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

[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!!!!!