Topic: New Server Rules Ideas

[762_XC]

OK fine, but it's still your choice to fly it over the DNH. Since in the opinion of you the pilot it's just as good, there's no need to give it a different point value.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

OK fine, but it's still your choice to fly it over the DNH. Since in the opinion of you the pilot it's just as good, there's no need to give it a different point value.

And it would also be a choice to fly a DNH instead of a DNL, by giving them different point values you further encourage a choice rather than having it be an automatic action to buy the biggest baddest most uber DN you can afford and find in the shiplist.  Encouraging a range of options is always a good thing.

[762_XC]

But that argument has been disproved a million times by experience Chuut. People are always gonna fly the baddest thing they can, especially when it comes to a DN. Discounts mean nothing if there's a better ship available.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

But that argument has been disproved a million times by experience Chuut. People are always gonna fly the baddest thing they can, especially when it comes to a DN. Discounts mean nothing if there's a better ship available.

And likely they will continue to do so, especially with a lack of incentive not to, just make then take added risks when doing so. 

Players fly BCHs and Command cruisers all the time when they could be in a DN, while there are other reasons such as power curbs turn radius etc, at least part of it is due to a difference in the potential VCs at risk if they lose the DN.  The same may well work for different classes of DN, if there is a big enough point differential people will likely adjust what they fly.  However, you don't want to make the differential too much to discourage the DNHs altogether, the benefit needs to match the risk.  Of course some people will fly the biggest and baddest regardless.

The whole reason for VCs is to reward player achievement, The tougher the DN, the bigger the achievement for running it off, thus more VCs,  its really quite a simple concept.

[762_XC]

I can't believe you actually think that will have even the slightest effect. Remember Storm Season 2?

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I can't believe you actually think that will have even the slightest effect. Remember Storm Season 2?

It will effect the VC count everytime a DN disengages

[Riskyllama]

So what are the VC differences? is it 100 points to kill DNGHI and 20 to run it offf, while 60 points to kill the BCHIJ and 12 to run it off? is this the plan or am i missing something? It's been a long week(and its only Tuesday)  so I've merely just scanned this and about 5 other server idea threads.

[Dizzy]

Who says what ships are what points? Are we encouraging to fly the latest tech? I'll admit, the DNL I flew during the cheese years was ill advised, but I found it to be competitive enough. However, some ships, DN wise, are better than others. And who is gonna make an arbitrary ruling on whats worth what? Otherwise, I'll be forced to wait for the biggest badest DN out. I dont like that.

Also, disengagement points are very bad. Would lead to an elitist group that always fleets to win and excludes newbs. Bad. I love taking newbs into battle. Its an awesome oportunity to really ddisplay your skills as a leader and vet having a liability in battle. You have to make sure you both dont die. Very exhilirating. But the minute you slap disengagement points on a ship is the minute I'm not flying with a newb.

And if you suggest newbs dont fly with those DN packs, then where are they gonna get competitive pvp action? We mise well tell them to stick to flipping hexes.

I think disengagement penalties suck. I agree with DH, that having them would see matches get dirty and nasty, but at the expense of seeing only a handful of captains enjoy it and thats why its lame.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

P.S.  I'd be careful about taking too many ideas from S'Cipio.  While it was not a bad idea in  the distant past when he lived near me and I could tell him what to think  , now that he lives in DC it isn't advisable.  I mean what good ever came out of Washington D.C.?  J'inn is also living in D.C., need I say more?

My ideasss are perfect.  It'sss jusst that my audience isss flawed.

-S'Cipio

[shin]

well diz...consider this....you spend 2 hours to run off a DN flown by a vet......escorted by 2 vet wings in nasty lil ships.......use isc ships as your opponents race fro this example......you beat them down to almost nothing only to have them run away from a 1-2 hour match with nothing to show for it........what good is that? im tired of winging with some one and have people disengage leaving me with nothing but a lil cash and a dv shift (wow how exciting -.-). show how expensive and risky it is to really fly a dn if their gunna be in the game.........now about bb's.............hehehe

[762_XC]

well diz...consider this....you spend 2 hours to run off a DN flown by a vet......escorted by 2 vet wings in nasty lil ships.......use isc ships as your opponents race fro this example......you beat them down to almost nothing only to have them run away from a 1-2 hour match with nothing to show for it........what good is that? im tired of winging with some one and have people disengage leaving me with nothing but a lil cash and a dv shift (wow how exciting -.-). show how expensive and risky it is to really fly a dn if their gunna be in the game.........now about bb's.............hehehe

Because the disengagement rule is currently inadequate. If that DN was driven out of 7 hexes instead of just 1, that 2 hour investment of time would actually be worth it.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

Interesting. Some of the discussion here is paralleling the other thread about PvP VCs.

Might it then be prudent to combine the two. Have a ship hull class system that gives VCs based on some percentage of BPV, modified by the outcome (such as using S2.0 Victory Conditions), 100% for a kill, 25% for a forced disengage, and so on, and then add on PvP VCs as well as discussed in the other thread. The disadvantage however, is that green pilots wanting to try out big ships are still penalised, although not as much.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

well diz...consider this....you spend 2 hours to run off a DN flown by a vet......escorted by 2 vet wings in nasty lil ships.......use isc ships as your opponents race fro this example......you beat them down to almost nothing only to have them run away from a 1-2 hour match with nothing to show for it........what good is that? im tired of winging with some one and have people disengage leaving me with nothing but a lil cash and a dv shift (wow how exciting -.-). show how expensive and risky it is to really fly a dn if their gunna be in the game.........now about bb's.............hehehe

Because the disengagement rule is currently inadequate. If that DN was driven out of 7 hexes instead of just 1, that 2 hour investment of time would actually be worth it.

I would only support a disengagement radius for areas around permant targets, ie. planets, anything else just makes no sense in the emptiness of space.  If you want to make it more meaningful, double the disengagement penalties for BCHs and triple them for DNs if they are defeated in equal numbered combat.  Of course then you will get fewer duels between the big ships, but that is a known drawback of any disengagement rule.