Topic: SGO4 Rules.. "clarifications" (Read 6888 times)

Hexx · « **on:** January 20, 2005, 06:54:38 am »

OK thought I'd post this here as not to clutter up Dizzy's thread

- For upgrading ships ,i.e. DN->DNG->DNH are cps used or BP's?
if it's CP's (as I assume it is) are the "only 1/2 of CP's spent on a certain ship" rules applicable?
ie- I can't use 4CP's to build 4 of the same kind of ship. Can I use 4 cps to upgrade 4 of the same kind of ship on the same cycle?

- Bounties- not trying to start a debate, but might it not be better to only use bounties in weelk #2 and #3? I'd hate to assign
a bounty on say Blade and Frey, tehn find out they weren't planning on playing until the super-cheese showed up. Or that one of them decided
to fly a CL. Or even assign bounties on Day2 of the server after we know who's flying what ships.

Dizzy · « **Reply #1 on:** January 20, 2005, 07:11:55 am »

its pretty clear its 4x ships, not 4 upgrades. so ur ok there.

bounties... read the whole thing. your answer is at the bottom.

FPF-Wanderer · « **Reply #2 on:** January 20, 2005, 07:33:11 am »

Next clarification, concering the ship building schedule:

It is listed thus; -The server starts in year 2271 and runs at a pace of 2 game years every three days.

So, you want the first round of builds before the server kicks off (Noon EST Saturday), and this will cover the ships with FYA 2271-72 or earlier; the second round of builds posted before Noon EST Tueday, covering ships with FYA 2273-74 or earlier; the 3rd round posted before Noon EST Friday, covering ships with FYA 2275-76 or earlier; etc, etc...

Sound correct?

Also, concerning the ISC; originally it was posted that the ISC could not advance more than two hexes into Alliance/Coalition territory. This has been changed? They can advance as far as they like, as long as the Equal Pacification clause is followed?

Dizzy · « **Reply #3 on:** January 20, 2005, 08:14:57 am »

Yes, and the ISC rules have been clarified.

Hexx · « **Reply #4 on:** January 20, 2005, 12:17:41 pm »

Quote from: FPF-Wanderer on January 20, 2005, 07:33:11 am

Next clarification, concering the ship building schedule:

It is listed thus; -The server starts in year 2271 and runs at a pace of 2 game years every three days.

So, you want the first round of builds before the server kicks off (Noon EST Saturday), and this will cover the ships with FYA 2271-72 or earlier; the second round of builds posted before Noon EST Tueday, covering ships with FYA 2273-74 or earlier; the 3rd round posted before Noon EST Friday, covering ships with FYA 2275-76 or earlier; etc, etc...

Sound correct?

Also, concerning the ISC; originally it was posted that the ISC could not advance more than two hexes into Alliance/Coalition territory. This has been changed? They can advance as far as they like, as long as the Equal Pacification clause is followed?

Whoops
So just to make absolutely 100% that I'm not screwing this up
First round builds can be 2271 or 72 ships
Second round can be 2273 or 74 etc?

Dizzy · « **Reply #5 on:** January 20, 2005, 12:28:56 pm »

Yessa. So for the 71 builds, a ship that comes out in 72 will be bought early.

762_XC · « **Reply #6 on:** January 20, 2005, 04:59:57 pm »

Quote

Hydran: No more than 50% Hellbores fighters.

You forgot to mention heavy fighters, and which ships can carry them, and how many, and how they don't count against the 50% hellbore rule.

X-fighters too.

Also, which ship refits are free, and which cost a CP?

Dizzy · « **Reply #7 on:** January 20, 2005, 05:11:02 pm »

Did you read th whole thing?

Hydran: No more than 50% Hellbores fighters.
50% Max ST-H (Helebore) fighters.
Ships with only one squad may use ST-H fighters.
Stinger X fighters are ONLY allowed on X-ships
Heavy Stinger fighters replace PFs.
Heavy Fighters are only allowed on the following ships in these numbers:
H-DWLh 2
H-sAPAh 2
H-sBARh 2
H-sCHAh 2
H-sCHCh 2
H-sIRCh 2
H-sIRFh 2
H-sMKIh 2
H-cOVh 2
H-cOM 4
H-sTHRh 2
H-cLGE+h 2
H-cIDh 4
H-cDNWf 2
H-cDNMf 2
H-cREGh 2
H-cMNRh 2

I'd like not to repost it... it can be taken out of context.

neway, ship refits will be posted soon and everything that has a lower case 's' costs 1 CP. It's all in the thread.

Green · « **Reply #8 on:** January 20, 2005, 05:22:07 pm »

I got a good laugh out of the Hexx Clause you placed in the rules.

Quote

In addition, each side will be allowed to announce a protection order for one of their captains granting only this person immunity from a bounty for one bounty cycle, as their empire has made extensive efforts to protect this Captains and his or her identity.

762_XC · « **Reply #9 on:** January 20, 2005, 05:38:23 pm »

Didn't see that. Thankee.

GDA-Agave · « **Reply #10 on:** January 20, 2005, 07:32:40 pm »

Hey Diz,

Just thought you might want to fill in the 'x' and the 'y' now since you're posting all the rules.

Quote

Disengagement/Destruction Rule:

If you are forced to Disengage in a PvP match, then you are banned from the hex you either took the mission in or were drafted in for 'x' number of turns. If your ship was destroyed then you are banned from that hex for 'y' number of turns.

Just thought I'd mention it.

Agave

Dizzy · « **Reply #11 on:** January 20, 2005, 09:44:04 pm »

Turns run 6 minutes. So I'm either thinking 10 for destruction and 20 turns for disengagement which would be an hour and then two hours. Or 5 and 10 turns which are 30mins and then 1 hour...

What do you all think? I think two hours is too long.

762_XC · « **Reply #12 on:** January 20, 2005, 11:06:42 pm »

I don't. There's still plenty o targets to hit if you get chased out.

10 and 20.

Dizzy · « **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2005, 11:46:44 pm »

I'm thinking 5 and 15. that's 30 mins for getting killed and an hour and thirty mins for disengaging. the latter I think will be acceptable to everyone, but some may not like the 30 min ban for getting killed as it seems short. But consider this, every ship is worth a VC. And you got the DV shift too. I think it's weighted appropriately.

Mog · « **Reply #14 on:** January 21, 2005, 03:00:01 am »

If every player ship is worth VPs then why not do away with the time penalty for those killed?

GDA-Agave · « **Reply #15 on:** January 21, 2005, 03:02:05 am »

Might I interject that I think 10 turns should be the largest penalty for disengaging. I mean, if turns are 6 minutes long, that's an hour you've been cleared off the hex. Think about the player that spends maybe 3 to 4 hours max at one time on the server. 25-33% of his time has been taken away from participating in a large battle over something vital. While an hour may be a speedbump for the nutters, that's a big penalty for others.

Also, let me add this. I also believe that the penalty for being destroyed or disengaging should be the same. I've never understood why a player who had been destroyed gets a break. Ok, sure, he lost his ship. That in itself is a penalty, EXCEPT for the nutter who can buy lots more ships. Doesn't this promote a 'kamikaze' type mentality. I've seen this happen several times during GW servers, and I'm not fond of it. Sure, it is a type of tactic, if his fellow pilots can grab the often wounded victor before he leaves the hex, but how often does this really work?

And finally. I have always thought the death/disengagement rule is all about (1) overwhelming an opponent so that you can take a planet/base/etc without much interference, and (2) promoting a player to fight his best over tactically important sites. If you raise the disengagement penalty to more than 10 turns, the attacking pilots would really only have to runoff the defenders ONCE before focusing on the planet/base/etc. Is that what we really want?? To actually REDUCE the amount of PvP around important sites!! What about those empires that don't have as many pilots to bring to bear? Aren't we putting them at MORE of a disadvantage now? I know it's a mute point if the defenders can continually be successful, but even the best of us have our bad missions. (me flying with Dizzy for example,

) Isn't an hour long enough??

So, to conclude my rambling. I would like to see the death/disengagement rule penatly to be 5/10 turns (30/60 minutes), or a flat 10 turns penalty. That to me is plenty.

Just my humble thoughts,

Agave

Dizzy · « **Reply #16 on:** January 21, 2005, 03:06:21 am »

I agree with Agave. 5/10. And mog has a very good point. Why have a penalty for dying when u lose VC's for doing so? Mb just for getting run off...?

762_XC · « **Reply #17 on:** January 21, 2005, 07:29:08 am »

I think with that short amount of time the Disengagement Rule doesn't have the effect it should. The DR is supposed to strike a balance between hex flippers and PvP and on previous servers it has strongly favored flippers.

Let's try 10/20. That's only a 10 minute difference from what it was on Storm Season 2.

P.S. Making them the same would reduce the amount of PvP. You want to encourage people to stay and fight, not taco bell if they think they don't have an advantage. Longer penalties do that.

Dizzy · « **Reply #18 on:** January 21, 2005, 07:33:32 am »

5/15.

762_XC · « **Reply #19 on:** January 21, 2005, 07:37:34 am »

9/18.

Dizzy · « **Reply #20 on:** January 21, 2005, 08:04:12 am »

4/14.

Commander Maxillius · « **Reply #21 on:** January 21, 2005, 08:47:59 am »

1/2 ?

KAT Chuut-Ritt · « **Reply #22 on:** January 21, 2005, 09:18:56 am »

Quote from: 762_XC on January 21, 2005, 07:29:08 am

P.S. Making them the same would reduce the amount of PvP. .

Longer penalties keep people out of P v P longer. Plain and simple.

BTW I agree with Mog, if getting killed results in vcs for every ship there shouldn't be a disengage penalty.

Dizzy · « **Reply #23 on:** January 21, 2005, 09:22:58 am »

you mean a destruction penalty.

KAT Chuut-Ritt · « **Reply #24 on:** January 21, 2005, 09:49:47 am »

Dizzy · « **Reply #25 on:** January 21, 2005, 10:03:23 am »

I'm thinking 10 for disengagement. We want to encourage PvP. 10, er 1 hr. is long enough to control the hex from smaller more numerous ships, imo. Come to think of it, it should balance out... I mean if you are defending a hex, er sector of space with 2x big ships, then you cant be everywhere protecting everything when facing more enemy ships than you have.

The 1 VP for any ship was to eliminate the 'suicide' tactics lesser class ships use against capitol VC ships. No captain in his right mind would fly that way anyway... cept for me.

So I'm inclined to agree with Mog in that the destruction ban time should be eliminated. So now I'm at 0/10.

However, when you are talking about a 1 point ship vs a 10+, then suicide tactics are still on the table. Especially with unrestricted lower class cheeseboats and heavy war destroyers. And trying to control a hex with no destruction ban time is troublesome when you have too many enemies. The hex in question may be worth some suicide tactics just to tie up a ship, get destroyed, rinse and repeat. So I'm back to 5/10.

KAT J'inn · « **Reply #26 on:** January 21, 2005, 10:06:40 am »

Dizzy · « **Reply #27 on:** January 21, 2005, 10:53:05 am »

afaik, all 's' conversion, er special ships, get free upgrades. The upgrad paths and the CP points to upgrade will be posted soon.

762_XC · « **Reply #28 on:** January 21, 2005, 10:39:03 pm »

LONGER PENALTY FOR DISENGAGING = LESS LIKELIHOOD OF DISENGAGING

= more PvP

Green · « **Reply #29 on:** January 21, 2005, 10:59:59 pm »

Making all ships worth 1 VC if lost changes the dynamic of the game. This isn't bad, but it might need to be accounted for.

If you take a non-assigned CA into a game and find a human BB ... then you might as well depart. Since if you die, then it will cost a VC and you don't at least get a consolation prize of a shorter ban period.

KAT Chuut-Ritt · « **Reply #30 on:** January 21, 2005, 11:34:42 pm »

Quote from: 762_XC on January 21, 2005, 10:39:03 pm

LONGER PENALTY FOR DISENGAGING = LESS LIKELIHOOD OF DISENGAGING

= more PvP

Can't disagree more. But to each their own opinion.

762_XC · « **Reply #31 on:** January 23, 2005, 09:57:03 pm »

Dizzy, we need a clarification on something.

ISC player on an ISC planet, DV and econ 25, in the neutral zone, surrounded by enemy hexes.

Can he disengage or no?

Dizzy · « **Reply #32 on:** January 24, 2005, 12:23:16 am »

Yes he may disengage, and its been addresed in another thread and the rules have been updated.

FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC · « **Reply #33 on:** January 24, 2005, 02:46:03 am »

Inconsistant.

Dizzy · « **Reply #34 on:** January 24, 2005, 07:26:04 am »

over ruled.

FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC · « **Reply #35 on:** January 24, 2005, 07:27:32 am »

It's still inconsistant.

Dizzy · « **Reply #36 on:** January 24, 2005, 07:37:42 am »

get on yahooooooooooooooooo!

FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC · « **Reply #37 on:** January 24, 2005, 07:52:28 am »

FPF-DieHard · « **Reply #38 on:** January 24, 2005, 01:56:38 pm »

"Builds, Ship Assignments and Transfers:

If a player is assigned a ship by their RM, then this will be posted on the [b***SGO4 Builds, Ship Assignments and Transfers*** thread. Once every 12 hours at noon and midnight, ship transfers may be posted by the A/RM's. Even tho you you may be assigned a special ship, doesnt mean you have to fly it. You may sell it and fly something else, then rebuy it, or use a different account. Also, one player may be assigned ships from other races."

Anyway this can be changed to 8 AM and 8 PM?

Dizzy · « **Reply #39 on:** January 24, 2005, 02:23:22 pm »

Jeez, this is one of those nit picky things, isnt it?

Ok, tell me why... It makes sense my way, but what is your reasoning. Im, not opposed to changing it for a decent enough reason.

Hexx · « **Reply #40 on:** January 24, 2005, 02:39:51 pm »

Quote from: Dizzy, the Slave Girl Pimpmaster on January 24, 2005, 02:23:22 pm

Jeez, this is one of those nit picky things, isnt it?

Ok, tell me why... It makes sense my way, but what is your reasoning. Im, not opposed to changing it for a decent enough reason.

Cuz 8pm and 8Am is easier? Most (well many) Rm's arent around for 12noon.
Sides 8Am & PM works out well for day/night shift.

Dizzy · « **Reply #41 on:** January 24, 2005, 02:43:29 pm »

7PM/AM Central then. And we shall be flexible by a cpl hours. Not a biggie.

FPF-DieHard · « **Reply #42 on:** January 24, 2005, 02:46:19 pm »

Quote from: Dizzy, the Slave Girl Pimpmaster on January 24, 2005, 02:43:29 pm

7PM/AM Central then. And we shall be flexible by a cpl hours. Not a biggie.

Yeah, just because it is easier. It also allows for a day pilot and a night pilot to share a ship.

Dizzy · « **Reply #43 on:** January 24, 2005, 03:42:24 pm »

Quote from: Dizzy, the Slave Girl Pimpmaster on January 24, 2005, 02:43:29 pm

7PM/AM Central then. And we shall be flexible by a cpl hours. Not a biggie.

762_XC · « **Reply #44 on:** January 26, 2005, 08:29:29 am »

The Battleship Rule

2/2/1 or 1/1/1?

Dizzy · « **Reply #45 on:** January 26, 2005, 08:41:27 am »

1/1/1 afaik. All the Coalition RM's support this, and I'd like to get a majority rule. So the Alliance and ISC need to voive their opinion.

The DN at any one time will be 4/4/3.

GDA-S'Cipio · « **Reply #46 on:** January 26, 2005, 09:02:45 am »

Quote from: Dizzy, the Slave Girl Pimpmaster on January 26, 2005, 08:41:27 am

1/1/1 afaik. All the Coalition RM's support this, and I'd like to get a majority rule. So the Alliance and ISC need to voive their opinion.

The DN at any one time will be 4/4/3.

Already voted many posts back that I preferred 1/1/1 on the battleships.

-S'Cipio

762_XC · « **Reply #47 on:** January 26, 2005, 10:10:13 am »

I vote 2/2/1. I guess I'm a cheese monkey after all.

Dizzy · « **Reply #48 on:** January 26, 2005, 10:16:50 am »

ok majority rules for 1/1/1 with S'cipios dissenting Alliance vote.

DN's, 4/4/3? I have 3x votes on it, need the other 4 to oppose or one more to agree.

Corbomite · « **Reply #49 on:** January 26, 2005, 10:28:13 am »

4/4/3?

More like 4/4/0!

Dizzy · « **Reply #50 on:** January 26, 2005, 10:50:07 am »

3/3/0 is fine,

But I'm not voting, the RM's are. We technically dont count CCZ's but I'm sure the alliance and coalition sees that way. Course, with u in a CCZ, u mise well be flying a BB to everyone else.

FPF-DieHard · « **Reply #51 on:** January 26, 2005, 10:53:17 am »

Quote from: Corbomite on January 26, 2005, 10:28:13 am

4/4/3?

More like 4/4/0!

I-CVAZ is worth building.

Dizzy · « **Reply #52 on:** January 26, 2005, 11:59:16 am »

Well, some of their captains can take down most alliance and coalition Dreads in a CCZ.

762_XC · « **Reply #53 on:** January 26, 2005, 12:11:50 pm »

4/4/3 is fine.

But the 3 should apply to CCZ's.

Julin Eurthyr · « **Reply #54 on:** January 26, 2005, 07:48:09 pm »

I thank you for your support...

On the subject at hand: 4/4/3 sounds reasonable, in a perfect world...

I'll post the rest of my thoughts in the RM forum on SFC2.Net. Anyone without access there let me know, and I'll send you a copy via PM...

Dizzy · « **Reply #55 on:** January 26, 2005, 08:46:41 pm »

Well, I dont think I have access there and prolly never will, and it seems that u may have issue with this, plz PM me. I try and take care of my brothers. Let me know.

Julin Eurthyr · « **Reply #56 on:** January 26, 2005, 08:58:46 pm »

Message sent...

News:

Topic: SGO4 Rules.. "clarifications" (Read 6888 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

762_XC

762_XC

762_XC

762_XC

762_XC

762_XC

762_XC

762_XC

762_XC

762_XC

Topic: SGO4 Rules.. "clarifications" (Read 6888 times)