Topic: For my next set of servers . . .

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I'd like to see a more significant DV shift for PvP battles.  If someone is in a mission for an hour or two hours, his time should count for something other than a 1 DV shift.  Perhaps a 10 or 20 DV shift.  This would make PvP meaningful on the map in a way that it really isn't now.

I have no problem with this if an equal PvP battle is won, but giving a side 10 or 20 DV shifts for ganking a player 3 v 1 is a terrible idea IMHO.

Also look at it this way, if you kill an enemy ship that is worth points how many missions is that equivilant to?  Take the last server, a BCH for example was worth 5 points, or 1/4th a Nip planet.  How many missions and hours went into taking and holding one of these planets.  Hard to say exactly, but one glance at the total missions run gives some idea.  Since 90%+ missions on the server were likely associated with the center and these planets, if you took 1/7th (there were 7 such planets) of the total and multiplied by .9 you would have 4538 missions per planet.  Divide that by 4 and you get 1089 missions.  Then further divide by 4 for the 4 VC periods and you get 272 missions. Then you can even divide by 50% (the missions run by each side are close enough to do this and be pretty fair)  and you get 136 missions.  Is killing a BCH worth 136 missions?  more? less?  There are other dynamics at play too,  I realize, but this gives you some idea about the current importance of PvP on servers.  Willingness to engage in it at equal strengths is another matter altogether.

By the same standards

CA = 55 missions 
specialty ship = 84 missions
BCH = 136 missions
DN =  273 missions

So even a little DF+ so lucky to get all 2 minute missions (almost an impossibility a 3-4 minute average might be more realistic) would have to spend about 110 minutes to achieve the points that a fight resulting in the destruction of just a CA would be worth on AOTK III.  I think at that ratio of return a two hour fight looks about right.  But if its a 15 minute fight your getting a steal.


I don't think the problem is in the balance of PvP vs Territory VCs, if there is a problem it is in having players to engage in equal fights so that PvP can become more relevant.  A system rewarding people for 3v1 jumps wont do that, you often chase out the folkes who could provide an equal matchup to one of your guys.  Of course this pushing someone out of a hex also can have a VC impact, but on the territorial side.   With the disengagement rule, PvP has become a tool used to obtain territorial VCs, and attributing all territorail VCs to "hex flippers" is not factually correct.  Is this a bad thing?  Depends on your perspective.  If you want PvP to have an impact on the map, no, it achieves just this.  If you want PvP points to become more important as compared to territorail VCs, yes, the forcing out of players who are engaged in mismatches generally reduces direct PvP VCs by dramatic amounts, not allowing them to return immediately to fight when the odds are more balanced,

[Lepton]

So much for moderation, now I demand that PvP missions flip the hex and max out the DV for the winning side.  You seem to argue for proportionality, whereas I am trying to reward folks for PvP.

[Dfly]

So much for moderation, now I demand that PvP missions flip the hex and max out the DV for the winning side.  You seem to argue for proportionality, whereas I am trying to reward folks for PvP.

If everyone had to  fly the same ship, I would totally agree.  I do think it would not be equal to say that the bigger ship flips the hex as everyone will want the biggest ship.  Unless of course everyone must fly a BCH or a DN or a BB, or heck, even just up to CC or CA, or CL or whatever size you wish.
Otherwise the guy with the biggest ship flips the hexes while the others wait.
Dont get me wrong, I love the PvP, and would love to see PvP in hexes get bigger flipping values but until someone gets SQL fully operational with this game and modifiers are in place, I unfortunately dont see it happening. 

[FPF-DieHard]

So much for moderation, now I demand that PvP missions flip the hex and max out the DV for the winning side.  You seem to argue for proportionality, whereas I am trying to reward folks for PvP.

What exactly is a "DV" ?  Think about this for a second, a DV represents a Military presence in an area.  If a fleet of live players shows to counter assaults against AI, is this really such a bad idea?

I'm not sure if this is technically possible, but I'd be will to try it on a SHORT server to test out how it plays and how the players react and change their strategy/tactics.

[Hexx]

Might be fun to try- but again don't think it would work.. missions would have to recognize more than (I think anayway) they can

-Number of ships/side (as Chuut mentioned- should 3 pleyers jumping one get the same pvpDV shift as a 3v3? )
-What happens when a player drops- everyone would have to alt out to avoid having a pvpDV shift, would/could this be exploited
also- if pvpDV flips are bigger- what heppens when a player drops in a hotly contested hex, is everyone supposed to just stop everything while
those teams get set back up again?
-Is there a pvpDV shift if someone runs?

And (perhaps more importantly) what heppens when you have a player who loves the games, and enjoys PVP- but isn't very good at it.
Right now- they lose ships, maybe get banned form a hex or two
After a major pvpDV shift they lose a ship, maybe get banned form a hex or two and cause their side some major damage on the map.


 

[Lepton]

Might be fun to try- but again don't think it would work.. missions would have to recognize more than (I think anayway) they can

-Number of ships/side (as Chuut mentioned- should 3 pleyers jumping one get the same pvpDV shift as a 3v3? )
-What happens when a player drops- everyone would have to alt out to avoid having a pvpDV shift, would/could this be exploited
also- if pvpDV flips are bigger- what heppens when a player drops in a hotly contested hex, is everyone supposed to just stop everything while
those teams get set back up again?
-Is there a pvpDV shift if someone runs?

And (perhaps more importantly) what heppens when you have a player who loves the games, and enjoys PVP- but isn't very good at it.
Right now- they lose ships, maybe get banned form a hex or two
After a major pvpDV shift they lose a ship, maybe get banned form a hex or two and cause their side some major damage on the map.


 

I think it would shift tactics a bit but not much.  It depends on people's perception of the risks and benefits.  Yes, PvP could be perceived as more risky in that if you lose, you lose the hex.  On the other hand, you could win it right back in the next PvP battle.  I would actually think that the disengagement rule would not be necessary with such a server set up.  If a side disengages, the hex is flipped.  No more need to have people run out of the hex so that it can be flipped as it is flipped.

I'd say if you like PvP and are not very good at it (like me), you get a wing just as you do now.  Things are a lot different in a 2v2 and 3v3 in comparison to the 1v1.

The thing is a hex can be so easily flipped with such a setup that it hardly matters if someone drops and the hex flips hands.  Just redraft and the hex either stays the way it is or flips back after the PvP match is complete.

Yes a 3v1 should get the same DV shift.  First, we are not talking about proportionality here.  At least, I am not.  I am talking about encouraging PvP and making it meaningful for the map in a way that AI missions aren't.  Second, in such a server setup no one should be flying alone as they are really running a major risk of getting caught and losing the hex.  Third, if that person is running missions alone, it is likely that he is running AI hex flipping missions.  So, as PvP is meant to trump AI missions in this server setup it seems appropriate that the hex-flipper should get trumped for running alone.

[Lepton]

So much for moderation, now I demand that PvP missions flip the hex and max out the DV for the winning side.  You seem to argue for proportionality, whereas I am trying to reward folks for PvP.

What exactly is a "DV" ?  Think about this for a second, a DV represents a Military presence in an area.  If a fleet of live players shows to counter assaults against AI, is this really such a bad idea?

I'm not sure if this is technically possible, but I'd be will to try it on a SHORT server to test out how it plays and how the players react and change their strategy/tactics.

I get the concept of DV that you are expressing here, but I have never liked it.  Just in the same way that you have to run multiple planet assaults on a planet hex to take a planet hex.  It's ridiculous.  I captured the planet.  It's captured, then suddenly again, it's not captured and I have to do it again and again and again.  That's bull crap. 

The same absurdities crop up in regular missions.  For example, the hex is a 20 dv hex.  If I run enough missions to flip it and a significant portion of those missions are 3v3 against the AI, that means I am encountering nearly 100 enemy ships in a single hex, in a single portion of space, and not only encountering but destroying them, all of them.  You probably have a better handle on the number of ships in a single year of production in F&E than I do.  Does that at all sound sensible compared to the number of ships of any empire in F&E?  I don't think so.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I think it would shift tactics a bit but not much.

Yes even more 3 ship jumps of single players, everyone flying the biggest and baddest ship with 2 wings, etc.  Is this what people really want?  I sure hope not.  My guess is that it would probably result in losing half the remaining players.  Try it if you like and can get someone to play on it.

It depends on people's perception of the risks and benefits.  Yes, PvP could be perceived as more risky in that if you lose, you lose the hex.  On the other hand, you could win it right back in the next PvP battle.  I would actually think that the disengagement rule would not be necessary with such a server set up.  If a side disengages, the hex is flipped.  No more need to have people run out of the hex so that it can be flipped as it is flipped.

And the poor guy who is on alone for his side when the other side just sends pairs and trios to jump him wherever he appears on the front.

I'd say if you like PvP and are not very good at it (like me), you get a wing just as you do now.  Things are a lot different in a 2v2 and 3v3 in comparison to the 1v1.

And if 1 v 1 is your favorite mode of combat you just became even more of an extinct species.  And if no wing available?

The thing is a hex can be so easily flipped with such a setup that it hardly matters if someone drops and the hex flips hands.  Just redraft and the hex either stays the way it is or flips back after the PvP match is complete.

Should hexes be easily flipped?  Perhaps some people prefer to work for something and not see it wiped out because someone got jumped by 3 guys, a lesser experienced PvPer got in over his head, or some ace for the other side who was too lazy to run 12 missions logs on and undoes in 20 minutes what you worked on for 2 hours.  No Thank you.

Yes a 3v1 should get the same DV shift.  First, we are not talking about proportionality here.  At least, I am not.

Thats funny, I could have sworn you were the guy complaining about the undue influence of nutters, and hex flipping?  Isn't that proportionality?  I think about 90% of what you have been talking about was proportionality, and when I provide a few intestin server statistics and analysis you suddenly claim you aren't?  Too rich.

Lets go back to your first post on this thread

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.

[/b]

Gee, that isn't about proportionality?  The 2 minute mission upsetting you?  "extreme interrogation techniques"? 

I'll refresh your memory on those stats

CA = 55 missions 
specialty ship = 84 missions
BCH = 136 missions
DN =  273 missions

So if a player actually got on the server and bagged a CA that player just offset 55 of those 2 minute missions, if they can't manage to kill a CA in 2 hours that is THEIR problem not anyone elses.  If they can't contribute to the team efforts to expand their territory by pushing enemies off key hexes, that is again THEIR problem.  If you can't stand running ai missions despite not being able to achieve either of the previous 2 that is also THEIR problem.  If I couldn't do any of those things either I'd be a bit frustrated and would either try to learn to fly better, think smarter, or find something else to do with my time.  Fortunately, I have put forth the effort to be able to do all of those to some degree.



What you are arguing is not FOR PvP, so much as arguing for a system in which a person spending one hour a ni

I am talking about encouraging PvP and making it meaningful for the map in a way that AI missions aren't.

PvP has uses now, if people will not engage in them it is not for lack of meaning, I demonstrated this in an above post clearly.  What you are talking about, is forcing players into your mode of play because they don't seem to like engaging in enough PvP to suit your desires under the current system.  Considering this I think you will lose the majority of the remaining players on any server with a setup like you want.  No reason not to give it a try, however, it certainly deserves its shot.  I wont be wasting any time on it, but some might like it. 

Second, in such a server setup no one should be flying alone as they are really running a major risk of getting caught and losing the hex.

Here is a reality check.  SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO FLY ALONE AND HAVE 1 V 1 PvP.  If I always had to have a wing to help my team I'm playing the wrong game.  The poor guy who is the only one on for his team may as well just log off under your system.  Yet have you ever seen me post that ALL missions should draft 1 v 1?  No, because I realize that not everyone else shares my preferences, and don't feel any need to "demand" that someone put up a server like this.

You want to "demand" something Lepton, put up your own server and "demand" all you want.  See how many are willing to play by your "demands".  You might even have enough to have fun.  I sincerely wish you luck, I just don't see it happening.

Third, if that person is running missions alone, it is likely that he is running AI hex flipping missions.  So, as PvP is meant to trump AI missions in this server setup it seems appropriate that the hex-flipper should get trumped for running alone.

ROFLMAO, the first time I've ever seen gangbanging put forth as a server goal.  Too rich, utterly ridiculous. 


Tell you what, Lepton, if you can make a real case against this negative, distopian view of the current dynaverse setup then maybe I might once again pay attention to what you are saying.  Until you do, you're on ignore, as I have beeter things to do than to reply, to the comically obvious flaws of your propossed sytem.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I'm not sure if this is technically possible, but I'd be will to try it on a SHORT server to test out how it plays and how the players react and change their strategy/tactics.

Please do so so we can put this notion to rest.  Let Lepton make the map, write the rules and do the VCs to his hearts content and put it up.

My personal tactic will be to play CoH during that server.  It doesn't provide my with the strategical depth I need to have fun, so I'll seek my personal fun elsewhere while it runs.  But do put it up and let the community decide if this is the way it wants to go.  I seriously doubt it, even Hexx has beeter ideas IMHO.   

I know I'm kinda condeming Lepton's approach before trying it, I plead guily.  I also haven't tried bungie jumping, swimming in a pool full of large sharks with an open wound, or seeing how it fels to hit myself over the head with a hammer.

[Julin Eurthyr]

So much for moderation, now I demand that PvP missions flip the hex and max out the DV for the winning side.  You seem to argue for proportionality, whereas I am trying to reward folks for PvP.

What exactly is a "DV" ?  Think about this for a second, a DV represents a Military presence in an area.  If a fleet of live players shows to counter assaults against AI, is this really such a bad idea?

I'm not sure if this is technically possible, but I'd be will to try it on a SHORT server to test out how it plays and how the players react and change their strategy/tactics.

I get the concept of DV that you are expressing here, but I have never liked it.  Just in the same way that you have to run multiple planet assaults on a planet hex to take a planet hex.  It's ridiculous.  I captured the planet.  It's captured, then suddenly again, it's not captured and I have to do it again and again and again.  That's bull crap. 

The same absurdities crop up in regular missions.  For example, the hex is a 20 dv hex.  If I run enough missions to flip it and a significant portion of those missions are 3v3 against the AI, that means I am encountering nearly 100 enemy ships in a single hex, in a single portion of space, and not only encountering but destroying them, all of them.  You probably have a better handle on the number of ships in a single year of production in F&E than I do.  Does that at all sound sensible compared to the number of ships of any empire in F&E?  I don't think so.

Absurdity #1: to this day, there has not been a sure-fire way to have 19 patrols and 1 planet assault.  Therefore, 20 planet assaults required to flip a hex.  This represents either: claiming 20 planets within the hex, the missions required to relieve the planet of all defenders / resistance.

Absurdity #2: 100 ships in a hex.  Considering that we have way too many unique, conjectural, etc. ships in player owned flight, my postulation has been that the SFC fleets are, in honesty, multiples (like 100,000x) of the "official" F&E OOB.  I've always viewed all D2 players as the "elite" of these million ship starfleets.

[el-Karnak]

Food for thought on incentizing player to play on D2:

I was listening to the Herd on ESPN today and da Herd guy was talking about Die Hard fans vs. casual fans in baseball. Basically in baseball, the teams with the best Road game attendance are the traditional fan favorites (ie. NY Yankees, Chicago Cubs, Boston Red Socks) while a team like Detroit Tiger, that is leading the league, is a bottom-feeder regarding Road game attendance. Same thing happens in College football:  when the traditional fan favorites like Georgia Dawgs, Notre Dame, Miami Hurricanes do well then attendance and TV ratings are up. When these teams are down then attendance and TV ratings are down.

Yankees come to town and the  stadium is full. Tigers come to town and you hear: *crickets*.

Conclusion here is that you cannot build your business, game, etc. on the die-hard fans because that 5% is not enough. You have to please the 95% casual fan base.

Apply this logic to D2 and you have to make the D2 campaign attractive to casual fans. If you try to only please the die hard fans that love statistics, specialized play, specilized ships, OOB or whatever and you will not get a good draws.

D2 campaign has easy rules to follow, PP in abundance, lotsa PvP play and some strategic depth for hex flipping and you will get a good draw.

Make it a narrow-focused die hard fan type of server and you will get:  *crickets*

[el-Karnak]

The "have-nots" need to fly more, then they will "have."

I mean this in both PP and player skill.   20lk PP is NOT a lot for a 4 week server, especially when at weeke 2 I started people with 5k.  CWLs are more than capable of hanging as the "line" ship in a 3-ship fleet and those are dirt cheap.

Did anyone want to fly a BCH/DN that DIDN't get on chance on the last server?

Hmmm, I had to jiggle with freighters in order to optimally use my PP balance to get a BCH. Basically, if I lost the BCH then I would not have enough PP left for anymore and then PvP would become  less tenable due to there being a lot of BCH players and then the game would lose its appeal real fast especially in Late era.

Given that the playerbase is not growing and that some of the existing playerbase is having less and less time for the server due life to changes and that players are spreading the PP wealth over multiple racial accounts, it would be a good idea to start halving the prices on the BCHs and DNs.

I usually can do about 80K to 100K lifetime PP for a 3 to 4 week server. I have always done this on D2 campaigns as far back as the original AoTK and I am following the same playing schedule now, and there is no way that I am putting in more playing time due to my personal life situation (ie. being married  ). The difference now is that this 80K to 100K lifetime PP balance is gettting spread over 2 or 3 racial accounts. At AoTK3 prices, lose a BCH in any account and that race is basically done for me for the rest of the server. And, yes, playing in only one account nowadays is too monotonous. Having to be so careful in PvP with a BCH can be a drag too sometimes.

[el-Karnak]

Oh yeah, we should give out bonus PP for PvP play in the missions. This was a standard feature in the EEK missions. 1500 for a PvP kill and 1000 for making the player run off the map.

[Lepton]

So much for moderation, now I demand that PvP missions flip the hex and max out the DV for the winning side.  You seem to argue for proportionality, whereas I am trying to reward folks for PvP.

What exactly is a "DV" ?  Think about this for a second, a DV represents a Military presence in an area.  If a fleet of live players shows to counter assaults against AI, is this really such a bad idea?

I'm not sure if this is technically possible, but I'd be will to try it on a SHORT server to test out how it plays and how the players react and change their strategy/tactics.

I get the concept of DV that you are expressing here, but I have never liked it.  Just in the same way that you have to run multiple planet assaults on a planet hex to take a planet hex.  It's ridiculous.  I captured the planet.  It's captured, then suddenly again, it's not captured and I have to do it again and again and again.  That's bull crap. 

The same absurdities crop up in regular missions.  For example, the hex is a 20 dv hex.  If I run enough missions to flip it and a significant portion of those missions are 3v3 against the AI, that means I am encountering nearly 100 enemy ships in a single hex, in a single portion of space, and not only encountering but destroying them, all of them.  You probably have a better handle on the number of ships in a single year of production in F&E than I do.  Does that at all sound sensible compared to the number of ships of any empire in F&E?  I don't think so.

Absurdity #1: to this day, there has not been a sure-fire way to have 19 patrols and 1 planet assault.  Therefore, 20 planet assaults required to flip a hex.  This represents either: claiming 20 planets within the hex, the missions required to relieve the planet of all defenders / resistance.

Absurdity #2: 100 ships in a hex.  Considering that we have way too many unique, conjectural, etc. ships in player owned flight, my postulation has been that the SFC fleets are, in honesty, multiples (like 100,000x) of the "official" F&E OOB.  I've always viewed all D2 players as the "elite" of these million ship starfleets.

Wow, that's an amazing pile of horse crap and rationalizations.  Gosh, don't let evidence of your eyes or the experience of the game have any effect on your perception of the game.  You've got your head so far up your butt here that you can smell your stomach acid. 

There are a hundred ships that you have to kill and I see them.  There is only one planet on the hex map not twenty, nor does it take 20 planet assaults in F&E to take a planet if you take it once.  Please, away with your sophistry.

[Dfly]

I agree Karnak on the ship costs.  I had an account where I lost a BCH and a CA in the same night, and that account never recovered, therefore I was no longer flying that account, which happened to be the only account I had in that race.  I know some will say then it is up to me to fly a bunch more missions again in that account to build it up.  Why would I when I had other accounts in other races that were as high.  Had the prices been like 1/2, I most likely would have built it up as it would not take 2 or 3 evenings to do so.  I beleive others who are not nutters would benefit from this as well.

[Dizzy]

I agree Karnak on the ship costs.  I had an account where I lost a BCH and a CA in the same night, and that account never recovered, therefore I was no longer flying that account, which happened to be the only account I had in that race.  I know some will say then it is up to me to fly a bunch more missions again in that account to build it up.  Why would I when I had other accounts in other races that were as high.  Had the prices been like 1/2, I most likely would have built it up as it would not take 2 or 3 evenings to do so.  I beleive others who are not nutters would benefit from this as well.

That is easily rectified. We need to get ED to jump on the Tracey G bandwagon of super prestige for PvP wins.

[Lepton]

I'm not sure if this is technically possible, but I'd be will to try it on a SHORT server to test out how it plays and how the players react and change their strategy/tactics.

Please do so so we can put this notion to rest.  Let Lepton make the map, write the rules and do the VCs to his hearts content and put it up.

My personal tactic will be to play CoH during that server.  It doesn't provide my with the strategical depth I need to have fun, so I'll seek my personal fun elsewhere while it runs.  But do put it up and let the community decide if this is the way it wants to go.  I seriously doubt it, even Hexx has beeter ideas IMHO.   

I know I'm kinda condeming Lepton's approach before trying it, I plead guily.  I also haven't tried bungie jumping, swimming in a pool full of large sharks with an open wound, or seeing how it fels to hit myself over the head with a hammer.

I would argue not to put up such a server.  It will take a significant shift in mindset for the kind of server I am proposing.  I have been trying with the blunt force of insults, cajoling, and a bit of reason to get people to reevaluate what they want out of a server or what should happen on the server.  I've have been trying this for the past 4 or 5 years to little effect.

If you put up such a server, it would fail miserably as people would not know how to act.

Look, it's like trying to convince an Eskimo to move into a brick house.  If you build him one and give it to him, he won't live in it anyway.  No insults to Eskimos intended.  I think Native peoples are great if not superior to "cultured" folks.

[Hexx]

I think it would shift tactics a bit but not much.  It depends on people's perception of the risks and benefits.  Yes, PvP could be perceived as more risky in that if you lose, you lose the hex.  On the other hand, you could win it right back in the next PvP battle.  I would actually think that the disengagement rule would not be necessary with such a server set up.  If a side disengages, the hex is flipped.  No more need to have people run out of the hex so that it can be flipped as it is flipped.

I'd say if you like PvP and are not very good at it (like me), you get a wing just as you do now.  Things are a lot different in a 2v2 and 3v3 in comparison to the 1v1.

The thing is a hex can be so easily flipped with such a setup that it hardly matters if someone drops and the hex flips hands.  Just redraft and the hex either stays the way it is or flips back after the PvP match is complete.

Yes a 3v1 should get the same DV shift.  First, we are not talking about proportionality here.  At least, I am not.  I am talking about encouraging PvP and making it meaningful for the map in a way that AI missions aren't.  Second, in such a server setup no one should be flying alone as they are really running a major risk of getting caught and losing the hex.  Third, if that person is running missions alone, it is likely that he is running AI hex flipping missions.  So, as PvP is meant to trump AI missions in this server setup it seems appropriate that the hex-flipper should get trumped for running alone.

Well ignoring everyone elses comments as, let's face it- they're not me.
And that means they matter less...so


Problem (as I se it) continues as this..

You and I fight over hex 18,19 an insanely imporatant VP hex, need this hex to win the server or something
I win. (it's my example..)
hex is now mine and I fight again in 18,20 against,uhmm, Kruegy
I win again
I now move onto hex 18,21- why am I going to go back to either hex 18,19 or 18,20 to fight you (or anyone else) knowing that if I lose the hex flips?
Why wouldn't I keep moving o to hex 18,25 whihc is your last planet?
Why would I have any of my pilots fly on those hexes knowing if they lose we're back to square 1, whereas if I keep throwing them towards 18 25 we stand a much better chance at winning?

Now
Is your side going to
A) Standa and fight at each hex , it's two main players having just lost DN's, without the cahs (temporarily anyway) to ante up for new DN's- or at the very least waiting a shipyard cycle or two to get the new ships, knowing that no one else can possibly take on me in my STL, and each hex I win in gets me that much closer

or are they going to
B) try and hit the AI in the hexes we just took. Hopefully (eventually) running them down enough that my forces must enage you in PVP to stop

I can pretty much guarantee it's going to be B, and that your forces will have to run missiona against teh AI.. which brings us full circle.

BTW- I am a player who flies by himself and isn't flying to "flip hexes"
Part of the reason (I think) I've stopped flying is that the people I want to kill generally fly in groups (protection obviously)
I dislike flying in groups, not beacuse I hate all my wingmen, but I simply hate the "build the killer fleet" mentality that has come about.
(and not a complaint against them)
I used to have fun tracking down specific players on the map and ambushing them as they came out of missions, now it ususally means I jump three guys

I understand (again as I've said) to a degree what you want, but on the other hand- PVP VP's do everything you want (award PVP) except having an effect on the map.
And with a spilt VP system, I'm not sure they should,

Anad again- F&E's (and SFB's) whole fleet/economic system is simply balanced off of the original info provided in the very first editions of the game baout rough numbers of ships.
They make absolutely no sense whatsoever in any other context.
The fleets SFB (or F&E) have listed, could in no way,shape, or form defend the amount of territory SFB says the defend given the speeds SFB says they can travel at.
It's  agreta game system- but their whole economic model makes no sense .



 

[Hexx]

I'm not sure if this is technically possible, but I'd be will to try it on a SHORT server to test out how it plays and how the players react and change their strategy/tactics.

Please do so so we can put this notion to rest.  Let Lepton make the map, write the rules and do the VCs to his hearts content and put it up.

My personal tactic will be to play CoH during that server.  It doesn't provide my with the strategical depth I need to have fun, so I'll seek my personal fun elsewhere while it runs.  But do put it up and let the community decide if this is the way it wants to go.  I seriously doubt it, even Hexx has beeter ideas IMHO.   

I know I'm kinda condeming Lepton's approach before trying it, I plead guily.  I also haven't tried bungie jumping, swimming in a pool full of large sharks with an open wound, or seeing how it fels to hit myself over the head with a hammer.

I would argue not to put up such a server.  It will take a significant shift in mindset for the kind of server I am proposing.  I have been trying with the blunt force of insults, cajoling, and a bit of reason to get people to reevaluate what they want out of a server or what should happen on the server.  I've have been trying this for the past 4 or 5 years to little effect.

If you put up such a server, it would fail miserably as people would not know how to act.

Look, it's like trying to convince an Eskimo to move into a brick house.  If you build him one and give it to him, he won't live in it anyway.  No insults to Eskimos intended.  I think Native peoples are great if not superior to "cultured" folks.

See here's the issue
You're kinda like Bonk, I used to say he was incredibly gifted at innovations and getting new stuff to work, but he sucked at advertising.
(You're not like him for the gifted part- you suck at advertising)

How you get people to play on servers is not
"Wow you all suck, do what I say and make this work cuz I'm the only guy that knows how this game should be played so I (and maybe you) have more fun"

It is more or less coming up with a server desgin, that explores new ideas.

It's great that you think we should have PVP effect DV shifts more, it's be nice.Heck I'd love to have SFC3's "reinforcements" work for this game.
But (and I'm not 100% sure on this) don't think we've got that ready to work flawlessly yet.
We don't have anyone working on it full time.
Now- if you want to spend money and put Bonk, tracyG, NW or anyone on salary yourself until they can make it work- wonderful
Until then we have to make do with what we have

So come up with an idea , get together with someone (Dizzy,DH,NW) and put together a server concept and see how many of your ideas you cna make work with what we've got.

[Lepton]

I think it would shift tactics a bit but not much.  It depends on people's perception of the risks and benefits.  Yes, PvP could be perceived as more risky in that if you lose, you lose the hex.  On the other hand, you could win it right back in the next PvP battle.  I would actually think that the disengagement rule would not be necessary with such a server set up.  If a side disengages, the hex is flipped.  No more need to have people run out of the hex so that it can be flipped as it is flipped.

I'd say if you like PvP and are not very good at it (like me), you get a wing just as you do now.  Things are a lot different in a 2v2 and 3v3 in comparison to the 1v1.

The thing is a hex can be so easily flipped with such a setup that it hardly matters if someone drops and the hex flips hands.  Just redraft and the hex either stays the way it is or flips back after the PvP match is complete.

Yes a 3v1 should get the same DV shift.  First, we are not talking about proportionality here.  At least, I am not.  I am talking about encouraging PvP and making it meaningful for the map in a way that AI missions aren't.  Second, in such a server setup no one should be flying alone as they are really running a major risk of getting caught and losing the hex.  Third, if that person is running missions alone, it is likely that he is running AI hex flipping missions.  So, as PvP is meant to trump AI missions in this server setup it seems appropriate that the hex-flipper should get trumped for running alone.

Well ignoring everyone elses comments as, let's face it- they're not me.
And that means they matter less...so


Problem (as I se it) continues as this..

You and I fight over hex 18,19 an insanely imporatant VP hex, need this hex to win the server or something
I win. (it's my example..)
hex is now mine and I fight again in 18,20 against,uhmm, Kruegy
I win again
I now move onto hex 18,21- why am I going to go back to either hex 18,19 or 18,20 to fight you (or anyone else) knowing that if I lose the hex flips?
Why wouldn't I keep moving o to hex 18,25 whihc is your last planet?
Why would I have any of my pilots fly on those hexes knowing if they lose we're back to square 1, whereas if I keep throwing them towards 18 25 we stand a much better chance at winning?

Now
Is your side going to
A) Standa and fight at each hex , it's two main players having just lost DN's, without the cahs (temporarily anyway) to ante up for new DN's- or at the very least waiting a shipyard cycle or two to get the new ships, knowing that no one else can possibly take on me in my STL, and each hex I win in gets me that much closer

or are they going to
B) try and hit the AI in the hexes we just took. Hopefully (eventually) running them down enough that my forces must enage you in PVP to stop

I can pretty much guarantee it's going to be B, and that your forces will have to run missiona against teh AI.. which brings us full circle.

BTW- I am a player who flies by himself and isn't flying to "flip hexes"
Part of the reason (I think) I've stopped flying is that the people I want to kill generally fly in groups (protection obviously)
I dislike flying in groups, not beacuse I hate all my wingmen, but I simply hate the "build the killer fleet" mentality that has come about.
(and not a complaint against them)
I used to have fun tracking down specific players on the map and ambushing them as they came out of missions, now it ususally means I jump three guys

I understand (again as I've said) to a degree what you want, but on the other hand- PVP VP's do everything you want (award PVP) except having an effect on the map.
And with a spilt VP system, I'm not sure they should,

Anad again- F&E's (and SFB's) whole fleet/economic system is simply balanced off of the original info provided in the very first editions of the game baout rough numbers of ships.
They make absolutely no sense whatsoever in any other context.
The fleets SFB (or F&E) have listed, could in no way,shape, or form defend the amount of territory SFB says the defend given the speeds SFB says they can travel at.
It's  agreta game system- but their whole economic model makes no sense .



 

You know, I guess I am old fashioned.  Perhaps the side that won the hex would think it only right and proper to take any challenges that the other side might offer for a fight in that hex, but I suppose that is a nice fantasy. 

The reason why anyone would go into any hex is that they want to or have to.  It is more than possible that one could engage the enemy in 18,21 and win thus forcing them into defending 18,20 if they want to get to 18,21. Or one could merely intercept someone moving from 18,19 into 18,20.  We are talking about the same things that happen on a server now just with this addition.

I am more than willing to say that one PvP victory flipping a hex and maxing it out is more than extreme.  It could have unintended consequences, however I really don't see anything wrong with the idea of significantly higher DV shifts for PvP battle considering their usual length if it's an honest to goodness PvP fight.  I would think that a 10 to 20 dv shift would be appropriate.  My problem with offering any moderation on these points is that the hex flippers will start haggling and whining, trying to reduce the size of the DV shift through some odd ball reasoning.  I am not here for reasoning.  I am here for doing something.  If people don't want to take significant action on the issues I have brought, they won't.  There are any number of supposed reason not to take any action, like a server without Chuut (My god, how could we live without a hex-flipping nutter?  The whole thing might come crumbling down around our heads).  People will pick one or a set of reasons that most saves face for them and makes them look smart.

Be that as it may, I like your attitude, Hexx.  I also am not in favor of the search for the uber killing fleet stuff and all the cap ship stuff.  This is why I proposed those line ship rules and tried to give those ships some real tactical and strategic importance.  Oh and did the people scream!!!  "What I can't force a little old line ship out of a hex with overcompensating-for-something-size mega-cool capital ship??!!!  Heresy!!!  Burn the witch!!"  Whatever.  You guys are so locked into your frame of reference it's like talking to a crazy person (Not aimed at you, Hexx).