve strategic movements, resource allocation, timing, luck, etc., all the hallmarks of the strategic element of the game.  The standard for determining hex posession would be merely based more on the outcome of PvP than AI missions, if such a thing is possible in the D2.  There is still strategy, hell more strategy, as you merely can't win by smacking around a helpless AI and setting the pace of battle at two minute missions.  Each mission becomes crucial with more PvP, not less crucial with hex-flipping.  PvP becomes less mere "jousting" although I maintain it never really was, and becomes the real standard for campaign success, not a pissing contest, but a strategic deployment of assets.  So there.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

From what I can see, Lepton is about right in his assessment of the main role of drone ships. It's to kill ai, re Sockfoot's campaign guide. There are a number of people (nb NOT ALL - warsears springs to mind lol) who fly drone ships that do try to avoid pvp, because, as Sockfoot's campaign guide says, pvp is a waste of ai killing time.

So I'm not really sure what you're arguing about, Mress.

Bingo!!!

Not entirely correct.

First off Sockfoots guide was before the disengagement rule and P v P VCs.

Lets Look at what Sockfoot said about P v P

To that end, player versus player combat is only valid in the Dynaverse in one of three situations;

1. You are drafted by your enemy;
 2. Player v. Player missions further your objective; and/or
3. You have achieved your objectives and you are ?mopping up.?

The use of the disengagement rule makes P v P now relevant and acceptable according to Sockfoot's guide as per #2


Now do drone ships excell in killing ai, sure they do, are they less effective in P v P than many other ships, sure they are.  Now this doesn't mean that those flying them seek to avoid P v P, although they might from time to time depending on strategic considerations.  Drone boats can make excellent wingmen, can't think of a better on for the CCZ or a big plasma boat.  Drone boats are sometimes the best available option.  

When fighting Romulans as a Mirak, I find my chances of a win in a drone ship better than in a line ship (pre Moggy BCH) vs a skilled pilot.  Remember that CVS+ vs SHK fight Moggy?  Did you have to work particularly hard to pull that off?  A Droner still couldn't beat you but #1 it would capitalize on a mistake vs a less experienced pilot and #2  its less expensive to replace, if your gonna lose a ship in a mismatch why not lose a smaller boat.  Besides I've killed Lyran Battlecruisers in an MDC vs experienced pilots, something I've yet to pull off in anything else although If I flew the CVA more it might happen.

As for avoiding P v P, hell yes I do when its not in my favor to engage.  This applies when I'm flying a drone ship, a line ship, the good ship lollipop, etc.  Who sees an enemy DN sitting on a hex and runs to draft them solo in a light cruiser?  Yet do I go running out of the area entirely, nope.  I get a wing and go after him, trade for a more suitable ship if one is available then go after him, call in my allies to form a posse with or without me in it etc.  Just because I choose not to try to draft him solo doesn't make my ship some kind of Pariah.  If the enemy notes my presence in the area with a hex-flipper then they need to run me off.

So there are many roles for a drone ship (BTW this applies to commando boats, pftenders, escorts, etc)  and if the main one is killing ai, I don't have a problem with it, I use the best boat for the job.  Is it a balance problem?  I don't think so as long as each side has them available, the disengagement rule is in effect, and there is enough action on the front lines to make P v P important.  Have all those been the case on all but one recent server.....YES!!!!! (exception GW2 a specialty campaign).

Here is another tidbit, when I deepstrike I have never disengaged from an opponent.  This has applied without need of a server rule.  So I try not to get drafted, I really love the chase, yet I never deny the one who catches me the satisfaction of the kill, or the disgrace of the loss as has happened on occassion.  

Frankly, I don't care if a player chooses to avoid P v P as long as they do it legally as per server rules.  It is simply their choice to do so.  

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I do like the idea of a mixed race shiplist, but what's to prevent folks from flying more drone-based hex-flippers in this instance?  Equal opportunity cheese is not really an optimal solution for me.

Agreed, I wouldn't want to see Killerhawks and CCZs for everyone either.  I like the multiple accounts option.

I think what people fail to understand about my point of view is that I am looking for balance, equality, and meaning in the D2.

I understand and it is something I share.  I have supported the disengagement rule, DIP, developing mission ideas and adjustments that could lead towards balance in P v P and mission times.

  I tend to find the AI is the site of most of these problems.  Given its inadequacies, we need to correct for its effects on gameplay and game balance.  The effect of the AI's inadequacies does not fall equally on all races therefore measures should be taken to address that.  Finally, given the AI's inadequacies, the D2, which is dominated by AI missions, has a stain of meaningless and senselessness upon it.  The only remedy in my mind to that situation is to create challenging AI missions if that is what is encountered most of the time on the D2 or jettison the D2 for a PvP-based campaign.  If I crap on flippers, it is because I feel they are exploiting the stupidity of the AI to the Nth degree and purposefully, whereas others merely do because one can almost not avoid exploiting the AI.  Given this lesser of two evils situation, I have suggested that PvP is inherently more meaningful and needs to achieve some sort of primacy in the D2 or people need to seriously consider a PvP-based campaign.

Here is where I differ seeing the aspects as equal with neither subserviant to the other, both performing their role.  I don't want to go back to the old days except as an occassional diversion, yet neither do I want to go to the PvP only setup that you mention, might as well GSA at that point.  As for flippers exploiting ai, every race and every pilot does this, whether its beaming marines onto an enemy ship that starts with 4 marines, taking advantage of predictable and stupid ai, or looking for a ship that has a sweet-spot mission matching.  Do the drone ships benefit more from this than many ships? sure they do, I don't have any difficulty in agreeing on that one particular point. 

As for the other pilots not exploiting ai stupidy, because they can't avoid it.........what a bunch of crap, they do so because it is the best way to complete the chore at hand, not because they can't help it.  How many pilots don't get into the best P v P ship they can? (some do, not many) How many pilots on a serious server bust themself down to the closest equal fight when they have a dominant ship out?  (again some do but not many)  Then what makes you think that most if not all don't exploit ai stupidity?

What I find quite incongruous is the seeming equating of hex-flipping and beating up on the AI as the strategic portion of the game, as if a more PvP weighted campaign would still not involve strategic movements, resource allocation, timing, luck, etc., all the hallmarks of the strategic element of the game.  The standard for determining hex posession would be merely based more on the outcome of PvP than AI missions, if such a thing is possible in the D2.  There is still strategy, hell more strategy, as you merely can't win by smacking around a helpless AI and setting the pace of battle at two minute missions.  Each mission becomes crucial with more PvP, not less crucial with hex-flipping.  PvP becomes less mere "jousting" although I maintain it never really was, and becomes the real standard for campaign success, not a pissing contest, but a strategic deployment of assets. 

Ummm we have this now with the use of the disengagement rule.  Having both aspect available in a balanced manner like on recent servers allows players to have signifigance and importance regarless of their play style.  Right now we have the best of both worlds.  Some minor tweaks here and there can certainly potentially improve some rough spots, but on the whole we have a system that most people are happy with (IMHO)

Now I have no problem with a server here and there going towards one direction or the other for variety and to allow all to have the server styles they enjoy the most from time to time, but that is the choice of the server admins who can set up a server any way they please.  So hopefully your ideas will find an admin willing to entertain them so that you will get your wish occassionally, just as, the open ended type of server hopefully will have its day as well.  I just think that the most players are best accomodated by something in the middle and that is what I call TRUE BALANCE.  So there.

[Mog]

Chuut, I deliberately stated that NOT ALL people who fly drone ships avoid pvp. Some do, because it is more beneficial FOR THEM to run more ai missions, whether due to skill level or lack of confidence or a time constraint. The disengagement rule makes avoiding pvp even more likely if it is an important target.

I'm not disparaging anyone who does this, I was merely trying to put Lepton's point across in a more concise and understandable manner (you do tend to get a bit verbose, Lepton ).

Like you, Chuut, I look at it more in terms of balance per team, not per race now. As long as both sides have races that excel at pvp and others that take territory quickly, then it should be ok (given relatively equal numbers of players).

I do think that overall, D2 is a better environment than it used to be in the past for those who prefer pvp. It still doesn't quite have equal weight yet, but we'll get there (VCs for all pvp kills would be nice, even if it's only 1 point).

[KAT MRess]

But to generalize ALL Droners as nothing but hex flippers (by AVOIDING PvP) is blatantly wrong and insulting.

To deny that the flaws of the D2 and SFC engine grossly favor drone ships is blantantly wrong and insulting.

To deny the imrovments and modifications to the game to balance this issue is blatanly wrong and insulting.

Modified shiplists that remove some models and restrict others.
Increased costs of a races primary weapon.
Reduced drone control.

All this, and STILL people complain the drone is too much?!?!

Don't worry I'm not about to open the drone debate... again. The horse is long dead.

[KAT MRess]

From what I can see, Lepton is about right in his assessment of the main role of drone ships. It's to kill ai, re Sockfoot's campaign guide. There are a number of people (nb NOT ALL - warsears springs to mind lol) who fly drone ships that do try to avoid pvp, because, as Sockfoot's campaign guide says, pvp is a waste of ai killing time.

So I'm not really sure what you're arguing about, Mress.

Bingo!!!

Read previous post, I state it quite clearly. If PvP is all you want, there is a little thing called GAMESPY for that.

[FPF-DieHard]

From what I can see, Lepton is about right in his assessment of the main role of drone ships. It's to kill ai, re Sockfoot's campaign guide. There are a number of people (nb NOT ALL - warsears springs to mind lol) who fly drone ships that do try to avoid pvp, because, as Sockfoot's campaign guide says, pvp is a waste of ai killing time.

So I'm not really sure what you're arguing about, Mress.

Bingo!!!

Read previous post, I state it quite clearly. If PvP is all you want, there is a little thing called GAMESPY for that.

Why bother playing multi-player if you are mostly interested in fighting AI?  Where is the conflict in seeing who can kill AI quicker?

None of this is important anyway and it isn't the issue or Lepton's point.   The issue is not whether people avoid PvP or not.   

The issue is that the AI is stupid when it comes to drone defense.  This flaw in the game engine causes balance issues.   This should be plain to anyone who has played this game more than a month.

PS.  There is nothing wrong with people avoiding PvP, some people just aren't good at it and they play the game for what they consider fun.  If you are not a good pilot, avoiding conflict with other players simply makes sense.

PPS.   I also see the situation as being as close to rectified as possible using the ruleset from the GW series.  I'm just not game on turning the clock back.

[FPF-DieHard]

Modified shiplists that remove some models and restrict others.
Increased costs of a races primary weapon.
Reduced drone control.

On what fantasy server have any of these changes taken place?

[Capt Jeff]

I think some people have forgotten that the D2 is a two tier multiplayer system.

It IS multiplayer from the second you log into the map.  What you do, regardless of PvP or PvAI affects EVERY player by way of the map.

The second tier is PvP.   Direct ship to ship combat that affects everyone as well becuase it alters the map as well.

So, you either fight AI to win a hex, or you PvP to force disengagement so you can fight AI to win a hex (lol).

So, I would like to see how a disengagement rule like this would work.

If you run, you are out 30-60 minutes.

If you die, you are not banned from hex, but the winner gets 1 VC point....for any kill.

This would give the people that want to fight a choice.   "Do I want to run and be banned, or give it a go, know that you might die, but  be able to go get a better ship and come back?"

The winner gets the chance of making multiple VC's if the other guy keeps coming back.  SO the PvP guy can sit there all day getting points and changing DV's.

[FPF-DieHard]

I think some people have forgotten that the D2 is a two tier multiplayer system.

It IS multiplayer from the second you log into the map.  What you do, regardless of PvP or PvAI affects EVERY player by way of the map.

The second tier is PvP.   Direct ship to ship combat that affects everyone as well becuase it alters the map as well.

So, you either fight AI to win a hex, or you PvP to force disengagement so you can fight AI to win a hex (lol).

So, I would like to see how a disengagement rule like this would work.

If you run, you are out 30-60 minutes.

If you die, you are not banned from hex, but the winner gets 1 VC point....for any kill.

This would give the people that want to fight a choice.   "Do I want to run and be banned, or give it a go, know that you might die, but  be able to go get a better ship and come back?"

The winner gets the chance of making multiple VC's if the other guy keeps coming back.  SO the PvP guy can sit there all day getting points and changing DV's.

I like it.   

Make vannila ships exempt from the VC penalty so people actually fly them !   

[Dizzy]

I think what people fail to understand about my point of view is that I am looking for balance, equality, and meaning in the D2.  I tend to find the AI is the site of most of these problems.  Given its inadequacies, we need to correct for its effects on gameplay and game balance. 

Well, the SGODev team is working on AI Bots for D2 campaigns. So when someone is logged in from side 'A' an AI Bot logs in on side 'B' and starts doing missions if there is a player inbalance. For example, there are 7 Alliance and 4 coalition at one time... If so, there would be 3x AI Bots on the coalition side helping out...

So far, the only working solution we have is Fluf and his 20 networked computers... But we are working on this...

[KAT MRess]

Modified shiplists that remove some models and restrict others.
Increased costs of a races primary weapon.
Reduced drone control.

On what fantasy server have any of these changes taken place?

Just about EVERY server since about CW3.

Stock shiplist Drone control (out-of-box)for the Mirak/Kzin race is three times the number of racks on a ship (an MDC could loft 21 missiles at once). This was deemed "excessive". Therfor, the drone control was reduced to less than double. We'll be lucky to get control of ten, maybe twelve on actual drone boats. Not sure which server that was brought in on, but it's been there for a while.

Drone prices on a stock server are 1 for mark I and 3 for mark IV. On most servers it is about 2-3 for Mark I and 4-5 for MArk IV. It does vary but always more than stock. Some server went as high as 5 for Mark I and 8-10 for Mark IV.

Drone ships have been severely limited for the last few servers. To the point where it was diificult to find one let a lone purchase one (I neglected to mention the fact that they have been re-classified as a heavier class and therefor cost more as well).

All this in the name of balance.

NOTE: in the combined shiplist, several ships were omitted completely. But since this affects all races that are combined it is a non-point.

[Mog]

I think some people have forgotten that the D2 is a two tier multiplayer system.

It IS multiplayer from the second you log into the map.  What you do, regardless of PvP or PvAI affects EVERY player by way of the map.

The second tier is PvP.   Direct ship to ship combat that affects everyone as well becuase it alters the map as well.

So, you either fight AI to win a hex, or you PvP to force disengagement so you can fight AI to win a hex (lol).

So, I would like to see how a disengagement rule like this would work.

If you run, you are out 30-60 minutes.

If you die, you are not banned from hex, but the winner gets 1 VC point....for any kill.

This would give the people that want to fight a choice.   "Do I want to run and be banned, or give it a go, know that you might die, but  be able to go get a better ship and come back?"

The winner gets the chance of making multiple VC's if the other guy keeps coming back.  SO the PvP guy can sit there all day getting points and changing DV's.

I like it too.

[FPF-DieHard]

Stock shiplist Drone control (out-of-box)for the Mirak/Kzin race is three times the number of racks on a ship (an MDC could loft 21 missiles at once). This was deemed "excessive". Therfor, the drone control was reduced to less than double. We'll be lucky to get control of ten, maybe twelve on actual drone boats. Not sure which server that was brought in on, but it's been there for a while.

Do you really feel a ship with 21 drone control is resonable?  i do not remember this but then again, I never played the game un-patched.

Drone prices on a stock server are 1 for mark I and 3 for mark IV. On most servers it is about 2-3 for Mark I and 4-5 for MArk IV. It does vary but always more than stock. Some server went as high as 5 for Mark I and 8-10 for Mark IV.

You should pay for expendable.  You are pretty much getting free BPV for mission matching, you should have to pay someplacde.   Same thing with fighters and PFs.   I flew Kzin on GW1 and thought the prices were resonable.

I feel drones are way over-priced on GSA which hurts the Kzin there.   

Drone ships have been severely limited for the last few servers. To the point where it was diificult to find one let a lone purchase one (I neglected to mention the fact that they have been re-classified as a heavier class and therefor cost more as well).

Non-sense.  Limited?  I have never seen that. 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

They have been limited on some past servers, but they aren't too hard to find usually on the more recent ones.

[Mog]

From what I remember, there is a problem with the game engine when it comes to more than 12 drone control.

[KAT MRess]

Do you really feel a ship with 21 drone control is resonable?  i do not remember this but then again, I never played the game un-patched.

It was rather over the top. Good for base busting, but smaller ships never stood a chance against it, especially considering some were able to fly fleets of 3 MDC's (one could loft 63 drones!). Hence the CnC rules.

You should pay for expendable.  You are pretty much getting free BPV for mission matching, you should have to pay someplacde.   Same thing with fighters and PFs.   I flew Kzin on GW1 and thought the prices were resonable.

I feel drones are way over-priced on GSA which hurts the Kzin there.

Paying for expendables is a given. However, when the price of replacing drones equals or outweighs the pp rewards per mission.  You can see where the problem is. Hence, improved reloads and controlled pricing.

Non-sense.  Limited?  I have never seen that. 

Better look again, drone ships were classified as a "Bombardment class" ship and had a lower production rate in the yards. On other servers they were classified as a hull larger so they would not only cost more but consistantly draw a larger opponent to battle. I believe is was Strangelove that an MDC would routinely draw not one but two Aux. Carriers, resulting in you having to kill 30+ heavy fighters (with only 10 or 12 drone control).

Classification of the "Drone ship" has been the one of the more effective means of controlling which ships are in the field. The larger classes such as Dn's suffered the same restrictions.

I'm not complaining about these steps (30+ fighters was a fun challenge), but these are the methods used to balance certain issues out.

[FPF-DieHard]

ARRCCCKKKKk Too many quotes!!!

 - We argree that that old school MDC was a little much, nothing to argue about.   

 - You do not need fast drones to kill AI.  Speed increases help with PvP and you SHOULD pay for it.  With the GW setup, I had no issue making a profit even in a strike carrier.
 
 - Strangelove doesn't count, that server had too much weird p00p in it to be considered normal.   

[Bonk]

I had a battle last night against piggie, he was in a mirak HDW of some kind (one MIRV, 1 A rack, 2 B racks and 2 C racks...  ) I was in a D5DR and went boom! drb had a hard time to kill it with a C7! The Mirak are far from neutered.

I think you may be recalling stuff from EAW here MRess. There has never been the capability for a drone control greater than 12 in OP, that I recall. (or EAW, that I recall either). As Mog said, a ship with a drone control of greater than 12 causes problems as I discovered in work on SFB-OP.

I'm pretty sure the DF or MDC never had a drone control greater than 12.

I'm pretty sure FS has not reduced any double drone control ships to less than 12 in OP+ that I am aware of...

So, send me some of that good sh** you're smoking... you clearly don't need it all!

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

 - Strangelove doesn't count, that server had too much weird p00p in it to be considered normal.   

what about Die Hard, I heard it said that he was full of p00p?

<Snicker>

[FPF-DieHard]

So, send me some of that good sh** you're smoking... you clearly don't need it all!

It's the nip, Bonk.

You going Ridgehead on GW3?

[Laflin]

From what I can see, Lepton is about right in his assessment of the main role of drone ships. It's to kill ai, re Sockfoot's campaign guide. There are a number of people (nb NOT ALL - warsears springs to mind lol) who fly drone ships that do try to avoid pvp, because, as Sockfoot's campaign guide says, pvp is a waste of ai killing time.

So I'm not really sure what you're arguing about, Mress.

Grrrr...

[Bonk]

You going Ridgehead on GW3?

Yup, I feel all bumpy already.

[Mog]

From what I can see, Lepton is about right in his assessment of the main role of drone ships. It's to kill ai, re Sockfoot's campaign guide. There are a number of people (nb NOT ALL - warsears springs to mind lol) who fly drone ships that do try to avoid pvp, because, as Sockfoot's campaign guide says, pvp is a waste of ai killing time.

So I'm not really sure what you're arguing about, Mress.

Grrrr...

Sorry Laffy, for not mentioning you with warsears. I prefer to remember you more as a Lyran rather than a droner

[KAT MRess]

I had a battle last night against piggie, he was in a mirak HDW of some kind (one MIRV, 1 A rack, 2 B racks and 2 C racks...  ) I was in a D5DR and went boom! drb had a hard time to kill it with a C7! The Mirak are far from neutered.

I think you may be recalling stuff from EAW here MRess. There has never been the capability for a drone control greater than 12 in OP, that I recall. (or EAW, that I recall either). As Mog said, a ship with a drone control of greater than 12 causes problems as I discovered in work on SFB-OP.

I'm pretty sure the DF or MDC never had a drone control greater than 12.

I'm pretty sure FS has not reduced any double drone control ships to less than 12 in OP+ that I am aware of...

So, send me some of that good sh** you're smoking... you clearly don't need it all!

You're absolutely right, yes I am talking EAW (and enjoying da 'nip!). But that is my point, improvements have been made whether by us or Taldren.

I believe OP did Hard code a limit of 12 on the drones. But I also recall them asking for feedback for this kind of stuff too. We got so excited about the request for feedback (whoo hoo they were actually listening!).

[Mog]

I think some people have forgotten that the D2 is a two tier multiplayer system.

It IS multiplayer from the second you log into the map.  What you do, regardless of PvP or PvAI affects EVERY player by way of the map.

The second tier is PvP.   Direct ship to ship combat that affects everyone as well becuase it alters the map as well.

So, you either fight AI to win a hex, or you PvP to force disengagement so you can fight AI to win a hex (lol).

So, I would like to see how a disengagement rule like this would work.

If you run, you are out 30-60 minutes.

If you die, you are not banned from hex, but the winner gets 1 VC point....for any kill.

This would give the people that want to fight a choice.   "Do I want to run and be banned, or give it a go, know that you might die, but  be able to go get a better ship and come back?"

The winner gets the chance of making multiple VC's if the other guy keeps coming back.  SO the PvP guy can sit there all day getting points and changing DV's.

I like it.   

Make vannila ships exempt from the VC penalty so people actually fly them !   

Going to use this on GW3? Please ?

[FPF-DieHard]

I think some people have forgotten that the D2 is a two tier multiplayer system.

It IS multiplayer from the second you log into the map.  What you do, regardless of PvP or PvAI affects EVERY player by way of the map.

The second tier is PvP.   Direct ship to ship combat that affects everyone as well becuase it alters the map as well.

So, you either fight AI to win a hex, or you PvP to force disengagement so you can fight AI to win a hex (lol).

So, I would like to see how a disengagement rule like this would work.

If you run, you are out 30-60 minutes.

If you die, you are not banned from hex, but the winner gets 1 VC point....for any kill.

This would give the people that want to fight a choice.   "Do I want to run and be banned, or give it a go, know that you might die, but  be able to go get a better ship and come back?"

The winner gets the chance of making multiple VC's if the other guy keeps coming back.  SO the PvP guy can sit there all day getting points and changing DV's.

I like it.   

Make vannila ships exempt from the VC penalty so people actually fly them !   

Going to use this on GW3? Please ?

Nope, not changing the rules  now.

[Mog]

Pity but ok.