Topic: Poll: Would you fly a line ship if exempted from disengagement rule/hex ban?

[FPF-DieHard]

Highly incorrect.  That would mean that the exemption would only ever apply in a 1v1 of line ships.  It guts the whole premise.

It means if 3 guys jumo you in a fleet actions while flying by yourself you can come right back with a fleet

[Lepton]

Highly incorrect.  That would mean that the exemption would only ever apply in a 1v1 of line ships.  It guts the whole premise.

It means if 3 guys jumo you in a fleet actions while flying by yourself you can come right back with a fleet

I'm not sure you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me but thanks for entering the conversation.

Here's the premises I am laboring under:
1.  We'd like to see people in line ships and some people would prefer to fly them.
2.  We'd like to give them some encouragement to fly line ships despite these ships' seeming deficits.
3.  We'd like to make flying a line ship a valuable strategic and tactical alternative.
4.  We'd like to have a system wherein new players can muck about on a server.
5.  We'd like to be able to level the playing field on some occasions.


I think my proposal begins to address these issues.  The problem with chucking the rules I have laid out when any line ship fleets with any other ship is:
1.  It kills any inducement to flying them as to receive the benefit you basically have to fly alone.  The benefit so easily stripped is no benefit at all.
2.  It kills the strategic and tactical uses of line ships that I have outlined elsewhere.
3.  It actually creates a situation in which the new player's benefit of flying a line ship is immediately rescinded if he'd like to fly with someone else, which is always a good thing for a new player to do.
4.  It kills the idea of levelling the playing field.  If 3 BBs jump 3 line ships under my rule set, they would be exempt from the disengagement rule/hex ban.  Under Tool's idea, they would be subject to disengagment rule/hex ban.  An extreme example, but you get the idea.  The rule system I have set up would make players have to get into line ships to kick other players in line ships out of a hex.  It levels the playing field.

This is how it guts the premise as my goal is to give line ship flyers a benefit that is persistent and can only be countered by other players entering line ships.  It's a beautiful system.  It actually encourages folks to fly in relatively evenly matched ships instead of seeking the easy answer.

[Lepton]

Have we finally defined what exactly a line ship actually is ??

I find it hard to vote on a topic when it's boundries are undefined.

Open your OP+ shiplist in excel and look at the ships that are marked as line ships in the role field.  Cut off the bpv at 179 and that is a good start.

[762_XC]

You raise some good points there Lepton as there are many players, especially newer players, who will not fly alone. However giving an exemption to players who wing with specialty ships, or even other line ships, raises too many potential cases of abuse and weakens the disengagment rule (and by extension PvP) to an extreme.

Take for example the case of a Z-FFK, a 4 rack 80 BPV line ship, drafting for the largest line ship available, whether an NCA or CCH. That's a 2 minute mission force which cannot be expelled from any hex.

I like the idea of getting n00bs into line ships and fighting it out instead of taco belling, but there are negative aspects with almost every rule change and sometimes they are not worth it.

I could never get behind the rule as you propose it because it would drastically undercut the disengagement rule, which almost everyone agrees is necessary.

[Lepton]

My proposal does not gut disengagement rule and I am really not intending to do that.  Disengagement rule applies when line ships face line ships.  Want to kick line ships out of a hex?  Get in a line ship.  No biggy.

I have no idea what you are saying with your example.  If the FFK is bugging you, you jump it with some line ships if we are considering the FFK a line ship.  Same as any other server except you need to force him out with a line ship.

I don't think you understand the rules as I have stated them. I certainly don't understand your example.

[Lepton]

Let me spell it out because I don't think people are getting it.

A = 1 line & 1 non line ship fleeting
B = 2 line ships fleeting
C = 2 non line ships fleeting

A vs B: all of B's ships not subject to disengagement rule, A's line ship subject to disengagement rule
A vs C: A's line ship not subject to disengagement rule
B vs C: all of B's ships not subject to disengagement rule

To force B out of a hex, you are going to have to engage them in line ships.  This is the idea.  To get people into line ships.

Now, if, in any of these cases, one side were to outclass another, the side or ship that is not subject to the disengagement rule gets a little bonus and the freedom to fight a bit harder and take more risks.  I think that is a good thing.  If you run through all the permutations, you will see that a fleet with a capital ship will always have an advantage and rightly so for winning the mission, but to win the hex you must face a line ship with a line ship.  That's it.

[el-Karnak]

Yes, if CCs are included and line ships are determined by their Class types. For example, the Mirak BC is a CA-class vessel. The ISC CCs are BCH-class vessels.

Any fleeting would require the Disengagement Rule to stand.

[Lepton]

Argh, don't you people get it!!!  If you make that caveat, there is no mechanism that gets people into line ships.  It ruins the whole scheme.  It might as well not even exist. If a line ship is immediately subject to disengagement with any fleeting you might just as well fly a non-line ship.  There is no benefit, no inducement, no carrot.  You are basically saying if you fly alone in a line ship, you won't be subject to the disengagement rule.  This punishes the line ship player and at best only creates the conditions for 1v1s in line ships.  I think we want 2v2s and 3v3s with all line ships as well.  No disrespect, Karnak.  This is not aimed specifically at you, but people seem to refuse to understand this point.

[762_XC]

We understand Lepton, we just refuse to agree. 

I know what you are trying to do, and I think for those who are inclined to fly solo the inducement will be strong, IF you include command ships in the line category (such as CCH and NCC).

I think you are possibly dissuaded by the difficulty of the mission pack on the last server. It need not always be so, and people need not always be afraid to fly solos.

I believe strongly that when taking up new ideas it is best to proceed in limited steps, so we can minimize any unforseen negative consequences.

[Lepton]

I appreciate your sensible words, but I flew solo nearly the entire time on SG6 and I had no problems with the missions and of course often in a line ship.  That's not an issue for me.  If someone would like to implement this incrementally, I am all for it.  I am just not sure there will be sufficient inducement given the fleeting restriction.  You yourself, I believe, thought that even what I was suggesting was not sufficient inducement, so how is limitng the benefit going to be better?

[el-Karnak]

I think that it's a balance issue.

Given the laws of the dyna universe, some team is going to find the most uber-fleet of line ships available and potentially run hex-flipping wild on the dyna because they suddenly have a hex ban waiver.  In order to counter-balance such an eventuality some races are going to need the speciality ships in order to counter these fleets and they will need the hex ban rules in place to do it.

Having line ships fleets fight each other,  in order to hex ban the losing team out, may work on dynas that use the traditional SFB map where decades of work were used to make sure the races balance each other out in the given geographic areas.

[762_XC]

I appreciate your sensible words, but I flew solo nearly the entire time on SG6 and I had no problems with the missions and of course often in a line ship.  That's not an issue for me.  If someone would like to implement this incrementally, I am all for it.  I am just not sure there will be sufficient inducement given the fleeting restriction.  You yourself, I believe, thought that even what I was suggesting was not sufficient inducement, so how is limitng the benefit going to be better?

I think it will be sufficient if you include CCH's. Going from a CF to a CCH is not so drastic a step, whereas going from a CF to an NCA or CA will be like asking some to swallow tripe.

P.S. You yourself may have been comfortable flying solo under this pack, but I know for a lot of new and returning players this was not the case. I think if Dave ups the 1v1 and 2v2 frequency that will change.

[Dfly]

Lepton I fully understand your system you are suggesting, and I for one will endorse it.  Only part I am not too fond of is the more rules in a dyna thing, but after some Dizzy rules, this is not too bad
This theory of someone will ultimately find a hex flipping combo from hell, well, I know they will.  Problem is, the other team would need to assemble an uber hex flipping line team as well, which I am also sure they will do.  Then the 2 teams will most likely be hitting the same areas, and when they meet in battle, one side loses, is out for 1/2 to 1 hour, and the winning team runs missions there a little easier.  The losing team moves over a couple hexes and does the exact same thing again. 

Where is what I just posted any different from what has happened on any other server I have been on?(other than dividing line and non-line ships)
The only change is now it would take line ships to oust line ships, and specialties to oust specialties.

I also understand many will feel people will try to exploit the rulings, or the ship choices, etc, but we all do that now, to one extent or another.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Lepton's rule, in a dyna-rules friendly format:

If a player's side consists purely of line ships, and the opponent's side contains a specialty ship, the player's side is exempt from the disengagement rule.  For purposes of this rule, a line ship is defined as _________.  (current definition seems to be "all non-variant hulls and command/leader variants under 179 BPV")

[FPF-DieHard]

Lepton's rule, in a dyna-rules friendly format:

If a player's side consists purely of line ships, and the opponent's side contains a specialty ship, the player's side is exempt from the disengagement rule.  For purposes of this rule, a line ship is defined as _________.  (current definition seems to be "all non-variant hulls and command/leader variants under 179 BPV")

You can put together some particulary viscious fleets made up of nothing but "line" ships

[Hexx]

Again the real telling thing will be is- are you counting command ships as line -
IF you do, then yes, you can make some killer fleets
~Although the 179 BPV kinda makes a mess of some things, KRC is fine,KRCS is over
and of course most of the CCH with mechlinks are over. (Which is probably a good thing)

[762_XC]

I don't buy the whole 179 thing. The whole reason behind it is that the Novahawk is considered to be better than most CCH's. I think if we have a balanced CCH-class plasma boat on the other side we can avoid the whole issue. Give the Gorn CCH 2 more points of power and the problem will correct itself.

Gorns are sometimes Alliance and sometimes Coalition, but they are always on the opposite side of the Roms. Make the CCH comparable to the NHK and we have no BPV issues for command cruisers.

[Hexx]

~ Of course not flying plasma, but wouldn't a 41 power 10Ph1 CCH be better than a 42 power 7Ph1 CCH?

[762_XC]

Probably not. In the late era cheese and chase fight power is ultimately the most important thing.

G-CCH was avoided like the plague.

[Lepton]

The line ship idea avoids the cheese and chase of late era.  It's one of the ideas behind the whole thing.  Levelinng the playing field with ships that are relatively balanced and not uber.  Line ships will likely not stand up well to late era silliness.  This line ship system is designed to offer an alternative to that kind of gameplay.