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.