Topic: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns

[FPF-Paladin]

Hello everyone,

I'm doing some research for a project.  I know that everyone has different tastes and thoughts on rulesets or whether or not dyna servers should even have rules or not.  I'm of a mind that any semi-serious campaign does need them unfortunately, and I understand they're often a topic of frustration for players and admins alike.

 

What I'd like for feedback is just to get your .02 cents worth: favorite or most hated rule(s) and most importantly, why you feel that way about them.  I'd welcome posts with links to previous rulesets from past campaigns as well, but would again ask for some explanation why you feel that way.

I know it's impossible to please everyone all the time but it's worse not to try at all I think.  Discussion is also welcome but please don't pull out any flamethrowers on anyone for sake of clarity.   

[Bonk]

My most hated rule: the disengagement rule.
Why: because it actually discourages PvP in my view.

May favorite rules set: http://sfc2.net/rules.asp
(with the exception of the obsolete Patrol Bug rule and overly complicated Bounty rule).

All that is missing is a fleets rule, which in my view should simply be SFB CnC where possible. (it is impossible to meet the SFB CnC requirements for a BB in SFC as there is only three ships in a fleet.)

Also, a no forfeits rule is good for the server.

Valid gamespy account use with real e-mail addresses would be nice, (no exploiting the change the case of one letter of the e-mail bug).

Also no funky characters in playernames is good too, they should contain only upper and lowercase letters and numbers and the underscore character and begin with a letter not a number.

[FPF-Paladin]

Thanks Bonk; I'll check this out thoroughly ASAP... 

[762_XC]

My most favorite rule would be the disengagement rule, because without it D2 would have died long ago.

[Bonk]

My most favorite rule would be the disengagement rule, because without it D2 would have died long ago.

I knew you you were gonna say that! 

I disagree completely and very strongly, but hopefully that point will be moot once the PvP DV shift code is fully tested and released. 

[KBFLordKrueg]

Pros: Disengagement rules, Fleeting rules, Ship and fighter CnC.
Cons: Bounties, limits on number of players for a certain Race (not seen in a long time, tho)

[762_XC]

My most favorite rule would be the disengagement rule, because without it D2 would have died long ago.

I knew you you were gonna say that! 

I disagree completely and very strongly, but hopefully that point will be moot once the PvP DV shift code is fully tested and released. 

That would indeed rock.

[FPF-Paladin]

My most favorite rule would be the disengagement rule, because without it D2 would have died long ago.

I knew you you were gonna say that! 

I disagree completely and very strongly, but hopefully that point will be moot once the PvP DV shift code is fully tested and released. 

That would indeed rock.

Agreed!!  Please keep us updated Bonk?

[Skaren]

I am pretty new to Dynaverse and here is a surprise to me.

In the UAW campaign when I signed up I looked over the roster and found a large cluster of Fed players.  Well seeing as it was an opportunity to test new races, and most importantly to try to add some balance I signed up for a less populous race, Dominion.

Yet I noticed the Fed continued to grow and grow.  Now it is really unbalanced (it seems to me) as Fed is so loaded with players who have like 100+ battles, and 4-5 times the number players compared to other races, that I kinda feel like I cannot compete with that.  Dominion, my race, kinda my enthusiasm is dying.

Maybe I should have just followed the heard and signed up for Fed and just had fun kicking ass on the few outpost nations. 

Being a long time ref 20 years of SFB/C games,.. I feel that a certain amount of balance is needed for a game to have a chance of success.  Without it the other players (non Fed) will likely loss interest quickly, as I have.

If a server could say limit the nations to 10-15 players each (first come first served), others would be forced to sign on other nations making a balance to the game.  If it is left to the players I assume, like myself next time,.. even more will pick Federation not because I like fed but because I know they will be the winning side and we all like whining,.... oh I mean winning 

If a server gets full with most all races maxed at 10 players maybe the player list could be bumped up to accommodate some growth.  Up the nation total to 15, etc,.. forcing a distribution of players across nations.

Seems like there will be few who voluntarily sign up for small races to balance the game.

I am too new to make calls on the other stuff yet,..

[Bonk]

   Looks like we just can't shake that "Blue Plague"!

You should have seen it years ago. It got to be a real problem.

Here's a few threads discussing Dynaverse history:
http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163343363.0.html
http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163343574.0.html

[FPF-Paladin]

I am pretty new to Dynaverse and here is a surprise to me.

In the UAW campaign when I signed up I looked over the roster and found a large cluster of Fed players.  Well seeing as it was an opportunity to test new races, and most importantly to try to add some balance I signed up for a less populous race, Dominion.

Yet I noticed the Fed continued to grow and grow.  Now it is really unbalanced (it seems to me) as Fed is so loaded with players who have like 100+ battles, and 4-5 times the number players compared to other races, that I kinda feel like I cannot compete with that.  Dominion, my race, kinda my enthusiasm is dying.

Maybe I should have just followed the heard and signed up for Fed and just had fun kicking ass on the few outpost nations. 

Being a long time ref 20 years of SFB/C games,.. I feel that a certain amount of balance is needed for a game to have a chance of success.  Without it the other players (non Fed) will likely loss interest quickly, as I have.

If a server could say limit the nations to 10-15 players each (first come first served), others would be forced to sign on other nations making a balance to the game.  If it is left to the players I assume, like myself next time,.. even more will pick Federation not because I like fed but because I know they will be the winning side and we all like whining,.... oh I mean winning 

If a server gets full with most all races maxed at 10 players maybe the player list could be bumped up to accommodate some growth.  Up the nation total to 15, etc,.. forcing a distribution of players across nations.

Seems like there will be few who voluntarily sign up for small races to balance the game.

I am too new to make calls on the other stuff yet,..

Nonsense, you're a member of the community and you have every right to speak your opinion   Matter of fact it might even be refreshing because (at least personally) I've been here a little while now and might have fallen into patterns of thought as a result that might blind me to things.

Past servers have attempted to use sign on lists or draft lists here to get a feel for the balance of the races before the server actually starts, but they've been less than reliable more often than not.  Still, very valid point... all the balancing and tweaking in the world can't fix a hugely lopsided server.

Or can it..?  Hehe, I actually have some ideas concerning that but I'm going to flesh them out better before submitting them to the forums

All input is appreciated, thank you for your time (and a slightly late welcome to the community; been kind of away for a while)

[IAF Lyrkiller]

My least favorite rule is the PvP rule.
The one lower then that is the CnC rule.
Fleeting should be allowed w/ small ships.

My 0.02 pfgs

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Least favorite: . Disengagement rule, it hurts PvP, and encourages gangbanging.

Second least favorite:  LOS rules, if you can operate without supply more power to you in my view.  LOS shouldn't be required in open space.  A LOS should make operations easier not the lack of one making them impossible, or restricted.

Least favorite ruleset:  GW series #3-5

[Dfly]

Favorite rule as per PvP-  The ruling used in KCW.  If the SQL works well for shifting hexes for PvP, I believe a newer ruling can be made that allows all the challenges you want (keeping within challenge rules and keeping them on Dyna might be nice though I did not mind doing them on GSA or IP) in a named hex.  The winner of the match gets the shift. 

I also like the CnC rules.

Least Favorite- LOS.  Disengagement(though that may not be needed soon).

[762_XC]

Least favorite: . Disengagement rule, it hurts PvP,

That's like saying anarchy lowers the crime rate.

[GDA-Agave]

GOOD RULES

(1) unassigned, but limited capital ships; the rule that said you could only have so many DN, BCH, CV flown at one time for each side;  I think this better represented the capital ship command structure that people were looking for in the GW series

(2) capital ship cannot fly together rule - this rule stopped players from taking the two biggest ships for their side and just clearing out areas;  simple rule, but very needed in my opinion

(3) LOS(line of supply), but only for placing bases, or assaulting bases or planets;  as long as you have a LOS AT THE TIME of placing the base or assault you're good to go; we all know that you may not be able to maintain the LOS after the assault/base placement

(4) Disengagment rule - to me the crux of this rule is to give the smaller fleets (such as Gorn) an opportunity to beat back a larger fleet from a particular hex for a period of time so as to work on building that hex's DV back up;  obviously, if the front is big enough with that opponent with more pilots they will punch through your defenses somewhere else, but at least you will be able to hold one spot if you assign all your pilots there (assuming you can run off the your opponent's ships)
(4a) if a disengagment rule is used, the time penalty SHOULD NEVER be more than 30 minutes
(4b) whether you are forced to disengage or your ship is destroyed, the time penalty SHOULD BE THE SAME

(5) limited hull class areas - whether it's the nebula hexes or just an area designated by the server admins, I always liked the idea of having a capital ship free zone


BAD RULES

(1) personally, I never liked the CnC assigned ships of the GW series.   I certainly understood the idea behind it, but I think their are other ways we can represent a limited amount of "big metal" on any one front without limiting who flys those ships.  (see liked rule 1);  my biggest problem with this rule - most capital ships were assigned to players who did not play enough, or were not available during important assaults (or defense) during the servers.

(2) limited shiplists - yeah, I know that some servers have been setup so that droners and carriers weren't over-used, but can't we limit the amount of those ships used just like we do for the capital ships.   I just don't like it when admins bow the pressure of certain members of our community to do away with certain ships they can't stand.   To me ship variety is important to what type of missions I am doing.  I say again, if there are certain ships that are overused (and considered cheesy in nature) LIMIT THE NUMBER of those ships on the server at any one time, but please don't eliminate them altogether.   All you do is create a very stagnant shiplist and, for me, lose my interest.  Sorry, but KCW was the perfect example of this.


That's it for now.

[Bonk]

Second least favorite:  LOS rules, if you can operate without supply more power to you in my view.  LOS shouldn't be required in open space.  A LOS should make operations easier not the lack of one making them impossible, or restricted.

LOL, Chuut; our favorite deepstriking bastige.    I think LOS to place a base makes sense, otherwise it just places a damper on deepstriking fun and hijinks. 

Least favorite: . Disengagement rule, it hurts PvP,

That's like saying anarchy lowers the crime rate.

Nevermind t00l, he's almost always in a DN which is why he likes the disengagement rule. 

Favorite rule as per PvP-  The ruling used in KCW.  If the SQL works well for shifting hexes for PvP, I believe a newer ruling can be made that allows all the challenges you want (keeping within challenge rules and keeping them on Dyna might be nice though I did not mind doing them on GSA or IP) in a named hex.  The winner of the match gets the shift. 

I also like the CnC rules.

Least Favorite- LOS.  Disengagement(though that may not be needed soon).

The PvP DV shift code does not depend on SQL, it will work on the flatfile as well, just to be clear.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

There are no completely bad rules; any rule mike make sense in a specific campaign set up to represent a specific thing.  (I'm about to use one of the rules I hate in the upcoming Economic War server).   However, in the general case:



Favorite rules:

Disengagement rule:  So long as different races use different weapons, AI mission-time will vary.  I think the best way to handle this is to confront the "problem" player (in your point of view) in game and kill him.  When you beat someone in PvP you need to have some affect on the satus of the board.  The disengagement rule makes this happen.   (Bonk's bigger DV shift for PvP will be a better method to make this happen; though I'd set it to 5 instead of 3)

The Slot:  Outstanding idea.  We need something that gives the smaller ships something to do that can affect the outcome of the game *and* still gives them a shot at some PvP.  (Yes, I know you can hex flip in a DF or an E4D, but those aren't the ships I'm talking about)

OOB:   We've had a lot of OOB rules, and I don't hate any of them.  Some are more work for the admins than others, but I'm willing to let them decide how much work they are willing to endure.

No disengagement behind the lines:  Puts the bite in getting caught behind th elines, as it should.  It's exciting, feels realistic, and is well-supported in SFB fiction.

One ship only:  I don't really like this rule.  In point of fact, I hate it.  But certain races work exponentially better in fleets and certain races don't work well at all.  So I think it is a wise move to stick with one ship.  Allowing certain specific squadrons by rule might work well.


Least favorite Rules:

LOS:  (Except for placing bases)  So long as the no forfeit rule is strictly enforceed, taking planets behind enemy lines is *hard* and is easy to spot.        We keep hearing how those empty hexes would never be fought over in a "real" war -- we'd only fight over the planets and bases -- so why do I have to "own" them all before I can fly a task force/raider to hit a planet?  SFB fiction is full of deep strikes; including a rather large Romulan fleet trying to decimate a Federation core world at the start of the war.  Besides, the game was a lot more exciting when lines were less trench-like and deep striking capitals was a risk you had to watch out for.  I have no problem requiring a LOS for building a base.

The "Heavy Iron" Rule:  I like OOB rules, but dislike the rule that says only so many of a certain ship can be on the board at a time.  I dislike this rule because it allows you to immediately replace a key asset, regardless of how many times you lose it.  In a wargame I think that if you kill an important asset, the enemy needs to be without that asset for a while.

[Bonk]

The Slot:  Outstanding idea.  We need something that gives the smaller ships something to do that can affect the outcome of the game *and* still gives them a shot at some PvP.  (Yes, I know you can hex flip in a DF or an E4D, but those aren't the ships I'm talking about)

Oooh, I forgot about that one. I loved it too. The Slot rocks! 

[762_XC]

When you beat someone in PvP you need to have some affect on the satus of the board.  The disengagement rule makes this happen.   (Bonk's bigger DV shift for PvP will be a better method to make this happen; though I'd set it to 5 instead of 3)

THANK YOU

Give the lizard a cigar.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Nevermind t00l, he's almost always in a DN which is why he likes the disengagement rule. 

You know, if you really wanted to be evil, in a "sink the Bismark" sense, you could insert the following rule:

If a player in a CCH or smaller survives and disengages from an enemy DN or pure carrier, then the disengagment rule does not apply.  This represents the fact that his race is trying to scratch together a fleet big enough to confront the DN and ships that fall back from it are heartened by the fact that they have found their target, are they actively looking for friends to gang up with in order to kill the DN.

I don't think I really like this, but it might give you what you were looking for.

-S'Cipio

[762_XC]

Then why even have heavy metal? Just make a CCH the largest ship in the yards.

Of course that would homogenize the shiplist and take strategy and asset allocation out of the picture. Kind of like playing chess with only pawns.

[Bonk]

When you beat someone in PvP you need to have some affect on the satus of the board.  The disengagement rule makes this happen.   (Bonk's bigger DV shift for PvP will be a better method to make this happen; though I'd set it to 5 instead of 3)

THANK YOU

Give the lizard a cigar.

I always thought that destroying the enemy's ship was an effect. Especially if he has little PP (non nutter). I just don't like relegating those in small ships to running AI missions behind the lines - it takes all the fun out of playing on the dynaverse - might as well play singleplayer - in fact I have logged off disengagement rule servers to play singleplayer a number of times - its just too exclusionary, favors nutters and senior players who are assigned large ships, sort of makes them the only ones worthy of PvP. Until the PvP DV shift code is released, "The Slot" is the perfect solution - it allows non nutters and junior players to have some PvP fun too... further, any disengagment rule should not apply in "The Slot" so as not to further discourage PvP for casual players.

Edit: I had 100x as many PvP battles on the dynaverse before the disengagement rule came along. Since then PvP battles have been few and far between for me. I'd bet I'm not the only one.

[Bonk]

My most favorite rule would be the disengagement rule, because without it D2 would have died long ago.

I knew you you were gonna say that! 

I disagree completely and very strongly, but hopefully that point will be moot once the PsvP DV shift code is fully tested and released. 

That would indeed rock.

Agreed!!  Please keep us updated Bonk?

Don't forget, the PvP DV shift code is in place on The Forge and the UAW servers for testing. I'd appreciate any reports of its function/malfunction on those servers. (particularly in 2vs2 missions and up and at hex reset...)

[GDA-Agave]

... further, any disengagment rule should not apply in "The Slot" so as not to further discourage PvP for casual players.

I disagree with you here Bonk.   If the disengagement rule is used in a server, then it would need to be applied to all hexes.

I would prefer to certain types of hexes be hull limited instead of just a designated area. (like KCW)   The admin could setup a "slot" like area by just grouping these hexes together.   Much easier for the common pilot to distinguish.   I remember having to answer the question a million (and a half probably) times, "now which hexes are part of the slot?".   Just make all asteriod (or whatever) hexes that way, and its easy for everyone to figure out.  (KISS idea applied here)   

[Bonk]

... further, any disengagment rule should not apply in "The Slot" so as not to further discourage PvP for casual players.

I disagree with you here Bonk.   If the disengagement rule is used in a server, then it would need to be applied to all hexes.

What's the logic behind that?

[GDA-Agave]

No disengagement behind the lines:  Puts the bite in getting caught behind th elines, as it should.  It's exciting, feels realistic, and is well-supported in SFB fiction.  

I love this rule too.   Recent servers have really nailed this rule down.   If all the hexes surrounding the hex you are taking a mission in are owned by your enemies when you enter the mission, you are considering deepstriking and cannot disengage even if ownership of some of those hexes change during your mission.

One ship only:  I don't really like this rule.  In point of fact, I hate it.  But certain races work exponentially better in fleets and certain races don't work well at all.  So I think it is a wise move to stick with one ship.  Allowing certain specific squadrons by rule might work well.

I wouldn't mind seeing mutiple ships allowed again but with very strict rules of what the escort ships could be.   Maybe try a server where 2 ships can be flown first.  Build up to the 3 ship fleets.   It is another element of variety I have missed in SFC servers.

The "Heavy Iron" Rule:  I like OOB rules, but dislike the rule that says only so many of a certain ship can be on the board at a time.  I dislike this rule because it allows you to immediately replace a key asset, regardless of how many times you lose it.  In a wargame I think that if you kill an important asset, the enemy needs to be without that asset for a while.

You could always add a time penalty to any lost capital ship.   It creates a little more work for everyone involved, but not much.   My biggest point is to NOT have capital ships assigned to players.    Allow anyone who has enough PP to buy a capital ship.   I have also always wanted to see the PP cost reduced of any limited capital ship.  (like 30-50% of set cost ratio)  This way you have opened up the capital ships usuage to even the casual pilot who would never usually amass enough PP during a server.   Takes the nutter's advantage away where capital ships are concerned.

Good discussion.   Keep it coming.

[GDA-Agave]

... further, any disengagment rule should not apply in "The Slot" so as not to further discourage PvP for casual players.

I disagree with you here Bonk.   If the disengagement rule is used in a server, then it would need to be applied to all hexes.

What's the logic behind that?

Are you assuming that "The slot" is going to be some out-of-the-way spot that no one would care who owned it?  Personally I would like the slot-type areas to be in the MOST highly fought over areas.   Put them around planets, except for one or two clear hexes.   That way the big capital ships would have only certain approach hexes while the remaining would have to fought over by the smaller ships.   (Side note: if certain types of hexes were used this way, I would suggest using asteriod or black hole hexes since nebula hexes would give a slight advantage to any plasma races involved in the server.)

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Agave,

That is a great idea.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Then why even have heavy metal? Just make a CCH the largest ship in the yards.

Mostly because there will always be some captains with a need to "compensate".    


Like I said, I'm not sure I'm really all that fond of the idea, but even with it in play I still imagine there will be a couple of reasons to use a DN or CVA.  For example, as a special reserve trump card, used briefly at key points for things like smashing BCH's.  (Which the disenagement rule would still apply to against DN's.)

-S'Cipio

[FPF-DieHard]

BAD RULES

(1) personally, I never liked the CnC assigned ships of the GW series.   I certainly understood the idea behind it, but I think their are other ways we can represent a limited amount of "big metal" on any one front without limiting who flys those ships.  (see liked rule 1);  my biggest problem with this rule - most capital ships were assigned to players who did not play enough, or were not available during important assaults (or defense) during the servers.

(2) limited shiplists - yeah, I know that some servers have been setup so that droners and carriers weren't over-used, but can't we limit the amount of those ships used just like we do for the capital ships.   I just don't like it when admins bow the pressure of certain members of our community to do away with certain ships they can't stand.   To me ship variety is important to what type of missions I am doing.  I say again, if there are certain ships that are overused (and considered cheesy in nature) LIMIT THE NUMBER of those ships on the server at any one time, but please don't eliminate them altogether.   All you do is create a very stagnant shiplist and, for me, lose my interest.  Sorry, but KCW was the perfect example of this.


That's it for now.

Considering I came up with the "bad" rules I have to say I agree with S'cippy on the above.  What looks good on paper can sometimes bite you in the ass later.

[IAF Lyrkiller]

Let us all jump on DH.

[762_XC]

I always thought that destroying the enemy's ship was an effect. Especially if he has little PP (non nutter).

It doesn't. Hex flippers use small cheap ships and have tons of PP.

I just don't like relegating those in small ships to running AI missions behind the lines

It doesn't. Even with the DR there are many ways a hex flipper can work the front lines.

1) Run under your opponent
2) Have a PvP group clear the hex for you (this was Fluf's original intent with the rule)
3) Work one of the many front line hexes where your opponent is not

This assumes there is active opposition on the line, while there often is not. Even when the flipper does get caught, he just goes to work another hex.

it takes all the fun out of playing on the dynaverse - might as well play singleplayer - in fact I have logged off disengagement rule servers to play singleplayer a number of times -

Exactly how PvP players feel when flippers run 3 or 4 missions to their every one, and there's nothing they can do to stop it.

its just too exclusionary, favors nutters and senior players who are assigned large ships, sort of makes them the only ones worthy of PvP.

It only "favors" them by giving them something to do besides selling off the big ship for a droner. Flippers still rule the map, just to a lesser extent than they do without the DR.

Until the PvP DV shift code is released, "The Slot" is the perfect solution - it allows non nutters and junior players to have some PvP fun too... further, any disengagment rule should not apply in "The Slot" so as not to further discourage PvP for casual players.

Sounds like D2 of old - buy a flipper and avoid PvP at all costs. I'll pass.

The slot is a gimmick, something for added flavor. It doesn't fix any problems.

Edit: I had 100x as many PvP battles on the dynaverse before the disengagement rule came along. Since then PvP battles have been few and far between for me. I'd bet I'm not the only one.

I don't consider a CC blowing up a DF PvP. Even equal battles become meaningless when mission times are unequal. What incentive does a Z-CC have to stay in battle with an R-KRC? He can run missions in half the time or less.

[GDA-Agave]

BAD RULES

(1) personally, I never liked the CnC assigned ships of the GW series.   I certainly understood the idea behind it, but I think their are other ways we can represent a limited amount of "big metal" on any one front without limiting who flys those ships.  (see liked rule 1);  my biggest problem with this rule - most capital ships were assigned to players who did not play enough, or were not available during important assaults (or defense) during the servers.

(2) limited shiplists - yeah, I know that some servers have been setup so that droners and carriers weren't over-used, but can't we limit the amount of those ships used just like we do for the capital ships.   I just don't like it when admins bow the pressure of certain members of our community to do away with certain ships they can't stand.   To me ship variety is important to what type of missions I am doing.  I say again, if there are certain ships that are overused (and considered cheesy in nature) LIMIT THE NUMBER of those ships on the server at any one time, but please don't eliminate them altogether.   All you do is create a very stagnant shiplist and, for me, lose my interest.  Sorry, but KCW was the perfect example of this.


That's it for now.

Considering I came up with the "bad" rules I have to say I agree with S'cippy on the above.  What looks good on paper can sometimes bite you in the ass later.

Oh, sure.  Agree with the Gorn who will feed your ego!!    (j/k)  I didn't mean to crush your sensitive ego.  I just don't prefer those rules.   For the record, I did play on all those servers. 

DH, I realize that some ideas look better on paper than actually applied to a server.   That's where a civil discussion here on the forum can attempt to nail down what the majority of pilots would like to see.

[Bonk]

I always thought that destroying the enemy's ship was an effect. Especially if he has little PP (non nutter).

It doesn't. Hex flippers use small cheap ships and have tons of PP.

I just don't like relegating those in small ships to running AI missions behind the lines

It doesn't. Even with the DR there are many ways a hex flipper can work the front lines.

1) Run under your opponent
2) Have a PvP group clear the hex for you (this was Fluf's original intent with the rule)
3) Work one of the many front line hexes where your opponent is not

This assumes there is active opposition on the line, while there often is not. Even when the flipper does get caught, he just goes to work another hex.

it takes all the fun out of playing on the dynaverse - might as well play singleplayer - in fact I have logged off disengagement rule servers to play singleplayer a number of times -

Exactly how PvP players feel when flippers run 3 or 4 missions to their every one, and there's nothing they can do to stop it.

its just too exclusionary, favors nutters and senior players who are assigned large ships, sort of makes them the only ones worthy of PvP.

It only "favors" them by giving them something to do besides selling off the big ship for a droner. Flippers still rule the map, just to a lesser extent than they do without the DR.

Until the PvP DV shift code is released, "The Slot" is the perfect solution - it allows non nutters and junior players to have some PvP fun too... further, any disengagment rule should not apply in "The Slot" so as not to further discourage PvP for casual players.

Sounds like D2 of old - buy a flipper and avoid PvP at all costs. I'll pass.

The slot is a gimmick, something for added flavor. It doesn't fix any problems.

Edit: I had 100x as many PvP battles on the dynaverse before the disengagement rule came along. Since then PvP battles have been few and far between for me. I'd bet I'm not the only one.

I don't consider a CC blowing up a DF PvP. Even equal battles become meaningless when mission times are unequal. What incentive does a Z-CC have to stay in battle with an R-KRC? He can run missions in half the time or less.

I guess we just can't see each others' position at all. Its a good thing I resolved to add PvP DV shifts. I sure hope I have them working right... so get on The Forge and get testing!

Edit: I hope that we can at least agree that working PvP DV shifts will make the disengagment rule obsolete (regardless of whether it was really needed or not or if it was really a good thing for the dynaverse).

[FPF-Paladin]

DH, I realize that some ideas look better on paper than actually applied to a server.   That's where a civil discussion here on the forum can attempt to nail down what the majority of pilots would like to see.

This was the primary objective I had in mind at the beginning of this thread.

 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Edit: I hope that we can at least agree that working PvP DV shifts will make the disengagment rule obsolete (regardless of whether it was really needed or not or if it was really a good thing for the dynaverse).

I hope this will provide the solution, t00l isn't entirely wrong in his assesment in my opinion, but the cost of the disengagement rule outweighghed the benefits in my personal opinion.  Hopefully the DV shift change will balance it so all can be happy.  One thing I do believe is absolutely necessary with the DV shift change is the ability to reduce or nullify it if numbers are not equal.  3 pilots chasing off 1 and getting a big DV shift for doing so favors the gangbangers way too much, they should only get a 1 shift for such tactics.

[GDA-Agave]

I hope that we can at least agree that working PvP DV shifts will make the disengagment rule obsolete (regardless of whether it was really needed or not or if it was really a good thing for the dynaverse).

I am very excited about the DV shift you are talking about.  It very well could be the next jump in SFC evolution.   Very exciting.  Very exciting indeed.

I don't see that it would make all parts of the disengagement rule obselete, but it would certainly put a big dent in it.  Example, I would still like to see a no disengagement rule applied for ships caught in enemy territory.   I don't care how much of a DV shift you gave for that situation.   It would still warrant the same rule, IMHO.

Rock on there Bonk.

[762_XC]

I would like to see it tested on a production server with a flat shift of 5 DV's for a PvP victory. Personally I see nothing wrong with "gangbanging", which is just another name for concentration of firepower, one of the fundamental tenets of warfare. Reducing the shift to favor a solo flipper defeats the whole purpose of the exercise.

My greatest concern is how scripts will handle the shift. A lot of times we get drops and bugged missions which result in shifts going the wrong way. That could end up as a deal-breaker if it happens too often.

[FPF-DieHard]

Hmmm, let's warm things up . .. 

SHUTTLE BUG!!!!!

[Bonk]

I don't see that it would make all parts of the disengagement rule obselete, but it would certainly put a big dent in it.  Example, I would still like to see a no disengagement rule applied for ships caught in enemy territory.   I don't care how much of a DV shift you gave for that situation.   It would still warrant the same rule, IMHO.

When I say disengagement rule. I mean the one that bans you from re-entering a hex where you were destroyed or chased out by a larger ship.

No disengagement from mission when caught in enemy territory is fine with me, that is something entirely different. I think perhaps the "small ships banned from PvP" rule is poorly named as the "disengagment rule" as it leads to this kind of confusion.

I would like to see it tested on a production server with a flat shift of 5 DV's for a PvP victory. Personally I see nothing wrong with "gangbanging", which is just another name for concentration of firepower, one of the fundamental tenets of warfare. Reducing the shift to favor a solo flipper defeats the whole purpose of the exercise.

My greatest concern is how scripts will handle the shift. A lot of times we get drops and bugged missions which result in shifts going the wrong way. That could end up as a deal-breaker if it happens too often.

If it is being tested, it is by definition not a production server. So get on the The Forge and test it dammit! Or attend the next MySQL test. (I'll be posting a schedule for next month shortly) I will not see it released to a "production server" prematurely only to fail and just perpetuate the "disengagement rule" to preserve the free reign of nutters in big ships.

I have tested it to my satisfaction in 1vs1s but my connection is too slow to test 2v2s and up.

We need to use stable missions and people need to understand that they cannot expect stable dynaverse missions as long as they insist on using software firewalls...

What I want is a yes or no. If people think that the disengagment rule is still necessary even with working PvP DV shifts, then I might as well stop working on it and put my efforts elsewhere. (and take some horse tranquilisers to allay the ensuing rage that is sure to follow...)



edit: I've reminded myself that I'd like to see a "no software firewalls rule" for dynaverse servers; punishment for use - [something more horrible and twisted than I can think of offhand...]   Hmmm ,I wonder if I can write an IRC bot to detect software firewalls and broadcast warning messages on general chat... that might deter some and would vertainly help in mission stability testing, if we knew out front who is running a software firewall and who is not... would also allow for avoiding fireewalled players... I'd say such a rule could allow for a legal ALT-F4 if a firewalled player ends up in mission with you...

[762_XC]

My hope is that it will not be necessary. If it works as advertised then I can't see a reason RIGHT NOW why we would need to keep the DR.

How much of a PvP shift is needed remains to be seen. My gut feeling is 5 would work, but until we have it on a full blown server we won't know for sure. I'm sure there will be contention on this point as always.

I will make it a point to get on the Forge and check it out, but a small test server is not going to tell us the whole story like a production campaign will.

[Bonk]

I will make it a point to get on the Forge and check it out, but a small test server is not going to tell us the whole story like a production campaign will.

Cool, and agreed, but we need to make sure it works period first, then work out the finer points. The amount of the shift is gf configurable so server admins can set it to suit the conditions of the particular server.

[KBF-Crim]

I always thought that destroying the enemy's ship was an effect. Especially if he has little PP (non nutter).

It doesn't. Hex flippers use small cheap ships and have tons of PP.

I just don't like relegating those in small ships to running AI missions behind the lines

It doesn't. Even with the DR there are many ways a hex flipper can work the front lines.

1) Run under your opponent
2) Have a PvP group clear the hex for you (this was Fluf's original intent with the rule)
3) Work one of the many front line hexes where your opponent is not

This assumes there is active opposition on the line, while there often is not. Even when the flipper does get caught, he just goes to work another hex.

it takes all the fun out of playing on the dynaverse - might as well play singleplayer - in fact I have logged off disengagement rule servers to play singleplayer a number of times -

Exactly how PvP players feel when flippers run 3 or 4 missions to their every one, and there's nothing they can do to stop it.

its just too exclusionary, favors nutters and senior players who are assigned large ships, sort of makes them the only ones worthy of PvP.

It only "favors" them by giving them something to do besides selling off the big ship for a droner. Flippers still rule the map, just to a lesser extent than they do without the DR.

Until the PvP DV shift code is released, "The Slot" is the perfect solution - it allows non nutters and junior players to have some PvP fun too... further, any disengagment rule should not apply in "The Slot" so as not to further discourage PvP for casual players.

Sounds like D2 of old - buy a flipper and avoid PvP at all costs. I'll pass.

The slot is a gimmick, something for added flavor. It doesn't fix any problems.

Edit: I had 100x as many PvP battles on the dynaverse before the disengagement rule came along. Since then PvP battles have been few and far between for me. I'd bet I'm not the only one.

I don't consider a CC blowing up a DF PvP. Even equal battles become meaningless when mission times are unequal. What incentive does a Z-CC have to stay in battle with an R-KRC? He can run missions in half the time or less.

I guess we just can't see each others' position at all. Its a good thing I resolved to add PvP DV shifts. I sure hope I have them working right... so get on The Forge and get testing!

Edit: I hope that we can at least agree that working PvP DV shifts will make the disengagment rule obsolete (regardless of whether it was really needed or not or if it was really a good thing for the dynaverse).

No Bonk ..it wont...at least not in my opinion..

What I predict it will do though....is make "gang bangs" even more attractive...and making reinforcement of your own space near, or on the front ,without a wingman a practical suicide mission...

Two peeps can simply wait for a solo player to show up...and get an instant 5 (or 3) dv shift (assuming they have at least two decent ships roughly two or less classes below the defender)...

This will also make flying a small ship quite un attractive...even in your own space...

Believe it or not...some people dont like PvP...and shouldnt be forced to a substandard under those who do ....

Lets use a common senario eh?

One defender...heavy cruiser...

5 attackers...frigates and destroyers....

Under the previous rule:...aka no rule...

Any attacker caught in a mision would simply run off the screen...or at the most...attempt to tie up the defender as long as possible with PvP...while the other 4 all ran solo missions.....

If the attacker ran off...they would simply rejoin the rotation and repeat...

If the Attacker was destroyed in PvP...he would simply get another cheap ship and rejoin the rotation...

It was simply impossible to be a member of an underpopulated race (or be on when no one else was) and still be able to defend territory...

Under the disengagment rule:

Same senario...

Any attacker the defender catches solo...will most likely be run off or destroyed.....one less attacker for a set time period...rinse repeat...

Or...the attackers are forced to wing up....cutting the attacking force in two ....thus doubling the cumulative mission times required to run down the DV...

Or....the attackers are forced to bring in some heavy iron to gain space superiority by running the defender off before the hex team can flip it...

ANY of these three results can slow the advance...or even stop it altogether...

With PvP DV shift but no disengagment rule:

The penalty becomes the defenders....if you get caught without a big iron wing....or outclassed....even if you disengage...you are giving up a multiple DV shift...

Now...since many casual players fly solo..or at odd times...and with smaller ships on average due to a lack of PP....these players would be out of their minds to risk getting caught on the front.....or even respond to a deep striker...

A co-ordinated attack force can simply chase thier way into your space.....there will be no effective way for a solo player to counter such an attack...or even risk re-enforcment of weak front line hexes...

I'm willing to try it out...but I think the law of untended consequences will rear it's ugly head...

[Bonk]

Well there goes my motivation for the PvP DV shift code. Consider it scrapped.

Clearly heavy iron players are intent on excluding casual players from PvP, and will cling to the disengagement rule at all costs.

I hate BB fests. 

I guess I'll just continue my trend of working on servers and skip actually playing the game.

[KBF-Crim]

Well there goes my motivation for the PvP DV shift code. Consider it scrapped.

Clearly heavy iron players are intent on excluding casual players from PvP, and will cling to the disengagement rule at all costs.

I hate BB fests. 

I guess I'll just continue my trend of working on servers and skip actually playing the game.

A slight over reaction me thinks?

I havent flown a BB on ANY server....they are never in the list....

I AM A CASUAL PLAYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ask anyone.....seriously...

I'm most often in a CL....sometimes a carrier...and it's pretty damn rare I pilot a BCH...

If you read what Posted carefully...you'd see my concerns ARE for the casual players and the small ship captains....

My concerns are also weighted to the defenders...over the attackers....

The worst case senario for the attackers is the hex remains at full DV....and they have to rally, or wait for the defender to log off...

The worst case senario for the defenders is that it flips in 2 missions rather than 10....and they loose gobs of space trying to defend it...

Not very much incentive to engage in PvP for the purposes of defense...again...in my OPINION...

I'm not trying to pee of your work, or somehow get you to stop, ruin your motivation...or advocate BB fests...

I thought this was a discussion....and I was bringing up what I thought to be a valid concern...

I'm also NOT against a multiple DV shift for PvP.....but a shift alone...with no DER ....places all the risk on the defender...and very little on the attacker...

Again....I'm willing to give it a go....but I also see an obvious strategy to deal out some very efficient attacks...

[Nemesis]

Until the PvP DV shift code is released, "The Slot" is the perfect solution - it allows non nutters and junior players to have some PvP fun too... further, any disengagment rule should not apply in "The Slot" so as not to further discourage PvP for casual players.

Sounds like D2 of old - buy a flipper and avoid PvP at all costs. I'll pass.

The slot is a gimmick, something for added flavor. It doesn't fix any problems.

I have to disagree with you. 

Not everyone likes to play large ships.  Myself I prefer cruisers and smaller.  The slot "gimmick" as you call it gives a way for those who don't wish to play with the big iron the ability to get on the server and have PVP against similar sized opponents.  It becomes annoying when you spend time in an area only to lose your ship and be driven out because someone shows up in a Battleship from which you are not allowed to disengage and can't properly oppose.

[762_XC]

I never said there was anything wrong with the Slot, just that it's not going to solve the PvP vs flip dilemma.

[KBF-Crim]

Well..I love the slot...

I want PF floatillas allowed there too

Well...there are no rules in warfare.....kill the mostest, fastest, and take the least casualties...

And I fully appreciate the effort to get the server to make rule enforcement a part of the game mechanics...

BUT....in the effort to concentrate on PvP....we've thrown some of the things that were suppossed to balance out opposing forces...

AI generation for wingmen...for one...

The clamor for longer mission times arose.....evil Dave answered the call.....then we chuck his missions because others complain they are too hard...

The bidding system was suppossed to inflate ship prices on overly populated races...people simply aggreed not to outbid each other...

I'm really not opposed to a PvP DV shift....I'm just saying I dont think it will be the magic photon....er...bullet...

One Idea I floated a long time ago...but never got any real responce over...

Was to raise or lower an empires BPV on their entire fleet in relation to the "active" population....

Under populated empires would see cheaper ships and easier AI opponents and bigger AI wingmen...

Over populated empires would see inflated prices...harder AI....and smaller AI wingmen...

This would probably require a manual edit....

But couldnt an SQL server do this by taking a look at the player list and assets on the gameboard?

[762_XC]

Well...there are no rules in warfare

No, but this is not warfare. It's a computer game which tries to simulate it in an entertaining manner.

[KBF-Crim]

Well...there are no rules in warfare

No, but this is not warfare. It's a computer game which tries to simulate it in an entertaining manner.

Uh....that was kinda my point....

[FPF-DieHard]

A bigger ship will always have an advantage in PvP, that like saying something as profound as "the sun rises in the east."

What is the whole point of the DR and/or multipole DV shifts?  It is for PvP to have some effect on controlling the map, without SOMETHING there is no reasoin to fly anything other than flippers.

Bonk, when was the last BB-fest we've had?  Most servers have limited big ships to only a few, largest ship availble with no restrictions has been a CCH/CVS for years, your argument does not hold water.  the last few servers have allowed for about 2 DNs on at anytime (maybe it was 3 on the last SGO), thats 2 hexes max where you can encounter a DN and be forced off.  They also have not been allowed to fleet toghter for 6 months or more.

I don't see where you get this concept off BB-fest, it's simply not true and it doesn't help your arguement by stating something false

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

If the DV shift bonus could be amended to only applying to even numbered fights or figths in which the victor was outnumbered, I think many of the objections Crim raised (+1 for you Crim well thought out) , would be addressed.  If this can't be done I share Crim's fears.

[Bonk]

I could do that (if I agreeed with that analysis), but clearly some players take too much pleasure in excluding others from the action and will cling to the disengagement rule regardless. Its not worth the effort. I am removing the code from The Forge and UAW servers today - it will not be in the next SQL test either, there is no sense in doing it. I can see that the disengagement rule is here to stay no matter what. 

Many think that the disengagement rule has saved the dynaverse; I'm convinced its slowly killing it.

The BB fest comment was not so much to imply that we have had a lot of them recently, but that with the disengagement rule it would be the only way for everyone to be able to enjoy plenty of PvP battles.


Edit: The fact is that all we are mandated to do with the serverkit code is stabilise it running on MySQL. The PvP DV shift code was not technically allowed, so for this reason I will stick strictly to our mandate. There willl be another round of testing coming up. It will still be fun to work on stabilising the kit on MySQL. 

[Julin Eurthyr]

Bonk:

I, for one, would love to see your DV shift system implemented.  As do many others...

The thing a lot of us who want this are worried about is the following (short & sweet version):

Julin, solo player.  Tries to work front.  I-CC gets ganked by 3xCB.  Julin loses 3-5 DV.  Julin tries again.  Ganked by same 3xCB.  5 more DV gone.  Julin runs away frustrated that his single ship can't fight on the front and no other froggies are online (or his kids are, once again, keeping him off TS for "proper coordination").  Julin logs off for night.

What we'd like to see:
Julin, solo player.  Ganked by 3xCB.  Julin only loses 1 DV due to "severe numbers issue".  Julin tries again.  Gets CCZ vs. DNL.  Long fight ensues, proper (3-5) DV shift applied.  Next strike in hex is CCZ vs. SDF.  Again, Julin gets big DV shift when SDF pilot wisely flees in terror from the "little" ISC CA-hull...

[Bonk]

Bonk:

I, for one, would love to see your DV shift system implemented.  As do many others...

The thing a lot of us who want this are worried about is the following (short & sweet version):

Julin, solo player.  Tries to work front.  I-CC gets ganked by 3xCB.  Julin loses 3-5 DV.  Julin tries again.  Ganked by same 3xCB.  5 more DV gone.  Julin runs away frustrated that his single ship can't fight on the front and no other froggies are online (or his kids are, once again, keeping him off TS for "proper coordination").  Julin logs off for night.

What we'd like to see:
Julin, solo player.  Ganked by 3xCB.  Julin only loses 1 DV due to "severe numbers issue".  Julin tries again.  Gets CCZ vs. DNL.  Long fight ensues, proper (3-5) DV shift applied.  Next strike in hex is CCZ vs. SDF.  Again, Julin gets big DV shift when SDF pilot wisely flees in terror from the "little" ISC CA-hull...

This makes perfect sense, however, this part:

Julin, solo player.  Ganked by 3xCB.  Julin only loses 1 DV due to "severe numbers issue".  Julin tries again.

Will make people want to keep the disengagment rule to make sure you're not allowed to try again... back to square one. The bottom line is that players who fly big ships want to exclude those in small ships from PvP and all the fun action on the front.

I'm going to focus my next mod on the singleplayer game, it has not received enough attention. I think a singleplayer mod using my gf settings would do wonders for the singleplayer game performance. I'm thinking a good set of gfs and an automated db cleaning setup would be a real boon.


Edit: - note that the originator of the disengagement rule (a consistent CVA pilot ) no longer plays the game... 
Also, Socky and Gow never had a problem with towing me off the map repeatedly until I happened to hit a fair matchup instead of drafting one of them in their BBs... (in fact I think they took perverse pleasure in it  ) disengagment rule comes along... no more Socky or Gow.... 

[GDA-Agave]

Bonk,

Please don't scrap your efforts on the PvP multiple DV shift.   I think it will be a very wonderful add-on to any SFC server.

That being said.   Any new feature or idea that has been added to a SFC server has always had to be tweaked, at least a little, to cover the loop-holes.   As with any game the players will find strategies to circumvent or manipulate the rules to their advantage.  It's the natural evolution of gaming.   The inventiveness of players vs admin rules created to provide fairness.   Crim has a very valid point. ( )  If the multi-DV shift is to replace the disengagement rule then we would still want it to promote the same features of fairness and balance.   Hence, it will be tweaked.   Hell, I think the disengagement rule still needs to be tweaked.   It could provide a much better balance than it does now.

I have always found it very amusing that our community has made the crux of the disengagement rule the effect it has on PvP.  Unless I'm just remembering wrong, the whole reason for the rule was to give the races with smaller pilot fleets a better chance to compete (whether defensively or offensively) with the other more piloted races.   That way those races would still have pilots flying those ships instead of migrating to the Feds or Klingons to feel like they have a chance to compete.   Sure, we might be allied to one of those races but when your homespace is attacked your allies don't always react as quickly as you might like.   This is not a knock against any group, just the truth of what happens at times.

In my opinion, people who love PvP will always find a way to get PvP.   We've seen rules implenmented like bounties and challenges that are used to help support and increase PvP for those who focus on that.   I certainly see that the disengagement rule has effects upon PvP.   It's most dramatic effect is upon the casual pilot who only had an hour or two to play per session.   It sucks to think that you might only have one or two opportunities to hit a particular hex while you're playing. (assuming you get run-off)   I've been in that postion many times.

All I ask is that we don't forget why the disengagement rule was first implemented.   It wasn't PvP.   But I can sure as hell promise you that PvP will ultimately be the death of that rule though.   Bonk's new multi-DV shift will be one more step in the right direction.  Does it mean that it will replace the disengagement rule?   Maybe, or maybe not.   Does it really matter if it make our beloved SFC game better in the long run.   Think about it.

LONG LIVE THE SFC!!   I LOVE THIS GAME!!

[Julin Eurthyr]

This makes perfect sense, however, this part:

Julin, solo player.  Ganked by 3xCB.  Julin only loses 1 DV due to "severe numbers issue".  Julin tries again.

Will make people want to keep the disengagment rule to make sure you're not allowed to try again... back to square one. The bottom line is that players who fly big ships want to exclude those in small ships from PvP and all the fun action on the front.

While "real war" revolves around the tenet of "bring the biggest, baddest force" to a location, a game revolves around balance.  In real life, the costs are real, and often times the outnumbered side doesn't have a choice to being there.  For a game, the outnumbered player has an option, not play.  We all know how unbalanced servers wind up...

Therefore, when I write a proposal, I attempt to balance both sides of a situation.  In this case, I'm trying to balance the desires of the group-lovers and the desires of the solo player.

First off, I'll admit, I'm selfish.  I would love to have this PvP DV shift code with anti-ganking provisions for my eventual "Genesis War" server.  The code wipes out the need for the disengagement rule (and extra paperwork), while the anti-gank provision helps encourage 1 on 1's.

As a long out-of practice programmer, I'll ask this:  Can the anti-gank PvP code be set up like this:

If "sides are equal" then DV shift = big
If "sides are unequal then
   If "BPVs are within 50% of each other" then shift = big
else shift = smaller

where both the big and smaller DV shifts are stored in a GF file (so we could have the "big" DV shift at, say, 5, while the "smaller" shift could be, say, 2, leaving the anti-AI missions at a shift of 1.

This setup would encourage equal PvP fights, while "throwing a bone" to the "biggest, baddest force" lovers.  This means, say, a 3xFF vs. 1xI-CCZ fight is "equal", while 3xCCH vs. 1xBCH is a "ganking".  The gankers do get a little extra benefit to having flown together, though it would have been more "efficient" and balanced (important in a game only) to have sent 2x CCH against the BCH (still outnumbers it, but allows the BCH pilot a chance to win with sufficient skill) and had the third CCH running solo or with another team.  Meanwhile, if 6x CVAs wish to mix it up, they can for full benefit in-server.

[762_XC]

Bonk, please listen to me for a second.

You are either going to have gangbanging or you are going to give hex flippers a free ride and make PvP worthless. The mechanism which prevents one enables the other.

Gangbanging can be easily prevented by flying with a wingman (or two). Get some heavy metal if you need to. If that's not your thang, disengage and work somewhere else. If you have never tried to hunt down a solo flipper with a posse, IT'S NOT EASY. Chuut knows what I am talking about. He will go where you are not, then wait til you're in mission and run under you. Gangbanging is NOT an efficient way to control the map - the only thing it is useful for is controlling a single hex.

If you think it's frustrating getting gangbanged, you should see how it is for the three guys who can't find you and know you're snickering while you make them waste their time.

The flipper issue has been with us since day one of D2. Ask plasma players how much fun D2 was before the DR came along. The DR was never a PERFECT solution but it was the only thing that kept a lot of PvP-interested players around for this long. Without it I honestly would have quit long ago, and I know I am not alone. Hex flipping becomes boring very quickly.

So, it's one or the other. Personally I think the gangbang issue is minor in comparison and much more easily dealt with.

If you're serious about getting rid of the need for the DR, keep working on multiple DV's. I'll help you.

[Bonk]

"Gangbanging" does not bother me in the least. I'll keep coming back till I get a fair fight or am beaten down to a freighter. I just want to be allowed to work on the front regardless of whether I'm winning or losing.

Currently I just cannot envision a situation where senior players will not find some excuse to exclude casual players from the fun of joining the action on the front, thus PvP DV shifts are postponed indefinitely. Especially considering that they're not in our mandate for the serverkit, officially all we're really allowed to change is stuff affecting stablity on MySQL, that is all. So I think its just best to forget it and be resigned to the persistence of the disengagment rule and an elitist attitude on who is allowed to participate in PvP battles on the Dynaverse.

I have always found it very amusing that our community has made the crux of the disengagement rule the effect it has on PvP.  Unless I'm just remembering wrong, the whole reason for the rule was to give the races with smaller pilot fleets a better chance to compete (whether defensively or offensively) with the other more piloted races.   That way those races would still have pilots flying those ships instead of migrating to the Feds or Klingons to feel like they have a chance to compete.

That may have been its intention, which it does not achieve at all (in fact the exact opposite), but the end result of it is eliminating casual players from PvP, thus the focus on its PvP implications.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Before I begin, let me say that it is impossible to encourage gang-banging more than it already is.  Unless strictly forbidden by a player-side rule, gangbanging will always be the best way to maximize firepower in a hex.

Now on to why the DV shift is a desperately needed option.  Consider this next section to be written by Herr Burt, the D2 admin.   

This makes perfect sense, however, this part:

Julin, solo player.  Ganked by 3xCB.  Julin only loses 1 DV due to "severe numbers issue".  Julin tries again.

Will make people want to keep the disengagment rule to make sure you're not allowed to try again... back to square one. The bottom line is that players who fly big ships want to exclude those in small ships from PvP and all the fun action on the front.

[gangbangs get 1 DV shift equal numbers get 5],

Feh.   That wouldn't be my response with the modified DV shift in effect.  I'd send in one ship to kill Julin and get 5 shifts while the other two run missions under him to get two more.  Julin is welcome -- nay, encouraged --to stay at the front and engage in PvP for as long as he wants.

If I were Julin, on the other hand, I'd look at my situation thusly:  I am one pilot, and if I keep going up against three ships I risk  handing over my empire 7 times as fast as if I did nothing.  Therefor I will either:
1)Try to watch the map and catch one of the attackers when isolated (defending my empire at 5 times effect)
2)Go get help
3)Go fight in another hex.

Note that option 1 is a direct counter to my preferred attacker strategy, and the result depends upon who wins the PvP.  In other words, PvP has an effect on who controls the board!

Item 3, (the disengagement rule) is still there, but it is *voluntary* at this point.  I could choose it or not after weighing the risks, but this is my choice and not some long list of hexs that I have to remember when I can and can't go into.

This is the best situation for the dyna and what I've always tried to encourage:  server side rules that make players live with the consequences of their choices rather than player side rules that force your choices, force you to memorize things, and cause arguements.

Bonk:  Before you decide that your DV rule will never replace the disengagement rule on a server, you should talk to server admins.   See if they are willing to give it a go.  I think that if you build it, the server will come.   

-S'Cipio

[762_XC]

Currently I just cannot envision a situation where senior players will not find some excuse to exclude casual players from the fun of joining the action on the front,

Dude, come on. Do you really think l33t players are going to tell n00bs to stay off the front? You might get one asshat who says something, then he will be promptly smacked down by the other l33t players for being a dork. Have some faith bro. Sportsmanship is not entirely dead.

Both sides will have a mixture of n00bs and veterans. It balances out in the end.

Besides, most of the map will still be controlled by Chuut and Soreyes when everyone else is sleeping. 

[IAF Lyrkiller]

Currently I just cannot envision a situation where senior players will not find some excuse to exclude casual players from the fun of joining the action on the front,

Dude, come on. Do you really think l33t players are going to tell n00bs to stay off the front? You might get one asshat who says something, then he will be promptly smacked down by the other l33t players for being a dork. Have some faith bro. Sportsmanship is not entirely dead.

Both sides will have a mixture of n00bs and veterans. It balances out in the end.

Besides, most of the map will still be controlled by Chuut and Soreyes when everyone else is sleeping. 

And dont forget this other KAT.

[FPF-DieHard]

Will make people want to keep the disengagment rule to make sure you're not allowed to try again... back to square one. The bottom line is that players who fly big ships want to exclude those in small ships from PvP and all the fun action on the front.

That is nonsense, it is to prevent the solo DF from over-running everything.   The DR gives PvP the ability to defend space, with no DR or Multiple shifts for PvP there is not reason to fly anything other than the best avalable flipper EVER.

Guess what ship I spent the most time in on SGO5?  A Z-DWD.  Why?  Because most of the time I was so badly outnumbered that I had to do whatever I could to be annoying and cut supply lines.  I knew in a Z-DWD I could do strategicly what I could not is a Capital ship, even with the DR I didn't care.  I could get blown up and hit one of the other 10 important hexes for 30 minutes and come back.

[FPF-DieHard]

Julin, solo player.  Tries to work front.  I-CC gets ganked by 3xCB.  Julin loses 3-5 DV.  Julin tries again.  Ganked by same 3xCB.  5 more DV gone.  Julin runs away frustrated that his single ship can't fight on the front and no other froggies are online (or his kids are, once again, keeping him off TS for "proper coordination").  Julin logs off for night.

If you keep sticking you schween in a toaster, don't be surprised if you get an electric shock. 

If you get chased out of a hex because a cariers battlegroup is sitting in there, don't come back without help.

[762_XC]

Remind me never to borrow your toaster.

[KBFLordKrueg]

Currently I just cannot envision a situation where senior players will not find some excuse to exclude casual players from the fun of joining the action on the front,

Dude, come on. Do you really think l33t players are going to tell n00bs to stay off the front? You might get one asshat who says something, then he will be promptly smacked down by the other l33t players for being a dork. Have some faith bro. Sportsmanship is not entirely dead.

Both sides will have a mixture of n00bs and veterans. It balances out in the end.

Besides, most of the map will still be controlled by Chuut and Soreyes when everyone else is sleeping. 

I usually have the opposite problem...
I order n00bs to the front, and get "But, I can't PvP, are you crazy?" 
I figure the first thing you have to do is learn what NOT to do...
Besides, how will n00bs ever learn until they try...? 
Everyone has to start somewhere. 

[Riskyllama]

I usually have the opposite problem...
I order n00bs to the front, and get "But, I can't PvP, are you crazy?"
I figure the first thing you have to do is learn what NOT to do...
Besides, how will n00bs ever learn until they try...?
Everyone has to start somewhere.

Heck on AOTK2, anytime I was going near the front, and I wanted one, I had myself a wing.
Good commanders will look after their new guys, make sure they get integrated, etc..

[GDA-Agave]

I usually have the opposite problem...
I order n00bs to the front, and get "But, I can't PvP, are you crazy?"
I figure the first thing you have to do is learn what NOT to do...
Besides, how will n00bs ever learn until they try...?
Everyone has to start somewhere.

Heck on AOTK2, anytime I was going near the front, and I wanted one, I had myself a wing.
Good commanders will look after their new guys, make sure they get integrated, etc..

Exactly.

I've escorted more than a few newer players up and around the battlelines.   You'd be surprised what you can learn from the new guys if you give them the lead and just fly cover for them.    New tactical ideas just happen sometimes.

Most newer players are encouraged to get their feet wet as soon as they are ready.   I think our community has done a much better job of welcoming in new players and helping them understand the differences of live PvP versus Gamespy or singleplayer mode.

 

[762_XC]

What Risky and Cuervo breath said. I'm more than happy to give n00bs whatever PvP training I can. I consider it a long term investment in the community.

Best place to do that is on the front lines.

[Riskyllama]

i was gonna put this up above but didn't. If rookies aren't having as much fun as vets, something is wrong. Yeah vets might win more than a rookie(noob means something else where I come from), but he should be getting the same enjoyment of flying exciting battles, making an impact, and stuff.

I dont think many people really realized there wans't the rule on KCW. I found myself following it unconsciously a lot of the time. On KCW after the much complained about rules change, there really wasn't a point to flying in  numbers, because you could go right back in if run out, and you wouldn't loose points if forced out alone. For the elite PvP pilots, beating up on everyone else should have been child's play and if more had showed up, this outcome possibly would have occured. This seems to me to be pretty stupid.

Honestly, I can see both the good and bad of a disengagement rule. Yes, smaller ships will get ganked. Yes a droner can move somewhere else. But it does at least force a drone flipper to consider whether or not they jump into a hex, especially if its an important one.

Perhaps "specialty ships" like the much loved, much hated droner could have the disengagement rule applied to just them. That way, when they are caught without a normal CnC wing and forced to disengage it would have an effect. It would be one step closer to SFB CnC, since if a droner were caught away from the "fleet" it would probably attempt to "disengage" anyways.

[762_XC]

Perhaps "specialty ships" like the much loved, much hated droner could have the disengagement rule applied to just them. That way, when they are caught without a normal CnC wing and forced to disengage it would have an effect. It would be one step closer to SFB CnC, since if a droner were caught away from the "fleet" it would probably attempt to "disengage" anyways.

This would be a great idea if all flippers were specialty ships. The reality is there are many line ships which do just as well - maybe not DF well, but well nonetheless.

[KBF-Crim]

Ohhh....ooh.... ooh... ohh

*does horshack impression*

 what if you took another one of Firesouls columbs in the ship list..designate different ship types , line, command, droner etc..assign a numarical value based on rarity and class....find the sum of attacker(rarity+class) Vs defender (rarity+class)...and crossed referenced the DV shift vs ship type?

A droner attcking a droner would only gain a shift of 1 (5-5=0) if sum +0 no modifer...shift of one...

A droner attcking a line ship would only gain a dv shift of 1 (5-1 =4 ) sum =>0  no modifier/ higher number is attacker/ shift of 1

But a line ship attcking a droner would gain a multiple DV shift...(1-5= -4)  sum <0 apply modifer / apply sum as modifier / lower ship is attacker / shift of 5 upon mission success

This is only off the top of my head for an example....I'm sure someone would have to decide on the proper numerical value for each ship and class...

Unless we can get the damn server to see each players BPV and modify DV shift based on that...

An SQL server could do this ..yes?

[FPF-DieHard]

I'm more than happy to give n00bs whatever PvP training I can.

Oh God, maybe we're better off telling them not to fly 

Best place to do that is on the front lines.

I could not disagree more, the basics at least need to be learned off line in IP or GSA games.

[Dfly]

I like the idea that Risky brought up about having HexFlipping ships classed as needing a DR while line ships and others dont need it.

I also believe that rookies who feel ready to try the front line be incouraged to do so, with vet wings.  Those rookies that dont feel ready should not be pushed to the front line.  Anyone who does not want to be there should have that right, and by the same token anyone who does want to be there should have that right.  Most times it works this way, but not always.

The best way to learn what the front line PvP is all about is to get your feet wet.  If they find it is too early for themselves after the first or 12th battle, then they can simply say they are stepping away from the front line for a while in order to gain more experience flying first.

I am in no way saying that practice sessions are to be avoided, because I love them too.  I just wish more of the rookies would be willing to get in on some of them.  When they happen we usually see 5 to 10 vets ready and only 1 rookie if we are lucky.  The practice sessions do simulate front line events, but again it is a simulation.  Get the practice, and the dyna PvP will be more comfortable the first few times.

[Dfly]

Also, Bonk, don't give up on the shift thing yet please.  I too would love to see it on a few servers so it can get either tweeked to what we as a whole are looking for, or dropped at that time if it does not work(but I doubt the last part).

[762_XC]

Best place to do that is on the front lines.

I could not disagree more, the basics at least need to be learned off line in IP or GSA games.

Of course they do - but they will learn things on the front that they will learn nowhere else. I didn't mean they should START there.

I'm more than happy to give n00bs whatever PvP training I can.

Oh God, maybe we're better off telling them not to fly 

I didn't say I would teach them Klingon.

[CaptJosh]

Bonk, don't you dare quit on this multiple DV shift deal. I have wanted this since I started playing SFC. It only makes sense. And that disengagement rule as it currently stands is at best a somewhat effective, but ugly ugly kludge. (Please note that as the grandson of two Hughes Aircraft engineers, engineers who worked there when it was all still run by "Uncle Howard,"  kludge is the ultimate downcheck on something.)

We need something that works better. This will. And as for the disengagement rule, well, that's up to the server admins, not the players.

[Riskyllama]

Perhaps "specialty ships" like the much loved, much hated droner could have the disengagement rule applied to just them. That way, when they are caught without a normal CnC wing and forced to disengage it would have an effect. It would be one step closer to SFB CnC, since if a droner were caught away from the "fleet" it would probably attempt to "disengage" anyways.

This would be a great idea if all flippers were specialty ships. The reality is there are many line ships which do just as well - maybe not DF well, but well nonetheless.

        Right, but the hex flippers that truely excel are mainly specialty ships, right?

        It might cause people to start using more line ships( I know, laugh with me here), which would mean that casual players might just see 5 people in M-MCCs that stick around and fight (more fun than...)and just 5 in M-DFs that run. This would be instead of the present situation of 10 guys in M-DFs that bug out when outgunned (when is a DF not outgunned? Tobin and Chuut can't anwser this.) and then switch into their battleships that they got the ability to buy after a single night of nuttering AI..

[GDA-S'Cipio]

While the DV shift adjustment is definitely an idea worth getting excited about  (Come on, Bonk, get excited again!) I think the DV shift ideas are getting too complicated for this point in time.

First, let's just hope we can get a server with different shifts for PvAI and PvP and find out if we can live without the disengagement rule.   Then perhaps we can bribe the programmer into some tweaks if we find they are truly needed.

-S'Cipio the Sssssslow

[762_XC]

Risky. my point is there is often no clear delineation between what is a PvP ship and what is a flipper. There are line ships that make awesome flippers (Z-DD, H-HR), and there are specialty ships that make awesome PvP boats (K-FDW, F-CF, F-NCV), and there are ships that do both well (Z-HDW1).

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Just a side comment:

There is nothing that a hexflipper loves to see more than gangbang tactics, they play directly into the hexflipper's hand.  Rather than having to worry about 3 enemies to avoid (if he is seeking to avoid them) he merely has to contend with one group.  The idea of gangbanging as a defense vs hex-flipping is silly.  Now what gangbanging does do is to drive off single pilots who are looking to fight from a hex.

As far as the disengagement rule and hex flipping, it usually is no deterent and rarely has any rel effect on this at all with the exception of particularly important hexes VC hexes, planets, bases, etc.  90% of the time an equally relevant target can be found elsewhere.  This is hy I think multiple DV shifts or not the DR needs to be eliminated in open space but extended to apply to all hexes surrounding a base or planet s if they all were a single hex.  This is contigent on how large the map is and wouldn't work on a small map.

[Bonk]

OK, I'm over my anti disengagement rule hissy fit. (apologies) The current PvP DV shift code is back in place on The Forge and UAW servers for testing and will be present in this Sunday's MySQL debug test.

Since it is configurable it will be an option available for server admins to use at their discretion. (as long as it checks out OK in testing and does not introduce additional bugs into the serverkit). If it works out OK it does represent a positive step in the right direction, its too good a feature to give up on.

[GDA-Agave]

OK, I'm over my anti disengagement rule hissy fit. (apologies) The current PvP DV shift code is back in place on The Forge and UAW servers for testing and will be present in this Sunday's MySQL debug test.

Since it is configurable it will be an option available for server admins to use at their discretion. (as long as it checks out OK in testing and does not introduce additional bugs into the serverkit). If it works out OK it does represent a positive step in the right direction, its too good a feature to give up on.

Amen, brother.

Thanks for all your effort.   It is very much appreciated.

 

[762_XC]

OK, I'm over my anti disengagement rule hissy fit. (apologies) The current PvP DV shift code is back in place on The Forge and UAW servers for testing and will be present in this Sunday's MySQL debug test.

Since it is configurable it will be an option available for server admins to use at their discretion. (as long as it checks out OK in testing and does not introduce additional bugs into the serverkit). If it works out OK it does represent a positive step in the right direction, its too good a feature to give up on.

 

[Julin Eurthyr]

OK, I'm over my anti disengagement rule hissy fit. (apologies) The current PvP DV shift code is back in place on The Forge and UAW servers for testing and will be present in this Sunday's MySQL debug test.

Since it is configurable it will be an option available for server admins to use at their discretion. (as long as it checks out OK in testing and does not introduce additional bugs into the serverkit). If it works out OK it does represent a positive step in the right direction, its too good a feature to give up on.

Do this    for all the hard work put into this...

Now, is this SQL test on Sunday going to be earlier or later...

[FPF-Paladin]

OK, I'm over my anti disengagement rule hissy fit. (apologies) The current PvP DV shift code is back in place on The Forge and UAW servers for testing and will be present in this Sunday's MySQL debug test.

Since it is configurable it will be an option available for server admins to use at their discretion. (as long as it checks out OK in testing and does not introduce additional bugs into the serverkit). If it works out OK it does represent a positive step in the right direction, its too good a feature to give up on.

I wouldn't be quick to call something you feel passionately about a hissy fit...

... but I'm glad you've reconsidered nonetheless!  I can't wait to see how the creative minds here incorporate this.  Hell, I hope I get a crack at it myself.

 

*slinks back to his Evil Lair(tm)*

... we'll build the lair on a small island with nothing on it but a mountain shaped like a skull.  No one will ever think to look there, right?  Right..?