Topic: The PPD Rule

[Corbomite]

I recommend that it be taken back to the original rule for next cycle.

So you're saying that where the ability to get 4 PPD's is bad, the ability to get 5 fixes everything?

[GE-Raven]

Here is an oddball idea that I am sure you will all hate.  Could the total number of PPD be a function of total BPV?  Like 1 PPD per 150 BPV (rounded up?) of total bpv?

This would make a 600 BPV battle a  4 PPD possible battle while 650 could be 5... etc...

Actual numbers and break points would certainly be negotiable to unified agreement, but it seems pretty straight-forward to me.

GE-Raven

[TraumaTech]

I guess what I am basically trying to say, is that ISC are an odd bunch to balance, even with PBR, unless you all want to make the TBPV cap around 400, then you'll start getting some realistic, balanced ISC squadrons to fight against.  If you don't want to do that, then look to see what other tools you have....

O M G               <----- once remembers a similar discussion somewhere's about minimum tbpv's       THIS should be good...i was enjoying the debate      

[KHH Jakle]

I recommend that it be taken back to the original rule for next cycle.

So you're saying that where the ability to get 4 PPD's is bad, the ability to get 5 fixes everything?

In a way, yeah that's what I am saying.  The other proven workable alternative is to isolate it to a single ship period.

[Corbomite]

I recommend that it be taken back to the original rule for next cycle.

So you're saying that where the ability to get 4 PPD's is bad, the ability to get 5 fixes everything?

In a way, yeah that's what I am saying. 

I'm afraid I can't follow that logic.

The other proven workable alternative is to isolate it to a single ship period.

Isolating it to a single ship limits fleet configuration ability too much. I still say my rule fits all the conditions that are being tossed about to fix the problem.

It limits the total number of PPD's to 4 and makes sure smaller caliber fleets cannot get too many PPD's for their size and composition. The original rule would allow for 3 PPD's in a CL sized fleet and 5 in a dred size fleet. Mine would allow for 1 and 4 respectively. The original rule would allow for 3 PPD's in a CA sized fleet. Mine would allow for 2. This allows for imaginative fleet options,  doesn't restrict the use of any one ship or ship type and limits PPD deployment.

This addresses all of the reasonable concerns put forth that I know of, so I ask, what's the problem with it?

[Nomad]

I recommend that it be taken back to the original rule for next cycle.

So you're saying that where the ability to get 4 PPD's is bad, the ability to get 5 fixes everything?

To get 5 PPD's you going to have to take an ISC dred. ISC dreds don't really scare me.


I have to agree with Jackle. I think we should go back the orginal PPD rule.

[Corbomite]

To get 5 PPD's you going to have to take an ISC dred. ISC dreds don't really scare me.

I suppose you yawn at an ISC BB too? With the right support, ISC dreds are fine. If I had an extra PPD's slot they would be more than fine. I'm glad you don't lose any sleep over this, but it must be important to a good number of people  or this thread wouldn't exist.

[KHH Jakle]

To get 5 PPD's you going to have to take an ISC dred. ISC dreds don't really scare me.

I suppose you yawn at an ISC BB too? With the right support, ISC dreds are fine. If I had an extra PPD's slot they would be more than fine. I'm glad you don't lose any sleep over this, but it must be important to a good number of people  or this thread wouldn't exist.

I don't think he was saying they weren't fine.  Just no more terrifying than anyone elses DN. 

Bottom line for me is that the the original rule was SFB compliant.  That's all the logic I need. 

It's not arbitrary or contrived and no body can ever be accussed of trying to secretly push their own agenda.

[Corbomite]

No, its just OK that you openly push yours and claim to hold the final trump card. What happened to "I'm just here to put up what everybody votes on, not make policy"?

Well I give up. Now that the situtation is clear I can tell this will never be fair.

[Slider]

Sure it can be fair. Here are 3 options.

Remove the Race per fleet option and require everyone fly each race at least once per cycle and that matchups same race. So game are say 370 med TBPV both sides Hydran or Klingon or Lyran etc. This tests pilot skils and ship selection but does not allow for race based advantages. You cycle through the races to make it fair to everyone.

OR

You alot per cycle that each team has the use of a race a set amount of times that they can use as they choose. So like pitching in baseball you have to figure out what your going to fly against a certain team and plan accordingly.

2 matches with ISC ships
2 matches with Hydran ships
2 matches with Feds
etc.

you can even break it down to the individual game based on a 3 game race allotment if you have such patience for accounting. Now that would be really cool now that i thunk about it.

Finally and my favorite if not serious is:
Everyone flying against an ISC fleet can fly ISC ships against them. Cant go wrong if both sides use the same ships. Makes rules alot easier if not boring allowing the Empire ships, which have similar era technology available to fight each other and not having to worry about a race designed by the creator to be more advanced than everyone else.

 (Not that anyone has complained at all about ISC having arsenals of Phaser 1s in Early era for example. Not really the point but i just thought id mention it.)

But yes it can be FAIR.

Dont you agree?



Disclaimer: Legendary is not a pbr administrator. All comments and suggestions are property and owned wholey by Legendary.

This message si brought to you by
Slider Interstellar Rules Inc.
Writings tomorows rules today.

[KHH Jakle]

No, its just OK that you openly push yours and claim to hold the final trump card. What happened to "I'm just here to put up what everybody votes on, not make policy"?

Well I give up. Now that the situtation is clear I can tell this will never be fair.

My agenda is to have PBR be compliant to SFB's S8 where reasonable.  I allowed the rule change based on a vote, and now I regret it.

I don't believe I ever said that I'm here to just put up what people vote for in PBR.  Matter of fact, I said from the beginning that I was the final arbiter on PBR.  I am always ready to make changes that make it compliant with SFB - whether it be an S8 interpretation, or ways to better translate SFB historical flavor to 3v3 matches. 

I already make allowances - such as allowing DN hulls to be used (they shouldn't be in 3 ship squadrons).  But I lend a skeptical eye on things people just make up because THEY think it's fair.  It's always debatable, then someone get's screwed and said 'X' fleet wanted the change to make things better for themselves.  But if you can do some homework and lay out why your idea makes sense from a SFB point of view, then it gains a hell of a lot more wait

Look, you guys can vote all you want - with your feet.  You don't like PBR as it stands, copy what you like, make your own lists and rules and post them where ever you want and give it a catchy name you like.  I told DIF Josh of CUGS the same thing, and I can't stand those goofballs.

All that being said - I haven't even really read your idea yet.  Been too busy defending myself.  I'll look at it more closely when I get a chance.  I am sure you'll over look that comment but take it for what it's worth

[FPF-DieHard]

Look, you guys can vote all you want - with your feet.  You don't like PBR as it stands, copy what you like, make your own lists and rules and post them where ever you want and give it a catchy name you like.  I told DIF Josh of CUGS the same thing, and I can't stand those goofballs.

+1 Karma for keeping your pimp-hand strong (even if I don't agree with you).

Now about that retarded fast cruiser rule . . . .   

[Corbomite]

But if you can do some homework and lay out why your idea makes sense from a SFB point of view, then it gains a hell of a lot more wait

I already did that five pages ago, but since you admit you haven't even considered my idea before telling me I'm trying to secretly pass my "agenda" and that I have no clue, I won't bother reiterating it again.

[KBF-Butcher]

Yo Corbo u insisted and supported so  much  your ppd rule option and u gave me the impression u might be right.However ,i already stated that personally i beleive any PPD rule option we applicate it really doesnt make any big difference.
We used once the CCZ CAZ CAZ combo and after we really regret it i dont think we gonna use it again.
The amount of PPD isnt the case so 3 ISC ships gonna win a game.
There r ways and tactics to win any isc combo no matter what race u fly(sometimes the terms screw a race and othertimes favour it).
Phaser just proposed for the rule to be changed (4ppd max at any of the 3 ships) cause he beleived the simplier the better in a league that is already too complicated and most fleets agreed and voted this rule.
Ofcourse we can do another vote for next cycle and decide if we r going for a change again ,but its too early for it as we have almost 2 more months for the playoffs.
However could you please make a post where u describe concentrated your ppd rule option with out etc... this time.

[FPF-Bach]

Yo Corbo u insisted and supported so  much  your ppd rule option and u gave me the impression u might be right.However ,i already stated that personally i beleive any PPD rule option we applicate it really doesnt make any big difference.
We used once the CCZ CAZ CAZ combo and after we really regret it i dont think we gonna use it again.
The amount of PPD isnt the case so 3 ISC ships gonna win a game.
There r ways and tactics to win any isc combo no matter what race u fly(sometimes the terms screw a race and othertimes favour it).
Phaser just proposed for the rule to be changed (4ppd max at any of the 3 ships) cause he beleived the simplier the better in a league that is already too complicated and most fleets agreed and voted this rule.
Ofcourse we can do another vote for next cycle and decide if we r going for a change again ,but its too early for it as we have almost 2 more months for the playoffs.
However could you please make a post where u describe concentrated your ppd rule option with out etc... this time.

Corbomite's PPD rule idea is somewhere at the begining of this thread just waiting for all of you to actually read it vs saying he has his own agenda.  His rule would most likely tone down the ISC not help them.  The idea he proposed was for the good of the ENTIRE league NOT the ISC.

[Slider]

I like Corbomites PPD idea. I liked it when I read it the first time and I like it now. Im sure im not looking at this from all combos and angles, but I dont see it as too restrictive..

Sorry if you took any of my comments the wrong way bud, I do like your suggestion. Pretty sure its in line with what Jakle has in mind, if not there is a middle ground.

Legend

[2Hot2Handle]

OK sorry to get off topic here but what the hell happened to Legendary ?

Who neutered the cat ?

Bahhh I should give u a -1 just for being so damn nice all the sudden.

 

[Corbomite]

Im glad FPF decided to go ISC cause this way u ll find out better what i mean when u ll get toasted by FSD or by hydran races with 14hornet2.Then u might reconsider your opinion .

Sorry to take this out of context Butcher, but I found it a bit funny considering we are now 5-0 with a primary team consisting of one ISC vet and four ISC n00bs.

(BTW, we beat the Hydrans when they had 28 Hornets and we beat the Lyrans in Late Era using Mid Era ships.)

[KBF-Butcher]

Im glad FPF decided to go ISC cause this way u ll find out better what i mean when u ll get toasted by FSD or by hydran races with 14hornet2.Then u might reconsider your opinion .

Sorry to take this out of context Butcher, but I found it a bit funny considering we are now 5-0 with a primary team consisting of one ISC vet and four ISC n00bs.

(BTW, we beat the Hydrans when they had 28 Hornets and we beat the Lyrans in Late Era using Mid Era ships.)

Congradulations Corbo!!!

[KHH Jakle]

But if you can do some homework and lay out why your idea makes sense from a SFB point of view, then it gains a hell of a lot more wait

I already did that five pages ago, but since you admit you haven't even considered my idea before telling me I'm trying to secretly pass my "agenda" and that I have no clue, I won't bother reiterating it again.

My sincerest apologies if you took my 'agenda' comments being directed squarly at you.  They were not directed at anybody.  I was making a general statement, based on my prior experience.

I'll read your idea.