Topic: Slave Girls V: The Wrath of the Orion Slave Girls! Description and Rules thread.

[GDA-Agave]

I see it as a defeat inside the one hex radius would allow for the planetary defenses to be mobilized against that particular threat, thus the larger ban from the area,  something the attacker couldn't do vs the defender.

Chuut, as the rule stands not, whoever (defender or attacker) disengages from a planet hex PvP pays the ring hexes penalty.   If this rule was to only apply to the defender, it would make it extremely hard for any assaulting force to take a planet.    Not only would an assaulting pilot have to deal with the nasty evil dave planatary assault when drafting a live opponent, but would run the risk of being kicked out of the whole area.    Seems to me that the whole planatary assault situation would be too much on the side of the defender.

I still don't see why we even need this rule.   Is this to correct some complaints about planatary assaults in past servers?    Sure would be nice if someone would explain why this rule is even being considered.  (hint, hint, see my post on page 1)   

Inquiring Bruce wants to know [damnit] !!

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Exactly, the defender would have an easier time, this would prevent allow for lower planetary DVs so that you wouldn't have to run 50 planet assaults to take a planet.  It would also give a side abetter chance to defend a planet if the other side had a large numbers advantage at any given point.  I don't see as much problem with this in open space as it is just that, open space.  However, to think a planet wouldn't always be defended to some degree seems silly and giving the defenders an advantage here would simulate this.

Would alos prevent one side from having two aces intheir best ships simply driving off everyone from the area with little effort and taking the planet too easily.  If they want to drive them off they should have to work a bit harder to do so.

[Dizzy]

The server may not offer a PA if there is a PvP option instead. It may offer a patrol. Needs to be tested.

[GDA-Agave]

Ok, let me take you last post one point at a time.

Exactly, the defender would have an easier time, this would prevent allow for lower planetary DVs so that you wouldn't have to run 50 planet assaults to take a planet.

If planet hex DVs were a max of 5, and the adjacent hexes at 20-25, then I could see then why only attackers would suffer the additional adjacent hex penalty for disengaging on the planet hex.    The adjacent hexes would simulate the planets' outer defenses, and give the defenders time to try and repair the "breach".

IMHO, this type of rule would only work if the max DV were set as stated above.   If planet hexes are going to be kept at larger max DV than the surrounding hexes, then this rule would be ridiculous since the planet hex itself is simulating the full defense.

It would also give a side abetter chance to defend a planet if the other side had a large numbers advantage at any given point. 

Yes, it would allow the defenders a little more breathing room, but you know that ultimately the numbers advantage will pay off.

However, to think a planet wouldn't always be defended to some degree seems silly and giving the defenders an advantage here would simulate this.

Planets do always have defenses.   Granted, there might not always be live pilot defenders, but we are running planatary assaults to take these planet hexes aren't we.    Another good idea for low DV planet hexes would be to have mandatory ED missions. Ya know,the ones with the 2 bases, FRDs, and planet.   We do want those hexes to be tough to take, but just not have to run those missions 50 milliion, ba-jillion times.

....having two aces in their best ships simply driving off everyone from the area with little effort and taking the planet too easily.  If they want to drive them off they should have to work a bit harder to do so.

Yes, if the additional disengagement penalty did only apply for attackers on the planet hex, it would be tougher for the 2 'attacking side' aces to run everyone out of the area since they would have to do it hex by hex.   I'm still not completely convinced that you are not tipping the scales too much in favor of the defenders.

A question for Dizzy.    What max DVs are you planning on using for the planet hexes, and what DVs for the adjacent hexes?

[762_XC]

The original idea, for those inquiring minds who want to know, was something I came up with after AOTK2. My biggest beef with that server is that PvP was largely meaningless as the front was too broad for the disengagement rule to have any meaningful effect. It was far more efficient to avoid PvP and simply run missions against the AI, since there were plenty of hexes to work in and the penalty was so short.

This I especially noticed at 3am one morning, when I was the only Alliance player trying to defend our planet against 5 or 6 Kitties. I was easily able to avoid these guys and go into hex-flipping mode to undo what they were trying to do. A few of them even switched into their Lyran ships to try to drive me off, but the 1 or 2 times they did catch me were no big deal, since I simply hit another hex until my penalty time expired.

This situation largely struck me as senseless. There was no way even with a 6-1 advantage these Kats could use PvP to their advantage. Similarly, even if I caught one of their little DF's and drove him off a hex he could easily find another important hex to work on.

In short, there were too many important hexes and the disengagement penalty was not effective enough. PvP had almost no effect on the map on AOTK2.

My original idea to redress this was to make the disengagment penalty apply to a 1 hex radius. If you got driven out of a hex (no matter where it was), you were also out of the 6 surrounding hexes for the same amount of time.

I floated the idea to Chuut, who I figured would be the hardest sell. To my surprise he went along with it somewhat but thought it would be too hard to keep track of. HIS idea was to make it apply only near planets and bases. If you died or disengaged within one hex of a planet or base you were out of the 6 surrounding hexes as well (surrounding the hex you died in).

Dizzy liked this idea. I'm not sure why he took it 2 steps further, making it only planets and only if you were ON the planet. I don't think it's going to have much of an effect this way since PvP ON planets is relatively rare.

[Hexx]

Wouldn't it be more effective to simply increase planet defenses to the point where
it's impossible (not hard: impossible) for one ship to take one down?

The problem isn't that you can avoid PVP and take a series of planets down, it's that one pilot
can take a series of planets down.
Taking a planet or major base is something that (imho) needs to have
- Overwhelming Odds (How many bases /planets are captured with 2 equal fleets fighting)
- Planning (getting a number of ships there)
- Luck (getting everyone drafted)

In the General War  (as far as I can tell) it took fleets to knock out Starbases, and months to assemble those fleets
It took 3 fleets (for all intents and purposes) to fight the way to Remus. I know hex flippers have to be able to contribute
But it shouldn't be possible to take a planet or base by yourself.
 

[GDA-Agave]

Thanks, Tool.   I appreciate the background info.

It's a very interesting idea of extending the disengagement penalty to 1 hex of the PvP site.   It certainly would make more of an impact in large mapped servers.

I would like to see how this planet-centralized version of that idea will work first before using it in all hexes.   You are right that planet hex PvP is more rare but it also does tend to be some of the more brutal, and usually has great effect upon a server.   Some of the most memorable battles of past servers have been centered around Starbases and planets as one side fought to gain a "real" foothold in their enemies space, or VC pts lead.

This whole idea of planet hexes with low max DVs is something Chuut and I have discussed a few times.   I think under the right circumstances and rules, it could work well and the days of beating yourself senseless against a 50 DV planet will be over.   It just doesn't make sense to complete 50 planatary assaults to capture ONE planet.   Maybe we could use the DV count of a planet to represent a system, where each complete planetary assault is capturing one planet of the system.  7 planets, 7 DV.   But to does this we will need to make those planetary assaults missions HARD.  Since the ED mission is the (generally accepted) worse mission we have right now it would certainly work.   Those missions are hell, especially when flown against live opponents.

It's certainly something to think about.

[FPF-DieHard]

Wouldn't it be more effective to simply increase planet defenses to the point where
it's impossible (not hard: impossible) for one ship to take one down?

The problem isn't that you can avoid PVP and take a series of planets down, it's that one pilot
can take a series of planets down.
Taking a planet or major base is something that (imho) needs to have
- Overwhelming Odds (How many bases /planets are captured with 2 equal fleets fighting)
- Planning (getting a number of ships there)
- Luck (getting everyone drafted)

In the General War  (as far as I can tell) it took fleets to knock out Starbases, and months to assemble those fleets
It took 3 fleets (for all intents and purposes) to fight the way to Remus. I know hex flippers have to be able to contribute
But it shouldn't be possible to take a planet or base by yourself.
 

We need new scripts.

to do that we need a scripter.

[Riskyllama]

We need new scripts.

to do that we need a scripter.

or a scripter who is busy in R/L

[Hexx]

Wouldn't it be more effective to simply increase planet defenses to the point where
it's impossible (not hard: impossible) for one ship to take one down?

The problem isn't that you can avoid PVP and take a series of planets down, it's that one pilot
can take a series of planets down.
Taking a planet or major base is something that (imho) needs to have
- Overwhelming Odds (How many bases /planets are captured with 2 equal fleets fighting)
- Planning (getting a number of ships there)
- Luck (getting everyone drafted)

In the General War  (as far as I can tell) it took fleets to knock out Starbases, and months to assemble those fleets
It took 3 fleets (for all intents and purposes) to fight the way to Remus. I know hex flippers have to be able to contribute
But it shouldn't be possible to take a planet or base by yourself.
 

We need new scripts.

to do that we need a scripter.

Nah
SB launches 4 boxes (armoured bays) , each bay has AMD/ PlasmaD , impossible move cost so it can't move.
if it can't move it can't be drawn off
Each also has the option of launch 4 of something be it PFs'/ other ships/ fighters

have 16 PF's flying aorund wil quickly add damage up on pretty much anything
with armoured "bays" (that could possibly cloak?) the idea of popping the mothership to kill the fighters
doesn't work. Putting AMD / PlasmaD on the bays would help add to the PD (No DF's or F5D's etc taking out a SB)

Of course you can put ships in the bays, but in my (one and only) test run I'm pretty sure one of the ships flew
back into a bay- don't know if it "repaired" or just stayed there . (I think the latter)
16 PF's (plus whatever AI the mission draws) is something it would be tough to get through.

Doable with only a fair amount of coordination amongst a few players, but tough for any one player, and I'd think just about impossible
with one.
Plus it has the benefit of easily adding more PF's if necessary.

Plus- SFB wise- having the rough equivalant of three PF squadrons isn't that much.

And for those really important bases, have the first bays each drop 2 bays, get 16 PF's and 16 squadrons of bombers going.

Fun times for people who like to DS SB's solo.

[el-Karnak]

Wouldn't it be more effective to simply increase planet defenses to the point where
it's impossible (not hard: impossible) for one ship to take one down?

It's kinda hard to win in EEK base/planet assault missions for one player.

The mission have been around for about a year or so. So, why aren't being used much?

Maybe, cuz the mission is kinda hard for one player to win?

You cannot have it both ways. 

[762_XC]

Agave, that was basically my thought as well. The reason I mention the original idea now is to give peeps something to think about while playing. If the planet thing works well (which I hope it does) but doesn't really address the overall PvP issue maybe we can consider expanding it for the next server.

[FPF-DieHard]

Wouldn't it be more effective to simply increase planet defenses to the point where
it's impossible (not hard: impossible) for one ship to take one down?

It's kinda hard to win in EEK base/planet assault missions for one player.

The mission have been around for about a year or so. So, why aren't being used much?

Maybe, cuz the mission is kinda hard for one player to win?

You cannot have it both ways. 

They do not work with Destrucitble base, least not last time I tested.

[el-Karnak]

Wouldn't it be more effective to simply increase planet defenses to the point where
it's impossible (not hard: impossible) for one ship to take one down?

It's kinda hard to win in EEK base/planet assault missions for one player.

The mission have been around for about a year or so. So, why aren't being used much?

Maybe, cuz the mission is kinda hard for one player to win?

You cannot have it both ways. 

They do not work with Destrucitble base, least not last time I tested.

That don't sound right. I'd have to see it.  Maybe, ask Bonk to play with it.

[el-Karnak]

In the General War  (as far as I can tell) it took fleets to knock out Starbases, and months to assemble those fleets
It took 3 fleets (for all intents and purposes) to fight the way to Remus. I know hex flippers have to be able to contribute
But it shouldn't be possible to take a planet or base by yourself.
 

The EEK Fleet and Squadron Action mission were designed for just this purpose.  The Fleet Action missions are centered around planets and Squadron Actions are centered around missions.  Any dyna that uses the full EEK mission pack will find the Planet hexes innudated with Planet Assaults, Shipyard Assaults and Fleet Action missions. The base hexes will be flooded with Base Assualts and Squadron Actions.  Only once in a while will a patrol missions come up. In this scenario it will be pretty tough for one hex flipper to pull down a planet/base hex. You can pretty much forget it if you are flying a smallish droner.  There are also Dockyard Raid missions to keep the pucker factor high.

The problem is that players are too used to having the difficulty of taking a planet to only involve taking a lot more missions than would be the case in an open space hex. So, I really don't see the point in making anymore co-op preferable missions around planets and bases.  EEK Mission pack is loaded with these kind of missions and invariably the preferred missions for dyna play are the easy 2v2 patrols.  In other words, I am not seeing much return on development time invested to make all these big missions.  They involve a lot more work than the simple patrol missions.

But, of course, it's the patrol missions that are most popular.

[Hexx]

And to be honest Karnak I don't think you (or any of our scripters) should have to invest more time
It's a Starbase /planet assault, easy enough to just beef up the targets with the right units.
start geting into serious numbers of PFs/Fighters/Bombers and you'll make the missions much harder
without any need to have the scripters do more work.

Don't get me wrong- I'd love for us to e able to slave drive you guys to get whatever we want, but since that
seems to be unworkable we might as well reduce the workload for anyone who can do this stuff so they can
concentrate on what's really needed.

16 PF's should be enough (I'd think) to mess up any solo DSers day, maybe add a couple of fighter squads from
those def platforms and you've got a ton of realistic attrition units that can dish out some firepower.

[Dfly]

Just a comment on the ruling for the being forced off a hex, not allowed on it or the 6 surrounding it thingy.  I suggest this:

"If you die or are forced off a hex beside or on a planet as an attacker, you are not allowed back to the planet or the hexxes surrounding that planet for X or Y amount of turns(time)."

Instead of the one where it is from the hex you die or disengage from.

Reason being(on current ruling), if I die say in the hex south of a planet, then I can still hit the hex northeast, north, or northwest of the planet with no penalty.

With new idea, all area around the planet is forbidden for a limited amount of time.

This is to help the defender a bit especially when outnumbered.

Comments please.

[762_XC]

I thought of that too Dfly. You're saying if you die in the ring or planet you are banned from the ring and the planet. That certainly has simplicity as a virtue.

I think however keeping it as a 1 hex radius from the hex you die (or disengage) in adds a lot more strategy. If I am on one side of the planet and I am killed, at least I can go around the other side and do something, provided we have a 2 hex approach. The geometry of it kind of encourages a 2 hex approach without actually requiring it. It will also tend to funnel PvP into certain strategic hexes which cover an optimal area.

Maybe harder to keep track of, but adding strategy is always a good thing in my mind.

[Sakrot]

When this dyna will starts?

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I thought of that too Dfly. You're saying if you die in the ring or planet you are banned from the ring and the planet. That certainly has simplicity as a virtue.

I think however keeping it as a 1 hex radius from the hex you die (or disengage) in adds a lot more strategy. If I am on one side of the planet and I am killed, at least I can go around the other side and do something, provided we have a 2 hex approach. The geometry of it kind of encourages a 2 hex approach without actually requiring it. It will also tend to funnel PvP into certain strategic hexes which cover an optimal area.

Maybe harder to keep track of, but adding strategy is always a good thing in my mind.

I like Dfly's idea as that was my origional propossal when talking with 762 after AOTK.  The reason that the ban would involve the planet and the ringing hexes instead of the hexes ringing the actual combat hex would be that the planetary defense forces would be alerted but not leaving the defense radius of the planet in pursuit.  They would need to stay in their defensive positions and would track the ship, but they wouldn't want to be drawn out of position.

On the gameplay aspect, it is a much simlier system.

As for a radius being applied in open space I think that is silly.  There aren't so many listening posts, defenses, etc to justify it.  The exact hex might be something that could be watched more closely in open space, but no race at war could spare the reasources to extend the vigilance to 6 additional hexes.

Also applying the extended disengement box to defenders is illogical as they don't have to contend with the base or the planetary defenses watching their actions, for those ships it would be the same as empty space since their foe has no intelligence network based at the planet or base.

Finally, I think if the base or planet falls, all disengement penalties on the attackers would be nullified, at the very least the extended radius penalty should be dropped at such a time, even if the actual combat hex ban was kept.