Topic: RM's weigh in on PvP points, everyone else go thru the proper channels :P

[Dizzy]

Since PvP kills cannot now be traded in for defensive map DV edits as we had planned, (Flatfile is just a bit too time consuming edit wise for this feature) the previous system for PvP kills cannot be used and this post wil discuss a new method. I have posted some ideas already, but this thread will be my current thoughts on the matter.

I'd like some A/RM feedback on the following idea:

Here is the final current Map VC rule so as to help put our following PvP VC ideas in context:

- An Original  Enemy Planet or any Enemy Placed Permanent Base must be controlled and have a LoS to an allied HW. You get one VC Point for owning 2 enemy planets of disimilar races. Terraformed planets and those located in the neutral zone do not count towards VC's.

Basically PvP kills are all about attrition. An empire with considerable ship attrition would suffer severe economic loss from increased production to keep up with losses, but also make it harder to defend their empire with fewer ships to patrol/control their borders. For attrition to make an impact one way or the other, the losses would have to be significant in comparison to the enemy.

My proposal:

- If attrition (PvP points) equals or exceeds one and a half times as many more than your enemy you get 1 Planet Equivalent VC to apply to the Map VC's listed above counted toward the specific race that suffered the highest attrition points.

- If attrition (PvP points) equals or exceeds twice as many more than your enemy you get 1 Planet Equivalent VC to apply to the Map VC's listed above counted toward the specific race that suffered the highest attrition points and another Planet Equivalent VC is counted toward the specific race that suffered the second highest attrition points.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

You can actually write well when you want to 

[Dizzy]

TY, Tracey, I labored long and hard to cut it down to so few words... hehe. Very hard for me to do....

[762_XC]

CCX 8
CAX 4
CLX 2
FFX/DDX 1

BB 11
CVA 8
DN 6
BCV/'f' variant upgrade (Lyrans excluded) or BCS 4
BC 3
N/CA, NCL, HDW's are worth 1.
Smaller class types with 8 ftrs or 3+ PF's are worth 1.
The rest are exempt unless they are involved in a fleet action with a wing in which case they are worth 1.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just copy/pasting for reference.

So basically you're awarding either one or two planets to the side with more PvP kills provided the margin is great enough?

Tell me if this example works: Alliance has 15 PvP points, Coalition 10. Klinks suffered the most losses so the Alliance get a Klink planet for VC purposes.

If that's the case it seems more complicated than it needs to be. It also seems like PvP is not going to count for much. That one planet might not even earn them a VC if they don't have another to match it with.

Why not just award straight VC's? Give 1 VC for a 1.5:1 margin, 2 VC's for a 2:1 margin, 3 VC's for a 2.5:1 margin, etc. Simpler and more effective.

[Julin Eurthyr]

In effect:

If we outkill the Alliance 1.5 kills to 1, we can claim a planet from the race that has suffered the most PvP losses.

If we outkill the Alliance 2 kills to 1, we get 2 planets, one from the race that suffered the most PvP losses, and a second planet from the race that suffered the 2nd most PvP losses, which essentially fulfills a VC condition and nets us 1 VC point.

How many VCs do you expect to be earned anyway?  I don't expect there to be more than 1, maybe 2 VCs earned total per round.  This could be very important...

[762_XC]

Doubtful Julin as the margin requirements are pretty high. Getting a 2:1 margin would be pretty extraordinary.

[Braxton_RIP]

I personally think tool's approach with the direct awarding of VCs is better than the planetary one.  Saying that one side get a planet from the other is a little bit too loose IMO.

[Hexx]

I personally think tool's approach with the direct awarding of VCs is better than the planetary one.  Saying that one side get a planet from the other is a little bit too loose IMO.

Besides once the Klinks and/or Hydrans have lived there you can never really get the smell out..

[Julin Eurthyr]

Doubtful Julin as the margin requirements are pretty high. Getting a 2:1 margin would be pretty extraordinary.

2:1 for the essentially free VC is tough, admittedly.  Meanwhile, 3:2 with 1 planet (as long as that planet isn't from the race we beat the snot out of) is also good for a VC.

I'm not seeing a lot of VC points being issued.  Getting 1 is fairly tough, getting 2 points (4 planets) in 1 cycle preety much requires the opponent roll over and, oh, attack neutral space exclusively or perform a strategic blunder on that kind of level...
So, on average, we'll see 1 VC total issued per round, if at all.  3 rounds or so = 3 VCs.  Not 300+ like GW had, but 3 VCs from the map.

Now, if we get 1.5 Map VCs (ie, 3 planets), and out-kill the Alliance at a 3:2 ratio, that nets us 2 VCs to a presumably enemy 0.  2 cycles of this and the server's over then and there (effective mathematical elimination barring a complete abandonment of the server).

Somehow I'm seeing this system putting a lot of emphasis on the PvP ratio, which, while it may not be a bad thing, may actively start to discourage PvP if the player feels they might not stand a chance (why should I die in a CLY to a CF and harm our kill ratio?)

[Dizzy]

I  dont see it discouraging pvp because it'd take a lot of killls to hit that 1.5 mark. One of you say PvP wont count for much another emphasizes its crucial importance. Lets give it a shot and see...

So basically you're awarding either one or two planets to the side with more PvP kills provided the margin is great enough?

Ok, I changed the above post to read: Planet Equivalent VC. So that makes more sense.

But yes, it's a planet equivalent award that will count toward the race with the most attrition.

Tell me if this example works: Alliance has 15 PvP points, Coalition 10. Klinks suffered the most losses so the Alliance get a Klink planet for VC purposes.

In your example, the Alliance gets a Klingon Planet Equivalent VC that can be used to count toward the VC Map rule where u get a Map VC Point for owning 2 planets of disimilar races.

If that's the case it seems more complicated than it needs to be. It also seems like PvP is not going to count for much. That one planet might not even earn them a VC if they don't have another to match it with. Why not just award straight VC's? Give 1 VC for a 1.5:1 margin, 2 VC's for a 2:1 margin, 3 VC's for a 2.5:1 margin, etc. Simpler and more effective.

Sure it is more effectinve, but that is beside the point. The basis for attrition in this matter is to directly reflect on the fact that a race or races are seriously disadvantaged because of their high attrition level. That is why the point will be applied to those races, not generally. Besides, the enemy is the one giving you this point, not you. So you shouldnt get to distribute it where u want it.

You will just have to figure in your map strategy on the fly as you see how attrtiion begins to adversely affect your enemy. And vice versa, it can be used by the enemy to decide where to defend based on their high attrition. Consider it a deeper strategic element.

[762_XC]

I understand the RP element in the attrition concept but I still think it's too weak to have an encouraging effect on PvP. Offering VC's directly is a more tangible reward.

You asked for RM input, that's mine.

[Dizzy]

it's too weak to have an encouraging effect on PvP.

Good point. I agree. I'd prefer it that way than to have it discourage PvP.

Tangible or not, the possibility of it counting as a VC point is real. And, like you agreed, it is a roleplay and strategic element at the same time.

[Braxton_RIP]

Why not use a system such as the following:

Alliance has x and Coalition y, so you get the ratio x:y.  Say the Alliance had a higher number, so award them x/y VC points.  If the total is going to remain as low as it has been speculated to, it would be a low enough number to just tip the scale one way or another.  So say the Coalition has 2 VCs from planets and the Alliance 1, but the Alliance has a 5/3 kill ratio, so the Alliance would be awarded 1.7 VCs.  Dunno, just a thought.

[Dizzy]

Would place too much emphasis on PvP. It would be more important to win PvP than capture map hexes. I want a balance, yet one that doesnt discourage PvP... So you cant rely too heavily on PvP for VC's at all if you want players to really participate in it that arnt that good.

[Corbomite]

Why not try a scaled system like fouls in sports?

In basketball you are out after five fouls. In hockey there is a penalty box (like our Disengagement rule now). In football you lose yards.

How about you only lose VC's (or whatever) after, say, five losses. That way people could fight a lot and not lose anything for their team and then know that they are on the brink and back off a bit. If you lose five, you lose some points to the other side then the tally is reset. If you don't lose (or manage to avoid) a PvP for 24 hours (or whatever, it can be a number of game turns/years) the tally is also reset.


(Yeah I know I'm not an RM, but I'm not playing on this server so have no "official channels" to go through)

[KBFLordKrueg]

I kinda prefer Tool's option...
Why must everything be so complicated...? 

[Dizzy]

I'm sorry if I made it complicated... At least Tracey appears to think the idea has merit.

If you RM's absolutely hate it, sure we can ditch it. But I've rather come to like it. I dont see whats difficult about it. Simply put, if you have 1.5 times as many kills as your opponent, you get a planet equivalent VC applied to the race that suffered the most attrition.

Wtf is so difficult about that. The way I wrote it minimizes the impact of losing a slew of PvP matches. I firmly believe it will encourage PvP, yet places importance on it all the same.

Tool's idea, simplicity all round, is too broad and allows for PvP to make a more significant impact, which I believe will discourage PvP.

I think, if you stew on it a few days, it will grow on you... like a fungus. 

[762_XC]

allows for PvP to make a more significant impact, which I believe will discourage PvP.

  

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

allows for PvP to make a more significant impact, which I believe will discourage PvP.

Agree with you there Dizzy, if people on both sides want PvP they can always find it, but if someone isn't seeking it out but finds themself in it you want to encourage them to stay and fight not run off to avoid it out of fear of consequences that would be too great for their team.  I know the bigger the consequences the more likely I am to bail out quickly, if I feel my ship is outgunned.  If the risk is less I might stay and try to pull the upset knowing that if I lose it still wont be a big deal.  More fun that way I think.

[Dfly]

I ,though not a RM/ARM will side with Dizzy on his idea, I like it.

[Braxton_RIP]

I'm sorry if I made it complicated... At least Tracey appears to think the idea has merit.

If you RM's absolutely hate it, sure we can ditch it. But I've rather come to like it. I dont see whats difficult about it. Simply put, if you have 1.5 times as many kills as your opponent, you get a planet equivalent VC applied to the race that suffered the most attrition.

Wtf is so difficult about that. The way I wrote it minimizes the impact of losing a slew of PvP matches. I firmly believe it will encourage PvP, yet places importance on it all the same.

Tool's idea, simplicity all round, is too broad and allows for PvP to make a more significant impact, which I believe will discourage PvP.

I think, if you stew on it a few days, it will grow on you... like a fungus. 

I don't hate it, but from a layman's standpoint.  Tool's is too simple and Dizzy's is too wordy.  A happy medium inbetween might be nice for guys like F9thKirk for instance who are just getting into the OP rules.

[KBFKrotz]

I think we should try your idea Dizzy. It waters down the risks/consequences for individual players in pvp, and I think the 1.5:1 kill ratio is attainable enough to be useful (though I suspect it's at or near the upper limit of what a side could pull out)...to be honest though, with my limited play time I had this week and going into mid next week, I find the prices for a replacement ship more a factor of whether I'd stick around and fight out something I figured to be a losing battle (whatever happened to your idea of 1 pp ships  ).

[Dizzy]

lol Krotz... I'll lower prices a bit later.