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.