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

[CaptJosh]

IIRC, the most recent version of the Disengagement rule that I have seen had a couple of deepstrike provisos.

Because of their cloaking devices, Romulans could disengage while deepstriking provided they were not within two hexes of a base or planet, as the base or planetary sensors would neutralize the advantage of a cloak.

Because of their advanced sensors, ISC could disengage in a deepstrike mission with the same provision, because they could track and avoid enemy ships. But if a planet or base was around within two hexes, the base or planetary sensors would nullify the sensor advantage of ISC ships by allowing the ships of the people being deep struck against to move into position based on data from the planet or base.

Feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything or if I'm totally off base...

[Braxton_RIP]

I had forgotten about those consessions, but they were both very good in my oppinion.

[FPF-DieHard]

I had forgotten about those consessions, but they were both very good in my oppinion.

They ain't getting included here, but I'd like SOMETHING similar to that in the future.

The cloak idea was mine 

[el-Karnak]

Depending on the race, even the line ships will have mis-matched mission times, so the hex flipping factor remains.  A Fed/Kzin/Klink line ship will definitely hex-flip better than a line Gorn/Rom/ISC ship.

I do like the deep-strike rules for SGO though.  In addition, any Dis-engagement Rule allowances for player drops are needed.

Other than that, I don't see any new argument here that were not tabled 2 years ago and taken into account when the original Dis-engagement rule was implemented.

[CaptJosh]

It would help if the serverkit didn't freak out at people forfeiting missions. If that worked, in mission you could just Esc out when that happens after making appropriate apologies/excuses/etc...about not being able to continue the mission without your wing.

[Braxton_RIP]

A mismatch in a line ship is something we should learn to deal with.

If I drive up in an M1A1 Abrahms, and you drive up in a Technical, and we are supposed to be doing battle, sure the one with the Technical will be outmatched, but that really isn't my fault for having the M1A1.

The key problem that usually evolves from this rule is the fact that the person with the smaller ship want to blaim the person with the larger ship for being in the hex he wanted to play in.

I can't help it if I am sitting in my BCF on hex so and so and you come crusing up and grab me in your DW.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Wow, I'm selfish now.

I would say defensive and a bit paranoid actually. Reread your post that I quoted. It was you that took my simple explaination of why I felt Chuut example of a fun server episode was in fact the exact opposite for many personal and started with a direct attack on my motivations. Implying that my sole reason for wanting the disengagement rule was because I was a sore winner. You are the one that made it personal, not I. I simply attempted to explain to you that what might have been fun for you wasn't for many others, which lead to the motivation for creating the disengagement rule. I never said you were selfish, I simply imlied you were not looking at that situation from both prespectives.

I was switching sides mid-server to keep people's fun up long before it was fashionable.

Welcome to the club, so was I.

That was a Kzinti thing. WE tried to keep it fun for EVERYONE, not just us.

It is hard to tell from your smart arsed comments I quoted above and inability to try and see the same situation from the other prespective.

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

It was never a moral issue for me. It is a player morale issue. What I was trying to point out to you is that while having a rule set and game mechanics that allowed your vastly out numbered force to maintain a high morale and effectiveness created a very large morale issue for many other people. This then lead to the impetous for the rule. You desided to take that as a personnel insult and attacked me saying I was a sore winner, when in fact I couldn't even recall who won any server I have ever played on, nor do I care.

Besides, this server was advertised to me as a return to the old style of server,

Speak to J'inn about a refund, he doesn't let me handle any of the money.

with fewer rules and more fun.

Fewer rules does not necessarily equal more fun for more people, as the overwelming response to continued support for the disengagement rule would seem to imply.

I have a right to be disappointed now that I find out it's exactly the same as every other recent server.

And appearently you think that also gives you the right to make personal attacks on people that disagree with you by implying they are poor sports and only motivated by a desire to win, which in this case was completely unfounded. But hey, if that rational makes you feel better about attacking me go for it, I want you to have fun just like I want others too.

We may have been able to drag a few old players back for another run,

Emhassis on "may", but from the response to keeping the rule in I can guarenty you would have driven more away.

but I guess that's selfish of me too, right? Wanting some of ' MY ' guys to come back for some fun?

I never said that, but you make a strong case.

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

Even if I had said that which I didn't, you are completely wrong on this one too. Don't make me go digging up all my asinine post to prove it, it will only make you look even more foolish. ;P

[el-Karnak]

In the end, the only reason the Dis-engagement Rule exists is to work-around technical issues. The Server Kit is buggy. It's cannot support a SQL database. If it did then there would no need for the DR since you can simply put in the greater DV shifts for PvP battles vis-a-vis that standard baseline DV shift of 1 for PvE battles.

If the game worked then there would be a lot less rules.

[FPF-DieHard]

If the game worked then there would be a lot less rules.

That is pretty much it.   The rules are there to do tings that the server kit cannot.   I would prefer everyting to be invisible, but the kit just ain't that robust.

[Braxton_RIP]

If the game worked then there would be a lot less rules.

That is pretty much it.   The rules are there to do tings that the server kit cannot.   I would prefer everyting to be invisible, but the kit just ain't that robust.

So we make a new one.

How many programmers do we have here?  Certanly enough to make a new kit if we put our minds together.  (Yes, I program, hence the we)

[Kroma BaSyl]

If the game worked then there would be a lot less rules.

That is pretty much it.   The rules are there to do tings that the server kit cannot.   I would prefer everyting to be invisible, but the kit just ain't that robust.

So we make a new one.

How many programmers do we have here?  Certanly enough to make a new kit if we put our minds together.  (Yes, I program, hence the we)

I gave up on that pipe dream about a year ago. Ain't going to happen.

[CaptJosh]

Last I heard, Bonk is still working on SQL serverkit. There have even been some tests that seemed to do fairly well, though probably wouldn't be good enough for a serious server.

[FPF-DieHard]

If the game worked then there would be a lot less rules.

That is pretty much it.   The rules are there to do tings that the server kit cannot.   I would prefer everyting to be invisible, but the kit just ain't that robust.

So we make a new one.

How many programmers do we have here?  Certanly enough to make a new kit if we put our minds together.  (Yes, I program, hence the we)

I gave up on that pipe dream about a year ago. Ain't going to happen.

Don't give up just yet . . .

[FPF-DieHard]

Last I heard, Bonk is still working on SQL serverkit. There have even been some tests that seemed to do fairly well, though probably wouldn't be good enough for a serious server.

Like I said, don't give up just yet 

[762_XC]

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.  

So put your best pilots in the bigger ships.

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.

Connection issues certainly do make it frustrating. One COULD say, "No disengagement rule if somebody drops", but that gives a free walk to players with notoriously bad connections. Not much that can be done here unfortunately.

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.

In all the DR servers we've had since Litterbox 4 I've yet to see this become an issue. If the PvP-strong side does manage to clear the hex for a short amount of time then they've earned the right to run missions there unopposed. Keep in mind running with dreads and wingmen is not the most efficent way to flip a hex - they have to have something to reward them for going in heavy to win the PvP. Meanwhile the enemy force they chased out is going to run missions and harass them somewhere else.

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.

True enough, but the flip side is that the battle is more exciting since it counts for something. Without that added tension, you might as well be flying a pickup battle on GSA. And it's not that hard to find something else worthwhile to do for an hour.

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.

That's why you have big guns on the board. It's not an issue as long as the sides are relatively balanced with regard to OOB (which is no doubt an important task for the server admin).

I don't see anything wrong with the DR as it is now. In fact, given the large maps we've had lately I think it should be even longer to be effective.

It ain't broken IMHO, so don't fix it.

[FPF-DieHard]

True enough, but the flip side is that the battle is more exciting since it counts for something. Without that added tension, you might as well be flying a pickup battle on GSA. And it's not that hard to find something else worthwhile to do for an hour.

[

I would never had pee'd in a cup if it weren't for the disengagment rule.  That in and of itself make it worth it.

[762_XC]

That and killing Firesoul. 

[el-Karnak]

If the game worked then there would be a lot less rules.

That is pretty much it.   The rules are there to do tings that the server kit cannot.   I would prefer everyting to be invisible, but the kit just ain't that robust.

So we make a new one.

How many programmers do we have here?  Certanly enough to make a new kit if we put our minds together.  (Yes, I program, hence the we)

Oooh,  a new programmer victim. They sound oh-so optimistic a first don't they. *snicker*

[Green]

Disengagement rule is good.

Droner boats are the easiest PvP kills in the game.

ISC is cheese.

You can run hex flippers in a Rommie in 3 min, you can do it in a droner in 2...and the droner has to resupply.

Kroma is fat.

[762_XC]

Ut oh...