Topic: The "Disengagemnet Rule" for future servers, this is NOT a flame

[Kroma BaSyl]

I would agree to halving it for non-specialty and non-OOB ships, but not for any of the reasons you sight. I like it because it would still keep the hex-flipping PvP avoidance tactics somewhat under control while encouraging more use of line ships. (actually, you may have said that up above, but who has time to read all that.)

However Chuut, after reading your initial post here it is clear that by associating the current disengagement rule with the patrol bug, you haven't got a clue as to why the rule came about. The ATOK I battles over the great ball of twine, which you have previously sighted as fun (at least from the kitty prespective) was exactly what lead to the creatiopn of the rule. In that insidence a vastly out numbered hex-flipping force was able to contest an area of space by avoiding PvP, which lead to much frustration by those that attempted to defend it with bigger ships and greater numbers.  When you take a moment to truly understand this you will be on your way to enlightenment.

[Kroma BaSyl]

In regards to Dizzy's vociferous complaining about a small ship tying up a large force without the current disengagement rule.

WE ALREADY DO IT ANYWAY!

How many of us here have not tied up a larger ship for as long as we can, or taken advantage of one of our allies doing so, for the purpose of letting our allies work the same hex or working that hex ourselves to raise or lower the DV as needed?

I personally have spent an hour and a half racing around the map in a small drone boat trading potshots with a plasma chucker while my allies captured the hex during my time in that battle. Changing the disengagement rule to allow a small ship pilot to return with heavier metal after disengagement or destruction would not make this any worse. When you disengage in a real battle, you'd be yelling for reinforcements. If destroyed, there would be a disaster beacon to call your allies attention. So this is not unrealistic.

Yes, but this tactic CAN be countered by using pilot skill to drive the smaller ship out as quickly as possible. Plus that ship and player can only use the tactic once per penalty period. If a pilot in the smaller hex-flipper simply turns tail and runs immediately and then comes right back to the hex and attempts to get an AI mission there is NOTHING you can do about it. This is the nature of the problem. One has has a counter the other does not due to game mechanics.

[Matsukasi]

I would agree to halving it for non-specialty and non-OOB ships, but not for any of the reasons you sight. I like it because it would still keep the hex-flipping PvP avoidance tactics somewhat under control while encouraging more use of line ships. (actually, you may have said that up above, but who has time to read all that.)

However Chuut, after reading your initial post here it is clear that by associating the current disengagement rule with the patrol bug, you haven't got a clue as to why the rule came about. The ATOK I battles over the great ball of twine, which you have previously sighted as fun (at least from the kitty prespective) was exactly what lead to the creatiopn of the rule. In that insidence a vastly out numbered hex-flipping force was able to contest an area of space by avoiding PvP, which lead to much frustration by those that attempted to defend it with bigger ships and greater numbers.  When you take a moment to truly understand this you will be on your way to enlightenment.

Dude... seriously... are you saying that the kitties were avoiding PvP?

There were like.... 5 of us. So, I'm absolutely positive that at least 20% of our forces were doing nothing but seeking out the enemy ships in order to kill them. Granted, 20% of our ships were flying to the opposite corner of the map to write a big K in enemy space, but you can hardly hold the rest of us responsible for Chuu... I mean, that pilot, whoever he was.

[CaptJosh]

Uh, Kroma, did you completely miss the point about only being able to return with a heavier ship?

[Mog]

I would agree to halving it for non-specialty and non-OOB ships, but not for any of the reasons you sight. I like it because it would still keep the hex-flipping PvP avoidance tactics somewhat under control while encouraging more use of line ships. (actually, you may have said that up above, but who has time to read all that.)

However Chuut, after reading your initial post here it is clear that by associating the current disengagement rule with the patrol bug, you haven't got a clue as to why the rule came about. The ATOK I battles over the great ball of twine, which you have previously sighted as fun (at least from the kitty prespective) was exactly what lead to the creatiopn of the rule. In that insidence a vastly out numbered hex-flipping force was able to contest an area of space by avoiding PvP, which lead to much frustration by those that attempted to defend it with bigger ships and greater numbers.  When you take a moment to truly understand this you will be on your way to enlightenment.

I remember fighting at that planet (mostly against poor old Fluffypoos' CVA), and there was no pvp avoidance that I could see. Fun time.
Dude... seriously... are you saying that the kitties were avoiding PvP?

There were like.... 5 of us. So, I'm absolutely positive that at least 20% of our forces were doing nothing but seeking out the enemy ships in order to kill them. Granted, 20% of our ships were flying to the opposite corner of the map to write a big K in enemy space, but you can hardly hold the rest of us responsible for Chuu... I mean, that pilot, whoever he was.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I am saying that even though a couple of those 5 pilots were in fact engaging in PvP, the 1 or 2 that weren't where able to contest the space against a superior force and there was absolutely nothing that could be done to counter it. Making defending it un-fun and pointless.

[Matsukasi]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but didn't your side end up with Mer'nok and all the pretty bases that got dropped around it as well?

Sounds like it wasn't pointless to me. Don't forget how many Klingons you had in D5Ds running around there, btw. You had access to the same weaponry as we did, plus you had numbers. Funny how we had fun and you didn't.

< shrug >

Just glad to hear that there's supposed to be a fleeting rule. Thanks for that.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but didn't your side end up with Mer'nok and all the pretty bases that got dropped around it as well?

Sounds like it wasn't pointless to me. Don't forget how many Klingons you had in D5Ds running around there, btw. You had access to the same weaponry as we did, plus you had numbers. Funny how we had fun and you didn't.

What does that have to do with the price of Tutu's on Gdar? Sure it was maintained in the coalition hands, we had 10 times the number of pilots. But 1 pilot in a DF+ was able to fight AI only and force 10 pilots in bigger ships to spend countless hours undoing the work of a single pilot. True we could have used D5D to counter it, but that is not the type of server I am after (i.e. one in which fighting AI the most efficently wins the day). I want a server where fighting live players has more impact, without the disengagement rule you would be stupid if you cared about winning at all not to follow the sockfoot doctrine.

I was flying Gorn, so no I didn't have access to the same weapons you did. Yes I agree that you probably had fun with 3 pilots being able to tie up and counter the efforts of 10, but it wasn't fun for the other 10. When designing a server rule set it seems to me to make better sense to maximize the fun for the widest number of players, rather than cater to a vocal minority.

[Matsukasi]

What does that have to do with the price of Tutu's on Gdar? Sure it was maintained in the coalition hands, we had 10 times the number of pilots. But 1 pilot in a DF+ was able to fight AI only and force 10 pilots in bigger ships to spend countless hours undoing the work of a single pilot. True we could have used D5D to counter it, but that is not the type of server I am after (i.e. one in which fighting AI the most efficently wins the day). I want a server where fighting live players has more impact, without the disengagement rule you would be stupid if you cared about winning at all not to follow the sockfoot doctrine.

I was flying Gorn, so no I didn't have access to the same weapons you did. Yes I agree that you probably had fun with 3 pilots being able to tie up and counter the efforts of 10, but it wasn't fun for the other 10. When designing a server rule set it seems to me to make better sense to maximize the fun for the widest number of players, rather than cater to a vocal minority.

I'm sorry that we didn't decide to lay down and surrender, Kroma. I guess we should have just let you win with numbers, and do it with a smile so you could have a server that was fun for you. We were playing a game, and we were having fun. We lost and you won and we STILL had more fun than you. That says a lot to me. You're complaining about the tactics of the LOSERS. You have to admit that's pretty incredulous coming from the victors, right?

Gonna stop banging my head against the wall now.

[Braxton_RIP]

Condensed version for the reading impaired  


Problems with current disengage rule

1. Pilots who like to fly smaller ships whether it be a droner, a CLC, a CWLP, etc, often find themselves removed from strategic hexes.  Who has the biggest ship on the block not pilot skill often determines who can stay and play.  

2. Often it becomes who can get the most pilots in mission , or even who can hold their connection.  Both having signifigant influences outside of player control.  The side that manages to "jump" the opponent being basically the equivalent of the little ship that could jump into missions before drafted by a larger foe.  The winner being the one who can move faster and pull the trigger to launch a mission.  Some skill and planning is involved but connection and connection speed and luck also play a role.

3. By knocking players out of a hex there will be less potential for P v P within that hex as the strategic advantage of controlling that hex makes it more likely that ai will be faced.  Most of the strongest supporters of the DR are pilots who profess P v P as their reason for playing, yet they support a system that lessens their opportunities for P v P combat,  but there are reasons.  The primarly reason usually given is that it make their P v P victory more rewarding with a payoff of being able to fight ai unopposed.

4., The pilot who lost the fight for whatever reason,, is forced to stay out and loses the best chance to engage in P v P which could be his entire reason for flying at all.  He can run missions vs ai or possibly find another zone of interest, or might simply log off out of frustration.   Such is the penalty for disengagement or destruction whether it was a factor of his own skill or not.

5. Even should a pilot not chose to be in a smaller ship, the limiting of what ships he can fly might put him at a disadvantage vs his foe.  Some of these situations revolve around the shiplists, and some around limits on who can fly the larger ships or how many can be in play.  For whatever reason, usully he is confronted with the posibility of facing a foe in a ship he simply cannot match given a pretty equal level of skill.

Let me outline my idea.

  If you are forced to disengage you are banned from that hex for a specified period of time.

I would propose that a pilot be allowed to return if destroyed or forced to disengage while he had been piloting a smaller hull class than his enemy if they returned in a hull class equal to or greater than that of the foe who defeated them.  This would give them a chance at revenge in a rematch and give the initail victor the chance to assert their supremacy once and for all.

 A larger ship defeated by a smaller one would have no recourse to this

All specialty ships be considered one hull class larger.    Scouts and Commando  ships might be excluded from this consideration.  

If a player avenges his defeat with a P v P victory in that same hex vs an equal or larger ship class, his penalty is wiped out but until then he cannot return to a smaller ship and operate in that particular hex.

 

By doing this we have given players more opportunity to play the ships they want to fly where they want to fly them, but forced them to backup their right to do so with PvP.  

We have given then the chance for a rematch and given everyone more opportunity for PvP.  

We might even award extra VCs for killing a foe in the same hex within their "penalty" time making it a risky affair to seek "revenge".

Not allowing the pilot hell bent on such "revenge" to disengage from an equal or lesser foe, only being allowed to should they be outnumbered or out classed.




What do we lose vs what do we gain?

What do we lose by such a system as opposed to the current DR?  We lose the "reward" of the vicor to clear a hex of the foe beyond a doubt for a given period allowing them to fly more vs ai.  

What do we gain, more PvP, grudge matches, potential vc gain for "revenge bent" captains, an advantage for flying line ships, more ability to fly smaller ships on the front without being almost automatically knocked out of the action, the chance to overcome a chance situation where you get jumped or are caught damaged or low on supplies.    We also gain a certain sense of reality, where a defeated foe could return with reinforcements.

I hope it isn't out of place, but I just want to add some constructive critisim to this subject.

The first thing I would adress the your statement about pilots in CLCs, etc., being forced from a hex because an opponent is there with a larger ship as well as the number of players one side can pack in.  I understand where your coming from with this, but your failing to see one key thing in my oppinon.  Consider the Bismarck, probably the best Battleship ever built on the face of this planet.  I could have put any one of the people in these forums on her in command, sent the world's best ship captain in with a drestroyer, and though the captain of the destroyer is the best in the world, he will probably loose his ship to the Bismarck.  Now consider how the Bismarck was sunk.  It wasn't because the British sent in ships of equal size, the zerged the thing, sending in every man, ship and plane they could muster, just to match her in power.  I do agree that we need to work on this point, but there are certain things that shouldn't be overlooked.  Nuemerical supiriority, or technological for that matter, shouldn't have, but has, become a point of attack for the weaker party in all cases on both D2 and D3.  I think the matter of getting more players into a match might become a lesser issue on this server, simply because of TG's wonderful stability fix.  You were in the mission with me when there were 5 of us, and anything says there could have been 6.  Hell, that mission even allied you with the Klingons, who, on the server are you enemy.  Your idea though does present an interesting aire to it.  It would be stupid if a player were allowed back into the area where he was forced from with a ship of the same or lesser size than he had before, since it is suicide.  There are certain problems with the idea still though.  If a pilot is shot down over Iraq, the military doesn't send him back to the same area again for an amount of time, no matter what his posting after the incident is.

Remember, I just wanted to add these thoughts in, since they seem to be left out.  It is certainly something worth considering.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I'm sorry that we didn't decide to lay down and surrender, Kroma. I guess we should have just let you win with numbers, and do it with a smile so you could have a server that was fun for you. We were playing a game, and we were having fun. We lost and you won and we STILL had more fun than you. That says a lot to me. You're complaining about the tactics of the LOSERS. You have to admit that's pretty incredulous coming from the victors, right?

Wrong, I could careless about winning or losing, and to tell the truth I had forgotten who kept the space in the end. I am complaining about a server setup that lead to frustration and lack of fun for a large number of people. I never said you shouldn't have resited and everything you did was perfectly within the rules. And yes you did have more fun at the expense unfortuantely of a large majority of players, this is what the disengagement rule was about. Trying to bring a little more balance to the fun of playing on servers for a larger set of the player base. As it was it was only fun for flippers without the rule, and not fun at all for PvP'ers given the setup and game mechanics. The fact that you think I care about who won or lost the server in the end shows that you haven't got a clue to what I am on about. In my opinion, everyone who has fun wins, regardless of the score.

What says a lot to me is that you seem to care only that your team has fun, and the rest be damned. The disengagement rule brought more fun to more people across the board, but it seems that you can only have fun in an environment that denies fun to others.

I have always been open to making sensible changes that increase the fun across the board, to both PvP'er and Hex-flippers, but you seem to only be concerned with returing to the type of fun you enjoy and the rest be damned. Scraping the Disengagement rule outright would do exactly that, which is why I am against that option. I have however stated several times what changes I would be willing to consider to attempt to eliminate some of the negatives side effects of the rule so as to further increase the fun for all, and I still don't care what effect those changes might have on the final score of the server.

I am also concerned about you being able to have fun on the server, but not at the expense of the majority of the other players is all.

[CaptJosh]

Sounds like a classic case of the needs of the many...

[Matsukasi]

I'm sorry that we didn't decide to lay down and surrender, Kroma. I guess we should have just let you win with numbers, and do it with a smile so you could have a server that was fun for you. We were playing a game, and we were having fun. We lost and you won and we STILL had more fun than you. That says a lot to me. You're complaining about the tactics of the LOSERS. You have to admit that's pretty incredulous coming from the victors, right?

Wrong, I could careless about winning or losing, and to tell the truth I had forgotten who kept the space in the end. I am complaining about a server setup that lead to frustration and lack of fun for a large number of people. I never said you shouldn't have resited and everything you did was perfectly within the rules. And yes you did have more fun at the expense unfortuantely of a large majority of players, this is what the disengagement rule was about. Trying to bring a little more balance to the fun of playing on servers for a larger set of the player base. As it was it was only fun for flippers without the rule, and not fun at all for PvP'ers given the setup and game mechanics. The fact that you think I care about who won or lost the server in the end shows that you haven't got a clue to what I am on about. In my opinion, everyone who has fun wins, regardless of the score.

What says a lot to me is that you seem to care only that your team has fun, and the rest be damned. The disengagement rule brought more fun to more people across the board, but it seems that you can only have fun in an environment that denies fun to others.

I have always been open to making sensible changes that increase the fun across the board, to both PvP'er and Hex-flippers, but you seem to only be concerned with returing to the type of fun you enjoy and the rest be damned. Scraping the Disengagement rule outright would do exactly that, which is why I am against that option. I have however stated several times what changes I would be willing to consider to attempt to eliminate some of the negatives side effects of the rule so as to further increase the fun for all, and I still don't care what effect those changes might have on the final score of the server.

I am also concerned about you being able to have fun on the server, but not at the expense of the majority of the other players is all.

Wow, I'm selfish now.

I was switching sides mid-server to keep people's fun up long before it was fashionable. That was a Kzinti thing. WE tried to keep it fun for EVERYONE, not just us.

You have no moral high ground in this case with me.

Besides, this server was advertised to me as a return to the old style of server, with fewer rules and more fun. I have a right to be disappointed now that I find out it's exactly the same as every other recent server. We may have been able to drag a few old players back for another run, but I guess that's selfish of me too, right? Wanting some of ' MY ' guys to come back for some fun?

I'm done with this now.

Calling me selfish is just about the most asinine thing I've seen you say, Kroma.

[Mog]

AOTK was my favourite server of all I played on. As a PvPer I had a blast then. I'm certain I'm not alone in that view. Going from memory, our numbers started to dwindle even more rapidly after that server.

[el-Karnak]

Well, the history of the Disengagement Rule is pretty colorful one. Basically, it's all my fault. You can blame me. I don't care....BITE ME!!

During SG3 in May, 2003, I got upset with the hex flipping going on and went looking for a mission script solution. This went over well with the Kzin players about as well as trying to get a KKK member confirmed for the US Supreme Court.   It took a while, but finally a couple of months later a Disengagement Rule was argued successfully by Fluf for implementation in SS2 in exchange for a a single-ship-per-player rule.  Since, this dyna was using EEK patrols the stabilty was good and a lot of 3v3 player v player matches were played.  Bottom-line hard-ball politics is that the Roms were going to largely boycott SS2 and I did realize many Frog players were probably following suit without a DR implemented. So, the line drawn was pretty clear.

Then I tinkered with EEK patrols some more, got into a few mis-guided "discussions" that were better left alone, blah, blah, blah and EEK mission fell out of favor and with them went the vaunted SS2 mission pack's player connection stability. But, hey, you can't argue with Admins. that enjoy dyna pain, so whatever...

Moral of my story is that if you as an admin. are not using stable missions packs they your are going to have problems with the Dis-engagement Rule. But, if you don't use the Disengagement Rule then the same old resentment will crop up and I would seriously question the Admin.'s sanity in even bothering to go to the trouble even hosting the dyna under such conditions.

So, the Dis-engagement Rule stays, but it has problems. Not all the mission are exactly stable. As long as you are using NW missions then you will have this problem. That's just the way they were built.

Ergo, some allowance needs to be given mission instability so that players that fly smaller ships, like many Kzin players, don't fleel like they are being "screwed" by the system.

As a result, I would say that the Disengagement Rule needs to stay but it needs to be modified to account for mission pack irregularities.

My whole point is that gang-banging is a valid tactic, so no sympathy if you are caught in a 3 v 1. U can use TS to co-ordinate players to work in teams.

But, it is unacceptable to work as a team to get the mission draft you want and then your wing-man drop on you; especially, in planetary assault missions.

Accordingly, it would be prudent for Admins. and RMs to come up with amendments to the Dis-engagement Rule to deal with these dropsie issues. It also follows that Chuut-Ritt's proposal warrants careful consideration but not to the point that the Dis-engagement Rule is rendered useless.

[KAT J'inn]

The disengagement rule does tend to actually limit PvP in seige situations.    Some of the most fun I've had in a dyna was those notorious hot spots.   Pinky Gen.  Mer'Nok  etc. 

If the issue is a single drone boat typing up a fleet due to it's fast mission times, that can be resolved via drone boat restrictions.  If the issue is to add more oomph to a PvP win,  then the disengagement rule is doing what is intended.   However, it will result in a lowering of PvP in hotspots in return for some added ease of progression for the attacker.

[FPF-DieHard]

The disengagement rule does tend to actually limit PvP in seige situations.    Some of the most fun I've had in a dyna was those notorious hot spots.   Pinky Gen.  Mer'Nok  etc. 

If the issue is a single drone boat typing up a fleet due to it's fast mission times, that can be resolved via drone boat restrictions.  If the issue is to add more oomph to a PvP win,  then the disengagement rule is doing what is intended.   However, it will result in a lowering of PvP in hotspots in return for some added ease of progression for the attacker.

The map is not 10 hexes, this one in paraticular is HUGE.  If you get chased out, fight in another hex or go base-busing on Deepstrikes.   There is always something to do.

If you know a hex is hot, send in some big guns to "flush" the hex and then have the small ships follow up.   It ain't that tough.

[el-Karnak]

The disengagement rule does tend to actually limit PvP in seige situations.    Some of the most fun I've had in a dyna was those notorious hot spots.   Pinky Gen.  Mer'Nok  etc. 

If the issue is a single drone boat typing up a fleet due to it's fast mission times, that can be resolved via drone boat restrictions.  If the issue is to add more oomph to a PvP win,  then the disengagement rule is doing what is intended.   However, it will result in a lowering of PvP in hotspots in return for some added ease of progression for the attacker.

Any ship that has been affectionately classified as "cheese" would need to be throttled with the drone boats.  By the time you are done hacking out all the "cheese" ships they you have a very vanilla shiplist.  Based on past dyna results, I don't think vanilla shiplists are very attractive to the user-base.  SS2 had it right with the usage of a tiny bit of OOB just needs a little more tweaking to include BCHs.  

Pinky Gen was a SS2 base using Dis-engagement Rule.  Mer'nok was an AoTK base. I also remember this dyna as being very frustrating for the Kitties.  We basically did not have the numbers and enough nutters to set up a shield around the target base hexes to keep out the defenders.  To win a base in AoTK, it came down to how  many players you had on and on how long they would play. PvP skill was a zero factor.  I remember being able to fly a I-CVAD w/ 16 CAV IIIs. All I had to do was launch fighters and the Fed StarBase would go boom in 3 minutes. But, never did it matter if I took my I-CAZ and beat someone in a PvP match. They would be back in a minute with a new K-D5D.

Finally, AoTK was the dyna that made up my mind that something had to be done about bad mission packs and obsolete rule sets, and let's not even go there about screwed up player accounts. Otherwise, why go to all the trouble of learning the server kit and writing missions that took a couple months of C++ ramp up development time?  For me, AOTK was an utter dyna disaster that engendered me taking matters into my own hands and start writing missions. SG3 was the first beneficiary dyna for EEK mission packs and SS2 piled on with the Dis-engagement Rule.

Going back to an old AoTK server would be a simple nightmare that I can only flee from as fast as my SWG Xwing can take me.

[FPF-DieHard]

The "Stand at Musahsi" from SS2, the "Siege of Hydrax" from GW2,  and the "War of 18,12" for SGO were epic, I did not see the disengagment rule runing those battles.

[Braxton_RIP]

I won't say who, but the general feeling from the Alliance players is this:

"Without a disengagement rule, the server will become a droner snorefest"



That I have to say I agree with.  The Kzin do have a definite potential to gain over other races in the removal of the rule, since their shipyard is basically a drone boat in itself.  The worst off in loosing the rule are the plasma based races, since they have to be reasonably close to score a hit of consiquence on the other ship.

Maybe a compromise that could be made is this:

Base the ability to run from a battle on the ships in the battle.

For hexes adjacent to or in nuetral space:

In a battle where there are no specialty ships, allow either side to disengage at will.  Vanilla ships are just that, vanilla, and there wouldn't be much special about an F-CAR taking on an I-CLY.  It would just be two line ships that are easily replacable in the event of loss.  The penalty for such a disengagement would be short, say 10 minutes or something of that nature.  Not a punishment of sorts, just a time to let the activity in the hex progress a little.

Now, on the other hand, a Capital or specialty ship is generally outfitted with better equipment (or should be at least).  Capital ships are generally escorted by other ships, and are general a source of power for their race in surrounding sectors.
  
If a battle ensues between a Capital or specialty ship and a Vanilla ship, the Capital or specialty ship would be said to have "Intercept" capability, meaning that by some means, it would be able to track the vanilla ship and countinue the fight.  In this case, the vanilla ship would be suck and have to fight the battle, as a price of being caught. The penalty for the capital ship disengaging could be something like that ship isn't allowed to continue pursuit of the Vanilla ship for a period of time.

If a battle ensued between two Capital or specialty ships, and this is based upon our abilities to use TS and other voice comms to coordinate our efforts, since either ship has greater resources than normal vanilla ships, either could disengage at will.  The penalty for this disengagement could be like the ones we have now, a long ban from the hex.

For hexes in enemy space (I.E. Deepstrike):

In this case, ships that are not of the race that owns the battle and surrounding hexes would not be able to disengage.  Face it, the middle of a race's space will be heavily trafficed, monitored, and patrolled, and if an enemy ship is found, a large force will probably be mobilized to nuetralize it.



I think this might present a more true to life method of disengagement.  It would be very easy to determine what the case was at the beginning of the battle.  I don't know, it is just a thought.