Topic: Mirror PVP rules + VC's

[GDA-S'Cipio]

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

Actually, that's not a bad idea, and it wouldn't require anyone to keep up with any running totals.  You could just make the number of VP's that a kill is worth based upon the rank of the pilot.

Lieutenant:  0 VC's
Captain:  1 VC's
Commodore: 2 VC's
etc.

Then there would be little reason to kill the newbie/casaul player, as he isn't worth any points.  Sure, vets could continually start new accounts to avoid giving away VCs, but if you put the price of all cruisers beyond what it takes to earn captain and BCH's beyond the price of what it takes to earn commodore, then that should be minimized.

Perhaps add a rule that players can never disengage from a player with lower rank, unless outnumbered by live pilots.

-S'Cipio

[benbean]

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

Actually, that's not a bad idea, and it wouldn't require anyone to keep up with any running totals.  You could just make the number of VP's that a kill is worth based upon the rank of the pilot.

Lieutenant:  0 VC's
Captain:  1 VC's
Commodore: 2 VC's
etc.

Then there would be little reason to kill the newbie/casaul player, as he isn't worth any points.  Sure, vets could continually start new accounts to avoid giving away VCs, but if you put the price of all cruisers beyond what it takes to earn captain and BCH's beyond the price of what it takes to earn commodore, then that should be minimized.

Perhaps add a rule that players can never disengage from a player with lower rank, unless outnumbered by live pilots.

-S'Cipio

I like this idea.

[Corbomite]

I have no wish to face three live players with nine ships between them. Between the lag and other connection issues I don't think it can handle it. I mean you are asking a system that can't even hold 6 live players most times to try and have up to 18 player controlled ships try to be drafted.


I think there is a simple way to make PvP worthwhile and make it easy on the admins too: Challenges.

Except for the Disengagement Rule (this helps control the map for the strategic players), all non solicited PvP will be penalty free. If you want to get personal VC's for your side, you must challenge an opposing player to combat. You may only score points by being the challenger and winning.

The challenged does not lose points for their side if they lose or gain points if they win. The challenged may decline without penalty, but once challenged he/she may choose the hex of the fight and the odds. The hex must be one either side can easily access.

The odds are what player set up you use, i.e. 1v1, 2v2, 2v1, 3v1, 3v2. This is the edge that he/she feels they need to take on the challenger. The  payout depends on the set up: 1 point for even odds, 1.5 for 3v2, 2 for 2v1 and 3 for 3v1.

Once the challenger sees the odds offered he/she may widthdraw the challenge at that point without penalty. If the challenge is agreed upon, met and won the challenger gets the appropriate points.

Fights may be to the death or until driven off, that is the purview of the players involved and must be agreed upon before hand. Points won remain the same.

Any disputes over outcomes will be handled civilly or no points will be awarded by purview of the Admins of the server.

If good faith is shown, but the matches are not happening due to connection issues or bugs in the missions, either party may widthdraw or ask for renegotiation without penalty. I would suggest three good trys before giving up.

[Soreyes]

I have no wish to face three live players with nine ships between them. Between the lag and other connection issues I don't think it can handle it. I mean you are asking a system that can't even hold 6 live players most times to try and have up to 18 player controled ships try to be drafted.

What He said.  Maybe I'll just revert back to Dial up and win all my battles by defalt ???

[Green]

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

Actually, that's not a bad idea, and it wouldn't require anyone to keep up with any running totals.  You could just make the number of VP's that a kill is worth based upon the rank of the pilot.

Lieutenant:  0 VC's
Captain:  1 VC's
Commodore: 2 VC's
etc.

Then there would be little reason to kill the newbie/casaul player, as he isn't worth any points.  Sure, vets could continually start new accounts to avoid giving away VCs, but if you put the price of all cruisers beyond what it takes to earn captain and BCH's beyond the price of what it takes to earn commodore, then that should be minimized.

Perhaps add a rule that players can never disengage from a player with lower rank, unless outnumbered by live pilots.

-S'Cipio

The simplicty of the rank rule is a definate plus.  (But I must admit Corbo's "odds game" sounds pretty cool.)

[el-Karnak]

.

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

In general, I avoid any dynas that have PvP VCs and a mission pack that is not stable enough to support good 3v3 PvP play and/or does not have AI stripping. Now if you put in no retreat rules for PvP, the mission packs becomes even more important. Under no retreat rules regime, you can't have players dropping and quickly having a potential 3v3 situation turn into a 3 on 1 or a 2v2 situation into a 2 on 1 due to player drops.  Plus, I would not want any AI in there causing the odds to be unbalanced.

That being said, I do like this idea a lot for any dyna:

Would you consider a "No Retreat" rule after:

2. Three minutes have passed on the play clock.

This rule would make the Taco Bellers go taco bell post-haste.

[Corbomite]

The simplicty of the rank rule is a definate plus.  (But I must admit Corbo's "odds game" sounds pretty cool.)

I tend to agrree about the simplicity thing. I just wanted to be sure anyone could challenge or be challenged and not have to worry about ship size/class problems. A dred could challenge a BCH and the BCH pilot could say "OK, but I want a 2v1 with my friend the drone boat winging with me".

[FPF-DieHard]

WTF does rank have to do with PvP prowess?   might as well use shoe size for your descripter.

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

as well as dodging the rank with multiple accounts...

[Hexx]

Wow
Lots of posts to read through
to clarify

-I've (albeit reluctantly) decided against the "no retreat" rule- although I do like
the concept of not being able to leave after 3 minutes.

-It will be one pilot/ship. ATM I'm trying to get (imho) too much ready to also have to
go through the list and figure out what can fly with what.
There will stil be areas where only CL's and smaller can traverse

-I still think I'll leave it at 1 VP/pilot kill. The only other VP's I have at the moment come from base placing
(to be clarified later) I do not want hex flipping VC's (although the base placing is close I admit) Other things will
come from controlling planets etc.
The 1VP may (I admit) simply be me trying to dig my heels in about something. I want a system where PVP means something
 but it means little enough that if you get killed it won't effect the outome, placing a Basestation (atm) is worth about 10VP
so placing one station will let you get killed 9 times and still gain a vp for your side.

Kills by DN pilots will still not count for VP purposes, although I am (for some unfathomable reason) considering expanding the time you're banned from a hex if chased off by a DN. Really I'd like to see DN's move into a more "strategic" asset, rather than putting your sides best PVP player in one and drafting him over and over again.

Again keep the comments & criticisms coming!
None of this is written in stone yet..


Oh- and only 1 account per/player will be permitted .
Creating a second account wil have some nasty, severe penalty attached to it.
Not sure what yet, open to suggestions though.

[Hexx]

Hmm
What about ..
If you kill someone while flying a CL(or smaller) you get 3VP
                                             CA                            2vp
                                             BCH                           1VP
                                             DN                             0VP

Target size doesn't matter (Im already having alot to count)
This would award players for flying the smaller (somewhat less cheesy ) ships
Act as a bit of  balance for newer players (who could get the bigger ships)
And punish DH when he claims " I have to fly the DNH.. I really don't want to.."

-Probelm is (I admit) I prefer the CLC so I may be biased..

[Marikar]

I like the idea of doing something to reward those players in smaller ships.  I do not want to see a game in which everyone is flying a BC or DN with the biggest cheese factor thay can afford.  Unless you want to make the penelty for losing a ship harsh pp wise. (not something I would like to see either.)

Also how are you going to keep track of what vc's who has?  The posting thread would be sensative to the time someone reports a kill.

[Hexx]

It would simply be a kill thread of
"Hexx's CLC killed Kroma's DNH"
type statements. Since hte defeated ship size dosn't matter only the ship you
were flying at the time of the kill counts.
All you need is to have a thread where only the pilots who make the kill post.
SGO4 (for example) - great for community spirit when the defeated players mad e a post, but really confused
the ship count.

I'm also thinking of maybe having like 3PVP kills equal 1 VP (or similar ratioe)
That would reduce the value/kill even further than the 1VP that seems to be a concern now.

[Dfly]

Hmm
What about ..
If you kill someone while flying a CL(or smaller) you get 3VP
                                             CA                            2vp
                                             BCH                           1VP
                                             DN                             0VP

Target size doesn't matter (Im already having alot to count)
This would award players for flying the smaller (somewhat less cheesy ) ships
Act as a bit of  balance for newer players (who could get the bigger ships)
And punish DH when he claims " I have to fly the DNH.. I really don't want to.."

-Probelm is (I admit) I prefer the CLC so I may be biased..

I like this idea, it gives the smaller ship more status, especially in a kill.  If you put this ruling in along with the 3 minute MUST BE OUT OF HEX or FIGHT TO THE DEATH rule, it would make it very interesting to see who would stay and who would leave.  This would give you time to get out, or decide to fight.

[FPF-DieHard]

3 minute MUST BE OUT OF HEX or FIGHT TO THE DEATH rule,

The maps in the ED missions are smaller than the Free for All medium Map

Such a rule on a map that small is stupid as it is too easy in a 2v2 to trap people in a corner (1v1 is fine).

Get some scripts with larger maps and this makes a little more sense, with the current available missions it is retarted.

[Hexx]

3 minute MUST BE OUT OF HEX or FIGHT TO THE DEATH rule,

The maps in the ED missions are smaller than the Free for All medium Map

Such a rule on a map that small is stupid as it is too easy in a 2v2 to trap people in a corner (1v1 is fine).

Get some scripts with larger maps and this makes a little more sense, with the current available missions it is retarted.

Well perhaps if you quit snivelling and wrote some new missions we'd have a solution..
Currently Im thinking any disengagement rule would only apply to 1 on 1's anyway.. too many things can go wrong in 2 v 2 , plus
a side not on voicecoms would be disadvataged etc.

[KBFLordKrueg]

Hmm
What about ..
If you kill someone while flying a CL(or smaller) you get 3VP
                                             CA                            2vp
                                             BCH                           1VP
                                             DN                             0VP

Target size doesn't matter (Im already having alot to count)
This would award players for flying the smaller (somewhat less cheesy ) ships
Act as a bit of  balance for newer players (who could get the bigger ships)
And punish DH when he claims " I have to fly the DNH.. I really don't want to.."

-Probelm is (I admit) I prefer the CLC so I may be biased..

I like this idea, it gives the smaller ship more status, especially in a kill.  If you put this ruling in along with the 3 minute MUST BE OUT OF HEX or FIGHT TO THE DEATH rule, it would make it very interesting to see who would stay and who would leave.  This would give you time to get out, or decide to fight.

I could see a problem in a situation with, for instance, Plasma vs Plasma.

[Hexx]

Well.
Since only a complete weenie would fly a Fed plasma ship
this wouldn't really be an issue for the moment
We can see how it works and have it modified as necessary for othe servers.

[Green]

It would simply be a kill thread of
"Hexx's CLC killed Kroma's DNH"
type statements. Since hte defeated ship size dosn't matter only the ship you
were flying at the time of the kill counts.
All you need is to have a thread where only the pilots who make the kill post.
SGO4 (for example) - great for community spirit when the defeated players mad e a post, but really confused
the ship count.

I'm also thinking of maybe having like 3PVP kills equal 1 VP (or similar ratioe)
That would reduce the value/kill even further than the 1VP that seems to be a concern now.

Don't see anything necessarily wrong with the idea.  But not all ships in a class are the same.  I do not know the fed ships well since I rarely fly them, but my guess is the HDWs fly more along the lines of a CA- ???  What about ships w/ fighters (if there are any)?

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

"The more you overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."