Topic: Capital ships Escorting each other

[FPF-DieHard]

Does anyone else think this is Cheese?  Can/should anything be done about this?

We have the PBR rules in the GSA league which are awesome.   Could something like this help D2?

[Hexx]

I have many awesome ideas also.
But even I tend to type up what my awesome idea
is before asking people if it's a good idea or not.

[KBF-Kurok]

 If your Talking about three Dreds i would think  that is a little high in the cheese factor. Im not sure that 2 heavy battle cruisers is tho. Might be a good topic  for a poll.

[FPF-DieHard]

If your Talking about three Dreds i would think  that is a little high in the cheese factor. Im not sure that 2 heavy battle cruisers is tho. Might be a good topic  for a poll.

No poll yet, let's do some stream of Conciouness blabbering first, see what comes up. 

things to ponder:

1.  What could be done?

2.  What shoudl be done?

[Green]

Does anyone else think this is Cheese?  Can/should anything be done about this?

We have the PBR rules in the GSA league which are awesome.   Could something like this help D2?

You know I like the PBR rules, but they are set for a PBR game.

No way do I believe a single player should have a fleet of capitals.  But if both ships are piloted by humans ... sounds good to me.  Its a big part of the operational level of the game.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Simply place limits  as to the amount of big iron available online at any given time.  If one side has 2 DNs flying together just get your own 2 DNs together and go after them.  This should be possible if the ships aren't assigned to particular players and losses are not permanent.  Let a low replacement value make losing a DN painful so that it would have strategic value as well.

[Hexx]

Honestly I don't think it's cheesy.
As Chuut said, lon as there's some limit to the amount of Big ships you've got on at
one time, it just adds to the strategic aspect.
(Such as it is)

[Matsukasi]

Yes, it's cheesy.

Break up the big iron so those not fortunate enough to be granted a BC / DN / finger of God on an OOB dyna have a real chance to make an impact.

Plus, you have to admit your pucker factor while flying a VC ship is higher when you have to rely on yourself.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

The question is really this... do we want the D2 to become like GSA. It could be argued that GSA competitions are already strictly regulated and have been that way for years to ensure balanced combat. Supplies cost a lot on GSA, so line ships tend to be favoured on GSA. It could also be argued that we already have a place where such rules already exist and that D2 campaigns should server some other purpose. Or do we want D2 campaigns to begin to look like an extended series of GSA matches?

D2 campaigns have maps, career progression, strategic level gameplay, and with the creative forethought that has gone into D2 campaigns over the years, we have given meaning to things like VCs, production points and even a limited OOB in order to balance out aspects of the game (such as PvP vs. hex-flipping). We must be careful though not to go too far in our quest for balance, lest we erode away the unique aspects of an online campaign that GSA cannot offer.

I would like to see D2 campaigns take on more of a roleplaying interactive environment, rather than looking like an arena for GSA.

[Kroma BaSyl]

If your Talking about three Dreds i would think  that is a little high in the cheese factor. Im not sure that 2 heavy battle cruisers is tho. Might be a good topic  for a poll.

He has a point. However, 3 DNs will rarely be together with the crappy connections of late, but even 2 Dns is cheesy. I would agree that 2 BCHs might not though. All in all I don't think it is that big a problem really, and as suggested by Chuut the additional limit of total DNs on at a time fixes this issue. The rest of Chuuts idea will only lead to a cheese fest server though. <snicker>

[Kroma BaSyl]

The question is really this... do we want the D2 to become like GSA. It could be argued that GSA competitions are already strictly regulated and have been that way for years to ensure balanced combat. Supplies cost a lot on GSA, so line ships tend to be favoured on GSA. It could also be argued that we already have a place where such rules already exist and that D2 campaigns should server some other purpose. Or do we want D2 campaigns to begin to look like an extended series of GSA matches?

D2 campaigns have maps, career progression, strategic level gameplay, and with the creative forethought that has gone into D2 campaigns over the years, we have given meaning to things like VCs, production points and even a limited OOB in order to balance out aspects of the game (such as PvP vs. hex-flipping). We must be careful though not to go too far in our quest for balance, lest we erode away the unique aspects of an online campaign that GSA cannot offer.

I would like to see D2 campaigns take on more of a roleplaying interactive environment, rather than looking like an arena for GSA.

I don't follow your premise that limiting capital ships flying together either makes the D2 more like GSA or less like a strategic campaign. GSA is often played completely unrestricted, and all the strategic aspects of the D2 remain intact even with this limit. That said I don't think the limit is necessary.

[Wraith 413]

Yes, it's cheesy.

Break up the big iron so those not fortunate enough to be granted a BC / DN / finger of God on an OOB dyna have a real chance to make an impact.

Plus, you have to admit your pucker factor while flying a VC ship is higher when you have to rely on yourself.

   This didn't seem to bother Kroma in GW4 !   

                                     Wraith 413

[Matsukasi]

   This didn't seem to bother Kroma in GW4 !   

                                     Wraith 413

Didn't participate in GW4.

Enlighten me, please.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

The rest of Chuuts idea will only lead to a cheese fest server though. <snicker>

The loss of 10 CBs would have definately limited your bedget for cheese if my low replacement value idea was used.

<Snicker>

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

I don't follow your premise that limiting capital ships flying together either makes the D2 more like GSA or less like a strategic campaign. GSA is often played completely unrestricted, and all the strategic aspects of the D2 remain intact even with this limit. That said I don't think the limit is necessary.

I'm looking at an overall picture, not specifically addressing limiting numbers of capital ships flying together, but the philosophy such a ruling. The purpose is to limit 'cheese', is this not correct, much in the same way that OOb and other rules are supposed to create a more balanced or 'realistic' environment.

My point is that each time we add a new rule that restricts what can be flown, and where, etc. we approach what is more likely to be found on GSA. By what is found on GSA, I am referring to league matches, not casual fun matches. DH quoted the PBR rules in his original post, implying that such a philosophy could be considered being applied to the D2 as well. I hope this makes my post a little clearer.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I don't follow your premise that limiting capital ships flying together either makes the D2 more like GSA or less like a strategic campaign. GSA is often played completely unrestricted, and all the strategic aspects of the D2 remain intact even with this limit. That said I don't think the limit is necessary.

I'm looking at an overall picture, not specifically addressing limiting numbers of capital ships flying together, but the philosophy such a ruling. The purpose is to limit 'cheese', is this not correct, much in the same way that OOb and other rules are supposed to create a more balanced or 'realistic' environment.

My point is that each time we add a new rule that restricts what can be flown, and where, etc. we approach what is more likely to be found on GSA. By what is found on GSA, I am referring to league matches, not casual fun matches. DH quoted the PBR rules in his original post, implying that such a philosophy could be considered being applied to the D2 as well. I hope this makes my post a little clearer.

Well said Tracey, I for one definately do not want Dynaverse GSA, I think each has its own realm.

[Kroma BaSyl]

The rest of Chuuts idea will only lead to a cheese fest server though. <snicker>

The loss of 10 CBs would have definately limited your bedget for cheese if my low replacement value idea was used.

<Snicker>

Nope was still swiming in PP at the end of the server, and would have been under any PP scheme.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

Consider what a D2 campaign can offer that GSA cannot. GSA does not have a map, empire economies or continuity of missions. Map terrain is arbitrary and selected for a particular match. BPV limits are arbitrary and decided beforehand. Specific ships can be selected beforehand. This makes an excellent environment for constructing balanced and fair matches for a PvP league.

Ideally, rules that are employed in a D2 campiagn should be part of the game and the limits placed on players should be part of the system. When we get SQL working properly (not if but when), we will be able to control the shipyard, even use a php interface on a website to order ships, create missions that effect not just the DV of a hex but its econ as well, etc etc etc creating a much richer environment. Limitations on players should then naturally occur from the game itself, you cant buy what is not in the shipyard. The more arbitrary rules we place on players, the greater the need to enforce such rules. It would be nice to impose a rule that says a player flying an escort ship needs to actually be escorting a carrier, for instance. This is perfectly doable on GSA, but impractical on a D2 campiagn. I see trying to limit what ships can fly with what other ships in a similar vein. While the intent makes a lot of sense, it is impractical on a D2 campign for the above reasons and also contrary to the design philosophy of a D2 campaign which I have tried to outline.

This is personal opinion of course, I think D2 campaigns should utilise those factors that GSA cannot offer. The production point system used on GW4 is an example of this, and it worked very well. If it could be connected to the actual economies of an emoire, it would be even better.

The less arbitrary rules the better, a design philosophy that incorporates into the game mechanics itself is in my opinion a better option since such rules need not be enforced.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I don't follow your premise that limiting capital ships flying together either makes the D2 more like GSA or less like a strategic campaign. GSA is often played completely unrestricted, and all the strategic aspects of the D2 remain intact even with this limit. That said I don't think the limit is necessary.

I'm looking at an overall picture, not specifically addressing limiting numbers of capital ships flying together, but the philosophy such a ruling. The purpose is to limit 'cheese', is this not correct, much in the same way that OOb and other rules are supposed to create a more balanced or 'realistic' environment.

My point is that each time we add a new rule that restricts what can be flown, and where, etc. we approach what is more likely to be found on GSA. By what is found on GSA, I am referring to league matches, not casual fun matches. DH quoted the PBR rules in his original post, implying that such a philosophy could be considered being applied to the D2 as well. I hope this makes my post a little clearer.

LOL....well the PBR rules for league play on GSA are an attempt to make the GSA play more SFB/F&E campaign like, and thus closer to the D2. I guess we have a different definition of "GSA like".

[Kroma BaSyl]

Consider what a D2 campaign can offer that GSA cannot. GSA does not have a map, empire economies or continuity of missions. Map terrain is arbitrary and selected for a particular match. BPV limits are arbitrary and decided beforehand. Specific ships can be selected beforehand. This makes an excellent environment for constructing balanced and fair matches for a PvP league.

Ideally, rules that are employed in a D2 campiagn should be part of the game and the limits placed on players should be part of the system. When we get SQL working properly (not if but when), we will be able to control the shipyard, even use a php interface on a website to order ships, create missions that effect not just the DV of a hex but its econ as well, etc etc etc creating a much richer environment. Limitations on players should then naturally occur from the game itself, you cant buy what is not in the shipyard. The more arbitrary rules we place on players, the greater the need to enforce such rules. It would be nice to impose a rule that says a player flying an escort ship needs to actually be escorting a carrier, for instance. This is perfectly doable on GSA, but impractical on a D2 campiagn. I see trying to limit what ships can fly with what other ships in a similar vein. While the intent makes a lot of sense, it is impractical on a D2 campign for the above reasons and also contrary to the design philosophy of a D2 campaign which I have tried to outline.

This is personal opinion of course, I think D2 campaigns should utilise those factors that GSA cannot offer. The production point system used on GW4 is an example of this, and it worked very well. If it could be connected to the actual economies of an emoire, it would be even better.

The less arbitrary rules the better, a design philosophy that incorporates into the game mechanics itself is in my opinion a better option since such rules need not be enforced.

I agree that it would be nice to automate and integrate these things with SQL.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

Yes... closer to SFB/F&E, as you say, being closer to the D2... you make an interesting point here Kroma. I am actually arguing that D2 is not like F&E and that it is impractical to make the D2 exactly like F&E. Many aspects of F&E certainly relate to the D2 and I would like to see as much as possible of a F&E type system incorporated into D2 campaigns, but the D2 campaigns of today are a far cry from the original D2 campaign play of yesteryear purely because of all the rules we have created for campaigns. Take away all those rules, and play a D2 campaign with just what is imposed by game mechanics, and it is not F&E at all.

With SQL, however, we can certainly do a lot more, until then we have relied upon arbitrary rules that must be enforced (eg, telling a player that they cannot fly this or that ship, but they can fly these ones, etc.). My point is that we can go overboard here, too many arbitrary rules detract from the fun factor in my opinion. Focussing on game mechanics and incorporating rules into the system is a better avenue, in my opinion.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Yes... closer to SFB/F&E, as you say, being closer to the D2... you make an interesting point here Kroma. I am actually arguing that D2 is not like F&E and that it is impractical to make the D2 exactly like F&E. Many aspects of F&E certainly relate to the D2 and I would like to see as much as possible of a F&E type system incorporated into D2 campaigns, but the D2 campaigns of today are a far cry from the original D2 campaign play of yesteryear purely because of all the rules we have created for campaigns. Take away all those rules, and play a D2 campaign with just what is imposed by game mechanics, and it is not F&E at all.

With SQL, however, we can certainly do a lot more, until then we have relied upon arbitrary rules that must be enforced (eg, telling a player that they cannot fly this or that ship, but they can fly these ones, etc.). My point is that we can go overboard here, too many arbitrary rules detract from the fun factor in my opinion. Focussing on game mechanics and incorporating rules into the system is a better avenue, in my opinion.

Yes we basically agree here. I would like to se the F&E elements integrated into the D2 itself, to reduce the rules clutter. I also agree that any rules added need to be seriously thought out and simplified if possible or eliminated if unnecessary. This is infact one of those rules I think would be clutter as it is unnecessary.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

You and I usually do agree on most things Kroma 

[Dizzy]

while sql shipyards r a cool idea... they wont be a fun or popular thing. It sucks ass having to go to a website to buy a ship. u can never police that sorta thing anyway. There are still a few unscrupulous peeps lurking in the shadows... SQL ship assignment may be better... But the bottom line is that you can never replace the shipyard in the game with a web based shipyard. It wont fly.

What is more important, is the balance in player numbers, available capitol/specialty ships and attrition. Oh and throw fun into the mix. Above all it has to be fun. You figure out this equation and I'll email you a 20 dollar bill.

SQL can make some things easier, but it is a pipe dream to think it is the answer for ship control. You are smoking something...

Afa capitol ships escorting each other and PBR rules, I do think it a wise idea to limit a maximum of 2x dreads or higher in any single hex at a time. Hrmmm. Mb that will be a SG rule. 3x Dreads and up in the same hex, in the same mission. ::coughs:: BS ::coughs::

[KBF-Crim]

It would seem...with the promise of SQL , the server kit code,and possibly the client code....that we might be able to disect exacly how the draft works....even during a pile on...

If this is determined...maybe we can add in other factors to generate specific missions or opponents based upon the composition if the attackers..or defenders....

Until a feature makes this moot...I'd say yeah...one player should have to abide by some kind of CnC to fly a fleet...but luck of the draft means maybe drawing to human pilots in BCH's...such is game...

[Kroma BaSyl]

while sql shipyards r a cool idea... they wont be a fun or popular thing. It sucks ass having to go to a website to buy a ship. u can never police that sorta thing anyway. There are still a few unscrupulous peeps lurking in the shadows... SQL ship assignment may be better... But the bottom line is that you can never replace the shipyard in the game with a web based shipyard. It wont fly.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, or what is possible with a web based SQL implementation of a shipyard. You can absolutely police it with access control functionality and a simple security model. What the hell kind of database other than SQL based do you think they run your online bank off of.

SQL can make some things easier, but it is a pipe dream to think it is the answer for ship control. You are smoking something...

I am going to assume you either got yourself a hold of some really good reefer, or are just to technically inept to understand what is actually possible with an SQL based shipyard, (which is to say, anything you could think up under the sun). There is simply no limit to what could be done. It is only a small matter of programming.

[Kroma BaSyl]

It would seem...with the promise of SQL , the server kit code,and possibly the client code....that we might be able to disect exacly how the draft works....even during a pile on...

If this is determined...maybe we can add in other factors to generate specific missions or opponents based upon the composition if the attackers..or defenders....

Yes it could.

Until a feature makes this moot...I'd say yeah...one player should have to abide by some kind of CnC to fly a fleet...but luck of the draft means maybe drawing to human pilots in BCH's...such is game...

agreed

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

while sql shipyards r a cool idea... they wont be a fun or popular thing. It sucks ass having to go to a website to buy a ship. u can never police that sorta thing anyway. There are still a few unscrupulous peeps lurking in the shadows... SQL ship assignment may be better... But the bottom line is that you can never replace the shipyard in the game with a web based shipyard. It wont fly.

What is more important, is the balance in player numbers, available capitol/specialty ships and attrition. Oh and throw fun into the mix. Above all it has to be fun. You figure out this equation and I'll email you a 20 dollar bill.

SQL can make some things easier, but it is a pipe dream to think it is the answer for ship control. You are smoking something...

Afa capitol ships escorting each other and PBR rules, I do think it a wise idea to limit a maximum of 2x dreads or higher in any single hex at a time. Hrmmm. Mb that will be a SG rule. 3x Dreads and up in the same hex, in the same mission. ::coughs:: BS ::coughs::

A php web-based shipyard is only limited by creativity and programming skill. An RM could for instance 'order' what ships will be built for that round on the website, the ships then become available to players to go to the website and collect. How would they do this? By using a password of course, so there would be no issue with the wrong player picking up the wrong ship. The in game shipyard could still be populated with attrition units, ideally on such a server you set the death ship (ship given to you after you are killed) to be something very small. A shpiyard website could also be used to 'garage' ships you want to keep for later, and also to return a ship you no longer want to spacedock for someone else to use. The only time you need to go to the website is really to collect a specialty ship, or a ship governed by OOB rules. Given that currently, a player needs to be assigned a ship anyway and cannot simply by it from the shipyard, or like on SS2, players had to log in at a specific time to collect their ship, this is not so different and affords much more flexibility.

Production of ships can all be automated, RMs would not even need to post what ships they want for that round or calculate how many build points, etc. They can go to the website, at their leisure and make their choices, and players can also go to the website at their leisure. If you can come here to make a post in this forum, then I'm sure going to a website to collect a ship is not much more difficult. Ship production can also be effectively linked to empire economy as well, making economy meaningful, which opens up other tsrategic levels of play, such as improving the econ of hexes to build up your shipyard capacity, perhaps even with shipyard contruction missions. Conversely economic saboutage missions that lower the econ of enemy hexes take on meaning as well. Convoy raids and escorts could actually server a purpose. Even planet colony missions to build up econ and so on.

[Kroma BaSyl]

A php web-based shipyard is only limited by creativity and programming skill. An RM could for instance 'order' what ships will be built for that round on the website, the ships then become available to players to go to the website and collect. How would they do this? By using a password of course, so there would be no issue with the wrong player picking up the wrong ship. The in game shipyard could still be populated with attrition units, ideally on such a server you set the death ship (ship given to you after you are killed) to be something very small. A shpiyard website could also be used to 'garage' ships you want to keep for later, and also to return a ship you no longer want to spacedock for someone else to use. The only time you need to go to the website is really to collect a specialty ship, or a ship governed by OOB rules. Given that currently, a player needs to be assigned a ship anyway and cannot simply by it from the shipyard, or like on SS2, players had to log in at a specific time to collect their ship, this is not so different and affords much more flexibility.

Production of ships can all be automated, RMs would not even need to post what ships they want for that round or calculate how many build points, etc. They can go to the website, at their leisure and make their choices, and players can also go to the website at their leisure. If you can come here to make a post in this forum, then I'm sure going to a website to collect a ship is not much more difficult. Ship production can also be effectively linked to empire economy as well, making economy meaningful, which opens up other tsrategic levels of play, such as improving the econ of hexes to build up your shipyard capacity, perhaps even with shipyard contruction missions. Conversely economic saboutage missions that lower the econ of enemy hexes take on meaning as well. Convoy raids and escorts could actually server a purpose. Even planet colony missions to build up econ and so on.

I love it when you talk dirty. That would all be sooo cool.

[Dizzy]

Kroma, stop it already with the super positivenessiness of yours. For every good idea, there needs to be a critic. W/o grumpy assholish complainers, nothing ever gets improved. Frankly Im getting tired of all the upbeat happy peeps around here. Its getting me depressed. Someone tell someone to stfu. When's the last time we had a good flame thread?

Unless the 'programming' will assign me my ship automatically while in game w/o having to go to a website just like purchasing a normal shipyard ship... cool. What you are proposing with those little passwords and crap, is more complication and unecessary toil and trouble. Logging out and going to a website... Thats ridiculous. A ship needs to pop up in the yards with my f*cking name on it or it needs to be an auto edit. What the hell is the difference from the way it's currently setup now other than having to go to a website now to get a ship?

Kroma, u want some of this? I have more... I am smoking the bowl... get it while it lasts.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Unless the 'programming' will assign me my ship automatically while in game w/o having to go to a website just like purchasing a normal shipyard ship... cool. What you are proposing with those little passwords and crap, is more complication and unecessary toil and trouble. Logging out and going to a website... Thats ridiculous. A ship needs to pop up in the yards with my f*cking name on it or it needs to be an auto edit. What the hell is the difference from the way it's currently setup now other than having to go to a website now to get a ship?

Honestly Dizzy, I only have one question for you. Who wipes your ass for you?

It isn't just the simple matter of the process of assigning ships that SQL allows, iIt is any crazy OOB system and means of allocation you can dream up. Happy, happy, joy, joy.

XOXOXO
Kroma

PS, Dizzy STFU already.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

Kroma, stop it already with the super positivenessiness of yours. For every good idea, there needs to be a critic. W/o grumpy assholish complainers, nothing ever gets improved. Frankly Im getting tired of all the upbeat happy peeps around here. Its getting me depressed. Someone tell someone to stfu. When's the last time we had a good flame thread?

Unless the 'programming' will assign me my ship automatically while in game w/o having to go to a website just like purchasing a normal shipyard ship... cool. What you are proposing with those little passwords and crap, is more complication and unecessary toil and trouble. Logging out and going to a website... Thats ridiculous. A ship needs to pop up in the yards with my f*cking name on it or it needs to be an auto edit. What the hell is the difference from the way it's currently setup now other than having to go to a website now to get a ship?

Kroma, u want some of this? I have more... I am smoking the bowl... get it while it lasts.

No OOB system ever used has ever been able to do this, as I pointed out earlier. As soon as you make the distinction between generally available ships and restricted ships, you must have some mechanism by which to do this. Simply going to the ingame shipyard and buying it as normal, is therefore impossible, unless there is some kind of password.

Just exactly how do you propose this should work?

[Dizzy]

yaya, but its gotta EASE the admin load, not increase it. I am talking SERIOUS automation here. I am talking SUPER simplicity. I am talking uberness added fun factor. You package that up in one nice dress size a little smaller than the one you parade around in and Ill buy it. Oh, and lizzard thing, ck ur PM's. I sent u a holiday greeting.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

The difference is that you can actually order a ship to be produced via SQL Like Bonk had on his webmap for his test server.  You place an order for anyship that is able to be produced at the time regardless of whether it is in the server yards, then the next yard cycle it appears with your bid already on it whether you are on the server or not.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

The difference is that you can actually order a ship to be produced via SQL Like Bonk had on his webmap for his test server.  You place an order for anyship that is able to be produced at the time regardless of whether it is in the server yards, then the next yard cycle it appears with your bid already on it whether you are on the server or not.

Oh really?? That's even better. So when you log back in, you're ship is already bought and waiting for you to fly... excellent! 

Can't get much more automated than that unless you want an autopilot to fly the ship as well.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Can't get much more automated than that unless you want an autopilot to fly the ship as well.

Well for Kzin that should be easy, just make a macro that repeatably presses the drone launch key.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Can't get much more automated than that unless you want an autopilot to fly the ship as well.

Well for Kzin that should be easy, just make a macro that repeatably presses the drone launch key.

and for Kroma its even easier, just have any CB bought instantly hit the self destruct buttom upon entering mission   

[Soreyes]

The difference is that you can actually order a ship to be produced via SQL Like Bonk had on his webmap for his test server.  You place an order for anyship that is able to be produced at the time regardless of whether it is in the server yards, then the next yard cycle it appears with your bid already on it whether you are on the server or not.

What I liked about Bonks Web Map Shipyard. Was that it was broken into Three parts. Part one was ships and Star Bases that could be produced....  But were restricted. Part 2 was the ships that could be produced and where you could order a ship. Part 3 was the ships currently in the ship yard. Now this just absolutely ROCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GDA-S'Cipio]

while sql shipyards r a cool idea... they wont be a fun or popular thing. It sucks ass having to go to a website to buy a ship. u can never police that sorta thing anyway. There are still a few unscrupulous peeps lurking in the shadows... SQL ship assignment may be better... But the bottom line is that you can never replace the shipyard in the game with a web based shipyard. It wont fly.

Keltset's SQL servers used a seperate shipyard via the in-game general chat.  You never had to leave the D2 to order your ship.  You typed a command in chat the showed you what ships were available in your races shipyard, then typed another command to order what you wanted.  The ship you were currently in was returned to the yard.

And, of course, he could program exactly what appeared in this  yard.

That should fix your web worries.

-S'Cipio

[Bonk]

while sql shipyards r a cool idea... they wont be a fun or popular thing. It sucks ass having to go to a website to buy a ship. u can never police that sorta thing anyway. There are still a few unscrupulous peeps lurking in the shadows... SQL ship assignment may be better... But the bottom line is that you can never replace the shipyard in the game with a web based shipyard. It wont fly.

Unless your php (or perl or asp or python...) shipyard is an automated script that runs as a cron job that no one ever sees as a webpage; it just manages the shipyards. The shipyard would work as it always had as far as the player is concerned. Not quite there yet as I need an OoB to work from, hopefully the 'rarity' column of coming versions of OP+ will make it easier. We just need to stabilise the SQL kit. Feel like helping out?

[likkerpig]

Kroma Baby! Relax!
Let the thoughts of the unworthy flow down the slopes into the sea of nothingness...
It just don't matter baby, let it go. I got some new staff that can make your worries go away..

[Bonk]

Has anybody ever seen the pre-existing auction system effectively used?

(production frequency, pricing and auction length)

[Bonk]

while sql shipyards r a cool idea... they wont be a fun or popular thing. It sucks ass having to go to a website to buy a ship. u can never police that sorta thing anyway. There are still a few unscrupulous peeps lurking in the shadows... SQL ship assignment may be better... But the bottom line is that you can never replace the shipyard in the game with a web based shipyard. It wont fly.

Unless your php shipyard is an automated script that runs as a cron job, that no one ever sees as a webpage it just manages the shipyards. (or perl or asp...) The shipyard would work as it always had as far as the player is concerned. Not quite there yet as I need an OoB to work from, hopefully the 'rarity' column of coming versions of OP+ will make it easier. We just need to stabilise the SQL kit. Feel like helping out?

I could produce a really simple one almost instantly:
every 10 minutes - delete all unbought ships - put one of everything on the shiplist (*any shiplist) in the yards ...

The trick to an OoB for me is the actual OoB itself, not the implementation. Thus I'm waiting for the "rarity" column. (and a stable SQL kit)

[Bonk]

Oh yeah, the original question of the thread...

Yeah its cheesy. I remember Squiggy and Gow drafting my light cruiser with their two DNs over and over one server, it got to be absurd. (pre disengagement rule).

I really liked RDSL's "slot" (no lewd comments please) as a potential solution to this. If players feel they should be allowed to fleet up with BBs, then to let the little guy have some fun the "slot" is perfect. (some background can be made up as to why big ships cant get in...)

drb has some ideas on fleets in relation to the disengagement rule that are appropriate here... lemme see if I can find the link.
here it is:  Disengagement Rule Paradigm Shift

[FPF-DieHard]

BACK ON TOPIC!!!!!!!   

Interesting point to make.   In SFB (PBR GSA), you could not have DNs escorting DNs.  In F&E (D2) this was allowed.

The only thing I can think of that is even possible is maybe lightening up the disengament penalty if you are facing 2or more BB/DN/BCH/CX ships at a time.

See you guys in 9 hours . ..

[Kroma BaSyl]

BACK ON TOPIC!!!!!!!   

Interesting point to make.   In SFB (PBR GSA), you could not have DNs escorting DNs.  In F&E (D2) this was allowed.

The only thing I can think of that is even possible is maybe lightening up the disengament penalty if you are facing 2or more BB/DN/BCH/CX ships at a time.

See you guys in 9 hours . ..

You may be on to something. If out matched vs 2 DNs or more then no penalty applied. I like that.

[Dizzy]

No, cuz then u have little fleets of DF's running under you... That is what caused the rule to begin with...

::Runs away fast from impending flame::

[Kroma BaSyl]

No, cuz then u have little fleets of DF's running under you... That is what caused the rule to begin with...

::Runs away fast from impending flame::

Honestly Dizzy, I want you to hook me up with your source, that is some really good reefer you are smoking, and this crap I got is pure ditch weed.

The point is Dizzy they would have to stop the player from running under them with a little more risk by being unescorted or escorted by a BCH or below, which is still a match for a fleet of DFs.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

Its possible to calculate the hull classes or the BPV of each side... and if the sides are matched or balanced within certain parameters, have a message displayed at the start of the mission that says...

The Disengagement Rule is in effect for this mission

or conversely, if the sides dont match up or one side is seriously outgunned have another message saying...

The Disengagement Rule is not in effect for this mission

With a bit more effort, it could even be added to the briefing screen in case the player misses it and can be brought up in game using the Breifing button in the Comms panel.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Its possible to calculate the hull classes or the BPV of each side... and if the sides are matched or balanced within certain parameters, have a message displayed at the start of the mission that says...

The Disengagement Rule is in effect for this mission

or conversely, if the sides dont match up or one side is seriously outgunned have another message saying...

The Disengagement Rule is not in effect for this mission

With a bit more effort, it could even be added to the briefing screen in case the player misses it and can be brought up in game using the Breifing button in the Comms panel.

More dirty talk, I love it.

[762_XC]

Given the system of OOB we have been using lately, I don't see a problem with 2 or more DN's flying together. If you have a limited number of them on the board and choose to concentrate them in one area, you will be leaving other areas without DN support.

Also, there are some situations where DN's flying together may be required to deal with an extremely tough opponent, such as a squadron of BCV's. Could the Alliance have ever hoped to take on WarSears' B10 in GW3 without grouping dreads together?

Considering how easy it is to draft someone you don't intend to, I don't think such a rule would work well even if we wanted it to. What happens if a DN accidentally drafts an allied DN, along with one or more enemies? Are you going to penalize him?

Finally, multiple DN's tend to get countered by multiple DN's (or other heavy metal), which lead to some truly fun and epic PvP battles.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

It would be impractical trying to enforce a rule that says 2 DNs cannot fly together, because you cant know in advance who you are drafting and accidents happen. You could relax the disengagement rule in such an event, however, a small hex-flipper would then be allowed to continue to running missions underneath the two DNs, which would defeat the purpose of the disengagement rule. If the rule was such that it was fight to the death (and not behind enemy lines) then perhaps then such a rule could be used. Either way, there are problems with and without such a rule. Personally, I think leave this as it is, and simply restrict the number of DNs in play, as has been the case.

[el-Karnak]

OOB should control the amount of heavy iron a given side gets and possibly limit how many are on at any one time. But, the admins. should definitely not be in there trying to micro-manage the RMs by telling under what conditions the heavy iron can be used. 

If one side is able to get a pile of heavy iron in one area it means 2 things:

1)  They were clever enough and co-ordinated enough to achieve local supremity in a target area of their choosing (ie. they know what they are doing).

2)  They are managing their forces effectively to buy the heavy iron (ie. they are not get rolled).

Sounds to me like this side is well on their way to winning.  Admins. should not get in the way of that by saying: "No fair!! You can't be so smart as to concentrate all those big ships on that hex!!  No disengagment rule goodie for you!!"

Pls. don't dumb down the dynas.