Topic: Mirror PVP rules + VC's

[Hexx]

OK -I'm sure I don't have to encourage this but please, feel free to tear these to pieces
Point out any exploits or why this simply won't work.
It's kinda  a "new" system (or maybe I just stole it from someone and don't remember..)

VC Points on the Mirror² server are in one of two categories.
1) Base Placing
- This will (hopefully) appeal to the hex flippers and Non-PVP guys.
Basiacally the idea is that a hole has "been torn in the fabric of reality"^TM
One side wants to fix and repair said hole, the other side wants to keep it open.
You gain VP's based on the size of base you place- 5 for a BS, 10 for a Bats, 20 for a SB.
(VP's only count for bases placed along one of the Nebula hexes representing the tear)
You may only place a base in a hex adjacent to one that you already have a base (of any type) in
You may not place a base within 2 hexes of an enemy base.
Bases will be destructable.

2) PVP
You are worth one VP once you have made a kill
You gain one vp for every pilot you kill that is worth a VP
If you are killed, you lose all VP's accumulated (the other side only gains 1 for your death)
and you will be worth zero VP's until you make another PVP kill.
PVP VC's will be counted after every X days, whereas the cycle will start again.

If you are flying a 3 ship fleet, your VP's are considered to be spread across the three ships as evenly as possible.
With any excess being carried by the command variant. If you lose one of the ships, you are considered to have lost
however many of your VP's it was carrying.

ex - DH has managed to kill 11 players without dying. He is now worth 11vp for his side. He flies a 3 ship DD squadron
For loss purposes his ships would be worth 4/4/3
and is caught by Kroma in a CB. Somehow Kroma manages to kill one of the DD's. (non command)
Dh would now have 7VP's for his side, 8 if he managed to kill Kroma in the mission after losing one of his ships.

The idea of the PVP player based VP's is something I hope will allow different people to fly the ships. Even if you're not any good in PVP
you aren't giving the enemy any points for your death.So hopefull it can be used as a PVP learning experience without the player
feeling he's costing his side points.
By contrast the only way the PVP killers will keep earning points is to keep throwing themselves into combat.

I'm thinking of a "No retreat" from PVP (unless agreed upon by all players present). This can be felt to represent *slightly* more powerful engines on the Terran ships and *slightly* better scanners on the Federation ships. A damaged ship will only be allowed to withdraw if his opponent decides to permit it. Multiplayer missions would be excempt from this as long as one player stays in the fight after everyone on his side has left. (Basically dying to provide his friends time to run)

[deadmansix]

 OK if I read this correctly on side can only place a base next to a hex they have a base in, if that is the case there has been problems with placing bases next to bases something about if one side flipped the hex the next mission flipped it back to neutral or something like that its the reason we went to the 2 hex rule for base placing.

[Hexx]

AFAIK- and i could be wrong, there should be no "flipped" bases. With destrucatable bases they should go
away.
And in any event- with all the rules- it's the intent that Im looking for, base placement is about a 10 minute or so mission
Long as the base is good at the strat of the mission it's OK.

[deadmansix]

  ok just wanted to bring this to your att just trying to help

[Hexx]

NP, it's what I'm looking for

Anything at all that seems questionable/unworkable/or something open to an abuse
that I'm not seeing is what I'd like people to find.

[KBFLordKrueg]

 OK if I read this correctly on side can only place a base next to a hex they have a base in, if that is the case there has been problems with placing bases next to bases something about if one side flipped the hex the next mission flipped it back to neutral or something like that its the reason we went to the 2 hex rule for base placing.

I'm pretty sure you're correct on this, DeadMan.

[Hexx]

Hmm
Well if it is an issue- and assuming I can't just make something work because I say so-
then you'll have to place a base every 2nd hex, as long as it's not within 2 of an enemy.

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

If you want to re-introduce flying up to fleets of 3, that's fine. Considering not everyone will want to do that, I would suggest dropping the idea of no retreat.

[Mazeppa]

.

I'm thinking of a "No retreat" from PVP (unless agreed upon by all players present). This can be felt to represent *slightly* more powerful engines on the Terran ships and *slightly* better scanners on the Federation ships. A damaged ship will only be allowed to withdraw if his opponent decides to permit it. Multiplayer missions would be excempt from this as long as one player stays in the fight after everyone on his side has left. (Basically dying to provide his friends time to run)

I'm really, really excited about this "no retreat" rule.  I am thinking that it may cause people to only try and fight in groups of three. 

Would you consider a "No Retreat" rule after:

1. The player fires any weapon
2. Three minutes have passed on the play clock.

This way, if a player sees a possible mismatch, he can flee the battlefield.  If he fires a weapon, he is committed.  If he remains in the hex

Presumably, it takes 30 seconds to fire a probe, even if your opponents run away to try and mask their ships, and I am thinking it would take you another two and a half minutes to head for the nearest border. 

If anyone else thinks this is a good idea, but thinks more time is needed to make a fight/flight decision, I'm cool with that

[Dfly]

I'm thinking of a "No retreat" from PVP (unless agreed upon by all players present). This can be felt to represent *slightly* more powerful engines on the Terran ships and *slightly* better scanners on the Federation ships. A damaged ship will only be allowed to withdraw if his opponent decides to permit it. Multiplayer missions would be excempt from this as long as one player stays in the fight after everyone on his side has left. (Basically dying to provide his friends time to run)

Is this just about the same idea I had posted earlier, using the no retreat rule for PVP?  If so, I am glad to see it.  May I suggest a system that I have seen used before in other styles of campaigns?  Let's say team A starts at the top of the map, and team B starts at the bottom(left and right can be used as well).  Team A comes in with a CB that is slightly damaged and low on supplies.  Team B has 2 pilots, each with a similar CB, fully ready.  When meeting each other, they must escape only from the oposite end of the map.  Therefore, Team A can escape, but must fly by team B.  Team B could also decide not to fight by attempting to get by team A.  Escape can ONLY be done by going off the far end of the map.  If a ship goes off any other side, by accident, intent or tractor, it is destroyed(consider it the rift).

To help pilots with this idea, as you say hail, check your map starting point(for this to work we may have to make all maps medium or small-again call it the rift effect), and state"WE MUST EXIT NORTH(if you start at bottom)" or some such.  The other team would reply with "WE MUST EXIT SOUTH(if they started at the top).  then you can both say "AGREED", and your on your way to really fun battles or runs.

Feel free to add to this, or tear it apart, but IMO I think this can work.

[FPF-DieHard]

This is all too complicated and overly competitive.

[Hexx]

First I should point out the fleets of 3 is only a DD Squadron.
As I posted (err somewhere) before if 3xDD's are routinely able to smack CA's around then
it will drop to 3xFF's. If it's still to tough then they'll be dropped all together.

As I said- it's a work in process,
There won't be anymore conditons attached to the "no retreat" rule
I'm already getting close to making the rules too compicated, and I don't want anything even remotely able to turn into
a flamefest.
If the disengagement rule can be made workable and easy to undertand it's in.
Otherwise I'll strip it out.

The main goals for this server are
1) Try and get players to fly something new
2) See if a PVP VP system can be made to work *well enough*
3) Allow players not as skilled at PVP to fly ships they want without feeling they're risking VP's for their ships
-this system keeps track of the players, not the ships.
I've heard that someof our "newer" players still haven't had a chance to be able to fly a BCH
in PVP, or that they've been encouraged to stay away from the "hot hexes" so as to not cost their side anything
This completely eliminates that. Anyone can eventually fly a BCG
* Please note- already had PM's saying 'get rid of the PVP VP system"
I don't want to
Play the game have fun, if you get killed you cost your side exactly 1 VP.<-- and that's only if you've killed someone before.
 
I'm personally expecting to cost my side about 100 or so and I don't consider that that big a deal
This isn't a server with 10 or 20 VP's being a big deal. I'm anticipating having to count up hundreds.
Anything with VP system is going to get "overly competitive" if can't handle it.

 That being said -please keep the criticsm/suggestions coming.
If you really don't like the way something looking like it will work out, post it here.

[Mazeppa]

Well, let me give you a hypothetical.  Suppose I have a CB, and I draft, or get drafted by a three opposing players.  One is flying a CC, the others are in DD's.  Them's tough odds.  Are you saying I must remain in the hex and fight to the death?

If that is what you are saying, them's the berries, but I want to make sure.

[Hexx]

Grrr
It's actually been brought to my attention that the system technology we are forced to use
may not be capable of meeting the needs of my brilliantly conceived plans.

While I do like PVP VC's and no retreat,with the instability of the draft system
 I think I'm going to have to remove the no retreat idea.

Oh, and given that I'd have to actually come up with a list of what can be flown with what
I think I'm going to 1ship/pilot rule.
We'll try multi ship fleets for Lyran Civil War <snicker>

[LordSaxon]

I'm personally expecting to cost my side about 100 or so and I don't consider that that big a deal

Well according to your rules you would have to WIN 100 matches to be able to give up 100 VC's.....SO I don't think anyone should worry about you costing them the war !!

LordSaxon

P.S. I think new ways to score victory or defeat are worth trying, but your ideas here look to become a logistical, counting nightmare.

[Kzinbane]

I am not fond of complicated rules, but I have often thought that people aught to gain some advantage by choosing NOT to fly the classic killer ships which every race knows  about and has. Choose a standard Fed CA+ instead of a CAD and your victories are worth more or you otherwise gain something for your side.

In general now and just with ragards to proposals here - If the rules are all complicated and confusing I'm much less likely to play.  If P vs P is encouraged then simply have the two sides agree that they have a reasonably good match then they can go at it.  You'll still get arguements as to what a reasonably good match is but from what I've seen of D2 you will get arguements and ill feelings and flames no matter what.

A server following the standard of KISS sounds wonderful.  No Kroma, get your mind out of the gutter... it's KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!   

Kzinbane

[Marikar]

How about getting 2vp per kill in a line ship and 1 in a special. and you will always get at least 1 vp for killing a special or oob ship. keep the c and x prefixes we normally use so people know what type of ship is what for vp's.

so the original rule was:-

2) PVP
You are worth one VP once you have made a kill
You gain one vp for every pilot you kill that is worth a VP
If you are killed, you lose all VP's accumulated (the other side only gains 1 for your death)
and you will be worth zero VP's until you make another PVP kill.
PVP VC's will be counted after every X days, whereas the cycle will start again.

If you are flying a 3 ship fleet, your VP's are considered to be spread across the three ships as evenly as possible.
With any excess being carried by the command variant. If you lose one of the ships, you are considered to have lost
however many of your VP's it was carrying.

ex - DH has managed to kill 11 players without dying. He is now worth 11vp for his side. He flies a 3 ship DD squadron
For loss purposes his ships would be worth 4/4/3
and is caught by Kroma in a CB. Somehow Kroma manages to kill one of the DD's. (non command)
Dh would now have 7VP's for his side, 8 if he managed to kill Kroma in the mission after losing one of his ships.

New Rule would be something like this.

2) PVP
You are worth one VP once you have made a kill
You are worth one extra point if you are in an oob or special ship (denoted with c or s as usual.)

If you are killed, you lose all VP's accumulated (the other side only gains 1 or 2 for your death depending on your ship)
and you will be worth zero VP's until you make another PVP kill or you fly a special or oob ship.
PVP VC's will be counted after every X days, whereas the cycle will start again.

If you are flying a 3 ship fleet, your VP's are considered to be spread across the three ships as evenly as possible.
With any excess being carried by the command variant. If you lose one of the ships, you are considered to have lost
however many of your VP's it was carrying.  It is always worth at least 1 VP.

ex - DH has managed to kill 11 players without dying. He is now worth 11vp for his side. He flies a 3 ship DD squadron
For loss purposes his ships would be worth 4/4/3
and is caught by Kroma in a CB (non oob or special ship). Somehow Kroma manages to kill one of the DD's. (not DH's command ship)
Dh would now have 7VP's for his side, 8 if he managed to kill Kroma in the mission after losing one of his ships.

[Hexx]

What about
- Experienced Captains (with at least one kill) are worth 1 VP
- The top 3 (or 5 if we actually have the numbers) Captains on each side
may not disengage if faced with an equal number of enemy ships.

It's a fairly simple count them up VP situation
It lets weaker PVP players some freedom to fight (if they want) without any real risk to their side
They can feel free to fight and fight (the only way to learn -insert comment about me here  )
It also makes the killer PVP players able to be tracked down and forced to fight.- as long as they're not outnumbered.

[KBF-Soth]

How about letting rank or prestige play a role. Bring the later ranks like Rear Adm +1vp Adm +2 vp and so on reflecting the losses of those high ranking officers on ability to govern the fleets and moral

[Hexx]

How about letting rank or prestige play a role. Bring the later ranks like Rear Adm +1vp Adm +2 vp and so on reflecting the losses of those high ranking officers on ability to govern the fleets and moral

I want kroma to feel safe running missions far from anyone
Don't need him getting antsy against the AI