Topic: The official SGO6 feedback thread

[Lepton]

I was going to tackle a larger set of issues (i.e. b**ch about stuff), but I lost my steam and this will have to do for now.

First while the number and kind of ships available has been improving and it gives the player alot of choices, it also gives a player alot of not so good choices and missions that spontaneously draft three light PF tenders all with fast drone carrying PFs that your AI wingmen are too feeble to counter.  Unintended consequences would be the word here.  I'd rather see a significantly trimmed down shiplist that will provide good ships in the yard and a more constrained drafting pool if that is possible to accomplish.

Further, the shiplist led to a furtherance of what I think is bad on any dyna server, the race to the higher and better technology.  It seemed to me that, while one might accomplish hex-flipping missions in any decent ship of your choosing, the PvP environment was one of who can field the most cheese in the cheesiest combo possible.  It would not merely be enough to have an X ship and a heavy cruiser but damnit it has to be an X ship winging with another race that can balance out some element of that it lacks in its racial flavor.  What is the point of racial flavor if you can field a combo that essentially erases those distinctions or lessens them significantly?  We have a saying in another game I play.  It's the pilot, not the ship, but to some extent that can hardly be believed at the wrangling and girlish screams that emanated from players who did not find exactly the right ship in the yard or in their many player accounts to combat the perceived threat that an enemy combo presented.  Infinite options do not always lead to infinite diversity but merely to the squeamishness of flying anything that is not the best.

Additionally, the technology ladder left I think many a causal player relegated to the sidelines where PvP was involved.  I myself will not take the responsibility to field a capital ship as first I could hardly afford to do so and second I have neither the skill nor the hubris to fly one when its loss would effect my team in a negative fashion.  While I am sure that it provides a diverse experience for the regular players with oodles of PP, I think it leaves a bit to be desired for those players who'd like to scrap it up but find they have neither the chops nor the bucks to do so when the only PvP is being conducted in the main by those jousting with the high end ships.  And frankly there is a venue for such things.  It's GSA.  You can fly whatever tricked out combo you want and it will be equally as meaningless there as it was to me on this server.  I realize this was probably somewhat of an enjoyable rarity for folks to fly these interesting combos but I feel as if it robs the whole enterprise of the experience of the racial flavor of ships and smacks of the merely ad-hoc jockeying for the upperhand which I don't find exceedingly sportsmanlike.

I am sure there will be many that will disagree with my perceptions and you are welcome to, but I would enjoin you to consider that your experience of the server may not be consistent with others' experience of the server and you might do well to consider that before dismissing my arguements.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

My major criticism would be that there were too many missions vs ai with multiple ships, this wasn't kind to non-aces and wasn't so fun for vets either.

Additionally I think that having all the patrols have the same mission names was good, but Planetary and base assaults should have their own names as the target of the mission would be known and they aren't really patrols.

Also, I think having the Orion base in some patrols was kinda unneeded.

Also freighter ai help on the patrols where you get control of an ai ship is kinda silly.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

On the positive side the big map, VC conditions and most of the fleeting rules were damn good.

The planetary assault missions were good too, making it very difficult for a solo droner to pull them off alone.

[Hexx]

While I thoroughly enjoyed what time I managed to spend on the server, I did have to forgo much of the PVP I usually
look for (mike apparently sounded awful, so no one would have been able to understand me)
But many of your points have been raised for pretty much all of the servers we've had recently

I am personally getting tired of the multi-racial fleets that seem to be being used, although this server did seem to see less of that than some others. I would like to see a system (as mentioned in a certain poll) that limits (for example) Gorn ships to areas surrounding the Gorn empire, not wherever they need be. I also think this would help immensely with the balance issues
~ no need to fix Kzin ships (again for example) to be able to fight plasma if they don't have to fight plasma...

The specialty (and X) ships are another bit of an issue. I'd like to see a server where only PVP kills scored in "line ships" count
The problem is what to count, I *personally* would include such things as strike carriers, but not droners and definitely not CF'si
But I must admit that's my personal bias, -I don't see the Strike Cruisers as overpowered as the droners/CF's are.

AS for the map issue- I didn't like the big map, but am more than willing to admit that some people do (as Chuut obviously does) and really I can get by with it.
The HUGE number of nebulas in and around Lyran space were just wrong though.
And i thought the fleeting rules were fairly well done, I think a few improvements could have been made, but blame myself for not explaining the errors to Dizzy before the server 

Still- had a great time, looking forward to #7
And I would include the Command variants with the "line cruiser" , again (imo) the balance across the races in Command variants is better than that of the true "line" ships.

[FPF-DieHard]

I'm just going to comment on the map for now.   I liked the huge map.   It was good in the way that even though the Alliance dominated the early part of the server we really only put a dents in the Coalition.

The terrain was poorly placed, there should be next to no Nebulas in Lyran or Hydran space.   Think about it, if they had that much nebula they would have designed weapons that would work in a nebula   

[el-Karnak]

I'm just going to comment on the map for now.   I liked the huge map.   It was good in the way that even though the Alliance dominated the early part of the server we really only put a dents in the Coalition.

The terrain was poorly placed, there should be next to no Nebulas in Lyran or Hydran space.   Think about it, if they had that much nebula they would have designed weapons that would work in a nebula   

Too many asteroid hexes too. It was like the Death Star went on a planet-busting party all over the map leaving voluminous rubble in its wake. 

[762_XC]

The map was excellent! I loved the layout, it produced a lot of strategy. Lots of different considerations when planning ops.

I actually liked that fact that embassy bases were relatively scarce. It forced some real hard decisions as to where to work. Lack of Klingon supply in the 42,10 area was a real key for both sides.

I thought the large map in conjunction with the radius rule worked beautifully! It was so nice being able to plan a defensive strategy based on PvP instead of avoiding PvP. Both PvP and hex munching had a large role on this server.

The one downside of the large map is that much of the server early on had the Alliance and Coalition working in different areas. Once we starting meeting head on (particularly the last day of the first round) the PvP action was fast and furious, and it mattered. Truly awesome.

[FPF-DieHard]

I'm just going to comment on the map for now.   I liked the huge map.   It was good in the way that even though the Alliance dominated the early part of the server we really only put a dents in the Coalition.

The terrain was poorly placed, there should be next to no Nebulas in Lyran or Hydran space.   Think about it, if they had that much nebula they would have designed weapons that would work in a nebula   

Too many asteroid hexes too. It was like the Death Star went on a planet-busting party all over the map leaving voluminous rubble in its wake. 

It must have been the Doomsday machines that showed up in evey other mission

[KBF MalaK]

On the positive side the big map, VC conditions and most of the fleeting rules were damn good.

The planetary assault missions were good too, making it very difficult for a solo droner to pull them off alone.

It was the one with the 2 battlestations that was killer (in the pit). The briefing was capture the planet, but even after capping the planet and leaving the 2 stations (firing on the planet) and leaving the map, the mission was loss.

Also in the pit, on numerous occasions I drew multiple BCH's as enemies- kinda rough in a .67 CL, don't ya think ?

[Lepton]

I really did not like the radius 1 ban rule.  It may provide a strategic use of PvP, but I think it was a bit on the draconian side for those of us who just happened to stumble upon someone while running solo missions and who just happened to be outgunned by his or her opponent.  You might say, "Well, yes this is exactly as it was intended" but I think not.  My recollection of the heavy iron plus hex ban idea was that heavy iron would lead the way to clear out a hex so that flippers could run under it, but I don't really think that happened on this server.  Iron was used for jousting to gain PvP points, not in the strategic way that others suppose.  I frankly witnessed more hand wringing and waiting around to jump someone than the use of the iron to clear the way for other ships.

I could be wrong in that assessment but it was not my impression that the iron was being used to clear the way for flippers.  It might be an occasional benefit when these PvP battles occurred but more often than not the hex was to be kept clear especially if the intent was to jump the enemy coming out of a PvP mission.  That seems to me to run counter to what we had intended.  Perhaps that is not we intended but that was my impression.  I merely saw the 1 hex radius ban as a punishment for losing a PvP battle and not as a strategic element in and of itself.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

LOL... one mission, can't remember the ship I had for it but I was flying Hydran at the time (I think it was a H-OVh)... drew 3 Rom HC with 2-4 pf's each.... to add to the insanity, the 3rd team in the middle had 2 ships, 1 with 8 fighters and the other with 2 pf's..... my 'reinforcement for that one was a freighter to go along with an AI Hydran LN & AI Kzinti FH....

[762_XC]

I really did not like the radius 1 ban rule.  It may provide a strategic use of PvP, but I think it was a bit on the draconian side for those of us who just happened to stumble upon someone while running solo missions and who just happened to be outgunned by his or her opponent.  You might say, "Well, yes this is exactly as it was intended" but I think not.  My recollection of the heavy iron plus hex ban idea was that heavy iron would lead the way to clear out a hex so that flippers could run under it, but I don't really think that happened on this server.  Iron was used for jousting to gain PvP points, not in the strategic way that others suppose.  I frankly witnessed more hand wringing and waiting around to jump someone than the use of the iron to clear the way for other ships.

I could be wrong in that assessment but it was not my impression that the iron was being used to clear the way for flippers.  It might be an occasional benefit when these PvP battles occurred but more often than not the hex was to be kept clear especially if the intent was to jump the enemy coming out of a PvP mission.  That seems to me to run counter to what we had intended.  Perhaps that is not we intended but that was my impression.  I merely saw the 1 hex radius ban as a punishment for losing a PvP battle and not as a strategic element in and of itself.

What you describe is one possible way that it could be used, but not the only way. Combat, whether with armies or starships, is about controlling territory. The radius rule gives you the ability to do that. Without the radius PvP becomes almost worthless as a means of controlling territory, because to have any real effect on the front you would have to run someone out of 3, 4 or 5 hexes. Since this is fairly impossible to do forming PvP groups was pretty much a waste of time. Players would do it just for bragging rights or points, but its strategic impact was almost nil.

Sometimes forcing an enemy group out of an area is all you need to give the flippers the freedom to do their job.

The radius rule adds a strategic component to PvP and makes it a valuable complement to hex flipping. If it seems draconian, it merely underscores the necessity of working in tandem with your teammates.

[KBFLordKrueg]

My major criticism would be that there were too many missions vs ai with multiple ships, this wasn't kind to non-aces and wasn't so fun for vets either.

Additionally I think that having all the patrols have the same mission names was good, but Planetary and base assaults should have their own names as the target of the mission would be known and they aren't really patrols.

Also, I think having the Orion base in some patrols was kinda unneeded.

Also freighter ai help on the patrols where you get control of an ai ship is kinda silly.

I agree on all of these points for sure.
The multi-AI missions were fun and challenging, but there was like 95% those type missions only.
And strongly agree about the Base and Planet mission names showing.

[KBFLordKrueg]

IMOHPO, I think the 1 hex radius ban should be limited to planets and maybe bases as well.

[Lepton]

I really did not like the radius 1 ban rule.  It may provide a strategic use of PvP, but I think it was a bit on the draconian side for those of us who just happened to stumble upon someone while running solo missions and who just happened to be outgunned by his or her opponent.  You might say, "Well, yes this is exactly as it was intended" but I think not.  My recollection of the heavy iron plus hex ban idea was that heavy iron would lead the way to clear out a hex so that flippers could run under it, but I don't really think that happened on this server.  Iron was used for jousting to gain PvP points, not in the strategic way that others suppose.  I frankly witnessed more hand wringing and waiting around to jump someone than the use of the iron to clear the way for other ships.

I could be wrong in that assessment but it was not my impression that the iron was being used to clear the way for flippers.  It might be an occasional benefit when these PvP battles occurred but more often than not the hex was to be kept clear especially if the intent was to jump the enemy coming out of a PvP mission.  That seems to me to run counter to what we had intended.  Perhaps that is not we intended but that was my impression.  I merely saw the 1 hex radius ban as a punishment for losing a PvP battle and not as a strategic element in and of itself.

What you describe is one possible way that it could be used, but not the only way. Combat, whether with armies or starships, is about controlling territory. The radius rule gives you the ability to do that. Without the radius PvP becomes almost worthless as a means of controlling territory, because to have any real effect on the front you would have to run someone out of 3, 4 or 5 hexes. Since this is fairly impossible to do forming PvP groups was pretty much a waste of time. Players would do it just for bragging rights or points, but its strategic impact was almost nil.

Sometimes forcing an enemy group out of an area is all you need to give the flippers the freedom to do their job.

The radius rule adds a strategic component to PvP and makes it a valuable complement to hex flipping. If it seems draconian, it merely underscores the necessity of working in tandem with your teammates.

I am sorry but you are clearly mistaken.  The effect of the radius rule was not as you described.  It most often effected in my estimation only those who were jousting with capital ships for PvP points.  You yourself would seem to support that assertion since you would seem to claim that iron was not often used in the manner that it was intended, namely to clear hexes for flippers.  When it did effect flippers, the effect was such that it made the person have to effectively operate in another theater, but this was hardly the case, except perhaps for Coalition push to take Johnny Targ, but in all other instances I saw nothing of the effect you would claim that PvP and the radius rule had.  It may have effected you as you were one of the jousters, but in general the effect on flippers was less than it could have been had the capital ships been deployed in the manner you suggested, to control territory.  I saw none of that.  In fact capital ships languished on the front lines waiting to jump other capital ships instead on running off the squirts which would really be controlling territory.  So frankly I have no idea what you think controlling territory with PvP was on this server, but I saw little of it.

[Hexx]

I really did not like the radius 1 ban rule.  It may provide a strategic use of PvP, but I think it was a bit on the draconian side for those of us who just happened to stumble upon someone while running solo missions and who just happened to be outgunned by his or her opponent.  You might say, "Well, yes this is exactly as it was intended" but I think not.  My recollection of the heavy iron plus hex ban idea was that heavy iron would lead the way to clear out a hex so that flippers could run under it, but I don't really think that happened on this server.  Iron was used for jousting to gain PvP points, not in the strategic way that others suppose.  I frankly witnessed more hand wringing and waiting around to jump someone than the use of the iron to clear the way for other ships.

I could be wrong in that assessment but it was not my impression that the iron was being used to clear the way for flippers.  It might be an occasional benefit when these PvP battles occurred but more often than not the hex was to be kept clear especially if the intent was to jump the enemy coming out of a PvP mission.  That seems to me to run counter to what we had intended.  Perhaps that is not we intended but that was my impression.  I merely saw the 1 hex radius ban as a punishment for losing a PvP battle and not as a strategic element in and of itself.

What you describe is one possible way that it could be used, but not the only way. Combat, whether with armies or starships, is about controlling territory. The radius rule gives you the ability to do that. Without the radius PvP becomes almost worthless as a means of controlling territory, because to have any real effect on the front you would have to run someone out of 3, 4 or 5 hexes. Since this is fairly impossible to do forming PvP groups was pretty much a waste of time. Players would do it just for bragging rights or points, but its strategic impact was almost nil.

Sometimes forcing an enemy group out of an area is all you need to give the flippers the freedom to do their job.

The radius rule adds a strategic component to PvP and makes it a valuable complement to hex flipping. If it seems draconian, it merely underscores the necessity of working in tandem with your teammates.

I am sorry but you are clearly mistaken.  The effect of the radius rule was not as you described.  It most often effected in my estimation only those who were jousting with capital ships for PvP points.  You yourself would seem to support that assertion since you would seem to claim that iron was not often used in the manner that it was intended, namely to clear hexes for flippers.  When it did effect flippers, the effect was such that it made the person have to effectively operate in another theater, but this was hardly the case, except perhaps for Coalition push to take Johnny Targ, but in all other instances I saw nothing of the effect you would claim that PvP and the radius rule had.  It may have effected you as you were one of the jousters, but in general the effect on flippers was less than it could have been had the capital ships been deployed in the manner you suggested, to control territory.  I saw none of that.  In fact capital ships languished on the front lines waiting to jump other capital ships instead on running off the squirts which would really be controlling territory.  So frankly I have no idea what you think controlling territory with PvP was on this server, but I saw little of it.

It's one of t00ls babies, just let him run with it 
(kinda like my full SFB fighter groups except mine never get used  )

[FPF-DieHard]

I find it kinda un-sportmanliek to jump a dude in a CL in a 3-ship PvP fleet but Lepton is right, that is the correct way to "control" territory using the rules set.

[FPF-DieHard]

(kinda like my full SFB fighter groups except mine never get used  )

When did Hexx become a Fighter Whore? 

Yes, we can do this, cutting the Deck crews on Full cariers makes this reasonable but is it really a wise idea? 

[Lepton]

It is unsportsmanlike but that is the consequence of capital ships and the disengagement rule combined.  Thou hast wrought what thou hast sown.

[FPF-DieHard]

It is unsportsmanlike but that is the consequence of capital ships and the disengagement rule combined.  Thou hast wrought what thou hast sown.

I know, but is it better to have PvP have no effect on the Map? 

[Lepton]

Did it have none before?  We seemed to think it fine before with a single hex ban for a PvP loss or disengagement.  I remember being driven out of any number of hexes in the past and forced to work elsewhere, just not necessarily a whole other theater.  Hell, even on SSII I think people were being driven off enough that they had to go to another front.  Was that not good enough?

[FPF-DieHard]

Did it have none before?  We seemed to think it fine before with a single hex ban for a PvP loss or disengagement.  I remember being driven out of any number of hexes in the past and forced to work elsewhere, just not necessarily a whole other theater.  Hell, even on SSII I think people were being driven off enough that they had to go to another front.  Was that not good enough?

SOrry, I mis-understood.   Didn't know you were talking about radius.  But I didn't think it wsa that bad on this server because the map was big enough and on MOST situations the front was wide enough

[Hexx]

I think the multiple hex disengagement rule worked OK on this server, but on an average size map
we really should go back to the one hex, (although keeping a ring around planets/bases works fine-imo)

Again (obviously) depends on map size and number of VP hexes

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

IMOHPO, I think the 1 hex radius ban should be limited to planets and maybe bases as well.

That has always been my position.  Kinda hard to "control territory" in a vacuum thousands of miles wide.

[Dfly]

I think the multiple hex disengagement rule worked OK on this server, but on an average size map
we really should go back to the one hex, (although keeping a ring around planets/bases works fine-imo)

Again (obviously) depends on map size and number of VP hexes

I agree.

[Lepton]

I don't know.  It seems a little too convenient to me that the one hex radius should suddenly apply to bases and planets when these are exactly the areas that have the most hot and heavy battles.  If you get banned from a ring hex of a planet, you are nearly out of that entire area and even more so if the mission was on the planet.  Why penalize players for wanting to be where the action is and make a contribution?  If space is so hard to control as this vast vacuum, then does any hex ban rule make sense at all and does it make any more sense near a planet or base?  I really think just the one hex is sufficient with the extra radius of banning.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I don't know.  It seems a little too convenient to me that the one hex radius should suddenly apply to bases and planets when these are exactly the areas that have the most hot and heavy battles.  If you get banned from a ring hex of a planet, you are nearly out of that entire area and even more so if the mission was on the planet.  Why penalize players for wanting to be where the action is and make a contribution?  If space is so hard to control as this vast vacuum, then does any hex ban rule make sense at all and does it make any more sense near a planet or base?  I really think just the one hex is sufficient with the extra radius of banning.

I rationalize it thus:

Around planets and starbases there would be alot more military and civilian traffic, listening posts, perimeter defenses etc.   I've always been of the thought that the one hex radius ban around planets should be the planet hex and all the hexes around the planet no matter whether the mission itself took place on the planet r on a ring hex.  So if you got banned due to a mission in a ring hex you could still operate on hex further back from the planet but couldn't operate in the ring hex on the other side of the planet.

As for penalizing players who want to be where the action is, that is what the disengagement rule does, this is what it was designed for.  Whether or not you like it is another matter, but it was designed as a penalty for failure in PvP, it was designed to kick players out of hot areas, and a one hex radius around planets and bases means that it will be useful even for races with slower mission times.

 Imagine myself in a Z-DF droner assaulting a planet and Agave in a Gorn BF defending it with a one hex only disengagement rule and no radius.  I'm running missions underneath him 3 times faster than he is running missions, finally he says enough and sits rock and catches me making me run away.  He feels very satisfied with himself until he realizes I'm hitting a different ring hex.  So he goes and plays rock there.  Well not falling for the same trick twice (as if I'd fall for it the first time  ) I hit a different ring hex than where I see his marker.  He tries to jump me coming out of mission and after a couple of tries gets me again and I run away like Rosie O'Donnell from a whaling boat again.  I still have 4 ring hexes I can hit and by the time I'm banned from the last my ban on the first will likely be up and I can repeat the process with little penalty. 

Now Imaging the one hex radius bann centered on the planet.  He finally catches me for the first time, I run and I'm gone for an hour.  He can smile and relax and pat himself on the back for an hour until I come back in a Z-BF and blow him to spacedust if he is still around. 

[Hexx]

I don't know.  It seems a little too convenient to me that the one hex radius should suddenly apply to bases and planets when these are exactly the areas that have the most hot and heavy battles.  If you get banned from a ring hex of a planet, you are nearly out of that entire area and even more so if the mission was on the planet.  Why penalize players for wanting to be where the action is and make a contribution?  If space is so hard to control as this vast vacuum, then does any hex ban rule make sense at all and does it make any more sense near a planet or base?  I really think just the one hex is sufficient with the extra radius of banning.

I rationalize it thus:

Around planets and starbases there would be alot more military and civilian traffic, listening posts, perimeter defenses etc.   I've always been of the thought that the one hex radius ban around planets should be the planet hex and all the hexes around the planet no matter whether the mission itself took place on the planet r on a ring hex.  So if you got banned due to a mission in a ring hex you could still operate on hex further back from the planet but couldn't operate in the ring hex on the other side of the planet.

As for penalizing players who want to be where the action is, that is what the disengagement rule does, this is what it was designed for.  Whether or not you like it is another matter, but it was designed as a penalty for failure in PvP, it was designed to kick players out of hot areas, and a one hex radius around planets and bases means that it will be useful even for races with slower mission times.

 Imagine myself in a Z-DF droner assaulting a planet and Agave in a Gorn BF defending it with a one hex only disengagement rule and no radius.  I'm running missions underneath him 3 times faster than he is running missions, finally he says enough and sits rock and catches me making me run away.  He feels very satisfied with himself until he realizes I'm hitting a different ring hex.  So he goes and plays rock there.  Well not falling for the same trick twice (as if I'd fall for it the first time  ) I hit a different ring hex than where I see his marker.  He tries to jump me coming out of mission and after a couple of tries gets me again and I run away like Rosie O'Donnell from a whaling boat again.  I still have 4 ring hexes I can hit and by the time I'm banned from the last my ban on the first will likely be up and I can repeat the process with little penalty. 

Now Imaging the one hex radius bann centered on the planet.  He finally catches me for the first time, I run and I'm gone for an hour.  He can smile and relax and pat himself on the back for an hour until I come back in a Z-BF and blow him to spacedust if he is still around. 

 

Honestly I think that's the best example for it that I remember reading.

[Lepton]

I think the case you pose as an example is the exception not the rule.  The radius rule may well be a very effective stop gap to someone specifically flying a flipper, but it is my perception that folks in a hot area don't generally go into a hot area with a flipper as they know they can be easily kicked out of a hex.  I know that at least I don't do that.  I try to get into a ship that can hold its own if need be and I generally do not fly flippers.  I think this is also a case of vastly different playing styles.  You enjoy the two minute mission.  I do not.  Be that as it may, I really don't think people tend to fly flippers in a hot area.  Perhaps yours is a particularly Kzin perspective.  I could be wrong though.  Frankly, I wonder that you would champion a rule that would make your style of flying much less effective and therefore less useful.

[762_XC]

That is where you are incorrect Lepton. Flippers regularly worked the front lines on SGO5. I did it myself in a D5D and later in an MKE. It was extremely easy to run around people running in groups trying to hunt me down. If I did get caught I just went to the next hex. By the time I got caught again I was back in the original hex. Chuut totally knows what I'm talking about. PvP was so pointless on that server people simply called each other out to get battles. AOTK2 was much the same.

It was still done on SGO6 but less frequently as the radius rule made hunter-killer groups an effective operational asset as opposed to a waste of time. You may not have liked the Alliance strategy in using them, and I may not have done a good job micromanaging the front lines to coordinate flipper actions with HK groups. But the radius rule itself proved to be a great improvement in making PvP worthwhile.

P.S. Flippers will always be useful.

[Hexx]

I think the case you pose as an example is the exception not the rule.  The radius rule may well be a very effective stop gap to someone specifically flying a flipper, but it is my perception that folks in a hot area don't generally go into a hot area with a flipper as they know they can be easily kicked out of a hex.  I know that at least I don't do that.  I try to get into a ship that can hold its own if need be and I generally do not fly flippers.  I think this is also a case of vastly different playing styles.  You enjoy the two minute mission.  I do not.  Be that as it may, I really don't think people tend to fly flippers in a hot area.  Perhaps yours is a particularly Kzin perspective.  I could be wrong though.  Frankly, I wonder that you would champion a rule that would make your style of flying much less effective and therefore less useful.

Problem is there's a number of ships that do both D5D,NCD,plasma fighters,PlasmaPF tenders, Some Hydran ships, all do well at PVP and can run the 2- 2:30 minute missions.

[Lepton]

Hmm, I'd like to see someone run a 2 minute mission with some of the missions we saw on SG6.  Not possible.  Perhaps I have a skewed view as I tend to run solos.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Frankly, I wonder that you would champion a rule that would make your style of flying much less effective and therefore less useful.

I champion it only to a certain degree.  I have reasons for not liking any form of disengagement rule, but to make my preferred style of flying easier is not one of them.  If you are going to use a disengagement rule at all I think a sensable use is the best and not one that neuters it, nor one that makes it overly dominant.  I also prefer one that makes good roleplaying sense.  

I like hex flipping, but I enjoy the risk involved as much as the game effect.  If the penalty for getting caught is so insignificant that I can totally ignore it, it poses no great risk or challenge to me.  I like the danger factor, same with deepstriking.  Long before there was a no disengage for deepstriking rule I always followed it as it didn't seem right not to from both an honor and a roleplay standpoint.  I also never logged off behind the enemy lines to make continued deepstriking easier, I fought my way in and out each time, and will always do so barring some emergency or server downage that would prevent me staying on the server until my raid was finished.  I see hex flipping on the front the same way.  It is a challange with great risks and great rewards with a one hex radius around the planet/base.  Many would be easily caught, but with good planning, quick reactions, and at times unorthodox actions one can pull it off and have a blast.  If you take away the dnager and challenge it isn't nearly as enjoyable for me.  I don't want it neutered in the "hot" area if it is to be used.

As for the "non-hot" areas that aren't around the VCs, I don't see the need for a ban of larger than one hex.  Roleplay wise it is just open space, and gameplay wise, it is more new player friendly and more conductive to PvP.  

My biggest gripes with the disengagement rule has always been the following:

#1 it encourages gangbanging and discourages 1 v 1 fights

#2 it makes it much easier for an attacking force to knock a defending force off a planet or base especially when very few defenders are on and it is hard for them to wing up and effective counter.  And it is almost always the attackers who will have the numbers advantage.

#3 it prevents the "Epic" fights of old such as Pinky Gen on Strom Seasons I and II, Matsukasi's stand at the Citadel on Storm Season I, Deadman's stand at "Thermoplye" during IDSL, Fluf and My stand at Hex 42, 19 on AOTK I, The Battle for Sitay again Storm Season I, and Mertok from AOTK I where Fluf lost the greatest number of Capital ships in the shortest period I think I'll ever see.  Present day battles for one area pale in comparison to the bloodiness of those battles.  Some can be attributed to player numbers i'm sure, but this is not the only reason as I'd face the same pilots over and over again battling for one hex.  On Hex 42, 19 I think i only saw a total of 7 different foes in 18 hours of constant PvP and on our side it was only Fluf and I for most of it with Matsukasi an Maverick helping out fo9r a few hours.  Never had anything other than a 1 v 1 the whole time and my Z-CVS was never defeated.  Under the disengagemnt rule my foes would have simply gathered a hunter killer group togehter and driven me off immediately.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Hmm, I'd like to see someone run a 2 minute mission with some of the missions we saw on SG6.  Not possible.  Perhaps I have a skewed view as I tend to run solos.

My best solo times in the missions with 4 enemy ai  were about 3 minutes and 45 seconds in open space.  A little more if pirates were there as well.

[Lepton]

 

[Hexx]

Hmm, I'd like to see someone run a 2 minute mission with some of the missions we saw on SG6.  Not possible.  Perhaps I have a skewed view as I tend to run solos.

Again the solo missions (though rare) took me about 1:40-2:00 in a E4D, little longer in a D5D
Multiple enemy ships again took probably around 4 minutes or just there under, depended if the enemy weasled or not.
5 miuntes if I really messed up a drone wave or 2.


But again-those time are both with droners, flying the less specialized ships would take longer, and in one or two I had to disengage.

[762_XC]

I think it's generally agreed the mission pack for SGO6 was more difficult than is desired. Keep in mind this is the first time Dave's new pack has seen a full bore campaign.

[Lepton]

For this server and many another I would have liked to have seen the Wild Geese come out sooner.  As far as I can see, there is not a great objective criteria for activating the Geese and eventhough a numbers difference may be noted, the Geese tend to get activated a bit late.  So I'd like to propose a different geese mechanism that I wil call the immediate geese.  The immediate geese will be a group of players who would like to keep the server numbers even whenever they are on the server.  A player in this group would log onto a server and see what side is down players and then fly on that side to keep the numbers as even as he can.  These players would be people like myself who would merely like to play the game and have no particular race preference and just would like to make a contribution and have fun while providing a service to the server and the players on it.  As an inducement to join the immediate geese, I'd suggest that they be exempted from certain rules, one that comes to mind is the disengagment rule.  This might be particularly appealing to players that do not like the disengagement rule and thus can hex-flip or charge back into that damn hex for more PvP whenever they wish despite being run off or destroyed

[Dfly]

I have a suggestion.  IT is to perhaps help bring  back those memories of campaigns where the main battles were 1v1.  How about for 1 server, to see how it goes, and be different, we make it a no wings server.  If 2 or 3 from a team get a live player or more to fight, each team chooses the enemy to stay for the battle, and the others must leave the map and wait for it to be over, as in destroyed captured or disengaged.  Only the 2 ships fighting would have any disengagement ruling apply. 
This would allow wings to fly vs ai for easier time, and gaining points, while keeping all battles 1v1.  I realize that flying 2 or 3 on a team is fun, but for many a server now that ruling of having the most wings with the best ships has been the way.  Perhaps it is time for a duel them out 1v1 server.

[Dizzy]

For this server and many another I would have liked to have seen the Wild Geese come out sooner.  As far as I can see, there is not a great objective criteria for activating the Geese and eventhough a numbers difference may be noted, the Geese tend to get activated a bit late.  So I'd like to propose a different geese mechanism that I wil call the immediate geese.  The immediate geese will be a group of players who would like to keep the server numbers even whenever they are on the server.  A player in this group would log onto a server and see what side is down players and then fly on that side to keep the numbers as even as he can.  These players would be people like myself who would merely like to play the game and have no particular race preference and just would like to make a contribution and have fun while providing a service to the server and the players on it.  As an inducement to join the immediate geese, I'd suggest that they be exempted from certain rules, one that comes to mind is the disengagment rule.  This might be particularly appealing to players that do not like the disengagement rule and thus can hex-flip or charge back into that damn hex for more PvP whenever they wish despite being run off or destroyed

Id like to hear these kind of ideas, geese are admittedly loved and hated. Probably deserves its own thread. I havent heard if Jeff will use them on ss3.

[Lear]

first let me say that i will take a freighter over a snipe frigate any time.
missions were tough but not impossible and yes i had to run a few times.
if we are going to use SFB ship list then i feel the need to use SFB
speeds for drones and plasma.

[Hexx]

first let me say that i will take a freighter over a snipe frigate any time.
missions were tough but not impossible and yes i had to run a few times.
if we are going to use SFB ship list then i feel the need to use SFB
speeds for drones and plasma.

But of course we're not using the SFb shiplist, we're using the" SFB with double the internals so ESG's don't hurt us nearly as much" shiplist.