Topic: Increase VC points for PvP kills

[Lepton]

Proposal:

1. Limit the production of capital ships more strictly than has been done previously, i.e. only 2 DNs, 2 CVAs, 4 BCHs for the entire server.
2. Make the VC point potential for PvP kills of these ships equal in scale to the map-based VC that may be obtained in the campaign.

This system would make the use of these capital ships risky and potentially lucrative for the opposing side.  These ships would also be well-protected as they should be when in use increasing the stakes in any encounter with them.  I see great hunting parties for these ships occuring when they are online and the potential to even up map-based gains with actual gameplay outcomes.  I assume this has been tried before, perhaps not.  Something to consider.  Here's how I look at it.  If it takes planets' worth of economic production to produce these ships (hypothetically of course), shouldn't their worth and their destruction be just as costly as taking at least one of those planets or more?

In general I'd like to see a server with a set number of certain ships available such that once gone they cannot be replaced.  Makes the stakes higher for using them.  If you can just rattle off more in the next build cycle or shuffle of the shipyard card deck, what's the point?

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Interesting idea Lepton,

I have also found there to be too many of these large ships on the board considering the smaller player base. 

Your idea has definate merit.

Another idea Agave mentioned to me was to restrict the number of larger ships on the board at any one time, say 1 DN and 2 BCH.  If killed they cost VCs, but could be replaced at any time.  This would also give an outnumbered race a chance to defend vs an opponent with more chance of sucess.

[alexider]

In similar fashion - when there's a limited number of players on (like 2 alliance vs. 7 coalition), the teams should still be allowed to have their big ships out. I'm sure there's a way to balance that out, but if the coalition's got a B10K and a B10V on, and we're defending in a pair of CLCs (or worse), we should be able to build and man bigger ships if our side has them...

The biggest problem I saw with GW3 (and admittedly it's my first FULL server) is that all too often, the heavy metal of one side wasn't available. Fix that, and at maybe Warsears might get the paint scuffed on that capital ship.

[Cleaven]

That's one of the problems of this online game. If you aren't on, your ship is hidden in a black hole. I don't really have an answer but then I don't really know what sort of game the people want. I know what I want, and that is a fair and balanced game where skill in ship handling decides the game and not necessarily player numbers or ship types. Comments have been made about the virtues of PP, but the base economy of the game (repairs, spares drones) is in PP. I have a feeling that the fairest game we could possibly have will give each player the same increment in ship size over time regardless of how much you play. We all start in frigates and we all end up in battleships (remember them?).

[762_XC]

I find myself agreeing with Lepton.

I also believe the Disengagement Penalty needs to be longer. PvP does not seem to have a significant affect on the outcome of a campaign, and it should IMHO.

[Dizzy]

Yeah, something like what Lepton said...

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

make specailty ships worth 2 VCs each and command variants 1 VC each.  Vanilla ship would have no VCs attactched.

Additionally allow Specialty ships 10 repairs and Line ships 15.

If you think about it, the droners need more space for drones, the commando ships for barracks and personnel facilities, the carriers for ftrs and ftr parts etc.

[Holocat]

That's one of the problems of this online game. If you aren't on, your ship is hidden in a black hole. I don't really have an answer but then I don't really know what sort of game the people want. I know what I want, and that is a fair and balanced game where skill in ship handling decides the game and not necessarily player numbers or ship types. Comments have been made about the virtues of PP, but the base economy of the game (repairs, spares drones) is in PP. I have a feeling that the fairest game we could possibly have will give each player the same increment in ship size over time regardless of how much you play. We all start in frigates and we all end up in battleships (remember them?).

What happens if you want to sit in that frigate but still enjoy some sort of perk for mooching around?

I may be a bit off the wall, but I never, ever, EVER want to be caught dead in a battleship.  CA, maybe.  BCH, if a lot of people force me into the thing.  But never EVAR a BB. 

I prefer my own idea of a more indepth choice of action, meaning roles to play beyond the ace/knight/whatever-we're-calling-it-this-week, but I freely admit my biases too.  Like liking small ships.

[Lepton]

To me a bit more specific, BBs or DNs in my estimation should be worth nearly as much as a planet or even a number of planets in terms of map-based VCs.  What I am essentially envisioning is a system wherein one or a number of these capital ship PvP kills could swing the entire VC standing of one side or another.  Since these ships represent major economic investments, their loss should count for something.  This would be different from, let's say, the SG3 system wherein the shear number of PvP-based VC points turned the tide in the VC points.

As a for instance, the Germans put alot of their ship production in WWII into producing the Bismarck and the Turpitz to the detriment of other more useful, smaller ships, despite the fact that they had a smaller navy than the British.  The ships were so prized that neither saw alot of action (I think), yet their destruction were major blows in terms of morale and the relative waste of economic production that led to their construction.

It may not be the best analogy, but it is at least illustrative of my point.

On this past server, killing a BB would only have been worth 8 VC points, and another one could have been easily built.  Had anyone actually accomplished taking out the B10, it certainly would have been a hell of alot more difficult than taking out some base hex of an equivalent VC value.  This is also a basis for valuating VC points:  how hard is something going to be to do.  Certainly, taking core worlds is harder than taking out border stations, but taking out a valuable capital ship piloted by an experienced captain is also a major undertaking.  Let's value that effort in similar manner to map-based VCs.

[Ronin]

I like the concept. Not sure of the proper implementation, but I like the spirit of the idea.

[Cleaven]

What happens if you want to sit in that frigate but still enjoy some sort of perk for mooching around?

I may be a bit off the wall, but I never, ever, EVER want to be caught dead in a battleship.  CA, maybe.  BCH, if a lot of people force me into the thing.  But never EVAR a BB. 

I prefer my own idea of a more indepth choice of action, meaning roles to play beyond the ace/knight/whatever-we're-calling-it-this-week, but I freely admit my biases too.  Like liking small ships.

For me, my favourite would be a game which only had destroyers and cruisers, with a CC being the heaviest ship out there (the best SFB games too). The masses would have line ships that were selected for some sort of PvP equality and adjusted BPV's that gave some sort of mission time equality. But it seems for everybody who just wants to fly smaller class ships only, there are others who want to get to the top of the TOE ASAP. You can't have it both ways in an equal fight. But then if the objective is not an equal fight then who cares?

Is it to be an equal fight or not?