Topic: An apology...

[CaptJosh]

Ok, I owe a big apology for flying off the handle earlier. Sorry guys.

Losing my temper aside, I have had fun learning how to fly some ships better, but I expected to have a decent opportunity to play a real game instead of fighting a desperate(and failing) holding action. I only got to fly maybe two honest PvPs. The other times I got drafted or did the drafting, I was ridiculously outnumbered. This doesn't matter so much with someone like me who's on a good cable internet hookup, but really, it's unrealistic to expect stable drafting with more than 4 people. And 3 v 1 is an impossible combo, generally speaking. If you're really looking for PvP, flying in squadrons of 3 doesn't make sense. Three player controlled ships at once, IIRC what I have heard, is the reason that a single player flying more than one ship at a time was disallowed on a near permanent basis.

One final thought. Claiming to look for PvP, then flying in squadrons of three pilots? The actions give lie to the words.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Three player controlled ships at once, IIRC what I have heard, is the reason that a single player flying more than one ship at a time was disallowed on a near permanent basis.

That is not correct.

One final thought. Claiming to look for PvP, then flying in squadrons of three pilots? The actions give lie to the words.

You can't really blame them, they are just terrified that they might actually enjoy being my Cabin Boys.

And Josh, when apologising it will come off as more sincere if you leave out the insults, otherwise words give lie to the words

[Hexx]

Three player controlled ships was generally disallowed as it gave some races huge
advantages over others

Most (but certainly not all) teams actually consist of 2 players, not three.
Same as the alliance heavy metal.

If you actually want someone to take your ship away from you, all you have to do is post in general
chat, or send a msg to someone (in case everyone's in Rom chat).
Or you could learn how to actually hunt players down.

[Bonk]

Or you could learn how to actually hunt players down.

There is the real fun in the D2... (and being the hunted too). Exhilarating. Its what got me hooked.

[FA Frey XC]

Or you could learn how to actually hunt players down.

There is the real fun in the D2... (and being the hunted too). Exhilarating. Its what got me hooked.

WORD

[F9thRyker]

If you're having fun, then stay.

If you're not having fun, then leave. I wasnt having fun here, so I decided against continuing with this server.

Unfortunately, a lot of other Alliance pilots seemed to all get the same idea.

Although I cant agree with your outburst Josh, I do understand it somewhat.


That is one of the ways, on a growing list, why D3 is superior to D2. D3 has player registration to balance out these numbers- it was proven on one of the early Neutral Zone servers that asking players to balance themselves out would never work.


Is there *any* way to password protect D2 servers, maybe with a game patch or something? The minute you could do that, you could have a webpage based race-reg system, and something approaching "balance" would be restored, which (in turn) would convince some people to return.



Lookie here at this- el-Karnak made it, and it's now the staple for nearly all the big SFC3 campaigns:

http://www.islandwars.net/registration/register.php



Race Registration works. Period.

D2 may have the edge over D3 in some areas, but in player balance, D3 wins hands down.

[KBF-Crim]

Different crowd.....Wont work....to easy to wonk with ghost registers and no shows...

The D2 was supposed to achieve racial "parity" (not the same as balance) through the ship yard,mission draws, and mission payouts

Highly populated teams where to face higher prices for ships...lower pay outs for missions...and heavier AI opposition...all automatically...

Highly populated races would be forced to team up to run missions or when facing live enemies in lower populated races (who would also be in bigger ships on average.....as they would be normal prices, with normal mission payouts)

Also note in the stock game multiple ships were intendend....

Now this was the plan...I know...I was hanging on every stinking word like any good taldren groupie......

Unfortunately...that plan involved a dynaverse that was being supplied by WON.net....which fell through...

What we ended up with was something with the same elements...but with none of those elements interactively controlling racial parity any longer as originally planned...

We have what we have...for the time being....

The problem is expecting too much out of system not designed what we wish it to do...

At the same time though....many strides have been achieved in scripting and mapping SQL functions...

It's possible...we may yet get a stable and functional SQL based server that can re-implement automatic parity tools once envisioned to be in play....

So that in a sense...no rules are required at all except for good sportmanship...The game itself would handle all the other rules and minutia behind the scenes seamlessly...

It's also possible...that people will accept the limits of the D2 and continue to play ...even when conditions or circumstances aren't in their favor...

It also very possible that we will try a different type of campaign sometime in the not too distant future...this type is F&E server may eliminate player imbalances all together...as missions are matched up vs what ships are present on the map and played by available players...assets are moved by empire...and match ups played out in real time...the biggest hurdle here is automation of many functions required to make strategic moves.....change the "one at a time" turns for empires to simultaneous movement and reaction....and up date the map in real time instead of once per week...

I helped play test a system like this for use with SFC1....the only draw back was lack of automation....

Loss of assets and territory is part of any good war game...but at the same time...is it easier to hold ground...than to take it...

We need to keep in mind that these aren't our personal ships....they are assets of the empire....

One problem with restricted ships lists is the personal attachment and extra pressure that having control of a highly valued asset brings...while sorta forgetting that same asset is a high priority target...it will be hunted, ambushed, stalked, whatever...in order to take it out...it's a valid tactic...and really a necessity if you are to achieve area superiority and thus claim territory...

Another primary difference is the lack of fleeting....this alone makes D2 and D3 play almost incomparable in its basic essence...It's harder to catch a valued asset alone in the D3.....one reason we like D2 is the ability to ambush bigger units caught off guard or unescorted....

Thus a basic truth to D2 play...a small number of skilled and determined pilots ...can greatly effect the front...in a relatively short time...even more so when un- opposed.

Term defined: hex munching

This in itself caused problems as no matter how many mission you chased someone off in a smaller ship....they would then just run another mission under you...

Answer....the disengagement rule...which is still in refinement...

But for the disengagement rule to be of any benefit to the defending empire....the empires pilots need to able to stand their ground and drive attackers off...

This goes back to one of the basic truths of the D2....a small number of skilled and determined pilots ...can greatly effect the front...in a relatively short time...even more so when un- opposed.

Yet another distinct difference Play VS AI...in the D2 a mission is drawn whether there is a player there or not...AI or other wise...

This means an un-opposed force can simply march right through you space...the defenders simply must try and use the disengagement rule to it's advantage...

A proper battle group should consist of at least several teams...these teams are often paired up by necessity (need to escort primary asset)..preference (a favored wingman)....or desire of style of play (PvP or hex capture/re-enforcement) harassment Vs interdiction or interception...

Yes...we actually break our line assaults down in such detail....and for most of us , it comes natural and something we just do as a practice rather than diagram it out...we run cover for each other....we wolf pack...we sit solo shark...we often know where every other player is in our immediate surroundings and we can adjust to just about any tactical situation on the battlefield level....

It's the way we take ground...it's the way we hold ground...

Even if there are but a handful of us on...even one determined pilot can be a huge pain in the ass...I know...I seen me do it...

Chuut recently paid this most honorable compliment, I am truly humbled by his words:

"The Klingon's, I have to say I am truly impressed with their ability to hold a large group together for so long and mostly under one fleet banner, that of the KBF.  This shows a certain loyalty and friendship that they can and should take pride in."

But it's not because of any type of military atmosphere, or even entirely to role play....many of us where allready here long ago and the KBF kinda lives through us....it's often said "you dont find the KBF...the KBF finds you"....this relates to the fact the we are for the most part Klingon regulars...and allways have been...and speaking for myself...allways will be...it is neither good...or bad...it just is...

And So long as there is but one of us...the KBF will be on the field of battle.

We dont try to be the way we are.....we just are....the good, the bad, and the ugly of it...

None of the above tactical combinations are novel or new or secret...in fact they should be seen as basic to any good war game...we just seem to employ them by nature....

I dont think what we need is registration or racial caps....

What we NEED is to share tactics and counter tactics more.....for every tactic...there is a valid counter tactic...

And there is no such thing as "out numbered" when you still still make a pain in the ass out of your self...war games sometimes require holding actions...supply line attacks...supply point attacks....feints and distractions...harassment and intediction...counter attacks...tactical retreats...and even sacrifices...

Someone may be the only one for 5 minutes and leave...then every one else does the same thing....no one thinks anyone has been on...and nothing gets done...neither active offense nor defense...

Never give up...never surrender....if all else fails...attack.

War-game

We need a little less emphisis on war..and a little more on game...

[deadmansix]

Different crowd.....Wont work....to easy to wonk with ghost registers and no shows...

The D2 was supposed to achieve racial "parity" (not the same as balance) through the ship yard,mission draws, and mission payouts

Highly populated teams where to face higher prices for ships...lower pay outs for missions...and heavier AI opposition...all automatically...

Highly populated races would be forced to team up to run missions or when facing live enemies in lower populated races (who would also be in bigger ships on average.....as they would be normal prices, with normal mission payouts)

Also note in the stock game multiple ships were intendend....

Now this was the plan...I know...I was hanging on every stinking word like any good taldren groupie......

Unfortunately...that plan involved a dynaverse that was being supplied by WON.net....which fell through...

What we ended up with was something with the same elements...but with none of those elements interactively controlling racial parity any longer as originally planned...

We have what we have...for the time being....

The problem is expecting too much out of system not designed what we wish it to do...

At the same time though....many strides have been achieved in scripting and mapping SQL functions...

It's possible...we may yet get a stable and functional SQL based server that can re-implement automatic parity tools once envisioned to be in play....

So that in a sense...no rules are required at all except for good sportmanship...The game itself would handle all the other rules and minutia behind the scenes seamlessly...

It's also possible...that people will accept the limits of the D2 and continue to play ...even when conditions or circumstances aren't in their favor...

It also very possible that we will try a different type of campaign sometime in the not too distant future...this type is F&E server may eliminate player imbalances all together...as missions are matched up vs what ships are present on the map and played by available players...assets are moved by empire...and match ups played out in real time...the biggest hurdle here is automation of many functions required to make strategic moves.....change the "one at a time" turns for empires to simultaneous movement and reaction....and up date the map in real time instead of once per week...

I helped play test a system like this for use with SFC1....the only draw back was lack of automation....

Loss of assets and territory is part of any good war game...but at the same time...is it easier to hold ground...than to take it...

We need to keep in mind that these aren't our personal ships....they are assets of the empire....

One problem with restricted ships lists is the personal attachment and extra pressure that having control of a highly valued asset brings...while sorta forgetting that same asset is a high priority target...it will be hunted, ambushed, stalked, whatever...in order to take it out...it's a valid tactic...and really a necessity if you are to achieve area superiority and thus claim territory...

Another primary difference is the lack of fleeting....this alone makes D2 and D3 play almost incomparable in its basic essence...It's harder to catch a valued asset alone in the D3.....one reason we like D2 is the ability to ambush bigger units caught off guard or unescorted....

Thus a basic truth to D2 play...a small number of skilled and determined pilots ...can greatly effect the front...in a relatively short time...even more so when un- opposed.

Term defined: hex munching

This in itself caused problems as no matter how many mission you chased someone off in a smaller ship....they would then just run another mission under you...

Answer....the disengagement rule...which is still in refinement...

But for the disengagement rule to be of any benefit to the defending empire....the empires pilots need to able to stand their ground and drive attackers off...

This goes back to one of the basic truths of the D2....a small number of skilled and determined pilots ...can greatly effect the front...in a relatively short time...even more so when un- opposed.

Yet another distinct difference Play VS AI...in the D2 a mission is drawn whether there is a player there or not...AI or other wise...

This means an un-opposed force can simply march right through you space...the defenders simply must try and use the disengagement rule to it's advantage...

A proper battle group should consist of at least several teams...these teams are often paired up by necessity (need to escort primary asset)..preference (a favored wingman)....or desire of style of play (PvP or hex capture/re-enforcement) harassment Vs interdiction or interception...

Yes...we actually break our line assaults down in such detail....and for most of us , it comes natural and something we just do as a practice rather than diagram it out...we run cover for each other....we wolf pack...we sit solo shark...we often know where every other player is in our immediate surroundings and we can adjust to just about any tactical situation on the battlefield level....

It's the way we take ground...it's the way we hold ground...

Even if there are but a handful of us on...even one determined pilot can be a huge pain in the ass...I know...I seen me do it...

Chuut recently paid this most honorable compliment, I am truly humbled by his words:

"The Klingon's, I have to say I am truly impressed with their ability to hold a large group together for so long and mostly under one fleet banner, that of the KBF.  This shows a certain loyalty and friendship that they can and should take pride in."

But it's not because of any type of military atmosphere, or even entirely to role play....many of us where allready here long ago and the KBF kinda lives through us....it's often said "you dont find the KBF...the KBF finds you"....this relates to the fact the we are for the most part Klingon regulars...and allways have been...and speaking for myself...allways will be...it is neither good...or bad...it just is...

And So long as there is but one of us...the KBF will be on the field of battle.

We dont try to be the way we are.....we just are....the good, the bad, and the ugly of it...

None of the above tactical combinations are novel or new or secret...in fact they should be seen as basic to any good war game...we just seem to employ them by nature....

I dont think what we need is registration or racial caps....

What we NEED is to share tactics and counter tactics more.....for every tactic...there is a valid counter tactic...

And there is no such thing as "out numbered" when you still still make a pain in the ass out of your self...war games sometimes require holding actions...supply line attacks...supply point attacks....feints and distractions...harassment and intediction...counter attacks...tactical retreats...and even sacrifices...

Someone may be the only one for 5 minutes and leave...then every one else does the same thing....no one thinks anyone has been on...and nothing gets done...neither active offense nor defense...

Never give up...never surrender....if all else fails...attack.

War-game

We need a little less emphisis on war..and a little more on game...

 I know what your talking about Crim AS I have done the same thing (making myself a pain in the side of the opposing team) hit move hit move stand your ground all well and good,but you can not deniy that if the oposing team can Field say 6 hunter killer teams, and 6 blockade runners and your team can only Field 1/3 of that,no matter how big a pain your team can be your team will lose and lose big,and lose fast.
 
  I don't care about wining or losing what I want to see is a close to level playing Field and sportsman like conduct if say the hydran race is put out of the game I don't want to be shut out of the server I don't think its right, we are not playing for our way of life here we are playing to have fun and be with friends and play the game we all love to play.

  its time to stop pinting fingers at one another and saying you did this and that and come together as a internet family if one side sees that one side is way under maned send a few over to the other side level it out some.
  and yes it is good to fly other races and I do badly but I do but to some there primary race is the only race and they should always have a place on the sever no matter how small no race should ever be totally wiped out ever here on the Dyna in my view (and this is not meant to start a flame war and is not a statement pointed at anyone as we are ALL to blame for our current mess)

[Kroma BaSyl]

War-game

We need a little less emphisis on war..and a little more on game...

LMAO....I was thinking the same thing while cutting the grass yesterday.

[Marikar]

There are some interesting views here.

One view is that numbers are to blame.
One view is that attack and defence have equal value.

What we have is the ideo that defence should be easier.  Why?  Let me explain an observation from real life warfare.
In the desert between 1940 and 1943 the British and German/Italian aries seesawed across the desert.  One side would attack and when successful would push the other side along until a defencible position was reached.  The main problem in the desert was there weren't that many of them.  The other factor was the supply line.  Warfare in the desert could be held to be very fluid until a natural defencive area was reached.  So perhaps one answer is to have areas for each race that facilitate defence.  Lines of starbases, or high dv hex's.

The thing with space is its Big.  And statistically speaking contains nothing.  Suns, planets, asteroids, etc... are statistically speaking halucinations.  lol (I couldn't resest)  But seriously I do have a point here.  What do the desert and space have in common.  Alltogether now.... They are essentially empty.  At the moment I do not think the disengament rule works for either side, in fact for me it only makes sence for the attackers.  If we want defence to be easier then there should be no penalty for the defender.  For me there is no sence in running off your opponent if you fail to persue him.  In war the highest percentage of casualties always takes place during the persuit or rout of any force.another problem holding onto territory occurs because the attackers and defenders allways have the ability to run missions underneath an existing mission.  It is entirely possible to go into a mission just one point away from flipping the hex, to find yourself in a long drawn out mission against another player or players.  When you come back the dv has gone up by 10 or so.  or if you are defending the hex has flipped and is now at a dv of 10 for the attackers, the outcome of your battle becomes meaningless, when it should have a major outcome.l.  Granted for this to happen one side or the other must have a superiority of numbers.  And so we get to the problem again.  The side with advantage in numbers will always have the advantage against the other. 

Now what if for pvp missions you awarded 10 or 15 dv point shifts for the winner.  15 for destroying your opponent   and 10 for running off the defending player and 15 or so for running off an attacker.  Please note these figures are just a guess at the moment but I would also suggest that dv's would need to be higher.  We could also consider trying to award more dv points for a mission taken in your own original/territory. 

I do understand that this is not an easy fix,  mission scripts etc... will need to be changed but surely it could be done.

But I wonder if we have all overlooked a simpler answer to the problem.  To be honest it escapes me at the moment.  All I know is I feel something needs to be done.  I do want the side with superior numbers to have an advantage.  This is logical and fair.  But at some point defence should be easier as well.  Its just a thought, what about having hexes that are no go zones, or limiting the number of players allowed in a hex for each side.

I know I am relativly new to this community and if these suggestions have been tried and don't work then so be it.  But if not, well...

[Dfly]

I am reposting this part of one of my posts, as it may fit here as well: but before I do, I have one comment.  Your thought of limiting players to a hex at a time I would agree with, if some format could be acheived that is acceptable.



"Perhaps there should be no one to quit this game, but I for one lost the fun in it for the last few days and have not been on.  I have had a blast playing in Dyna the last couple months, as that is the only time I have been here.  Unfortunately the fun died during the last week, for me.  I will be here for the next one most likely, but I am not a player who loves the part of beating AI for hours on end to try to flip a couple hexes.  I  love the interaction of PVP, even if most battles end in someone leaving the battle.  It is unfortunate that deaths of ships play such a big part that people cant fly and die, but fly and run, because the ship is more important than the experience or the game. 

If there is anything I would like to see in a future server, is that

1:  PVP are "TO THE DEATH". 

2:  Ships losses dont count.

3:  All battles must be 1v1 or 2v2

4:  There still be a penalty of no hex entering after a loss

5:  All ships allowed must be ballanced out, such as:  No Dreads
                                                                         Heavies are to be near equal bpv, such as 140 to 180, or 160 to 200, or some such
                                                                         in case of no heavies, do the same with lights or even frigs.
                                                                         Only dreads, must be below 300 bpv
                                                                         Or something along these lines.

The reasons are simple IMHO, to make all fights close to fair, and to make all battles actually mean more than just chasing someone off the map after say 45 minutes of fighting.

Also, Team choosing seems to be an issue to be dealt with.  I would like to see a blind draft approach.  No one would know who is your teammates till the last minute. 

One last thing, though I doubt it could be done.  I propose a server where it keeps track of hours played, not bases taken or kills per side.  Record the hours played by each side. if say the server becomes tipped to one side, post that the team with too many hours must cut down on hours.  Hear me out before screetching.  This part would most likely cancel or affect the blind draft.  One way to balance out the hours would be to allow a limited number of players to be allowed an account on Both teams.  These limited players would have to be guys who can put enough hours on in a server to offset the timeslot differential.  Most likely these players will end up playing for the same team during almost all the server, depending on which team seems low in hours.  As I said, I dont know if this is possible, but these are a few of my opinions from my limited amount of timeplay here.  If this post is in wrong place, could someone move it to where it should be please.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Nice post Marikar, I like your tone of giving ideas instead of criticisms   

I do have a few comments to add in response.

Now what if for pvp missions you awarded 10 or 15 dv point shifts for the winner.  15 for destroying your opponent   and 10 for running off the defending player and 15 or so for running off an attacker.  Please note these figures are just a guess at the moment but I would also suggest that dv's would need to be higher.  We could also consider trying to award more dv points for a mission taken in your own original/territory. 

The problem with this idea is that it would encourge players to jump into the bigest and baddest ship they could and grab as many wingmen as they could, also in the largest ships possible.  The player who enjoys the 1 v 1 and the player who enjoys flying the smaller ships would be left out in the cold.  Player drops and lag are also more common in multiple player missions, and if a drop or lag occurs in a mission with 10 or 15 DV shift involved I can see some problems.

Anyhow, keep up the brainstorming only through thought can solutions appear.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Another nice post here, Dfly    , and a few comments in response

If there is anything I would like to see in a future server, is that

1:  PVP are "TO THE DEATH". 

2:  Ships losses dont count.

3:  All battles must be 1v1 or 2v2

4:  There still be a penalty of no hex entering after a loss

5:  All ships allowed must be ballanced out, such as:  No Dreads
                                                                         Heavies are to be near equal bpv, such as 140 to 180, or 160 to 200, or some such
                                                                         in case of no heavies, do the same with lights or even frigs.
                                                                         Only dreads, must be below 300 bpv
                                                                         Or something along these lines.

The reasons are simple IMHO, to make all fights close to fair, and to make all battles actually mean more than just chasing someone off the map after say 45 minutes of fighting.

I think the Civil War series will be one you would enjoy based on your comments.

As far as all fights needing to be to the death, I don't see this happening with the exception of a server where the shiplists are identical.  Certain ships/races just don't balance well vs other ships espite relatively equal BPVs.  How do you balance out ships with PFs and fighters?  What if ai appears in the mission?  Just too many issues regarding what constitutes a balanced match.

Now what might work is a "Death Zone".  Basically what I mean by this is an area of space similar to the concept of the "Slot".  The "Slot" was a map area reserved for smaller ships so that players liking these boats would have a place to fly without worries of being constantly drafted by larger boats.  What the "Death Zone" would be is an area of space that is a natural arena where attempts to leave a hex would cause a ship to become vulnerable to a point where it was easy destroyed, thus no disengagement from an enemy.  This could be due to the instability of space in the region, or the intervention of a super advanced race who liked combat and would bet on the outcomes forcing the ships to be their "gladiators", the winner rewarded with life, the loser getting death.   If things were not balanced in such a match it would be tough luck as all knew the risk entering the zone.

[Soreyes]

Hmmmmmm  How about if we go back to the Taldren Stock ship list, where everyone had Crappy ships

[Hexx]

Hmmmmmm  How about if we go back to the Taldren Stock ship list, where everyone had Crappy ships

Did it have Lyran BCV's?