Topic: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns  (Read 15516 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Bonk

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13298
  • You don't have to live like a refugee.
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #40 on: February 27, 2006, 05:54:18 pm »
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...
« Last Edit: February 27, 2006, 06:08:07 pm by Bonk »

762_XC

  • Guest
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #41 on: February 27, 2006, 05:59:11 pm »
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.

Offline Bonk

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13298
  • You don't have to live like a refugee.
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #42 on: February 27, 2006, 06:10:40 pm »
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.

Offline KBF-Crim

  • 1st Deacon ,Church of Taldren
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12271
  • Gender: Male
  • Crim,son of Rus'l
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #43 on: February 27, 2006, 06:28:15 pm »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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... ;)


Offline Bonk

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13298
  • You don't have to live like a refugee.
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #44 on: February 27, 2006, 06:32:11 pm »
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.

Offline KBF-Crim

  • 1st Deacon ,Church of Taldren
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12271
  • Gender: Male
  • Crim,son of Rus'l
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #45 on: February 27, 2006, 06:55:09 pm »
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...

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13066
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #46 on: February 27, 2006, 07:17:47 pm »
Quote
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.
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

762_XC

  • Guest
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #47 on: February 27, 2006, 07:46:05 pm »
I never said there was anything wrong with the Slot, just that it's not going to solve the PvP vs flip dilemma.

Offline KBF-Crim

  • 1st Deacon ,Church of Taldren
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12271
  • Gender: Male
  • Crim,son of Rus'l
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #48 on: February 27, 2006, 08:46:01 pm »
Well..I love the slot... ;D

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

  • Guest
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #49 on: February 27, 2006, 08:56:24 pm »
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.

Offline KBF-Crim

  • 1st Deacon ,Church of Taldren
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12271
  • Gender: Male
  • Crim,son of Rus'l
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #50 on: February 27, 2006, 09:02:27 pm »
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.... :-*

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #51 on: February 27, 2006, 11:02:04 pm »
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
« Last Edit: February 28, 2006, 12:19:15 am by FPF-DieHard »
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline KAT Chuut-Ritt

  • Vice Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 26163
  • Gender: Male
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #52 on: February 28, 2006, 02:06:33 am »
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.


Offline Bonk

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13298
  • You don't have to live like a refugee.
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #53 on: February 28, 2006, 06:13:55 am »
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.  :)
« Last Edit: February 28, 2006, 06:27:54 am by Bonk »

Offline Julin Eurthyr

  • Veltrassi Ambassador at Large
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Gender: Male
  • Back in Exile due to Win 7 - ISC RM/Strat Com.
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #54 on: February 28, 2006, 07:51:57 am »
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... ;)

AKA: Koloth Kinshaya - Lord of the House Kinshaya in the Klingon Empire
S'Leth - Romulan Admiral
Some anonymous strongman in Prime Industries

Offline Bonk

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13298
  • You don't have to live like a refugee.
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #55 on: February 28, 2006, 08:08:53 am »
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:

Quote
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...  :skeptic:
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  ;D) disengagment rule comes along... no more Socky or Gow....  :skeptic:
« Last Edit: February 28, 2006, 08:57:50 am by Bonk »

Offline GDA-Agave

  • That's MR. Planet Battering Ram to you buddy!!
  • Hot and Spicy
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 713
  • Gender: Male
  • Fear my tequila breath!!!
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #56 on: February 28, 2006, 09:35:08 am »
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. ( :thumbsup: )  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!!
One of the few, the proud, THE GORN!!
Gorn Dragon Alliance - Protecting Ghdar and the Bruce Way!

Gorn Dragon Templar
"Protecting the roads to Brucedom for all travelers of faith"



Offline Julin Eurthyr

  • Veltrassi Ambassador at Large
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Gender: Male
  • Back in Exile due to Win 7 - ISC RM/Strat Com.
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #57 on: February 28, 2006, 09:46:50 am »
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.

AKA: Koloth Kinshaya - Lord of the House Kinshaya in the Klingon Empire
S'Leth - Romulan Admiral
Some anonymous strongman in Prime Industries

762_XC

  • Guest
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #58 on: February 28, 2006, 10:23:21 am »
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.

Offline Bonk

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13298
  • You don't have to live like a refugee.
Re: Researching - Your favorite/least favorite rule or ruleset for Campaigns
« Reply #59 on: February 28, 2006, 11:16:28 am »
"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.

Quote
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.