Put it back in your pants, big boy, lest someone lops it off.
Your the one who came with the intent to piss on others by your own admission, zip it up yourself or see yourself castrated even more for such a loathsome approach.
------------
Now back to the real discussion.
This is an interesting analysis but my answer to it is this. What won ATOK3? Answer: The first round map VCs.
Yes and no. The VCs did not win it, the map positioning did put the Kitties in the drivers seat. Now considering that after the fist 36 hours the Kitties had taken the center planet and one other and the Coalition had taken none opting instead to take 2 resupply planets and set up a three front approach. The number of missions run was nearly identical, in fact when DH ran the numbers the Coalition had run more missions when the center planet was taken by the Kitties. This was strategy. Yes it was based on hexflipping, I don't disagree, but based on flipping the right hexes. Fast forward a day or so and the Kitties hold 6 of the Nip planet and the Coalition 1, the Kitties had the best position by far, but the holdings were in a very narrow zone. lets move to your next statement.
After that, nothing mattered especially with the server numbers.
Server numbers were as close as can be expected, the margin of 88% as many missions run after week 1 and 94% after week two is closer than can realistically be expected. The differentials resulted also from the kitties having established the interior supply lines with less distance to travel and their ability to fight on any front without switchng races, due to the opening strategy and the Coalition's persistance on a three front war rather than a focus on one front and a stong join hex flipping and PvP drive on just one front. Again strategy.
And to add insult to injury, it is patently false that map VCs are not won by flippers.
Noone said they weren't. But PvP is sometimes needed to facilitate the flipping by driving a foe off and allowing your sides flipper to act with immunity. Not always, but sometimes.
There was nothing but flipping in ATOK3, nothing but defending and running up hexes underneath someone else.
I guess all those PvP points didn't happen? All those chase outs?
Admittingly, there could have been even more. The Coalition was trailing on the map and could have chosen to concentrate their efforts on a single front to push towards 1 VC at a time instead of spreading out on 3 fronts, they didn't. Although there were focused pushes at times with differing degrees of sucess, in general they continued most of the server with a 3 front approach. If they had sought out a single concentrated push would have led to more PvP. The opportunity was there for the disadvantaged side, they just went with a different strategy.
Additionally, The Alliance made great usage of narrow lines of supply of the coalition to force players off a front by drafting opponents on hexes that would drive them off a whole front, or draft them on their bases and planets so their resupply would be more difficult. PvP used to enact strategy. This was not hex-flipping, this was PvP used to facilitate hex flipping. Think of it like modern warfare with aerial bombardment and artillery providing a means for the infantry to go in and seize objectives. Without the aerial and artillery support the infantry may fail, without the infantry the bombardment serves little purpose. AOTK III saw these acting in harmony to a great extent.
Also, I would say historically, map VCs are almost always "won" by the conditions that make it possible for them to be taken: consistent imbalanced server numbers and hence imbalanced mission totals.
Do not disagree with this statement. Player numbers is definately the #1 factor. Address this issue, not the ones you have been diverted by which are really not major factors.
That means nearly by definition that it is indeed flipping hexes against the AI that wins a server and that to me is putrid.
On a server with a large player imbalance, yes if its a two sided server. On a three or more sided or where the numbers are close, no.
As you said yourself, players in long PvP missions are just wasting time as they could have run many more missions in the time spent.
No, players who are in PvP missions are not wasting their time as shown by my analysis above, at least for the most part. Exceptions being where they have no realistic chance of sucess in their PvP match and will end up dead or being chased away by superior forces anywy; or where they are engaged in an unimportant area against a foe worth few points and likely to just run off, at a cruicial time when they are needed in heavy metal ships to tilt the balance of an important map VC struggle. It all comes down to whether the amount and liklihood of VCs in their PvP battle, and/or the importance of the battle location and control of the hex are factored against other things taking place on the map.
You know you said it and we all know it is true.
Under certain circumstances, yes, in others no. depends on the overall picture at the time. What I do think inefficient is flying a bunch of slow hex flippers, when better options of the same race exist, behind the lines for extended periods of time with no plan to engage in PvP, or when no opposition is on that is challanging an area. Why send several BCHs to do a light cruiser's work. I understand the need for one or two on the map as a deterrent to the enemy or as a fast response should the enemy decide to suddenly challange the area however.
By the by, how did the Coalition destroy the Kitties map VC points in the second round again: Answer: by flipping a couple of hexes. Did they struggle? Did they fight? Did they PvP to win it? Nope, just flipped some hexes when no one was looking.
What they did was in compliance with server rules and thus just smart thinking. That being said, I do have an objection to it, but not towards the players, but towards the rules. I think that noone should be permitted to log off in enemy or neutral space (except in emergency). If you go "deepstriking" in these areas you should be required to fight your way in and out without logging off. To be able to work when noone is on then log off for a last minute VC grab while being in a position not trackable on the news strikes me as a bad ruleset in this area. Of course a more careful check of the supplylines by Alliance players could have detected and defeated this, but I think that a careful watching of the news should be able to indicate such.
Imagine if you had 20 players who worked accounts to be deep within enemy space when noone was on, then 15 minutes before a VC round ended have them all jump back into those accounts and launch 20 planet assaults all holding at debrief until 1 minute before VC end and coming out together. In that case no amount of checking DVs would allow this to be detected. In fact you could have them place seperate accounts beside every VC objective on the first week of a server and pull them out as needed. This needs to be addressed in server rules before it is totally exploited.
That is the entire problem with the dynaverse right there. That is the mindset. No offense to the Coalition players. Perfectly legal and such, but that it comes down to that is pathetic for all of us.
Its not perfect yet, tweaks still needed here and there, but if you get rid of hexflipping, you need to get rid of the map. As long as both sides have access to hex flippers and comparable PvP ability there is a role for everything. As long as the potential payoff for PvP victory is equitable as it was on AOTK III as demonstrated above with my analysis there is a valuable role for everyone to fulfill. The inclusion of a 3 VC rule for all specialty ships was a good addition to the ruleset. Perhaps a VC penalty for disengagement from equal numbered fights is needed, but in general very well balanced.
Poll
Topic: For my next set of servers . . . (Read 24671 times)