Topic: The Numbered Flamefest Aftermath.

[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...