Topic: AOTK3: Fleeting rules

[FPF-DieHard]

This is what I'm thinking.   This is open to debate and all input is welcome.  I've marked what was changed from SGO7 in Yellow so it is more obvious.

Fleeting Rules:


- No Capital Ships, (BC's, DN's, CVAs, BBs, and CCX/CAX's), are allowed to fly together.
- CVD's (Interdiction Carriers, those usually with 16 or so fighters) are treated as capital ships, but CVP Carriers (those with 12 ftrs) are not.
- CA and CL X ships are not allowed to fly together.  DDX ships can fly with one other X-ship in a 2 or 3-ship fleet.
- In a Three player fleet, one of the three must be in a line or command cruiser class ship.  A line ship is defined as any ship that is not a command or special class type ship, vanilla in other words.
- Only one MAULER, CARRIER, or FAST ship per fleet.  BCV/BCS's are treated as Carrier class and BC class types, CVAs count as Carrier and DN, Mauler DNs count as Mauler and DN, DNLs count as FAST ship and DN.  And yes, the F-DVL counts as a FAST ship, CARRIER, and a DN.
- Only 3 PPDs per fleet unless all PPDs are on the same ship.  (This was Jahkle’s rule from PBR, the 1 PPD-ship rule is too restrictive).
- If illegal ship combos are in a fleet by accident, their opponent may choose which offending ship must immediately disengage, and the disengagement penalty is voided for the disengaging ship, but they must stay in spectator mode till the battle concludes.   
EXCEPTION:  If you draft on a Planet or base where people are re-suppying, you fight whatever is drafted.  If you draft 3 BBs while they are re-supplying, you gotta fight them.

[KBF MalaK]

Man, I love that exception.

[Julin Eurthyr]

I like...

Allows legal X-squadrons, keeps specialty cheese cut down, actually lets the ISC be more ISC, and increases base defenses...

Concern:
How do you tell which DNs of a 3xDN fleet are resupplying and which DNs are just sitting rock on a base/planet?

and a potential re-wording of a couple of rules for you, hopefully simplifying the work:
Capital ships are: all BCH, DN, & BB hulls, CVDs (16 or so fighter CA carriers), and CA-hulled X-ships.
Only one Mauler, Carrier, Capital and Fast ship per fleet.  "Multi-Classed" ships, ie, those that fit 2 or more of the restrictred roles, count as the one allowed version of any/all roles it fills (so a BCV / BCS / CVA fills the Capital & carrier slots, Mauler DNs are capital & mauler, DNLs are capital & fast, DVLs are capital, fast, and carrier, etc.)
CA and CL X ships are not allowed to fly together.  DDX ships can fly with one other X ship in a fleet.

Think about it for a moment.  Currently, you define most capital ships, and state in a rule that they cannot fly together (so effectively one capital ship per fleet)
You have a second rule adding one more ship-type to the capital ship definition.
And the actual rule that defines an allowable fleet does not directly mention the capital ship restriction, but constantly infers it's existance.
All I do is combine all the capital ship definitions into one rule, and explicitly add capital ships to the one-of-each-type per fleet rule.

[FPF-DieHard]

Concern:
How do you tell which DNs of a 3xDN fleet are resupplying and which DNs are just sitting rock on a base/planet?

I haven't figured that out yet.      I've always been a a believer that it should be easier to attack than defend, perhaps they SHOULD be allowed to sit rock on a Planet or Base to defend it?

and a potential re-wording of a couple of rules for you, hopefully simplifying the work:
Capital ships are: all BCH, DN, & BB hulls, CVDs (16 or so fighter CA carriers), and CA-hulled X-ships.
Only one Mauler, Carrier, Capital and Fast ship per fleet.  "Multi-Classed" ships, ie, those that fit 2 or more of the restrictred roles, count as the one allowed version of any/all roles it fills (so a BCV / BCS / CVA fills the Capital & carrier slots, Mauler DNs are capital & mauler, DNLs are capital & fast, DVLs are capital, fast, and carrier, etc.)
CA and CL X ships are not allowed to fly together.  DDX ships can fly with one other X ship in a fleet.

Think about it for a moment.  Currently, you define most capital ships, and state in a rule that they cannot fly together (so effectively one capital ship per fleet)
You have a second rule adding one more ship-type to the capital ship definition.
And the actual rule that defines an allowable fleet does not directly mention the capital ship restriction, but constantly infers it's existance.
All I do is combine all the capital ship definitions into one rule, and explicitly add capital ships to the one-of-each-type per fleet rule.

I copied the verbage from SGO7.   Yours is easier to follw so I'll copy that after i get some more iputer from people.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Suggestion #1 I think that CVAs point value should be brought down to 6 with other dreadnaughts given the fleeting restrictions and the fair chance they will be engaged without a full complement of fighters.  6 points is still alot, but I think 8 is too heavy.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

DNLs count as FAST ship and Mauler. 

Shouldn't DNLs count as a DN and as a Fast ship instead?  why should they count as a mauler?

[FPF-DieHard]

DNLs count as FAST ship and Mauler. 

Shouldn't DNLs count as a DN and as a Fast ship instead?  why should they count as a mauler?

It's a Typo, FAST ship and DN.

[FPF-DieHard]

Suggestion #1 I think that CVAs point value should be brought down to 6 with other dreadnaughts given the fleeting restrictions and the fair chance they will be engaged without a full complement of fighters.  6 points is still alot, but I think 8 is too heavy.

a reasonable suggestion for another thread

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

EXCEPTION:  If you draft on a Planet or base where people are re-suppying, you fight whatever is drafted.  If you draft 3 BBs while they are re-supplying, you gotta fight them.

I like this, planets are not only log jams but cruicial areas, this rule addresses both aspects.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Is the Federation CS considered a "FAST" ship?

[FPF-DieHard]

Is the Federation CS considered a "FAST" ship?

No, the F-CS+ has a small YA window in which it's available to keep it's existance more resonable.   It's LYAd as soon as the NCL is out.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Concern:
How do you tell which DNs of a 3xDN fleet are resupplying and which DNs are just sitting rock on a base/planet?

I haven't figured that out yet.      I've always been a a believer that it should be easier to attack than defend, perhaps they SHOULD be allowed to sit rock on a Planet or Base to defend it?

I think you had another typo and reversed atttack and defend, if so I agree totally.

I see nothing wrong with them sitting rock on a planet or base. 

That being said, perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to disengage from such areas, especially planets.  I mean could you see Captain Kirk being allowed to disengage if the Klingons were bombarding Rigel, even if outgunned with civilians dying planetside under the onslaught?

Maybe you reduce the PvP points in such a situation but don't allow for anyone to run away, but make them stand tough and do their best no matter the odds.  That might help offset any advantage they got from being allowed what would otherwise be illegal fleeting.

[FPF-DieHard]

Concern:
How do you tell which DNs of a 3xDN fleet are resupplying and which DNs are just sitting rock on a base/planet?

I haven't figured that out yet.      I've always been a a believer that it should be easier to attack than defend, perhaps they SHOULD be allowed to sit rock on a Planet or Base to defend it?

I think you had another typo and reversed atttack and defend, if so I agree totally.

I see nothing wrong with them sitting rock on a planet or base. 

That being said, perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to disengage from such areas, especially planets.  I mean could you see Captain Kirk being allowed to disengage if the Klingons were bombarding Rigel, even if outgunned with civilians dying planetside under the onslaught?

Maybe you reduce the PvP points in such a situation but don't allow for anyone to run away, but make them stand tough and do their best no matter the odds.  That might help offset any advantage they got from being allowed what would otherwise be illegal fleeting.

I can't type today, meant to say easier to defend than attack.   I do disagree with your proposed idea, not happening.

There will be no "PvP" points on AOTK3.   Kills are going back to being worth direct VCs (more details to come later).

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I do disagree with your proposed idea, not happening.

Fair enough, just throwing the idea out for consideration.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

One thing I'd like to has out.

If a team assaulting a planet (or in any other mission for that matter) has an illegal fleet combination and it is by accident of drafting the wrong players or some other reason, and no enemy players are involved, what is the proper response.

Do they "send away" ships until a legal combo is reached, Play it out then take precautions not to repeat the faulty draft, immediately have everyone disengage, or some other action?

Normally I think it would not be a big deal as its just one mission and I'd think playing it out would be acceptable, especially when the intent was to draft a different player who gets left out of the mission.  However, in cases where a destructable base is at issue I think one of the other 2 options might be better.

Just think we need to set a standard policy for this.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

One other idea,

If a lone player is online for his side, and more than 1 player is online for the opposing side, should we allow them to fly multiple ships to defend a planets and bases?

I would think that as long as his fleet did not violate the normal fleeting rules for 3 players, (ie one line/command cruiser, only one capital ship, etc with all the restrictions), he should be allowed to do so in order to defend VC objectives and bases, but only be allowed to do on those hexes only, and if caught on another hex he must disengage ships from his fleet until only 1 remained before the battle started.

Just another idea for consideration.  Might be more trouble than its worth I know, but think its worth a few minutes of consideration.

[FPF-DieHard]

One thing I'd like to has out.

If a team assaulting a planet (or in any other mission for that matter) has an illegal fleet combination and it is by accident of drafting the wrong players or some other reason, and no enemy players are involved, what is the proper response.

Do they "send away" ships until a legal combo is reached, Play it out then take precautions not to repeat the faulty draft, immediately have everyone disengage, or some other action?

Normally I think it would not be a big deal as its just one mission and I'd think playing it out would be acceptable, especially when the intent was to draft a different player who gets left out of the mission.  However, in cases where a destructable base is at issue I think one of the other 2 options might be better.

Just think we need to set a standard policy for this.

Very good point, a CVA and 2 CVD is illegal as hell but can be used very effectively to crack any starbase in half.   Your above sugesstion is makes sense.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Concern:
How do you tell which DNs of a 3xDN fleet are resupplying and which DNs are just sitting rock on a base/planet?

I haven't figured that out yet.      I've always been a a believer that it should be easier to attack than defend, perhaps they SHOULD be allowed to sit rock on a Planet or Base to defend it?

I can live with the rule "when attacking a planet/base, you face whatever defense may be sitting there, whether or not it's a legal fleet"...   What fleet isn't gonna concentrate the full power of it's fleet to the protection of a key asset?  Luckily, this is a double-edged sword, I go in, draft 3xDN with a FF, die spectacularly for little cost and a short disengagement, while my comrades all hit underneath me knowing full well there's no DNs waiting... :evil:

[KBFLordKrueg]

This is what I'm thinking.   This is open to debate and all input is welcome.  I've marked what was changed from SGO7 in Yellow so it is more obvious.

Fleeting Rules:


- No Capital Ships, (BC's, DN's, CVAs, BBs, and CCX/CAX's), are allowed to fly together.
- CVD's (Interdiction Carriers, those usually with 16 or so fighters) are treated as capital ships, but CVP Carriers (those with 12 ftrs) are not.
- CA and CL X ships are not allowed to fly together.  DDX ships can fly with one other X-ship in a 2 or 3-ship fleet.
- In a Three player fleet, one of the three must be in a line or command cruiser class ship.  A line ship is defined as any ship that is not a command or special class type ship, vanilla in other words.
- Only one MAULER, CARRIER, or FAST ship per fleet.  BCV/BCS's are treated as Carrier class and BC class types, CVAs count as Carrier and DN, Mauler DNs count as Mauler and DN, DNLs count as FAST ship and DN.  And yes, the F-DVL counts as a FAST ship, CARRIER, and a DN.
- Only 3 PPDs per fleet unless all PPDs are on the same ship.  (This was Jahkle’s rule from PBR, the 1 PPD-ship rule is too restrictive).
- If illegal ship combos are in a fleet by accident, their opponent may choose which offending ship must immediately disengage, and the disengagement penalty is voided for the disengaging ship, but they must stay in spectator mode till the battle concludes.   
EXCEPTION:  If you draft on a Planet or base where people are re-suppying, you fight whatever is drafted.  If you draft 3 BBs while they are re-supplying, you gotta fight them.

Acceptable...

[Lieutenant_Q]

Concern:
How do you tell which DNs of a 3xDN fleet are resupplying and which DNs are just sitting rock on a base/planet?

I haven't figured that out yet.      I've always been a a believer that it should be easier to attack than defend, perhaps they SHOULD be allowed to sit rock on a Planet or Base to defend it?

I can live with the rule "when attacking a planet/base, you face whatever defense may be sitting there, whether or not it's a legal fleet"...   What fleet isn't gonna concentrate the full power of it's fleet to the protection of a key asset?  Luckily, this is a double-edged sword, I go in, draft 3xDN with a FF, die spectacularly for little cost and a short disengagement, while my comrades all hit underneath me knowing full well there's no DNs waiting... :evil:

Quite honestly, if that was done intentionally constantly, I would Ban the offender and tell him to never come back.  We're supposed to be playing a game Civilly, and that type of thing only ruins the game for everyone involved.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

You might consider allowing only 1 F-DVL on the server at a time.  This ship is a bit devestating in its era and historically there was only 1, so I think this would be a good rules addition.

[FPF-DieHard]

You might consider allowing only 1 F-DVL on the server at a time.  This ship is a bit devestating in its era and historically there was only 1, so I think this would be a good rules addition.

I can agree to this.  I prefer the DNL anyway

[Dizzy]

That being said, perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to disengage from such areas, especially planets.  I mean could you see Captain Kirk being allowed to disengage if the Klingons were bombarding Rigel, even if outgunned with civilians dying planetside under the onslaught?

I have a different idea... I like DH's slant on giving the advantage to the defenders of a besieged planet, however allowing Battleships and Dreadnoughts to camp is flawed imo. Fleeting rules are designed to keep a somewhat level playing field so each matchup can be played out. No one likes to go thru a countdown, a draft load and then have to disengage without firing a shot and then be banned from the hex. The whole idea of D2 is bringing each opposing side together to fight it out. So I suggest to give the advantage to the defender, void the disengagement rule for the defenders and surrounding hexes of the planet if run out or killed while on the planet only. Let's face it, if you are about to lose a planet that right there means your side is losing the hex war... So it makes sense to void the hex ban rule in that respect. The upside is there will be more PvP. 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

That being said, perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to disengage from such areas, especially planets.  I mean could you see Captain Kirk being allowed to disengage if the Klingons were bombarding Rigel, even if outgunned with civilians dying planetside under the onslaught?

I have a different idea... I like DH's slant on giving the advantage to the defenders of a besieged planet, however allowing Battleships and Dreadnoughts to camp is flawed imo. Fleeting rules are designed to keep a somewhat level playing field so each matchup can be played out. No one likes to go thru a countdown, a draft load and then have to disengage without firing a shot and then be banned from the hex. The whole idea of D2 is bringing each opposing side together to fight it out. So I suggest to give the advantage to the defender, void the disengagement rule for the defenders and surrounding hexes of the planet if run out or killed while on the planet only. Let's face it, if you are about to lose a planet that right there means your side is losing the hex war... So it makes sense to void the hex ban rule in that respect. The upside is there will be more PvP. 

I have no problem with voiding hex bans on planets for the defenders, in fact I think I was the first one to suggest this.  But I think it might work better if it only applied to destroyed ships.  Those that disengage should still have a ban IMHO, although I could see reducing the time of it.

[FPF-DieHard]

That being said, perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to disengage from such areas, especially planets.  I mean could you see Captain Kirk being allowed to disengage if the Klingons were bombarding Rigel, even if outgunned with civilians dying planetside under the onslaught?

I have a different idea... I like DH's slant on giving the advantage to the defenders of a besieged planet, however allowing Battleships and Dreadnoughts to camp is flawed imo. Fleeting rules are designed to keep a somewhat level playing field so each matchup can be played out. No one likes to go thru a countdown, a draft load and then have to disengage without firing a shot and then be banned from the hex. The whole idea of D2 is bringing each opposing side together to fight it out. So I suggest to give the advantage to the defender, void the disengagement rule for the defenders and surrounding hexes of the planet if run out or killed while on the planet only. Let's face it, if you are about to lose a planet that right there means your side is losing the hex war... So it makes sense to void the hex ban rule in that respect. The upside is there will be more PvP. 

This would actually go under the Disengagement rule thread but it is an interesting idea.

[Dfly]

I too like the idea of allowing the defender on a planet or base to not have a disengagement.  As per him having to blow up to acheive this(or win hence no prob) I dont agree with that because lets say on day 4 I come onto the server for say the second time, see a planet being hit, and want to defend it, but only have say 3000,  I would be out of that hex in a matter of a couple losses at best as I could no longer afford anything bigger than an FF, and would most likely continually lose ships and the hex.  If I knew my ship could run, and then defend on the next one, I have given up a shift for running, but could afford the next fight.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I too like the idea of allowing the defender on a planet or base to not have a disengagement.  As per him having to blow up to acheive this(or win hence no prob) I dont agree with that because lets say on day 4 I come onto the server for say the second time, see a planet being hit, and want to defend it, but only have say 3000,  I would be out of that hex in a matter of a couple losses at best as I could no longer afford anything bigger than an FF, and would most likely continually lose ships and the hex.  If I knew my ship could run, and then defend on the next one, I have given up a shift for running, but could afford the next fight.

Thats what I do like the death requirement.  If your able to bounce people off the assault after you run away this doesn't strike me as being fair, with a destruction you have to pay a price in VCs or PvP points, or in lost prestige.  You have to reach your own conclusion about whether the price is worth it.  If a disengaged foe is allowed to return they can continue to sneak in missions underneath an assault.

For example, I run patrols in A DF in 3 minutes two guys in a DN and a CC run planetary assaults in 12 minutes.  Well if they run me off in one mission and I keep trying to run underneath them while they are in 1 mission I can run 4 underneath them.  If I have to stay and die then I have to hope a good ship is in the yards and even then may have to wait on the yards to recycle.  That will at least slow me down, a little if A DF pops up again, but a bit more if a hexflipping ship doesn't.  Now if a destruction is the only way to stay I'm forced with a decision on whether to continue to make fast runs in a new DF after waiting for one, or getting a more viable PvP ship to directly contest in combat.  If I go the combat route I have to decide if the ship loss PvP points are worth staying and fighting if the battle turns against me, rather than saying, "Well I tried, but they were too much for me, better go get another DF and run under them again".

[Dizzy]

as being fair, with a destruction you have to pay a price in VCs or PvP points, or in lost prestige.  You have to reach your own conclusion about whether the price is worth it. 

Casual/new players shouldnt be penalized by prestige. Chuut, pp has never been a problem for you. I wouldnt expect you to understand this issue.

[FPF-DieHard]

I too like the idea of allowing the defender on a planet or base to not have a disengagement.  As per him having to blow up to acheive this(or win hence no prob) I dont agree with that because lets say on day 4 I come onto the server for say the second time, see a planet being hit, and want to defend it, but only have say 3000,  I would be out of that hex in a matter of a couple losses at best as I could no longer afford anything bigger than an FF, and would most likely continually lose ships and the hex.  If I knew my ship could run, and then defend on the next one, I have given up a shift for running, but could afford the next fight.

Thats what I do like the death requirement.  If your able to bounce people off the assault after you run away this doesn't strike me as being fair, with a destruction you have to pay a price in VCs or PvP points, or in lost prestige.  You have to reach your own conclusion about whether the price is worth it.  If a disengaged foe is allowed to return they can continue to sneak in missions underneath an assault.

For example, I run patrols in A DF in 3 minutes two guys in a DN and a CC run planetary assaults in 12 minutes.  Well if they run me off in one mission and I keep trying to run underneath them while they are in 1 mission I can run 4 underneath them.  If I have to stay and die then I have to hope a good ship is in the yards and even then may have to wait on the yards to recycle.  That will at least slow me down, a little if A DF pops up again, but a bit more if a hexflipping ship doesn't.  Now if a destruction is the only way to stay I'm forced with a decision on whether to continue to make fast runs in a new DF after waiting for one, or getting a more viable PvP ship to directly contest in combat.  If I go the combat route I have to decide if the ship loss PvP points are worth staying and fighting if the battle turns against me, rather than saying, "Well I tried, but they were too much for me, better go get another DF and run under them again".

No

[Dizzy]

- CA and CL X ships are not allowed to fly together.  DDX ships can fly with one other X-ship in a 2 or 3-ship fleet.

sO A cb AND A clx CANT WING? oops caps. Any particular reason why?

EXCEPTION:  If you draft on a Planet or base where people are re-suppying, you fight whatever is drafted.  If you draft 3 BBs while they are re-supplying, you gotta fight them.

If a planet is within striking distance, then defending players arnt going to be resupplying there. They will be defedning it. And as the rules are written, they will be in the biggest baddest fleet-rule defying ships they can buy. This rule is purely abusive. I say strike it. There are better ways at giving defenders advantages than mucking up a playable PvP fight.

[FPF-DieHard]

- CA and CL X ships are not allowed to fly together.  DDX ships can fly with one other X-ship in a 2 or 3-ship fleet.

sO A cb AND A clx CANT WING? oops caps. Any particular reason why?

Where the hell do you get this interpretation?

[Lieutenant_Q]

He got the interpretation because you listed it as CA and CL X,  Instead of CA X and CL X.  I made the same assumption for a moment before I re-read the rule.

[FPF-DieHard]

He got the interpretation because you listed it as CA and CL X,  Instead of CA X and CL X.  I made the same assumption for a moment before I re-read the rule.

 

OMG, got it. 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

as being fair, with a destruction you have to pay a price in VCs or PvP points, or in lost prestige.  You have to reach your own conclusion about whether the price is worth it. 

Casual/new players shouldnt be penalized by prestige. Chuut, pp has never been a problem for you. I wouldnt expect you to understand this issue.

There is no penalty suggested here, just an option.  You don't want to take the risk, you disengage, no one is forcing you to stay.  Also on my earlier suggestion where you would be forced to stay, you make the choice of deciding to take the risk and jump in in the first place.

War is about calculated risks.

Anyhow Die Hard has made a ruling and the point is mute either way.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

If a planet is within striking distance, then defending players arnt going to be resupplying there. They will be defedning it. And as the rules are written, they will be in the biggest baddest fleet-rule defying ships they can buy. This rule is purely abusive. I say strike it. There are better ways at giving defenders advantages than mucking up a playable PvP fight.

Not saying I disagree, I'm still not totally decided on this as far as my opinion, but perhaps some mention of these "better ways" might be helpful for your position.

[Dizzy]

Ok, a number of advantages to give other than allowing a cheese fleet to defend a planet...

You could have a section on Planetary Defense Rules. Something that allows a solo captain to field a 3 ship fleet himself if he abides by the fleeting rules as they would apply to 3 players in a fleet.

Special fleeting rules for planetary defense allowing certain exemptions on existing fleeting rules like waiving the 3rd ship has to be a line ship. Or waiving limiting 2 carriers or 2 fast cruisers from winging together. The idea is to allow a tougher defense presence, but to keep the pvp match playable. Cant do that facing 3x DN's.

You could mess with the disengagement or destruction rule ban time.

Or waiving PvP points for defending ships killed on a planet. Tie that in with no hex ban for being destroyed on a planet and you're looking at the only three penalties would be the loss of the DV, loss of PP and loss of time in which it takes to buy another ship.

Lotsa things to do, but u dont want to have an unplayable PvP match.

[Lieutenant_Q]

I know you don't like AI.  But what if the defending force would have a fleet of say ten Destroyers and Frigates?  And then add supporting ships to the Attackers as well.  Not talking one or two, but six or seven.  Making the numbers slightly favor the defenders (plus the planet/base)

[Dizzy]

I know you don't like AI.  But what if the defending force would have a fleet of say ten Destroyers and Frigates?  And then add supporting ships to the Attackers as well.  Not talking one or two, but six or seven.  Making the numbers slightly favor the defenders (plus the planet/base)

Due to the dynamics of missions, we currently penalize the assulter of a planet with either planet assaults or something else. Takes average 6-12 minutes per mission while the defender gets the advantage of running 3-4 minute missions. Revising mission choices on planets for defender and assaulters isnt something that will be considered in the short term. Thanks for the suggestion.

[FPF-DieHard]

I know you don't like AI.  But what if the defending force would have a fleet of say ten Destroyers and Frigates?  And then add supporting ships to the Attackers as well.  Not talking one or two, but six or seven.  Making the numbers slightly favor the defenders (plus the planet/base)

I have to talk to ED about this, but I do think "Patrol" missions should draft on a Planet/base.  With a little luck I should have a new test server up wonight with ED's new pack so we can test it.

[Dizzy]

I know you don't like AI.  But what if the defending force would have a fleet of say ten Destroyers and Frigates?  And then add supporting ships to the Attackers as well.  Not talking one or two, but six or seven.  Making the numbers slightly favor the defenders (plus the planet/base)

I have to talk to ED about this, but I do think "Patrol" missions should draft on a Planet/base.  With a little luck I should have a new test server up wonight with ED's new pack so we can test it.

Here's the way it's currently working... Patrol missions for assaulters trump Planet assaults only when a human defender is present. Otherwise Planetary Assaults are offered. For the defender, only patrols are offered in which human PvP patrols trump AI patrols.

Other than that, I would object to anything else being changed with the exception of a well balanced and scripted Shipyard assault/defense that isn't a PvP mission. Thus it would be offered alongside AI Planetary Assaults for the Assauter and along with AI patrols for the defender. Shipyard Defense missions should be a cash cow.

Diz

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I have to talk to ED about this, but I do think "Patrol" missions should draft on a Planet/base.  With a little luck I should have a new test server up wonight with ED's new pack so we can test it.

Thats what I was thinking as well, LOL

I remember the old days when defending a base you had that base backing you up.

[Dizzy]

I remember the old days when defending a base you had that base backing you up.

Coding this would be problematic. There is a current issue with the server kit that assigns empire rankings based off economy. As a solution, Shiplist modification would make all bases the same. So coding in a base would need to use the neutral bases or DefSats. Balance is the main issue. What kind of base, how many and such would upset fleeting rules. It may be as bad as having the defender allowed to ignore fleeting rules alltogether and field 3x DN's in defense of a planet. Although I think it would be fun to have a mission like that, PvP matchups would suffer.

There is an alternative... Allowing AI ships into defensive planetary draft patrols, one for each enemy ship over the defender. So in a 3v1, the solo defender would be granted 2x AI ships under fleet contol. However, doing this wouldnt allow u the option of having a Planetary Defense rule where a solo captain can field three ships as ong as they abide by existing fleeting rules... One of my ideas.

I think the current system we have is fair.

[Lieutenant_Q]

Perhaps adding DefSats to the Planetary Assault missions?

[Dizzy]

Perhaps adding DefSats to the Planetary Assault missions?

PA's are AI only missions for the assaulter that are offered only when there isnt a human opposition player present for a patrol mission instead. PA's already have DefSats.

[FPF-DieHard]

Perhaps adding DefSats to the Planetary Assault missions?

PA's are AI only missions for the assaulter that are offered only when there isnt a human opposition player present for a patrol mission instead. PA's already have DefSats.

IMHO, there should be NO AI only assult missions.   

[Dizzy]

Perhaps adding DefSats to the Planetary Assault missions?

PA's are AI only missions for the assaulter that are offered only when there isnt a human opposition player present for a patrol mission instead. PA's already have DefSats.

IMHO, there should be NO AI only assult missions.   

There have to be AI Only missions when an enemy combatant isnt present to be drafted. I would object to the PA being a PvP mission.

[FPF-DieHard]

Perhaps adding DefSats to the Planetary Assault missions?

PA's are AI only missions for the assaulter that are offered only when there isnt a human opposition player present for a patrol mission instead. PA's already have DefSats.

IMHO, there should be NO AI only assult missions.   

There have to be AI Only missions when an enemy combatant isnt present to be drafted. I would object to the PA being a PvP mission.

That's not what I mean, I mean all missions should draft human defenders.

[Dizzy]

I disagree. You actually want a PvP mission of the PA? That's retarded.

Perhaps we need to have a discussion on why we have the PA mission in the 1st place.

[FPF-DieHard]

I disagree. You actually want a PvP mission of the PA? That's retarded.

Perhaps we need to have a discussion on why we have the PA mission in the 1st place.

Rememeber those crazy PvP Planet missions we had in SGO4?   Those were a blast and drafted deffenders.

[Dizzy]

Ok, I'll assent if ED will implement a script this way:

A PvP Planet 'Defense' script would be offered alongside patrols for the attacker on FRIENDLY planet hexes only. See how this works?

[Dizzy]

I disagree. You actually want a PvP mission of the PA? That's retarded.

Perhaps we need to have a discussion on why we have the PA mission in the 1st place.

Rememeber those crazy PvP Planet missions we had in SGO4?   Those were a blast and drafted deffenders.

Ya, the one where Agave's BBVZ was destroyed by Firesouls StarBases. I remember those, they were fun... sometimes.

[NuclearWessels]

Ok, I'll assent if ED will implement a script this way:

A PvP Planet 'Defense' script would be offered alongside patrols for the attacker on FRIENDLY planet hexes only. See how this works?

A defense script offered to the attacker on friendly planets?   Am I not getting this?

Met_NW16PlanetDefense should draft for PvP (essentially the Shipyard Defense script with planets added),
it's offered to the defender - is that what you're looking for?

dave

[Dizzy]

In these examples we have Feds vs Klinks and here's how it's happening:

1.) Ok I'm a Fed sitting on a Fed controlled Planet. A klink moves in and the mission choice the klink is given is always a patrol.

2.) There isnt a fed sitting on the Fed planet. The klink moves in and is only offered PA scripts.

3.) A klink is sitting on the Fed controlled planet and my Fed character move in and the mission choice I get is always a patrol.

4.) No one is on the fed controlled planet and my fed character moves in and is always offered a patrol.

Those are the only 4 things that are happening. So PA scripts are not offered despite being a PvP mission. I'd rather they not be PvP missions because drafting a live player while facing 3 Defsats and a Ph4 armed planet would take forever to complete. That's not a balance issue I want to contend with.

There is room for improvement. To answer your question in the above post, my sugestion would be to offer a script for friendly space planet hexes where you control a neutral base, Defsats or such along with up to 2 other UI Fleet Controlled AI ships, each AI spawned based off of whether or not you face more than one opponent. Course, this mission should be rife with AI ships on both sides. AI ships make things interesting. Anytime you add a base to a PvP script, that just does away with the non-AI pvp crowd. I prefer straight up AI stripping patrols when given the chance.

Another script that has been skipped in previous SG servers is the Shipyard Assault/Defense. Again, I like how the current setup works in which if there is a draftable opponent you are only offered a patrol. In the case of not having a draftable opponent, ShipYard Assault/Defense missions would add variety and fun. Basically, the PA and Shipyard assaults shouldnt be PvP missions. Currently, the PA script is just such, only an AI mission.

Another area of discussion on this is Chuut's comments on running 4 missions in the defense of one's planet in the time it takes the assaulter to do one. Perhaps Planetary Defense missions and Shipyard Defense missions should become standard fare for friendly space planet mission choices instead of patrols. That'd level the playing field making it just as hard to defend vs AI as it is to assault vs AI and leave the PvP to patrols only with AI stripping. I'd preder this setup as ideal.

[NuclearWessels]

Ahhh!  Got it, thanks for the clarification  (too many days of marking, my brain is thoroughly rotted right now)

Well, creating non-PvP scripts is no problem - kinda the opposite of what we've always tried, but easy enough to do (certainly easier than making them PvP)

dave

[Dizzy]

In addition to the script pack as is, we only really need AI only Shipyard assault and defense planet hex missions. Shipyard defense needs to be a cash cow and shipyard assault needs to be able to be able to be completed in 6-12 minutes as comparable to the PA script.