Topic: AOTK3: Fleeting rules

[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