Topic: Storm Season III Disengagement Rule Poll

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Odd... I also don't recall having fought you on any recent server.. since I've probably only PVPed about 20 times over the last three you'd think I would..

I drafted you in mission while Flying a Gorn BF and you were flying a Novahawk.  You were in Eastern Klingon spce having just ran away from Die Hard and I drafted you.  Your ship ran for the border so fast I never even got a visual on it, I was flying as GDT-Grazz'Tzz, that jar a memory    The time before that I think you were flying a L-CWLP vs my Z-NCC but that o9ne was a few servers back, you managed to score some decent internals but ended up being slowed down by overloaded dizzies and then eating some medium speed heavy drones.

Oh and I remember blowing you up once then drafting you on the base where you respawnied in a frigate as well, might have been the same time as the above but i don't exactly remember.  That help your memory a bit?

[Capt Jeff]

Didn't we start the whole disengagment rule to counteract the patrol bug and to shore up mission time discrepancies between plasma races and drone races?

The patrol bug is gone, and now we usually allow multiple races accounts for campaigns.  People get their good PvP race out for that, and then switch to their flipping race/ship once the threat is gone.

So, what are using it for now?   (Somewhat joking here, somewhat not)

A Ace in a CC+ can't kill a newbie in a CF?   Chances are he can, and it will get the ace points.  Ace vs newbie both in line ships, and the ace should win, earning the ace points.

Not earning points in a specialty ship might make aces fly line ships more, but will it really change the outcome of the points totals when they will most always win line vs line, and probably still win line vs specialty?

I am leaning towards classing CF's as a BCH for SS3, and those will be limited to 3 per side.  Carriers will be limited to 2 per side, and 2 DN's  (1 CVA will count as 2 DN's).   That's 7 "specials" per side, or 14 total on the board at once.

[K'Hexx]

Noble admin, The Bard of Sto-Vo-Kor begs your indulgence.


To change, or not to change, that is the question,
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous debate,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by a final ruling, end them. To die, to sleep
No more, and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand more ideas
That forum discussion is heir to; 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished to die to sleep! -
To sleep, perchance to dream, ay there's the rub,
For in that sleep of final decision what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this debaters coil
Must give us pause - there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long discussion:
For who would bear the whips and scorns of pre-server opinion,
Th' shiplist's wrongs, the proud pilots contumely,
The pangs of disprized ideas, the rule's lawyers delay,
The insolence of the experienced, and the spurns
That patient merit of th'unworthy takes,
When he himself might his own doubt's quietus make
With a bare bodkin of his own design; who would players bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary server design,
But that the dread of something unpopular,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No admin returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear hearing those criticisms we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action…. Soft you now,
The Storm Season - third of the name, in thy orisons
Be all that thy namesakes are remembered.
----

Do what thou wilt noble admin, and do not let troubles furrow your brown in a way unseemly for a non Klingon.  The craft from thine hands has oft graced the Dynaverse working hot crude metal under your hands and forging works of beauty surpassing even the bat'leth for their strength and keeness.  Turning thine ear to fair counsel is wisdom, turning thine mouth to speak only the words of others is weakness.  Will they strike at your foe in battle with their counsel, or use them to dispatch their own.  Trust in thine own heart and in the steel of the mind that it guides.

[FPF-DieHard]

I am leaning towards classing CF's as a BCH for SS3, and those will be limited to 3 per side.  Carriers will be limited to 2 per side, and 2 DN's  (1 CVA will count as 2 DN's).   That's 7 "specials" per side, or 14 total on the board at once.

I strongly recomend sticking with the 2/3/4 Points system used in SGO for metal.  It works, it's fair, and it doesn't favor any sepcifc race that gets BCHs 10 years before anyone else (ISC and Lyran) or who's BCHs realy suck.

Counting a CF asa BCH is a bit much, counting it as Capital ship in terms of fleeting seems about right.

[Dizzy]

I am leaning towards classing CF's as a BCH for SS3, and those will be limited to 3 per side.  Carriers will be limited to 2 per side, and 2 DN's  (1 CVA will count as 2 DN's).   That's 7 "specials" per side, or 14 total on the board at once.

I strongly recomend sticking with the 2/3/4 Points system used in SGO for metal.  It works, it's fair, and it doesn't favor any sepcifc race that gets BCHs 10 years before anyone else (ISC and Lyran) or who's BCHs realy suck.

Counting a CF asa BCH is a bit much, counting it as Capital ship in terms of fleeting seems about right.

Heavy Metal rule worked in conjunction with Fleeting rules. Either would be naught without the other. There was more than one control method used, there has to be unless you want cheese running around the map unchecked. We had CF cheese on SG6... and it was a bit much so much there are rules against it next time. Remember, current fleeting rules were designed around the playerbase of 20-30 peeps online at once. Sg6 peaked once at 32 players and on average saw 20 during prime-time hours.

Jeff, if you come up with something else, make it wholly original.  Mine's not perfect, but it did work well and while I cant say to use them cuz I havent seen your final proposal, capital ship/fleeting rules are a completely Allice in Wonderland stuff. G/L!

[GDA-Agave]

I am leaning towards classing CF's as a BCH for SS3, and those will be limited to 3 per side.  Carriers will be limited to 2 per side, and 2 DN's  (1 CVA will count as 2 DN's).   That's 7 "specials" per side, or 14 total on the board at once.

I strongly recomend sticking with the 2/3/4 Points system used in SGO for metal.  It works, it's fair, and it doesn't favor any sepcifc race that gets BCHs 10 years before anyone else (ISC and Lyran) or who's BCHs realy suck.

Counting a CF asa BCH is a bit much, counting it as Capital ship in terms of fleeting seems about right.

I agree with Diehard here.   The capital ship restriction rule from SGO6 seems to work better.  You can set the total amount available and let each side figure out how they would like to have those points represented on the server at any one time.   On past servers, when their have been an opportunity for 14 capital ships to be flown, they will be.   When our current player base is an average of 20 people, 14 seems a large percentage of that.

I would agree that CF classed ships should not be able to fleet with ANY capital ships.  Whether you want to make them count against the capital ships points is certainly up to you.  In Dizzy's SGO6 rules, these ideas were combined.   They don't have to be.

Agave

[762_XC]

Didn't we start the whole disengagment rule to counteract the patrol bug and to shore up mission time discrepancies between plasma races and drone races?

The patrol bug is gone, and now we usually allow multiple races accounts for campaigns.  People get their good PvP race out for that, and then switch to their flipping race/ship once the threat is gone.

So, what are using it for now?   (Somewhat joking here, somewhat not)

Making PvP worthwhile instead of something people do just for kicks.

With the DR, PvP becomes an asset. Without it being in anything but a flipper is a liability.

[Capt Jeff]

Didn't we start the whole disengagement rule to counteract the patrol bug and to shore up mission time discrepancies between plasma races and drone races?

The patrol bug is gone, and now we usually allow multiple races accounts for campaigns.  People get their good PvP race out for that, and then switch to their flipping race/ship once the threat is gone.

So, what are using it for now?   (Somewhat joking here, somewhat not)

Making PvP worthwhile instead of something people do just for kicks.

With the DR, PvP becomes an asset. Without it being in anything but a flipper is a liability.

The current disengagement makes it worthwhile because you force someone to not be able to engage in PvP in that hex, leaving you to take the hex, and further your quest to take map vc points.

What I proposed makes PvP worthwhile because you can force the person out, leaving you to take the hex, or win a vc point by killing them.  The killed player could then immediately come back and attempt again, giving you the possibility of multiple vc points.  If you kill them twice, you've earned 2 pts and lowered the DV twice, furthering your advancement toward a map vc as well.  And there is the possibility of more PvP.

[Dizzy]

...you can force the person out, leaving you to take the hex, or win a vc point by killing them.  The killed player could then immediately come back and attempt again, giving you the possibility of multiple vc points.  If you kill them twice, you've earned 2 pts and lowered the DV twice... And there is the possibility of more PvP.

ya thats good.

[GDA-Agave]

The current disengagement makes it worthwhile because you force someone to not be able to engage in PvP in that hex, leaving you to take the hex, and further your quest to take map vc points.

What I proposed makes PvP worthwhile because you can force the person out, leaving you to take the hex, or win a vc point by killing them.  The killed player could then immediately come back and attempt again, giving you the possibility of multiple vc points.  If you kill them twice, you've earned 2 pts and lowered the DV twice, furthering your advancement toward a map vc as well.

Your point about increasing the possible PvP VC pts in any "hot spot" is valid.   What you don't get is the reduction of defenders allowed in the area.  If the same pilot keeping engaging you, sure you can increase you PvP pts by killing him over and over.   You no longer have the ability to reduce the number of pilots in the area and it becomes a flipping race.  Then comes in the discussion, racial differences about mission times, player base for each race, on and on and on..........

In a nutshell, the old Fluf days vs the current train of thought.

Personally I would like to see a server happen that allows for what you are purposing.  As expected, not everyone feels that way, and this rule alone may discourage some from flying.   Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.    

[Dizzy]

Ya, but we'd see more PvP!

Course, depends on how Jeff uses PvP VC Points. On sg servers they add up and depending on the ratio, you get a planet equivalent VC Point. However, he could easily apply PvP Points toward defensive DV's. Doing so directly would enable an empire to deny their emeny VC's from lost planets. That way you tie in attrition to DV's as we would want them to be.

[762_XC]

You won't see more PvP, you'll see more blowing up of flippers with PvP ships. That's all you're going to get if you take away the time penalty for dying.

The downside is that by making every ship worth something if it dies, you discourage n00bs from trying to stick it out and get better.

This also heavily favors nutters vs casual players. The nutter can afford the multiple losses.

Make metal worth points and specialty ships worth points. A Z-DF should be worth a point imho.

But leave line ships alone. Penalizing a player for losing one, even if it's only one point, is only going to drive people out of them, and discourage the n00bs from learning.

[Dizzy]

You won't see more PvP, you'll see more blowing up of flippers with PvP ships. That's all you're going to get if you take away the time penalty for dying.

The downside is that by making every ship worth something if it dies, you discourage n00bs from trying to stick it out and get better.

This also heavily favors nutters vs casual players. The nutter can afford the multiple losses.

Make metal worth points and specialty ships worth points. A Z-DF should be worth a point imho.

But leave line ships alone. Penalizing a player for losing one, even if it's only one point, is only going to drive people out of them, and discourage the n00bs from learning.

Sheesh, I think I'll leave the rules alone as they were in sg6. It seemed to work, although I think halving the deisengagement ban time for line ships would be in order.

[el-Karnak]

...you can force the person out, leaving you to take the hex, or win a vc point by killing them.  The killed player could then immediately come back and attempt again, giving you the possibility of multiple vc points.  If you kill them twice, you've earned 2 pts and lowered the DV twice... And there is the possibility of more PvP.

It's an interesting idea, but it would make the situation hard on new players because they would lose VPs for every ship they lose. 

[Dfly]

...you can force the person out, leaving you to take the hex, or win a vc point by killing them.  The killed player could then immediately come back and attempt again, giving you the possibility of multiple vc points.  If you kill them twice, you've earned 2 pts and lowered the DV twice... And there is the possibility of more PvP.

ya thats good.

That all depends on where you stand as per good or not.  Remember Plasma ballet anyone?  It can take up to a couple hours for a battle, all to get a shift of 1(and a 1 point for kill, if you killed him) just to have him come back an tie you up again for another battle.  Even in a shorter battle of say 45 minutes, how many missions could you have run in those 45 minutes?   The mirak would have run enough in 1 ship alone to change the DV by 15 or more if left unchecked.  Thus my support for DR.  I do understand that perhaps DR does not work for all cases, but in hot areas I think it is important.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

You won't see more PvP, you'll see more blowing up of flippers with PvP ships. That's all you're going to get if you take away the time penalty for dying.

The downside is that by making every ship worth something if it dies, you discourage n00bs from trying to stick it out and get better.

This also heavily favors nutters vs casual players. The nutter can afford the multiple losses.

Make metal worth points and specialty ships worth points. A Z-DF should be worth a point imho.

But leave line ships alone. Penalizing a player for losing one, even if it's only one point, is only going to drive people out of them, and discourage the n00bs from learning.

Sheesh, I think I'll leave the rules alone as they were in sg6. It seemed to work, although I think halving the deisengagement ban time for line ships would be in order.

I agree with that.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

You won't see more PvP, you'll see more blowing up of flippers with PvP ships. That's all you're going to get if you take away the time penalty for dying.

Have to disagree with that assessment.  I can't imagine that if Die Hard, or Duck, Dfly, Dizzy, Mrougue, Trama Tech, etc., would stay off the front if given the chance to return to a front after losing their ship.  They would dive right back into the thick of things with the best PvP combo they could put together looking for a taste of revenge.  You might have flippers coming back again, but you'd certainly have the PvP hos banging on the door as well.

If the flippers want to take a planet they would no longer have a clear run once the opposing PvP guys were knocked out of the area, and any side wanting to take a planet would have to be willing to pay a PvP price for doing so.  Coordination between flippers and PvPers would have to be increased greatly for a decent chance of sucess.  The kind of precise coordination that the KATS and KOTHS prided ourselves on, and that the KBF ran to perfection under Chancellor Dogmatix in the old days.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

That all depends on where you stand as per good or not.  Remember Plasma ballet anyone?  It can take up to a couple hours for a battle, all to get a shift of 1(and a 1 point for kill, if you killed him) just to have him come back an tie you up again for another battle.  Even in a shorter battle of say 45 minutes, how many missions could you have run in those 45 minutes?   The mirak would have run enough in 1 ship alone to change the DV by 15 or more if left unchecked.  Thus my support for DR.  I do understand that perhaps DR does not work for all cases, but in hot areas I think it is important.

That is a very valid point and one that always has made me in favor of granting the plasma races basic Pf tenders and INTs from the start of eaarly era.  This gives them a valid hexflipping option that wouldn't be a big PvP threat, kinda like a Kzin DF.  They could run the risk of flying these boats on the front if they wanted to hexflip but would run the PvP risk that the DF does.  Something similar might be needed for some other races as well.  The mission times don't have to equal that of a droner, (and really shouldn't be, as these races have some advantages in other areas) but should be significant enough to allow for a hexflipper option to be viable for these races.  Maybe they can't break the 2 minute mark, but they could threaten the 3 minute one.

[762_XC]

You won't see more PvP, you'll see more blowing up of flippers with PvP ships. That's all you're going to get if you take away the time penalty for dying.

Have to disagree with that assessment.  I can't imagine that if Die Hard, or Duck, Dfly, Dizzy, Mrougue, Trama Tech, etc., would stay off the front if given the chance to return to a front after losing their ship.  They would dive right back into the thick of things with the best PvP combo they could put together looking for a taste of revenge.  You might have flippers coming back again, but you'd certainly have the PvP hos banging on the door as well.

If the flippers want to take a planet they would no longer have a clear run once the opposing PvP guys were knocked out of the area, and any side wanting to take a planet would have to be willing to pay a PvP price for doing so.  Coordination between flippers and PvPers would have to be increased greatly for a decent chance of sucess.  The kind of precise coordination that the KATS and KOTHS prided ourselves on, and that the KBF ran to perfection under Chancellor Dogmatix in the old days.

Sure they would, and so would I. But it wouldn't happen that often compared to you or me or Soreyes getting popped in a DF and coming right back in to run another half dozen missions before getting caught again.

Face it, point losses never discouraged anybody. Look at all the battlecruiser kills on SS2.

[Dizzy]

When I hear that I think of how fun that cheese fest server must have been.