Dynaverse.net
Taldrenites => Dynaverse II Experiences => Topic started by: FPF-DieHard on February 10, 2005, 02:34:32 pm
-
Who else besides me thinks that the SGO4 setup would be really cool if run again with certain "corrections?"
EXAMPLE: NO FRICKING ALLIANCES!! Tone down the fighters a bit, loosen up the OOB, change the rules to encourage decicive engagement, no more fleeting of capital ships, put J'inn in charge, keep Agave out of the BBVZ, etc . . .
I think the scenario itself is good and refereshing. Would be nice to try again 'learning from the first run.
I've played "Axis and Allies" about 100 times, why should a good server concept be any different?
-
I for one would be all for it... ;D
-
Who else besides me thinks that the SGO4 setup would be really cool if run again with certain "corrections?"
EXAMPLE: NO FRICKING ALLIANCES!!
The equal pacification rules applied to all three sides?
-S'Cipio
-
Without alot of rules (well OK one big rule) about how offensives must be fought
a three sided server won't work.
One would be good
2 works the best
And I think that 4 or 5 might work pretty well.
I'd say add another side to the fight.
get rid of the pirates and restore the Lyran Empire to it's rightful place as
supreme ass-kickers of the Galaxy.
-
Who else besides me thinks that the SGO4 setup would be really cool if run again with certain "corrections?"
EXAMPLE: NO FRICKING ALLIANCES!!
The equal pacification rules applied to all three sides?
-S'Cipio
Stop while you are ahead, DH. You might get positive karma...
Ditch the 3-way. Ditch the Tholians. Slightly revised map putting the ISC where the thols are, ally them to the Coalition. Retain the Lyran Pirates but ally them to the coalition. Turn the tholianless Mirak race into Pirates just like the Lyrs and ally them to the Alliance. Keep the merged Mirdrans and KlinkLyrs.
Same shiplist and settings and what DH said above.
Here's two map ideas. The Mirak and Lyran races are Pirates races allied to the Alliance and Coalition, and can engine double just like the Lyrs in SGO4. You see the map has some territory on the rioght and left, that is for economy only. There are 4 planets of the mirak and lyrs, so the pirates can go wherever they have friendly space.
(http://home.satx.rr.com/spiderwebs/map5.gif)
In this one, the hydran colonies are in the SW and the map takes more the form of the F&E map. It's all just an idea.
(http://home.satx.rr.com/spiderwebs/map5.2.gif)
It'd be ready to go after Bonks SFB OP server concludes, likely the same time Island wars does, and come b4 SS3 is ready. Otherwise, afterwards. SG4 was a good concept and a lot of great ideas sprung forth from it. And its a rock solid stable server. With refinements, and using the lessons learned, there is no way it wouldnt be fun...
-
Man Dizzy you sure are a glutton for punishment. BTW, you aren't single are you? <blushing>
-
Look, I want as much as the next person to have as good a time on a dyna as possible. If someone else wants to admin it, fine by me. But this 2-way concept is as straight up as you can get. Im with DH. Its a good principle. Why abandon it when you can make it work.
Besides, I have scales of Iron you lizard boy.
-
Be careful Kroma has ways of making iron rust....... :o
-
Look, I want as much as the next person to have as good a time on a dyna as possible. If someone else wants to admin it, fine by me. But this 2-way concept is as straight up as you can get. Im with DH. Its a good principle. Why abandon it when you can make it work.
Besides, I have scales of Iron you lizard boy.
hehehe...I wasn't commenting on the server concept at all, just surprised to see you throwing your admin hate into the ring before even getting the scorch marks of of it. Besides I am a sucker for a Cabin Boy that can take the rough stuff.
-
Well, its prolly best just to get it over with. Let the dust settle and let Slave girls die. New blood, new server. New flames. repeat ad nauseam
-
Well, its prolly best just to get it over with. Let the dust settle and let Slave girls die. New blood, new server. New flames. repeat ad nauseam
Ooooo, your are quite the little rascal. I better start loading up on the fluids.
-
It is possible for a 3-way server to work...
Here's how I would re-write SG4, making sure it stays 3-way throughout:
1. Explicit rule, NO TREATIES
2. Re-do the VC system. The ISC only scores VCs from holding territory. If they are to receive VCs for conquering, it only comes by following the mandates of the Equal Pacification Directive, ie, they only get points for holding both an Alliance and Coalition target of the same type...
The Alliance and Coalition only earn points for attacking their enemies, as is their mandate. The ISC is just a distraction, one that they must divert troops to defeating all server as part of the ISC's mandate is to maintain the neutral zone, and sever any / all LOSes built...
3. Check out the entire BP / CP system, adjust as necessary. Perhaps with "proper" attrition, the fleet sizes we have now would be appropriate...
-
It is possible for a 3-way server to work...
Here's how I would re-write SG4, making sure it stays 3-way throughout:
1. Explicit rule, NO TREATIES
This would be very difficult. This would have to include "cease-fires" "non-aggression" act as well.
No matter, I would like to see unrestricted ships. I would like good ships to cost alot. I miss working up to ships. I was stuck in /cay for 2 weeks! lol It starts being fun getting blown away lol
-
How about a No Disengage Rule EVER when in PvP? It would make a great turnover in ships, and people would just get on with the fight. No BBs either.
-
. . . No BBs either.
AMEN!!!
-
Some ideals
1. AI striping in PvsP (Karnak missions)
2. Only one DN or BB online per side at a time. ( this way you don't have 2 or 3 DNs running together)
3. No more 3 way servers (No matter how hard you try it just doesn't work)
-
DieHard you have played A and A
only about 100 times which
edition 1st, 2nd, Europe,Pacific or
3rd
-
Some ideals
1. AI striping in PvsP (Karnak missions)
2. Only one DN or BB online per side at a time. ( this way you don't have 2 or 3 DNs running together)
3. No more 3 way servers (No matter how hard you try it just doesn't work)
1. Cool with it. We need a new mission pack.
2. I am absolutely 100% infavor of a rule that prevent CAPITAL ships from fleeting together. I would include BCH/BCV/BCS ships in this and not just DNs considering many BCHs are better than DNs for many races.
2.1 No more fricking BBs. Maybe allow the Klinks B10s
3. 1 more 3-way server if I can talk J'inn into it ;D
-
No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews
-
A server is more a work of art than a machine. There are no mistakes . . . only features and flavor. Just like ice cream. Lots of flavors, you just might not like them all.
-
A server is more a work of art than a machine. There are no mistakes . . . only features and flavor. Just like ice cream. Lots of flavors, you just might not like them all.
;D
-
No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews
Fighter needs some "adjustments." Check out New Cruiser hell in a week or 2.
-
No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews
Or return full deck crews and stock fighters.
-
No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews
Or return full deck crews and stock fighters.
I'd say no to stock fighters
Keep the megapack upgrades, but only upgrade the weapons load.
Don't upgrade the damage.
I *don't* have a problem with a fighter than dishes out tons of damage.
I *do* have issue with a fighter that an ESG at rng zero or a heavy drone can't kill.
-
How the hell can you allow ANY battleships and not allow capital ships to fleet together?
Think about that one for a minute. It's got to be one or the other.
-
No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews
Or return full deck crews and stock fighters.
I'd say no to stock fighters
Keep the megapack upgrades, but only upgrade the weapons load.
Don't upgrade the damage.
I *don't* have a problem with a fighter than dishes out tons of damage.
I *do* have issue with a fighter that an ESG at rng zero or a heavy drone can't kill.
I tend to agree.
-
No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews
Or return full deck crews and stock fighters.
I'd say no to stock fighters
Keep the megapack upgrades, but only upgrade the weapons load.
Don't upgrade the damage.
I *don't* have a problem with a fighter than dishes out tons of damage.
I *do* have issue with a fighter that an ESG at rng zero or a heavy drone can't kill.
I tend to agree.
So you guys are saying all PF's should go? :P
-
Actuall when I drafted a fed CV marker I prayed it was a PF tender and not a carrier with A10m because the pf's were easier to kill :P
-
Actuall when I drafted a fed CV marker I prayed it was a PF tender and not a carrier with A10m because the pf's were easier to kill :P
Amen to that FH! ;D
-
No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews
This is a great Ideal I would lean to 0 deck crews.
-
No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews
Or return full deck crews and stock fighters.
I'd say no to stock fighters
Keep the megapack upgrades, but only upgrade the weapons load.
Don't upgrade the damage.
I *don't* have a problem with a fighter than dishes out tons of damage.
I *do* have issue with a fighter that an ESG at rng zero or a heavy drone can't kill.
I fully agree with this. SFC ships, however much SFB like, are not built for those kinds of fighters that can take that much damage. I already went into details about that elsewhere...
No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews
This might work, if you absoutely MUST have fighters that require more than a plasma G hit to kill!!
No BBs sounds good to me. Restricting all capitol ships from disengaging might help, but might be unfair in some situations. If there will be DNs, then I may be for this anyway. FFs and CLs should have the right to disengage in any given match however, as I know many players prefer these over the bigger guns. And I have nothing against any ships fleeting together, unless you start involving DNs and BBs in the mix. I bring up my match against three fed players in two BCFfs and a CB against my DNHT here, with the solo DNHT winning with 99% of it's hull. ;)
-
No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews
Or return full deck crews and stock fighters.
I'd say no to stock fighters
Keep the megapack upgrades, but only upgrade the weapons load.
Don't upgrade the damage.
I *don't* have a problem with a fighter than dishes out tons of damage.
I *do* have issue with a fighter that an ESG at rng zero or a heavy drone can't kill.
I tend to agree.
So you guys are saying all PF's should go? :P
Mega Fighters were way harder to kill than PFs. However that said, I thing the PFs in this campaign need so downward weaking. They either need to be more brittle to compensate for the extra power or have a bit less of it. Hitting a PF with an R torp from range 5 and having it not even slowdown at all was OOT for PFs too.
-
Still like NO Disengage... You can then scrap the "clear the hex" rule for X minutes too.
-
Mega Fighters were way harder to kill than PFs. However that said, I thing the PFs in this campaign need so downward weaking. They either need to be more brittle to compensate for the extra power or have a bit less of it. Hitting a PF with an R torp from range 5 and having it not even slowdown at all was OOT for PFs too.
Internals have already been trimmed from the PFs. Most of them have 0 hull and only 1 point of ED.
Next rev of this mod will have
1. Weaker fighters (big nerfing for the Megapacks, they were too tough)
2. Weaker PF (not sure how many more internals I can trim)
New Cruiser Hell will be the test bed for this and hopefully will be up next weekend.
-
Still like NO Disengage... You can then scrap the "clear the hex" rule for X minutes too.
A no disengage rule is stupid.
-
2. Weaker PF (not sure how many more internals I can trim)
Not sure trimming the internals is necessarily the issue. The main problem was that they could still run speed 31 after being down 3/4 hull. I understand why you increased power over other internals, but as it stands now even after taking massive damage they can run home to the tender at max speed for a free and unlimited repair. PFs are now just like fighters used to be, no speed degradation with damage and unlimited repair facilities.
Would changing the balance of power systems (e.g. less warp, more APR) or just lowering the total power some make them slow a bit when heavily damaged?
-
2. Weaker PF (not sure how many more internals I can trim)
Not sure trimming the internals is necessarily the issue. The main problem was that they could still run speed 31 after being down 3/4 hull. I understand why you increased power over other internals, but as it stands now even after taking massive damage they can run home to the tender at max speed for a free and unlimited repair. PFs are now just like fighters used to be, no speed degradation with damage and unlimited repair facilities.
Would changing the balance of power systems (e.g. less warp, more APR) or just lowering the total power some make them slow a bit when heavily damaged?
The extra power is APR. Infact, they have less warp than OP+ PFs.
Unless Dizzy or Bonk changed things from when I was doing the shiplist . . .
EDIT: Just checked. the power is in APR.
Is the DAC broken?
One thing I noticed is 3 Type IV drones kill a full PF, OP+ PFs take 4.
-
2. Weaker PF (not sure how many more internals I can trim)
Not sure trimming the internals is necessarily the issue. The main problem was that they could still run speed 31 after being down 3/4 hull. I understand why you increased power over other internals, but as it stands now even after taking massive damage they can run home to the tender at max speed for a free and unlimited repair. PFs are now just like fighters used to be, no speed degradation with damage and unlimited repair facilities.
Would changing the balance of power systems (e.g. less warp, more APR) or just lowering the total power some make them slow a bit when heavily damaged?
The extra power is APR. Infact, they have less warp than OP+ PFs.
Unless Dizzy or Bonk changed things from when I was doing the shiplist . . .
It may have to do with the way the AI prioritzes power. Just guessing, but maybe when it took a power hit in the past it still tried to load weapons an fly, thus slowing some, now maybe with the extra power it can still do both to an extent.
-
Still like NO Disengage... You can then scrap the "clear the hex" rule for X minutes too.
A no disengage rule is stupid.
What Bear said.
-
About PFs... weakening their hull anymore would be going to far IMO. I have seen plasma S torps take out my PFs just about every time if at close range.
I assumed that the one time my PFL survived a hit from a close range R (took 34 internals on it) that the only reason it didn't pop immediately was because it took the shot head on. As in the weapons took some of the damage from going to the engines. Not sure if PFs work this way, but I have seen it work with ships. Just put your phasers within the same arcs as the damage you are taking, and they will take some of the hits instead of it all going to your engines.
I actually do think slowing damaged PFs down would be a good idea... couldn't you just tweak their movement cost a little? Isn't it at .10 right now? Would need some very fine tuning as they need to charge going fast speeds, but once they start taking damage then they'll be feeling it... Is that feasible?
And I'm with 762 and Bear... Would you like to be the small guy in a frig or light cruiser that pops on to play an hour once every day or three, and be forced to lose your ship in a completely hopeless match against a BCH? That ship would be a heavy loss to someone like that with very low PP to fall back on. If ships are going to be worth VCs again, then forcing people to play unfair matches is even more absurd.
-
Still like NO Disengage... You can then scrap the "clear the hex" rule for X minutes too.
A no disengage rule is stupid.
What Bear said.
What 762 said.
-
About PFs... weakening their hull anymore would be going to far IMO. I have seen plasma S torps take out my PFs just about every time if at close range.
I assumed that the one time my PFL survived a hit from a close range R (took 34 internals on it) that the only reason it didn't pop immediately was because it took the shot head on. As in the weapons took some of the damage from going to the engines. Not sure if PFs work this way, but I have seen it work with ships. Just put your phasers within the same arcs as the damage you are taking, and they will take some of the hits instead of it all going to your engines.
I actually do think slowing damaged PFs down would be a good idea... couldn't you just tweak their movement cost a little? Isn't it at .10 right now? Would need some very fine tuning as they need to charge going fast speeds, but once they start taking damage then they'll be feeling it... Is that feasible?
Unless the range is under 3 and it is heading straight at you it will not die from an S plasma. You just can't do that against plasma PFs in most instances, Lyrans sure. However, that said I agree basically. Either make them more brittle or make them so that their speed is affected when they take heavy damage. Your increase to the move cost is an interesting solution.
-
And I'm with 762 and Bear... Would you like to be the small guy in a frig or light cruiser that pops on to play an hour once every day or three, and be forced to lose your ship in a completely hopeless match against a BCH? That ship would be a heavy loss to someone like that with very low PP to fall back on. If ships are going to be worth VCs again, then forcing people to play unfair matches is even more absurd.
Actually what would be worse in my mind is the guy in a DN whose wingman drops and he's forced to fight a 2v1 or 3v1 against.
Or the guy in a CVA who has to fight a DNH.
Or the guy in a BCH who has to fight a DN.
etc.
-
2. Weaker PF (not sure how many more internals I can trim)
Not sure trimming the internals is necessarily the issue. The main problem was that they could still run speed 31 after being down 3/4 hull. I understand why you increased power over other internals, but as it stands now even after taking massive damage they can run home to the tender at max speed for a free and unlimited repair. PFs are now just like fighters used to be, no speed degradation with damage and unlimited repair facilities.
Would changing the balance of power systems (e.g. less warp, more APR) or just lowering the total power some make them slow a bit when heavily damaged?
The extra power is APR. Infact, they have less warp than OP+ PFs.
Unless Dizzy or Bonk changed things from when I was doing the shiplist . . .
EDIT: Just checked. the power is in APR.
Is the DAC broken?
I don't know how the DAC's supposed to work. I have noticed though in some PVP's when flying Lyran that when I get
hit hard (I've complained about it in the past) I sometimes lose the amount of power equivalant to the APR. (about 12 in BCH, 6 in CWLP etc)
Is warp or APR supposed to be hit first?
-
Excatly. How is it fair that a small ship can run from anything it wants anytime? I beleive that if you make only the bigger more potent ships worth vp or whateveryoucallit, and elliminate at least the BB range, (if not some of the bigger dreds?), you will have much more equal footing teams.
Let's say your team decides to try to lay traps, or catch some ships that are taking areas quickly, as it stands now, you are rarely successfull in killing the ship. At best you chase it out of the hex for a limited time. There are many other hexes all over that this pilot who just ran away can go fly in. This is great for that person as he can fly in minutes or less. If he had actually lost his ship, he would be able to fly in minutes or less(didn't I just say that?). So where is the problem? If he had say, a D5D that he lost, he wont be starting in one, but most likely that ship or one that perhaps he has not tried or wants to try is listed and he can purchase it.(provided it is not a c or s ship). If it was a special or capital ship that he lost, so be it. There will be losses. I am quite sure if he was in a c or s ship this would mean he was online often and would most likely get another assigned to him soon. If he is a casual player, he will most likely not be in a c or s ship but a line ship, making his ship smaller but not taking away from his hex flipping abilities for any lengh of time as he can purchase another ship. Also, if a person does not want to take the chance of losing his fav ship, he can team up with a wingman of bigger size, or go hex flipping in an area where there is no heavy traffic. WE all know that hex flipping is one of the biggest components of the game.
This is just an opinion, hoping to help along some ideas and bring in more ideas on ways to improve the pleasure of flying in a dyna server, and getting the most out of PvP matches. All comments are welcome
-
And I'm with 762 and Bear... Would you like to be the small guy in a frig or light cruiser that pops on to play an hour once every day or three, and be forced to lose your ship in a completely hopeless match against a BCH? That ship would be a heavy loss to someone like that with very low PP to fall back on. If ships are going to be worth VCs again, then forcing people to play unfair matches is even more absurd.
Actually what would be worse in my mind is the guy in a DN whose wingman drops and he's forced to fight a 2v1 or 3v1 against.
Or the guy in a CVA who has to fight a DNH.
Or the guy in a BCH who has to fight a DN.
etc.
I would just filabuster any such rule. Running around until they got tired and logged off. No disengagement is dumb.
-
And I'm with 762 and Bear... Would you like to be the small guy in a frig or light cruiser that pops on to play an hour once every day or three, and be forced to lose your ship in a completely hopeless match against a BCH? That ship would be a heavy loss to someone like that with very low PP to fall back on. If ships are going to be worth VCs again, then forcing people to play unfair matches is even more absurd.
Actually what would be worse in my mind is the guy in a DN whose wingman drops and he's forced to fight a 2v1 or 3v1 against.
Or the guy in a CVA who has to fight a DNH.
Or the guy in a BCH who has to fight a DN.
etc.
I would just filabuster any such rule. Running around until they got tired and logged off. No disengagement is dumb.
Then eliminate the ' stay out of the hex for XXX turns if you disengage ' rule for ships that are outnumbered. The winning team got the DV shift for the mission anyway. There should still be room for people in this game like me that don't / can't draft wingmen. And for God's sake, institute some fleeting rules for capital ships. 2 DNs flying together is just stoooooopid.
-
And I'm with 762 and Bear... Would you like to be the small guy in a frig or light cruiser that pops on to play an hour once every day or three, and be forced to lose your ship in a completely hopeless match against a BCH? That ship would be a heavy loss to someone like that with very low PP to fall back on. If ships are going to be worth VCs again, then forcing people to play unfair matches is even more absurd.
Actually what would be worse in my mind is the guy in a DN whose wingman drops and he's forced to fight a 2v1 or 3v1 against.
Or the guy in a CVA who has to fight a DNH.
Or the guy in a BCH who has to fight a DN.
etc.
I would just filabuster any such rule. Running around until they got tired and logged off. No disengagement is dumb.
Then eliminate the ' stay out of the hex for XXX turns if you disengage ' rule for ships that are outnumbered. The winning team got the DV shift for the mission anyway. There should still be room for people in this game like me that don't / can't draft wingmen. And for God's sake, institute some fleeting rules for capital ships. 2 DNs flying together is just stoooooopid.
Why? To encourage people to fly solo?
-
Why? To encourage people to fly solo?
Yep.
Why? Is that a bad thing?
-
I suppose each player will have to answer that for him/herself. Discouraging teamwork to me seems to go against the grain of what D2 is about.
-
I suppose each player will have to answer that for him/herself. Discouraging teamwork to me seems to go against the grain of what D2 is about.
Forcing people to leave hexes and be banished to the D2 hinterlands simply because they can't draft anyone also seems to go against the grain of what D2 is about.
I'm not discouraging you from fleeting up. I'm just asking for an opportunity to not become irrelevant. If that's impossible now, I have no problem with that. Nobody is forcing me to play this game anyway.
< shrug >
-
And I'm with 762 and Bear... Would you like to be the small guy in a frig or light cruiser that pops on to play an hour once every day or three, and be forced to lose your ship in a completely hopeless match against a BCH? That ship would be a heavy loss to someone like that with very low PP to fall back on. If ships are going to be worth VCs again, then forcing people to play unfair matches is even more absurd.
Actually what would be worse in my mind is the guy in a DN whose wingman drops and he's forced to fight a 2v1 or 3v1 against.
Or the guy in a CVA who has to fight a DNH.
Or the guy in a BCH who has to fight a DN.
etc.
I would just filabuster any such rule. Running around until they got tired and logged off. No disengagement is dumb.
Then eliminate the ' stay out of the hex for XXX turns if you disengage ' rule for ships that are outnumbered. The winning team got the DV shift for the mission anyway. There should still be room for people in this game like me that don't / can't draft wingmen. And for God's sake, institute some fleeting rules for capital ships. 2 DNs flying together is just stoooooopid.
Why? To encourage people to fly solo?
A DN should never go out alone but a DN being escort by a DN is more than just a little OTT.
-
At the very least we should reduce the disengage penalty for those outnumbered, and perhaps go back to the old system where they could return immediately if they had a wingman with em.
-
Would a system where a single player that disengages immediately is able to return, but if he spends more than 2 minutes in game he's out for
xxx turns work?
-
Dunno if I like it for most cases but definately do in cases where wingmen drop or are not drafted.
Problem is otherwise when players keep drafting hoping for a certain given mission.
-
Would a system where a single player that disengages immediately is able to return, but if he spends more than 2 minutes in game he's out for
xxx turns work?
Then your droner running 2 minute missions has nothing to stop him from dominating a hex all by himself.
The Disengagement Penalty works. Let's not nerf it please.
-
Still like NO Disengage... You can then scrap the "clear the hex" rule for X minutes too.
A no disengage rule is stupid.
What Bear said.
What 762 said.
What Green said. ;)