Topic: Now that everybody loves OOB....

[Matsukasi]

.... can we get some rules regarding fleet compositions for future servers?

I love PvP as much as anybody, but I'm a duelist. Should I just resign myself to being a hex gobbler from now on?

This is not a flame, or a bitch. I already bitched on Ventrilo. I just want to see if I'm the only one that thinks OOB has become exactly what it was supposed to prevent... a DN fest. This isnt a Coalition thing or an Alliance thing. It's just a Mat thing. Instead of making the casual player irrelevant, I fear we've made the solo pvper irrelevant now by exchange. Maybe that's acceptable for everybody else. I have no clue. Drop a note in here and express yourself, but don't flame server admins, etc. I of course am fair game for the flamethrowers. Fire away.

Mat, the tired of having to run away all of the time guy

[FPF-DieHard]

I agree, but how do we do this.

Can we make it "illegal" for 2 capital ships to work the same hex?  Try to get some form of PBR?

[KBFLordKrueg]

I think what Mat's getting tired of is 2-3 DNs running missions together. Be different if it was, say a DN, a CA and a CL or something similiar. Not just working the same hex. If 3 DNs were in the same hex, it probably would be OK as long as they weren't winging together.
Not an unreasonable request, IMHPO...
I would support such a rule, myself.

[FPF-DieHard]

I think what Mat's getting tired of is 2-3 DNs running missions together. Be different if it was, say a DN, a CA and a CL or something similiar. Not just working the same hex. If 3 DNs were in the same hex, it probably would be OK as long as they weren't winging together.
Not an unreasonable request, IMHPO...
I would support such a rule, myself.

Me to, but how do we 'enforce" it?  Drafting is random.

Would be nice if we had SFC3 Fleeting.

[Matsukasi]

Yep, enforcement of that kind of rule is a friggin nightmare. I wish I had a nifty  2 sentence solution but I don't. Got plenty of grumpy bitches to vent, but no answers... which is why i tend to keep my big pie hole shut about this kind of thing.

< shrug >

Just glad I'm not the only one that sees a problem really. Thanks, DH.

[Pestalence_XC]

Why not have everyone taught how to zoom in on the map and if a DN marker of your race is present in a hex and you are in a DN, then don't enter the Hex... if someone sees 2 DN's in the Hex, check the web map that will show the players ships and locations and time.. if people are caught in violation, report them.. penalty : suspend accounts for a day or 2.

[KBFLordKrueg]

Well, that's a great idea, Pest, but 2 things:
The only kind of webmap that'll show that is a SQL server.
And who's going to watch the webmap so much to catch all that?
It's a real shame we can't simply depend on the good ole HONOR system of players not doing things like that.
I think that would have to fall to an RM/ARM to make sure their players aren't doing stupid rule violations.
Isn't that why we have them to begin with? 
Not like they're in it for the money or something...

[KBFLordKrueg]

I think what Mat's getting tired of is 2-3 DNs running missions together. Be different if it was, say a DN, a CA and a CL or something similiar. Not just working the same hex. If 3 DNs were in the same hex, it probably would be OK as long as they weren't winging together.
Not an unreasonable request, IMHPO...
I would support such a rule, myself.

Me to, but how do we 'enforce" it?  Drafting is random.

Would be nice if we had SFC3 Fleeting.

Well, I see voice coms as a pretty easy way to do that. If we can co-ordinate 3 DNs bouncing one or 2 players so effectivly, why can't you co-ordinate teams or fleets?
ie. Ok, goup 1 is in mission, group2 move in with so-and-so drafting. Next group 3...and so on.
The Coalition does that sort of thing all the time. 
Players not on Voice would have to be more careful
Again, another job for the RM/ARMs to handle.
Again, isn't that why we have them anyway?
I do that sort of thing constantly on every server I've been RM on. Even been joked with as a "traffic cop" while doing so.
RM/ARMs should be a lot more responsible for that sort of thing.
Not just be RM/ARM so they can get their choice of the best ships...
I rarely even take an assigned ship at all when I'm RM, prefering instead to give them to the players that play the most, follow OPs orders, etc.
Only reason I'm in that "cheese monkey" now is because WW is on Vacation and SOMEONE had to fly it.

[Pestalence_XC]

Well, that's a great idea, Pest, but 2 things:
The only kind of webmap that'll show that is a SQL server.
And who's going to watch the webmap so much to catch all that?
It's a real shame we can't simply depend on the good ole HONOR system of players not doing things like that.
I think that would have to fall to an RM/ARM to make sure their players aren't doing stupid rule violations.
Isn't that why we have them to begin with?
Not like they're in it for the money or something...

isn't the info on the site being displayed from the DB directly and didn't Bonk make a flat File web map? and since it is being sent to a web map, can't it be sent to an easy to read txt document by way of PHP... I mean yest it would take a little bit of work, but it is doable now for SQL and Flatfile..

players can notify RM or ARM, ARM or Rm notifies Admin, Admin checks the TXT log for verification of hex, ship, and time, and then administers suspension.. thus chain of command is maintained and enforces Honor System, and keeps honest people honest and will tick off those that try to slip through the loopholes in the rules...

Basically the server rule could be simple.. Checking ship indicators on ingame map.. no 2 allied DN's can occupy the same hex.. violation will result in player account suspended (based on time of mission in hex) for a 24 hour period and loss of 20 VC's to the enemy for violation of the rule.

Sounds a bit harsh.. but like i stated, it keeps honest people honest.. sort of like a lock.. it only keeps honest people out.

[Dizzy]

how about we voluntarily cut back the number of DN's to 3 per side?

That should solve most of it.

I'd also like to point out that attrition hasnt kept up with production... Probably a players number thing tho.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

3 Words...... Area of Operations.

In the future only allow BBs to only operate within 5 hexes of the homeworld, and restrict DNs to 1 per theatre.  For example in a classic setup that means 1 Klingon DN for the Hydran front, 1 for the Kzinti front, and 1 for the Federation front.  You might have situations where 2 DNs were present say the Klingon Kzinti  Front DN and the Lyran Kzinti Front DN, but it would likely reduce this occurance, as much less heavy iron would be on the board.


Another idea would be not to enforce the disengagement rule if the fight included more than 1 DN on a side for the side facing the multiple DNs.  This would place less advantage with flying DNs together.  You could go a step further and award no VCs to any kills where one side had 2 or more DNs more than their opponent(s).  The ship would still be considered destroyed if it was but no VCs.  That would likely limited the uses of multiple DNs together.


As it is now it is a bit ridiculous, I counted  2 Battleships, 7 Dreadnaughts, 1 Carrier, and 5 BCHs online at once with 24 players online.....


P.S. Mat, not everybody "loves OOB"    well at least OOB beyond the elimination of Battleships and the limiting of DNs.

[C-Los]

P.S. Mat, not everybody "loves OOB"    well at least OOB beyond the elimination of Battleships and the limiting of DNs.

DAM Chuut....Thats hitting the nail on the head !!!       

[Hexx]

Well I'm pretty sure all the DN & BB pilots are on voice coms anyway- so co-ordinating their movement shouldn't be an issue

Really just depends on if you want to extend it to the BCH level as well.

Or- just to make things interresting- what about a rule saying if the opponenets have an X ship with them you may not disengage.
(superior sensors or something)Implement the rule as of 82, and give every race one free build xship.

[Julin Eurthyr]

First off, the natural tendencies of people is to fly the most competitive ship they can find.  I have lines of people waiting for CCZs, but I can't get a carrier jock if my life depends on it...

Secondly, outside of the I-CCZ, there are little complaints against the "line" BCHs, (F-BCG, K-C7, R-NHK/RHK, G,Z,L-BCH, and Hydran whatever-it-is).  It's the "fancy" BCHs (like the shock-bearing F-BCJ or R-KHK), Limited build (F-BCF, R-KCR C7 variant), BCV (Hydran OS IIRC), and other "limited" versions that cause the most grief.  Therefore, I'm thinking that the OOB demarcation line should be drawn around that point (line BCHs unrestricted, Fancy BCHs and up restricted).

I'll see if I can work that system into my theoretical OOB...

[Dizzy]

I agree that the amount of heavy iron is approaching ridiculous. We all agreed the cap of 4 DN and 1 BB, but perhaps we could voluntarily commit to the following as an agreement between sides to limit the boring cheese mathces we have been having:

1.) 3 DN and 1 BB on the board at a time.
2.) No BB can operate the same hex as a DN.

?

[Firehawk]

2.) No BB can operate the same hex as a BB.

?

?? Do you mean no BB can operate in the same hex as a DN oterwise with only 1 BB allowed on per side that is kindof pointless.

[Dizzy]

oopsa!

[Kroma BaSyl]

.... can we get some rules regarding fleet compositions for future servers?

I love PvP as much as anybody, but I'm a duelist. Should I just resign myself to being a hex gobbler from now on?

This is not a flame, or a bitch. I already bitched on Ventrilo. I just want to see if I'm the only one that thinks OOB has become exactly what it was supposed to prevent... a DN fest. This isnt a Coalition thing or an Alliance thing. It's just a Mat thing. Instead of making the casual player irrelevant, I fear we've made the solo pvper irrelevant now by exchange. Maybe that's acceptable for everybody else. I have no clue. Drop a note in here and express yourself, but don't flame server admins, etc. I of course am fair game for the flamethrowers. Fire away.

Mat, the tired of having to run away all of the time guy

I agree Mat, at least as it was implemented on SG4. I didn't think this was as big an issue on the GW servers, mainly because there were far fewer DNs and the attrition rate was higher. The BP economy is far to generous on SG4 IMHO and combined with the high VC penalty for losing a DN few have been lost. Pilots have been much better at protecting the and much less likely to committing them to decisive battles. I heard a few complaints about DNs escorting DNs on GW 3 and 4, but to tell the truth I had no shortage of line cruiser duels myself.

What I would do for the next server is make DNs scarcer as they were in the GW servers, and possibly even remove the VC penalty all together, since losing such a valuable resource ought to be penalty enough. I would also never want to see a server that gives VCs for every single kill again, as I believe this has also lead to far fewer decisive battles even on the rare occasions that line CAs meet.

An alternative to removing VCs from the big ships altogether would be to create a rule that DNs may not fly together. With voice comms this is pretty easy to manage, and a simple rule that says if you happen to be drafted into a mission accidentally with another friendly DN the side with the 2 allied DNs must disengage, immediately. I wouldn't penalize them with the disengagement rule though, but the DV should go to the opposing team as a small penalty for lack of coordination on the other side.

XOXOXO
Kroma

PS, I would still allow BCHs to escort DNs though.

[Surfal]

If you say BB's can't run with DN's, you have to say that DNs can't run with DNs, or you'll have 2xDN hunting parties, and that's part of what we're trying to avoid.

[Dizzy]

What I would do for the next server is make DNs scarcer as they were in the GW servers, and possibly even remove the VC penalty all together, since losing such a valuable resource ought to be penalty enough. I would also never want to see a server that gives VCs for every single kill again, as I believe this has also lead to far fewer decisive battles even on the rare occasions that line CAs meet.

Totally agree.