Topic: For my next set of servers . . .

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Kzinti Swine....Noble Lyran

You left out the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny.   

Oh BTW this:

So like day 1-3 Skirmises along the Lyran Kzin border
Day 4-7 Massive Klingon and Lyran stomping of Kzin
DAy 8-12 Hydrans attack and get stomped
day 13-14 Feds decide to invade peace loving Klingon and Lyran empire.

should read:

So like day 1-3 Skirmises along the Lyran Kzin border
Day 4-7 Creation of the graveyard of Klingon and Lyrans Ships.
DAy 8-12 D5D graveyard created in Hydran space and the Hydran-Federation Highway as well.
day 13-14 Feds decide to cleanse the Klingon and Lyran empires and subjects in need of baths.

 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Do whatever you want Die Hard, I'm not really inteseted in this anyways.  I killed enough Klingons and Lyrans the last one to do for 2-3 servers, its a wonder that the C-7 is still flown after that one.     There is some appeal with traditional enemies and I had my best match ever destroying a Lyran CC+ with a Z-BF, but in general I've been there too often and done that, and the historic map has gotten very very old for me.  If there is something really new and novel about it I might give it a try, but lacking that I really don't see much that would draw me to it over City of Heroes.

However if you need someone outside the campaign participants to hold certain information as later verification, act as an arbitrator, or to write some roleplay or some other function I'd be happy to help. Just because some folkes don't want to is no reason not to do it if thats what you want to do.

 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

You'd also have to tie intervention of different empires to hex flipping as well, despite what Chuut may claim, it's kinda obvious that any early era server is going to have Kzin outflipping Lyrans by a wide margin- so simply have rules that show if the Kzin (for example) advance X amount into Lyran space, then the Klingon Empire activates earlier.

<sigh> I guess the Klingons are too lazy to try to retake Lyraa   

Actually, I think its a very bad idea. 

But don't worry I'm not interested in this server anyway, so my refusal to play on such a setup wouldn't be affecting my participation.

Here is my problem with it:

Assuming the server goes as you predict, you would strip the Kzinti of gains they made but you offer nothing on the other side.  Now if you had such an early Klingon intervention obviously the Lyran economy would be severly strained to warrant this and Lyran new ship production set back severly.  Perhaps the Lyran BCHs would all be set back a couple of years due to this? Or the Klingon economy strained by being forced to rescue the Lyrans before it was prepared to go to war, like the Germans were stretched by having to bail out the Lyran Italian military in WW II.   Or perhaps the Moggy BCH would be granted to the Kzinti due to all the extra wealth from pillaged lands coming in.  Or maybe if when aciviating the Klingons early the Federation is also activated early?

You can't honestly expect to strip a side of its advantages inherent and earned without balancing out their disadvantages, or eliminating the hard work they put in.  I remember Kreug calculating on a server to press an advange as much as he felt possible without activating a condition that would advantage the other side.  That isn't a very fun way to play the game, knowing your punished for sucess.  If someone tried to impose those rules on me and I was leading, I'd order a day one invasion of the Klingon Empire just as a protest knowing that if I was going to fight them eventually might as well get started on day one with battle lines closer to my allies, rather than fighting Klingons way over in Lyran space where support would be more difficult.

The General War was meant to be a campaign that balanced over time with ebb and flow, what your proposing is all ebb and no flow.  If the Lyrans get their butts kicked in round 1 then round 2 is just as likely to see the Kzinti get their kicked defending against 2 empires, then there are rounds 3,4, etc.  In fact you suggest as much above where you say "Day 4-7 Massive Klingon and Lyran stomping of Kzin", so take your butt stomping if it is coming to you, you will get your turn. 

 Ebb and flow with the entries of the various races at the proper times facilitating it.

But my opinion really doesn't matter since I'm not interested anyway.   

[Julin Eurthyr]

You'd also have to tie intervention of different empires to hex flipping as well, despite what Chuut may claim, it's kinda obvious that any early era server is going to have Kzin outflipping Lyrans by a wide margin- so simply have rules that show if the Kzin (for example) advance X amount into Lyran space, then the Klingon Empire activates earlier.

<sigh> I guess the Klingons are too lazy to try to retake Lyraa   

<snippy>

 Ebb and flow with the entries of the various races at the proper times facilitating it.

The "ebb and flow" of the entries etc. all fit into the "historic accurateness" of the General War, as written by SVC & co.

Violate that, and then what do we do?

Consider:

Per "history": Early 4 powers was effectively Hydran/Klink & Kzin/Lyran.  Upon the Klingons completing their "pasting" of the Hydrans, they invaded Kzin space, and the Kzin, unable to withstand the combined onslaught, prompted the desparation of the Hydran Expedition and resultant mobilization of the Feds.

However, if the Kzin stomped the Lyrans (entirely possible with your Kzin Success Scenerio), then the following questions need to be asked:

Would the Klingons even invade?  And if they do, is it more an attempt to aid belegured Lyrans or an attempt to stomp the now-massive Kzin Hegemony before the Klinks are next on the invasion list?
Would the Hydrans feel the pressure to launch the Expedition, seeing their Kzin "allies" are actually capable of defending themselves?  And without the Expedition, would the Feds begin to mobilize that early?
Would a Fed mobilization actually be geared as an anti-coalition move?  Remembering the Man-Kzin war history, perhaps a Fed mobilization in that timeframe would instead be geared to defend Federation interests against the Kzin Hegemony, thereby blowing the Alliance apart before it even formed.

And if we were to enforce the "general war" dates irreguardless of the actual situation, the situation would be lopsided (Double strength Kzin, old-colony Hydrans and full Feds vs Klinks and what's left of the Lyrans.)  Obviously, the situation will snowball (Lyran Empire genocided, then a 3 on 1 raping of the Klingons) into a no-questions asked Alliance victory.  And we all know how played a snowball server actually is...

Prior to the server start, we'd have to establish not only the "proper" activation conditions, but numerous "contingency" conditions for both sides, to cover what happens in the event of any ahistorical situations, geared twoard bringing the war back to it's proper "ebb and flow" ASAP.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

The "ebb and flow" of the entries etc. all fit into the "historic accurateness" of the General War, as written by SVC & co.

Violate that, and then what do we do?

Consider:

Per "history": Early 4 powers was effectively Hydran/Klink & Kzin/Lyran.  Upon the Klingons completing their "pasting" of the Hydrans, they invaded Kzin space, and the Kzin, unable to withstand the combined onslaught, prompted the desparation of the Hydran Expedition and resultant mobilization of the Feds.

However, if the Kzin stomped the Lyrans (entirely possible with your Kzin Success Scenerio), then the following questions need to be asked:

Would the Klingons even invade?  And if they do, is it more an attempt to aid belegured Lyrans or an attempt to stomp the now-massive Kzin Hegemony before the Klinks are next on the invasion list?
Would the Hydrans feel the pressure to launch the Expedition, seeing their Kzin "allies" are actually capable of defending themselves?  And without the Expedition, would the Feds begin to mobilize that early?
Would a Fed mobilization actually be geared as an anti-coalition move?  Remembering the Man-Kzin war history, perhaps a Fed mobilization in that timeframe would instead be geared to defend Federation interests against the Kzin Hegemony, thereby blowing the Alliance apart before it even formed.

And if we were to enforce the "general war" dates irreguardless of the actual situation, the situation would be lopsided (Double strength Kzin, old-colony Hydrans and full Feds vs Klinks and what's left of the Lyrans.)  Obviously, the situation will snowball (Lyran Empire genocided, then a 3 on 1 raping of the Klingons) into a no-questions asked Alliance victory.  And we all know how played a snowball server actually is...

Prior to the server start, we'd have to establish not only the "proper" activation conditions, but numerous "contingency" conditions for both sides, to cover what happens in the event of any ahistorical situations, geared twoard bringing the war back to it's proper "ebb and flow" ASAP.

I think that is kinda silly actually Julin, since the player numbers for the  Federation/Hydran/Kzinti raping of the Klingon/whats left of the Lyrans would be the same as if the traditional SFB history was followed to a tee.  Player numbers don't change, the only change is in the numnber of ship options/combinations available and that is secondary to player numbers by a huge degree.  Hexx is propossing releasing the Klingons so that the Coalition will have the use of drones at an earlier date, thats all, but he is NOT proposing allowing for anything as a counterbalnce that would disadvantage the Coalition side, like Federation help for the Hydrans if they get pounded on by the Klingons without breaking through, which I don't like either since it is rewarding a side for failure and punishing the other for sucess.  I think this is a bad idea and makes players feel that participation is wasted time.  Imagine the reaction some would have if since one side was ahead in PvP points by a certain margin, then the other sides ships suddenly became worth fewer points if killed?

Its a bad idea despite the good intentions.

I'm not interested in playing on the series, the enemies of the Kzinti need no other handicap than this.   

[el-Karnak]

Let's redo SGO4 with a "no treaties" rule

I would love to do an ISC invasion type server, sign me up for the tech work but I can't for the live of me figure out how to do and it be good.   D2 is a Hex-flipping game.

My idea from way back was to do an ISC Invasion using the CANON Alpha and near-Beta quadrant Star Trek galactic maps used in all the TV series with the SFB empires put in the empty spaces to the north and the south.  Lyrans, Hydrans and Kzin are in the north while the ISC invades from the south. All the empty space in the east are the too-be discovered Cardassian, Tzenkethi and Ferengi empires.  The Tholians would be located in the far left bottom corner.  Please see attached map.

The object of the campaign is to win a war where the self-righteous ISC, Fed-hating Klingons, power-hungry Roms, "persuaded" Gorns have colluded and conspired in a "Coalition" to undergo a war of "pacification" to dominate the "Alliance" of the Federation and its Mirak, Hydran and Lyran allies.

Alliances: The Coalition Powers (ISC, Klingons, Romulans, Gorns) versus the Alliance Powers (Federation, Hydrans, Mirak/Kzintis, Lyrans).

Territorial VCs: 25 VPs given for each enemy planet taken, 10 VPs for each enemy base taken and 100 VPs for each enemy Homeworld taken. Alliances: I/R/G/K vs. M/H/L/F.

We would set a specific territorial VC level for each fighting empire that designates their "surrender" limit. Basically, once a pre-set limit of VCs are taken from a given empire that empire would cease hostilities (ie. no one can fly their ships anymore). Once one side loses all their empires the war is over.  The pre-set VCs are based on the economic size of each empire. Gorns are the smallest empire so they get the fewest VCs while the Feds a little larger than the ISC so they get the most VCs to defend.  The Hydrans, Kzin and Lyrans are middle-powers while the Klingons are the Romulans are ranked respectively 3rd and 4th behind the no. 1 Feds and no. 2 ISC.

Neutral VCs would be located in the Cardassian, Tzenkethi and Ferengi empire space. One side or the other could take them to bolster their VCs tally to allocate to their side's empire in most need of them before being forced to "surrender".

[Lepton]

I'd like to see smaller maps used in general and nearly ridiculously high DV values to negate hex flipping activities.  I left this past server because I could not stand any more missions vs the AI.  And when I hear people on comms running 2 minutes missions in DFs just to get a DV shift, I wonder what the hell any of us are doing and why the hell I am here at all.  Can we please try to find a way to minimize "vs AI" missions altogether?  I realize some people enjoy hex-flipping.  They are abhorrent and should be subjected to "extreme interrogation techniques" until they confess to their crimes.

[Lepton]

Here's a simple idea for a PvP server.  Take the PvP points system for ATOK3.  At the end of a VC round, those points are converted on a 1 to 1 basis into DV shifts, i.e. 100 PvP points equal to 100 DV shifts.  The side with the most DV shifts gets to place the difference in the DV shifts on the map via a DB edit.  This would make PvP the only method to actually affect the map.  Any missions run vs the AI would be ignored and their corresponding DV shifts would be corrected at the time of the DB edit.  So you can still pummel the AI if you wish but it means nothing to the overall map, however it will allow one to build up PP so that one can buy ships and supplies.

[FPF-DieHard]

Can we please try to find a way to minimize "vs AI" missions altogether?  I realize some people enjoy hex-flipping.  They are abhorrent and should be subjected to "extreme interrogation techniques" until they confess to their crimes.

There needs to be a balance, like it or hate it Dynaverse IS a game about Hex-flipping.   The disengament rule and PvP VC points give PvP some value but this IS a hex-flipping game.

I confess, I fly whatever ship is best to do whatever role is needed.  When people need to be hunted I go for a cruiser or capital ship, when I'm hunting AI I got for the Z-DWD.   It's the nature of the game no matter how much we try to change it.

AOTK3 had very little PvP on it which is surprising considering the very small area we were all fighting over.   There were several reasons for this but mostly it was PLAYER CHOICE.  Not intentionaly avoiding PvP, but we choose what assets we want to strike.   If the 2 sides are gunning for 2 different assets, they ain't going to meet.

[FPF-DieHard]

Here's a simple idea for a PvP server.  Take the PvP points system for ATOK3.  At the end of a VC round, those points are converted on a 1 to 1 basis into DV shifts, i.e. 100 PvP points equal to 100 DV shifts.  The side with the most DV shifts gets to place the difference in the DV shifts on the map via a DB edit.  This would make PvP the only method to actually affect the map.  Any missions run vs the AI would be ignored and their corresponding DV shifts would be corrected at the time of the DB edit.  So you can still pummel the AI if you wish but it means nothing to the overall map, however it will allow one to build up PP so that one can buy ships and supplies.

My head is hurting just thinking about this.   I've got some whacky ideas IF we can get working SQL though.

[Lepton]

Can we please try to find a way to minimize "vs AI" missions altogether?  I realize some people enjoy hex-flipping.  They are abhorrent and should be subjected to "extreme interrogation techniques" until they confess to their crimes.

There needs to be a balance, like it or hate it Dynaverse IS a game about Hex-flipping.   The disengament rule and PvP VC points give PvP some value but this IS a hex-flipping game.

I confess, I fly whatever ship is best to do whatever role is needed.  When people need to be hunted I go for a cruiser or capital ship, when I'm hunting AI I got for the Z-DWD.   It's the nature of the game no matter how much we try to change it.

AOTK3 had very little PvP on it which is surprising considering the very small area we were all fighting over.   There were several reasons for this but mostly it was PLAYER CHOICE.  Not intentionaly avoiding PvP, but we choose what assets we want to strike.   If the 2 sides are gunning for 2 different assets, they ain't going to meet.

Don't you think that it is highly problematic and a bit ironic that the most successful strategy is to not encounter an opposing player?  For what purpose are we all gathered then?  I mean, we can tie up some players for an hour or so if we choose, while in that period the hex could be flipped, run up, run down and retaken.  What's the point??

If we can't get people out of hex flipping mode, then let's make "vs AI" mission a lot more difficult.  Up the bpv multiplier, so that flipping isn't as profitable in terms of time spent and resources used for a DV shift.  I seriously refuse to fly a hex-flipping ship.  I won't do it.  I won't take advantage of a weaknesses of the AI just to get ahead.

I realize nothing that I am saying will be the least bit popular with those folks who like flipping but seriously what is the point in it?  Why go online to avoid playing against others?  Do they actually like the game?  And whoever is getting ready to make that "I play the strategic game argument", please just find a strategy board game to play and take it from there.  I will send you my copy of F&E with the rules that my cat vomited on and have at it.

I realize we are in this "let's do what makes players happy" mode so that the game can continue on, but if the game is just this hex-munching guff, I may have to check out permanently.  No great loss as I am not on servers much for precisely the reasons I cite over and over again.  Hell, I tire of saying it.  I tire of hearing myself saying it. So, I will stop now.

[Hexx]

Well sure it'd be great- but how do you make it work?

Some players do like to feel they can contribute even if they can't PVP, a PVP DV shift system kinda ensures they can't-other than to give the otherside points.

And how would you make your system work? No offence- I'm genuinely interested if you have any workable ideas- but the brief outline you've got aboev doesn't.

DV shifts based on PVP can simply let one side get to the point where they have an extra PVP win or two and they can go home-  No more PVP no more points to put towards DV shifts.

I'm all for increasing the value of PVP on most servers- but there is no way (I can think of- and i get some pretty crazy ideas) to run a  fair/balanced or succesful PVP server.

[Lepton]

People will play because they want to.  That's why people are supposed to be playing and frankly they are supposed to be playing because they'd like to play with and against other people.

And frankly it is simply ridiculous for anyone to say that they can't PvP.  This game started out with only being able to PvP on Mplayer.  PvP is the entire basis of the friggin game.  The problem is that PvP has become the exclusive province of the perceived dynaverse elites.  "Oh my god, I can't PvP!  I don't know how!"   This is in part why I suggested the line ship rules.  It evens the playing field because half the time the PvP is occurring in capital ships that nutters can only afford and that PvP elites are only really comfortable flying.

I can say that I can't PvP either.  I am terrible at it, but I'd rather do that poorly than flip hexes.

Any idea is workable if people show up and are willing.

[Firehawk]

I like to play for the PvP also even though I am not the greatest at PvP but I see one major flaw with your PvP only affecting DV shifts.  During the little time I had to play on ATOK3 there were a number of times I signed on during weekdays to find I was the only coalition pilot on against 3-5 alliance pilots and everytime I drafted/was drafted it was against 2 or 3 other pilots with one usually in a BC/DN meaning I was driven off.  It would be useless for me to play then as all I would doing is giving PvP points to the other side for them to earn DV shifts.

Conversely there were times on the weekend when there was no alliance pilots on and in those situations it would be pointless for any of us to have  been on becasue without any alliance pilots we couldn't have done anything useful and the odd alliance pilot that signed on would have been in the same situation I was in in my previous example.

This might have worked a few years ago when there were alot more players but there are so few now I don't see how it can effectlvely be done without causing players to get discouraged and log off at certain times becasue there is no opposition or overwhelming opposition not allowing them to do anything to help their side.

[Dizzy]

People will play because they want to.  That's why people are supposed to be playing and frankly they are supposed to be playing because they'd like to play with and against other people.

And frankly it is simply ridiculous for anyone to say that they can't PvP.  This game started out with only being able to PvP on Mplayer.  PvP is the entire basis of the friggin game.  The problem is that PvP has become the exclusive province of the perceived dynaverse elites.  "Oh my god, I can't PvP!  I don't know how!"   This is in part why I suggested the line ship rules.  It evens the playing field because half the time the PvP is occurring in capital ships that nutters can only afford and that PvP elites are only really comfortable flying.

I can say that I can't PvP either.  I am terrible at it, but I'd rather do that poorly than flip hexes.

Any idea is workable if people show up and are willing.

wow, well said.

[KBFLordKrueg]

This might have worked a few years ago when there were alot more players but there are so few now I don't see how it can effectlvely be done without causing players to get discouraged and log off at certain times becasue there is no opposition or overwhelming opposition not allowing them to do anything to help their side.

FireHawk has made a very good point. 

[Lepton]

This might have worked a few years ago when there were alot more players but there are so few now I don't see how it can effectlvely be done without causing players to get discouraged and log off at certain times becasue there is no opposition or overwhelming opposition not allowing them to do anything to help their side.

FireHawk has made a very good point. 

So all you guys would rather pummel the helpless AI with 2 minute missions while no one is on the server than merely log off and come back when there is some real opposition on the server?  To me, that just speaks of a particular mindset that I find strange.   I am not much of a gamer, but the couple of games that I do play have servers that are sometimes quite empty and the sides are uneven and what-not.  Here's what I do in those case in these other games.

Not many people on the server:  I don't log on as it's not worth it.  It's too hard to find the enemy.  I come back later.
Sides are uneven:  I join the short side.
Sides are very uneven like 20 vs 5:  I don't even bother.

It would be truly amazing if people could and were able to apply these simple actions with regard to a dynaverse server.  However with us, it's like "Yahoo, there are 20 of us on the server and 0 of them!!!  Let's roll!!!"  Really, this is a totally bassackward and screwed-up perspective.

Doesn't it bother anyone that probably 95% of the missions run on any server are "vs AI"?  Spending hours and hours of game time hitting the same helpless AI over and over again??  What's the point of it??

Doesn't it bother anyone that nearly everything that happens on the map is the result of basically an uncontested battle?

[Dizzy]

So all you guys would rather pummel the helpless AI with 2 minute missions while no one is on the server than merely log off and come back when there is some real opposition on the server?  To me, that just speaks of a particular mindset that I find strange. 

Sometimes there's no other choice. Some peeps like killing AI and sometimes there isnt anyone on to blow up.

[Hexx]

This might have worked a few years ago when there were alot more players but there are so few now I don't see how it can effectlvely be done without causing players to get discouraged and log off at certain times becasue there is no opposition or overwhelming opposition not allowing them to do anything to help their side.

FireHawk has made a very good point. 

So all you guys would rather pummel the helpless AI with 2 minute missions while no one is on the server than merely log off and come back when there is some real opposition on the server?  To me, that just speaks of a particular mindset that I find strange.   I am not much of a gamer, but the couple of games that I do play have servers that are sometimes quite empty and the sides are uneven and what-not.  Here's what I do in those case in these other games.

Not many people on the server:  I don't log on as it's not worth it.  It's too hard to find the enemy.  I come back later.
Sides are uneven:  I join the short side.
Sides are very uneven like 20 vs 5:  I don't even bother.

It would be truly amazing if people could and were able to apply these simple actions with regard to a dynaverse server.  However with us, it's like "Yahoo, there are 20 of us on the server and 0 of them!!!  Let's roll!!!"  Really, this is a totally bassackward and screwed-up perspective.

So you don't sctually see pilots as flying for sides on your server so much as flying? ie I'll fly klingon for a few hours,log off, come back, have the Feds down in numbers so I fly Fed
and just keep switching back and forth for the server duration?
Uhm- why not just stick to GS (if that's still going of course)

Doesn't it bother anyone that probably 95% of the missions run on any server are "vs AI"?  Spending hours and hours of game time hitting the same helpless AI over and over again??  What's the point of it??

Doesn't it bother anyone that nearly everything that happens on the map is the result of basically an uncontested battle?

Not really.
As long as there's PVP VP points that are either open ended or scaled so that PVP can at least come close to equaling the map VP points I thin servers will work out ok.

Seriouly Leptopn- wouldn't mind looking at or trying a PVP server- but how would it run?

As people have mentioned it's simply got a huge umber of problems to work around.
Honestly I think what your looking for is more of a PBR setup using a static map and pre planned battles rather than on the D2

[Lepton]

Let's try this the other way.  Can we get the server kit altered so that it gives larger and I mean significantly larger DV shifts for PvP?  I think Bonk had this working in some provisional way, but I am not sure if it was SQL-dependent.  Imagine if a single PvP victory would flip a hex and set the hex to the max DV.  Now do you wanna PvP or would this make people avoid PvP even more?  If we can't make a totally PvP server work and if we can't shame hex-flippers into honest work (joking), then can we at least have PvP mean something more for map since this is a hex flipping game?

By the by, doesn't it also bother anyone that a vast majority, like 95%, of the missions run on those planet hexes that got the Kitties all those VC points were basically uncontested missions?  I am not saying that they weren't hard missions per se, but uncontested and perversely uncontested in that the opposing force was vastly more likely to try to avoid PvP as DV shifts can be accomplished a good deal faster "vs AI".

If we had larger DV shift for PvP, we might even be able to get rid of the disengagement rule/hex ban mechanism as it is my perception that the intent here was to provide a mechanism to ensure that a superior force could actually push people out of a hex so that it could be flipped.  If we were to implement large DV shifts for PvP, I don't think we'd want to keep people out of a hex as it would be advantageous to actually encounter a live player and attempt to win a battle against an actual person.