Topic: What is your view on an ocassional server allowing fleets?

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Just curious how many out there would like to fly fleets in a major SFC campaign again.

Please no rants, grandstanding, whines or flames on this thread just want an idea of how people feel as expressed by their votes, I would rather look at the numbers than at a flamefest.

[Dizzy]

A server should always allow the use of fleets... But only to an extent where the solo flyer isnt screwed.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

A server should always allow the use of fleets... But only to an extent where the solo flyer isnt screwed.

Agree 100% with that Dizzy, but there will be different interpretations of "being screwed"

Funny thing is, back in the days when fleeting only had minimal restrictions, usually no more thn 10% of the players were in more than ione ship, at least since I joined.  If you stayed in a fleet to long it tended to run you out of prestige, at least with fleets having attrition units and expendables.  They were handy vs starbases, planets, and the fielding of a force to fight enemy capital ships  that your race didn't have a good single ship answer for.

[KBF-Soth]

I have a problem with cheese fleets,a limited fleet I have no issues with,which would be a realistic kind of battle group or a scout group.The Klingon F5Q(?) from SGO5 would be a good eg. of a scout group.I think the way this was done was very ........unique.

[Lepton]

I assume we are discussing individual players flying multiple ships.  I'd be fine with that in moderation, but I have a hard enough time controlling one ship rather than two or three.  As I have said in the past, my preferred options are mandatory human fleeting (i.e. all capital ships need to be escorted, etc) or merely using missions that allow one to control AI ships as we just had in SGO5.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I assume we are discussing individual players flying multiple ships.

Yes.

[Mog]

One of my most memorable D2 battles was way back on Klinzhai server, my L-BCPP v a Kzinti player flying a CVS+ and 2 DDs as escorts, in an asteroid field. To me, that was a very reasonable squadron makeup. Squads of 3 carriers, tenders, battleships, droners etc are not reasonable, and come under my rule 3

[Bonk]

Fleets with SFB CnC (as close as possible) - hell yes!

Some races claim to be at a disadvantage... (perhaps leave those ones out of such servers thus the issue is moot?). Though I do not buy it. (IIRC Kroma claims Gorn fleets are at a hideous disadvantage? Myself I recall a particularly cheap and deadly Gorn combination of G-BDL+, G-BDD+, G-BDE, or the light cruiser equivalent, few races can match the firepower for the BPV...)

Anyway, I say an enthusiastic yes to fleets (Guess which vote is mine...)!

[FPF-DieHard]

SGO3 had the best CnC rules.   1 Command, one vannilla.  Kept things resonable.   hell, I think I may have been the only one to fly fleets on that server.

[Strat]

Just as long as no cheese.. Fleets are Awsome..   CnC is the best.

[shin]

then the question comes down to this...what is cheese really? some could say a fleet of 3 lyrans are cheese (include a cwlpp or a ca equivilant) some say gorn fleets are major cheese.......its really a point of view rather than a set in stone sorta thing

[Hexx]

Lyran fleets are not and will never be cheese.


And (for Bonk) The Lyrans (for one) are at a bit of a disadvantage
compared to anyone who gets drones /plasma.

And we're not leaving the Lyrans out 

[Strat]

I really don't know how automated the server can be or anything of a how a Dyna server works, but here's an idea.

Make the BPV cost of a ship increase if a ship you are combining it with would make the fleet cheesey.  Cheesy being the technical term.

If they want to buy 3 ships do not really belong together for the above reason, make the price of the 3rd ship just to 9,999,999 cost or something, so that partivular combiniation is discouraged.

The prices of the ships would be a little dynamic, based on the component ships you already have.

This way individuals need not know rules or what ships can and should not be together, you just can or can't afford certain combinations and the server handles the math.

Is this a possibility?

[Hexx]

The ships are all purchased individually, there's no way for
the system to charge you more because it's a third ship .

[Strat]

That not what I mean, but the answer is porbably the same for what I did mean.

Weather its the second or third, the price depends on the next ship you buy on what inventory you already have.

Someone mentioned this combination as tough: G-BDL+, G-BDD+, G-BDE.

Well Say individually they costed:

G-BDL+ = Cost X
G-BDD+ = Cost Y
G-BDE = Cost Z

Wait though, you already have purchased the G-BDL+ at Cost X. So when you go to buy the G-BDD+ it costs (Y+10,000).  It costs extra becuase these ships are a STRONG combination. So you muster up that BPV and buy it.  Now you want the G-BDE?  That now costs (Z+ 1,000,000).  It costs SO much more extra becuase its a CHEESE combination.

Those numbers are arbitry, but do you see the principle.  There would need to be a database of what ships have what cost modifiers in relation to one another, but once its done, the rest is automatic.

Like you have a G-BDL+ and you buy a vanilla frigate.  That vanialla frigate would probaly not need to increase costs even though its a players second (or third) ship, becuase it does not have such an impact (Cheesy) on the fleet.  It would be a relational setup, but all inside the server, and not for players to worry about.

[Hexx]

SQL might be able to do it, but without it we can only run
the prices as X,Y,Z unfortunately.

The ships are all purchased individually, the yards can't tell
if you already have a ship or two, let alone what they are

[Dizzy]

SGO3 had the best CnC rules.   1 Command, one vannilla.  Kept things resonable.   hell, I think I may have been the only one to fly fleets on that server.

I had some engagements vs u as rom on that server. That was a blast... I branded the 2nd ship with a pvp point for SGO5. Looking back, that prolly wasnt a good idea... That was prolly the single most important objection to why they wernt used.

Balance wise, I can see how a Mirak with a CC and a DD could work out, but as a Lyran or plasma boat, your 2nd ship probably would get pwnd... I had a balance issue with allowing a player to field a 2x ships and what it would be worth compared to another solo flyer. That was a last minute consideration... I think it deserves to be discussed, especially when you deal with pvp points.

[Bonk]

then the question comes down to this...what is cheese really?

Fleets that don't adhere to SFB CnC.

IIRC, to have one DN in a fleet the fleet must be 7 ships or more and otherwise adhere to the CnC rules. (No SFC fleet with a BB can adhere to SFB CnC because SFC fleets are limited to 3 ships)

A simpler example: if you want a D5L, then you must also have two non leader variant D5s... etc.

[Julin Eurthyr]

"Fleet cheese" can be somewhat defined.

And it boils down to primarily one thing, firing arcs.

From personal experience (mainly from Karnak's free-fleet missions, but it's still experience... ):

An ISC plasma fleet with a lot of FH-arced plasma (CA,CL,DD of various refits) isn't too bad to use, because the trick to using the fleet is to keep the ships in a decent echelon formation and firing before the target clears the FH-arc of the lead ships.
A more PPD-oriented fleet is harder to use, (swap the CL for a CS) as now not only am I trying to keep formation, I need to get the CS to fly the same direction as my CA, in the proper range bracket, and have the target in the narrow band of space covered by the FA arc of both ship's PPDs.  Line formation helps out here, but can be a pain because the CS will do "bobs and weaves" if I'm travelling slower than the CS wants to at that moment.

Some of the hardest Karnak fleet-missions I've faced is against droner and Carrier AIs.  A droner fleet doesn't care about position or arc, as the drones will launch no matter what the AI's doing or where it is.  Actually, droner fleets benefit from a wider formation as a single T-bomb won't take out all the drones.  Meanwhile, numerous carriers put so many attrition units on the board that it's impossible to kill them fast enough before the mass required to kill me gets into range (in SFB, it's said that 10 Stinger-2s at range 0 can wipe out a K-B10 in one shot.  The trick was getting 10 of them in at one time, luckily the Hydrans probably had 30 that day... )  Putting these fleets into live control only exaggerates the problem, as the live player can coordinate the fleet much more effectively than the computer.

Therefore, "fleet cheese" is a combination of 2 factors, how many HWs can you point at a target at a given time, and how many attrition units can you send at one target at a given time.  More attrition units can (obviously) overwhelm the defenses of a given target easier (actually landing hits), while the wider arcs means that it's easier to get more HWs on one target for longer periods of time.

[el-Karnak]

Unless the Admin. start increasing the cost for drone and especially spare replacement cost then I would be against fleets.  You want to push the drone replacement cost the max. envelope without crippling Mirak ship play.  Spares costs should be doubled at least.

Then players will feel the full sticker shock of running fleets and balance will be upheld.