Topic: J'inn: You Bastard!!!!

[Riskyllama]

maybe the disengagement rule needs options to it on some of these servers...say an hour out OR 1 VP. This would allow droners and loners to decide whether that "one special hex" is worth a VP or the time.

[Bonk]

I could live with a disengagement rule of 15 minutes but one hour is just sadistic.

What if: the server did not offer missions in hexes where a mission is already underway? hmmm...

I resolve to get back to work on adding PvP detection logic to the serverkit so that PvP battles can be awarded higher DV shifts which makes the above suggestion redundant.

[FPF-DieHard]

2 points

1.  PvP was not meaningless on KCW.  One garners VPs or VCs or whatever you want to call them from PvP, so I would hardly consider that meaningless and frankly that's the way most servers have been in recent history.

It is to me, there is no strategic value to any of the fights I've been in on KCW.  If it ain't over real estate, it doesn't mean anything to me.

I guess I'm a flipping after all . . .

[FPF-DieHard]

"The Slot" is good, single ships no heavy metal. 

The "slot" is a good concept but with the Dynamic nature of a map, the "slot" must move with the front.

Something to ponder . . .

[Riskyllama]

I could live with a disengagement rule of 15 minutes but one hour is just sadistic.

What if: the server did not offer missions in hexes where a mission is already underway? hmmm...

I resolve to get back to work on adding PvP detection logic to the serverkit so that PvP battles can be awarded higher DV shifts which makes the above suggestion redundant.

Not be be overly facetious, but...
Is that before or after you solve the Q3 sprite issue, finish SQL stability, troubleshoot the world's supply of badly designed routers, and solve world peace?

And 15 minutes turns it fom being run out of a hex into a forced coffee/bathroom break.

[762_XC]

Bonk, dont think of it as a punishment. It's merely a way to keep droners and other efficient hex flippers from taking over the server and making it boring for everyone else.

IMHO, it is barely effective at an hour and just one hex. But I am admittedly PvP-centric.

An hour on a large map is NOTHING. There are always 2-3 hexes that can be worked minimum, and by the time you get hunted down in the others you are back in the first one.

[FPF-DieHard]

I could live with a disengagement rule of 15 minutes but one hour is just sadistic.

What if: the server did not offer missions in hexes where a mission is already underway? hmmm...

I resolve to get back to work on adding PvP detection logic to the serverkit so that PvP battles can be awarded higher DV shifts which makes the above suggestion redundant.

Not be be overly facetious, but...
Is that before or after you solve the Q3 sprite issue, finish SQL stability, troubleshoot the world's supply of badly designed routers, and solve world peace?

And 15 minutes turns it fom being run out of a hex into a forced coffee/bathroom break.

No BS, we are closer than you think.   I could tell you more but Frey would have me killed 

[Bonk]

I could live with a disengagement rule of 15 minutes but one hour is just sadistic.

What if: the server did not offer missions in hexes where a mission is already underway? hmmm...

I resolve to get back to work on adding PvP detection logic to the serverkit so that PvP battles can be awarded higher DV shifts which makes the above suggestion redundant.

Not be be overly facetious, but...
Is that before or after you solve the Q3 sprite issue, finish SQL stability, troubleshoot the world's supply of badly designed routers, and solve world peace?

  Point taken... good one... its a question of priorities I guess... (Don't forget forums maintenance too..)

+1 for Risky.... (I never say that, usually I just do it.)

[762_XC]

BTW Bonk, I don't know if this gives you any incentive to work on SQL, but consider this scenario.

Successful PvAI mission = 1 DV shift
Successful PvP mission = 5 or 6 DV shifts

Net Result = disengagement rule not needed

I believe SQL IS the Holy Grail.

[FPF-DieHard]

BTW Bonk, I don't know if this gives you any incentive to work on SQL, but consider this scenario.

Successful PvAI mission = 1 DV shift
Successful PvP mission = 5 or 6 DV shifts

Net Result = disengagement rule not needed

I believe SQL IS the Holy Grail.

If this can work, I agree.

[Mog]

2 points

1.  PvP was not meaningless on KCW.  One garners VPs or VCs or whatever you want to call them from PvP, so I would hardly consider that meaningless and frankly that's the way most servers have been in recent history.

2.  2v1s and 3v1s are a part of the way the D2 works.  Do I think it is dumb?  Damn right, I do.  This is not how naval/space battles occur.  3 ships don't just stumble upon a lone ship in naval engagements or at least they never should.  This is why I have advocated time and time again for some sort of either PvP only campaign, or advocated some sort mandatory fleeting rules/lots of AI in missions to give battles a sense of a large scale engagement, not some border skirmish.  This is war, right??

And I'll ask a question.  Is KCW over?  Has KBF quit?  Didn't see those guys on the server today.

And looking specifically to jump someone with a superior force i.e. 3v1 or 2v1 is not PvP.  It's, well, strategic bullying and I don't like it.

Battle of the River Plate, 1939 - 3 v 1.

Battle of the North Cape, 1943, many v 1.

Ganging up v smaller numbers is the obvious thing to do in war. In a game, it's morally dubious. Depends on your sense of sportsmanship I guess.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

BTW Bonk, I don't know if this gives you any incentive to work on SQL, but consider this scenario.

Successful PvAI mission = 1 DV shift
Successful PvP mission = 5 or 6 DV shifts

Net Result = disengagement rule not needed

I believe SQL IS the Holy Grail.

This works to a certain degree, but is chasing out a ship 3 hull classes smaller than you worth a 5 DV shift? 

A system such as this only forces players into heavy metal and into flying in fleets once again jumping the solo pilot or small ship.  Again the same answer to a situation as Julin points out, the error of history repeated.

The only way to make a variable DV shift sytem work is if it is scaled based on the matchup.

Something like:

Win vs ai = 1 DV shift
Win with 3v1 advantage = 0 DV shift
Win with 2v1 advantage 1 DV shift
Win with +2 hull class advantage = 1 DV shift
Win with +1 hull class advantage = 2 DV shift
Win with equal hull = 3 DV shift
Win with - 1 hull class = 4 DV shift
Win with -2 hull class 5 DV shift
Win a 1 v 2 = 5 DV shift
Win a 1 v 3 = 10 DV shift
(of course some way to measure hulls would be needed, as 3 frigates vs a DN would be more fair than the reverse)


Some missions might have the scale altered such as base assaults but the general principle holds.  Winning with superior numbers or a much larger hull is probably easier than fighting ai, why should it be rewarded more.  Also a scale such as this would lessen the merits of fleeting and everyone flying around in heavy metal.  Anyother approach to a weighted system will finish off the game  for many players just as other rules additions have for many who have already left.

Changing a variable DV shift system without this would make the game no longer "Starfleet Command", it would make it "Gangbang & Heavy Metal Command" even more than it is now. 

It is a game I would not play.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

As far as the disengagement rule, I still believe that the forerunner of it was far superior. 

We used this on the origional AOTK, where there was brutal fighting on several fronts and massive PvP because noone was forced off any front.

For those who didn't play that campaign, the rule was that if you ran off the map you were banned for 1 hour from that hexx, UNLESS you came back with a friend or a larger hull class ship. There was no penalty if you lost your ship I think.   Pure armageddon to please the most avid PvPer.  I remember holding one hex with Fluf for over 18 hours versus a large number of federation and Hydran pilots.  Funny thing was, for some reason I never had anything other than a 1 v 1 on that hexx despite 14 kills and even more runoffs.  Since the pilots knew they could come back they wanted to be the one to beat us in that hex.  Poor Dizzy got killed 3 times during that period as did a couple of others, but not one of them tried to gangbang me.  The current disengagement rule changed all this, and even if its done away with the gangbang mentality (I've been guilty of it too) may well remain.

I think this older system is far superior, but I could see it tweaked to the point where losing your ship in battle would force the same considerations as running off the map, ie, a disengagement period UNLESS you got a bigger hull or brought a wing.  An additional side effect is, that if you get chased off or destroyed in heavy metal you likely cant go bigger for a rematch, this may help keep heavy metal from being flown so much as well.  Get chased off in a 2 v 1, no problem you grab your wing and go get those big meanies.  A much superior system IMHO.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

One more thought.  If you want to do away with gangbanging, eliminate the disengagement penalty for an outnumbered side.  This takes away alot of the motivation for gangbanging.  It would also allow the person gangbanged the opportunity to go back and get the bullies if he had a wing available, and if he didn't he could continue to do his best to defend a strategic hex vs those who resorted to gangbang tactics.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Killing the disengagement rule will kill D2. No one will fly except the Mirak.

 

 

[Bonk]

BTW Bonk, I don't know if this gives you any incentive to work on SQL, but consider this scenario.

Successful PvAI mission = 1 DV shift
Successful PvP mission = 5 or 6 DV shifts

Net Result = disengagement rule not needed

I believe SQL IS the Holy Grail.

Adding this capability (gf configurable PvP DV shift) is independent of SQL, though I have been testing it on The Forge SQL server (no success yet). It is tricky to add it using the existing logic in the kit. Amazingly, PvP detection in the battle results does not exist at all and it is considerable work to add it (the bulk of the battle results code conditionals relate to Pure AI battles). Yes, it would make these disengagement rule debates obsolete... thus my resolution to accomplish it.

[Mutilator]

One more thought.  If you want to do away with gangbanging, eliminate the disengagement penalty for an outnumbered side.  This takes away a lot of the motivation for gangbanging.  It would also allow the person gangbanged the opportunity to go back and get the bullies if he had a wing available, and if he didn't he could continue to do his best to defend a strategic hex vs those who resorted to gangbang tactics.

As a fairly new player to the D2 servers this has been my total perception of why people gangbang:

Run as many enemy pilots out of the hex until your side controls it. Best way to do that is to try and jump them 3v2 or 3v1. Not a lot of reasonable players are going to stick around to fight those odds no matter how skilled of a pilot the one may be.

For me I use to get into a lot of trouble from leadership as I relished in the chance of pvp no matter the odds, I would normally lose my ship (and VC/VP) to the superior force and get tossed from the hex.

Over the servers I think we are getting close on perfecting the rules the one that had a PBR element of certain ships not able to fly together seemed to work best, however there was still the time penalty of getting run out or a reduced time for getting killed.

What about a system where the out numbered player get a VC for fighting the odds.

In an even 3v3 2v2 1v1 the time out of hex would be 30 minutes regardless and VC to the victors for the kill(s)

In an out numbered situation 3v2 3v1 the side that is out numbered will earn one VC for fleeing per ship they are out numbered (3v1 = 2 VC for fleeing) and they will be barred from the hex for 30 minutes. The 3 or the 2 will earn 1 VC period no matter the odd for making them flee.

If the out number side choses to stay an fight the award for bravery should also increase say X2 and will eliminate any time penalty from the hex, however they must fight to the death. The higher side will only get VC(s) for the ship(s) they kill. If the out numbered side takes down ships again more VC for fighting the odds.

If the 1 happens to be a Dred or BCH and the 3 FF's the Dred must kill all three for any VC to be awarded or time penalty to take effect.  This will keep one big ship from jumping the strategic hex flipping DF's or the like.

I am sure there maybe other similar ideas; but for me I think lower penalties for the out number side to chose to flee or fight will increase PVP and help those that are flippers the safety to operate with out taking big time penalties for getting run out or killed in a key hex. With the bonus of getting a VC or two for fleeing or fighting.

Or perhaps I am still just a newb to all this and talking out of me arse as usual. I am sure there is a happy middle ground out there we are just a hex away from finding it.

"Impossible is a word to be found only in the dictionary of fools."
- Unknown

[762_XC]

Killing the disengagement rule will kill D2. No one will fly except the Mirak.

 

 

 

[762_XC]

Win vs ai = 1 DV shift
Win with 3v1 advantage = 0 DV shift
Win with 2v1 advantage 1 DV shift
Win with +2 hull class advantage = 1 DV shift
Win with +1 hull class advantage = 2 DV shift
Win with equal hull = 3 DV shift
Win with - 1 hull class = 4 DV shift
Win with -2 hull class 5 DV shift
Win a 1 v 2 = 5 DV shift
Win a 1 v 3 = 10 DV shift

Not only is this horrendously complicated, it does nothing to stop DF's from spamming the map.

[Lepton]

The controlling of hexes is only controlling with respect to being able to run AI missions on it, ne c'est pas?  If you kick live players out of a hex, there is nothing to prevent other live players from entering that hex.  So to maintain control of a hex vs live players, you'd be committed to some very lengthy live engagements.   The idea of controlling a hex via PvP really for the exclusive purpose of running alot of AI missions on it seems kind of silly and counterintuitive.  It would almost make me suggest that getting more of a DV shift for PvP would be the answer, yet this is effectively what happens anyway.  It's just that the guys controlling the hex need to run the AI mission to get the benefit of controlling the hex.

Similarly, the difference between a disengagement rule with or without the "right of return" is merely one of degree.  Kick someone out, two other people may come back OR kick someone out and he and another come back.  Largely the same except perhaps the timing of one is more immediate than the other.  Be that as it may, I really think people do not like running AI missions.  If there is anything that can be done to cut that down, I'd be all for it.

Frankly, we are living in a world of gaming choices where 64 or more players can occupy the same mulitplayer gaming environment at one time.  I am not sure SFC can keep pace with that.  However, I ask myself what is satisfying about those games.  I have no idea as I hardly play them, except they have more immediacy.  What's so good about EVE?  It would seem that in the abstract one is largely doing the same thing in both games.  Amassing points, getting a bigger ship, controlling space.  Yet, MMORPGs and multiplayer FPS are where it is at, supposedly.  I don't really get it as I don't like FPS and really can't see doing a pay-to-play system.