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?