Topic: Capital ships Escorting each other

[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.