Topic: GW 4 - DAY OF THE EAGLE - OFFICIAL GAME PLAY THREAD

[Strafer]

I would prefer Dominatrix.

Silly lizard, there are no Andros here.

[FPF-DieHard]

Specialty ships:
FFHK to Mog
FFHK to Soth
FFHK to Pardek
NHKF to Emerald Edge

Monday is the next round more to come to those that missed out this time...

NHKF not out this cycle, try again in 10 years.   Pick something else as you cannot bank CPs

EIDT:  My fault, the shiplist has it out WAY too early.  I forget tha change the FYA when I added the Mech Links.   

Stick of few pins in the DH Voodoo doll that I know you have.   

PPS: THe casual Tenders are supposed to come out in 2280.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Klingon Builds:
1 C8V piloted by Kytarh 4 BP 2 BP banked

I believe you can only bank 1 of those BPs, thus forfieting 1 if you so choose to build a C8V over 2 C5Ks, as the rules state:

Each race must build at least one 3 or 4 BP ship each round.

A minimum of 75% of all BP (if possible) must be spent in each round (rounding up) the balance may be banked. CPs may not be banked.

Since it is possible to spend a minimum of 75%.

[KBFLordKrueg]

Specialty ships:
FFHK to Mog
FFHK to Soth
FFHK to Pardek
NHKF to Emerald Edge

Monday is the next round more to come to those that missed out this time...

Hm, well, we were going by the shiplist listing of 2274


NHKF not out this cycle, try again in 10 years.   Pick something else as you cannot bank CPs

EIDT:  My fault, the shiplist has it out WAY too early.  I forget tha change the FYA when I added the Mech Links.   

Stick of few pins in the DH Voodoo doll that I know you have.   

PPS: THe casual Tenders are supposed to come out in 2280.

We were going by the listed year of 2274

[Kroma BaSyl]

Hm, well, we were going by the shiplist listing of 2274

You'll probably want to pick something else though as it is set to 2280 on the server side, so it won't be showing up in the shipyard anytime soon.

[KBFLordKrueg]

Klingon Builds:
1 C8V piloted by Kytarh 4 BP 2 BP banked

I believe you can only bank 1 of those BPs, thus forfieting 1 if you so choose to build a C8V over 2 C5Ks, as the rules state:

Each race must build at least one 3 or 4 BP ship each round.

A minimum of 75% of all BP (if possible) must be spent in each round (rounding up) the balance may be banked. CPs may not be banked.

Since it is possible to spend a minimum of 75%.

So we can't build what we want unless we FORFIET BPs?\
4 BPs spent out of 6 is 2/3 and that's not close enough?
Now I see why the minimum build was raised from 50% to 75%
There's no way to for the Klingons to build a carrier unless we forfiet BPs, while the Feds can, since they have 10 BPs vs our 6, very clever.
Unless, of course, we take some planets, of course they have to be Fed planets because the Tholians can't be attacked, like the LDR in GW2.
But, that won't work on the first round, will it?
That's F@$%*&% B*%%@#%+!
Fine Whatever, we don't want 2 C5Ks, we want a C8V

[FireSoul]

Don't sweat it Krueg.. It'll be fine.

[EmeraldEdge]

Well, if I can't have the NHKF, I guess I'll take an SUK, that's still 2274 isn't it?

[FPF-DieHard]

Well, if I can't have the NHKF, I guess I'll take an SUK, that's still 2274 isn't it?

Yeah, the SUK is out (I love that ship to, good choice  ).

Again, sorry for the screw up, I goofed when cutting and pasting. 

[Julin Eurthyr]

Don't sweat it Krueg.. It'll be fine.

It shouldn't be "fine".  It should be fair...

We've been effectively told that, unless the Klinks want to lose a build point, we have to build 2x3 BP ships, as building 1 4xBP ship is only 66.67% spent, and therefore not legal under the new build mandates.

Doesn't matter that they're posting 3 DN-carriers while the entire coalition is Mathematically / YIS service datedly prohibited from building even 1 before Monday?  What happened to the carriers that SFB OOBs say we should have available here?  Could I have an explanation please?

In this very post, the Federation has actually overspent their initial allotment of CPs.  If you count, they have 10 "specialty ships", and the fact that their DNL pilots are announced as being able to fly DVLs, there is 12 CPs spent in that post.

Fine and fair indeed.  When they said the Alliance would be "favored" in the second half, as they "historically" were, I expected the favoring to be done via VCs etc. instead of the use of New Math... 

[Kroma BaSyl]

So we can't build what we want unless we FORFIET BPs?\
4 BPs spent out of 6 is 2/3 and that's not close enough?

Is this the only rule you would like to use the "close enough" yard stick for?

Now I see why the minimum build was raised from 50% to 75%
There's no way to for the Klingons to build a carrier unless we forfiet BPs, while the Feds can, since they have 10 BPs vs our 6, very clever.

Resisting the urge to tell you where to go, as it sure sounds like you just accused us of cheating again.

No one ever even considered particular ship options, least of all you. You had weeks to consider the rule and implications. Yet you never brought up this concern. The rule was changed simply because it was felt 50% felt like to much, and not as some conspiracy to screw the Klingons. I didn't even know when the C8V came out, nor did Jinn I imagine and this was a rule he wrote. But sure it was all a big conspiracy.

Unless, of course, we take some planets,

Or use the banked point next round.

of course they have to be Fed planets because the Tholians can't be attacked, like the LDR in GW2.

Only the Tholian homeworld can't be attacked and you know that. It was explained to you that this was to make sure they could at least survive minimully throughout the server given all their other limitations.

What the F does GW2 LDR have to do with it anyway? Each server has had different conditions to favor one side or the other inorder to add historical flavor and overall campaign balance. So in your mind does the Allaince have to maintain every disadvantage they once had placed on them? Christ the Tholians aren't even allowed more than 5 players on at a time, how the hell could they defend their homeworld if you choose to take it. Do you have to have every advantage even though you are already up by 220 pts?

But, that won't work on the first round, will it?
That's F@$%*&% B*%%@#%+!
Fine Whatever, we don't want 2 C5Ks, we want a C8V

Whatever. You were supposed to be an admin too, and could have figured this out ahead of time and before accusing us of cheating, if you weren't to lazy to bother.

Helll you could have PM'ed us to discuss too, instead of the public accusation. Instead it the same ol crap about how it is all a big plan to screw the Klingons. Christ if we really wanted to screw the Klingons or Coalition for that matter would DH have bumped up your FYAs, added AMD to the C10, and given the Roms a free SUB? What the F is with you anyway Krueg? Christ every single comment you ever made pre-server as an admin was with the obvious intention of improving the Klingon side, not one single consideration outside seeking an advantage for your team. I never saw DH or Jinn do that for the coaliton. Quiet the opposite in fact.

[Kroma BaSyl]

It shouldn't be "fine".  It should be fair...

So we should take back the advantages and free ship you were given, or is "fair" a one way street where you are from.

We've been effectively told that, unless the Klinks want to lose a build point, we have to build 2x3 BP ships, as building 1 4xBP ship is only 66.67% spent, and therefore not legal under the new build mandates.

The rules and shiplist have been there to test and play with for a week, and once again the no shows start bitch a day late and a dollar short.

Doesn't matter that they're posting 3 DN-carriers while the entire coalition is Mathematically / YIS service datedly prohibited from building even 1 before Monday?  What happened to the carriers that SFB OOBs say we should have available here?  Could I have an explanation please?

If their are shiplist omissions or errors why haven't you posted about them during testing? Could I have an explaination please?

In this very post, the Federation has actually overspent their initial allotment of CPs.  If you count, they have 10 "specialty ships", and the fact that their DNL pilots are announced as being able to fly DVLs, there is 12 CPs spent in that post.

Your math is either off or you still haven't bothered to read the rules. A DVL (as well as any DN upgrade) is free if the upgrade was available when ship is initially built. the DVL was available in 2273.


Note on upgrades, there is no upgrade cost if the upgraded version of the ship is available when ship is initially being built. Thus a CP is only charged if you are upgrading and existing/surviving DN/BCH to a newer refit/version.


These rules haven't been changed in a week.

Fine and fair indeed.  When they said the Alliance would be "favored" in the second half, as they "historically" were, I expected the favoring to be done via VCs etc. instead of the use of New Math... 

The coalition got all the extras, as I have listed above, but once again it is the same ol whiners. So you have one unintended "possible" (yes possible as you can still use all your points legally) disadvantage, and everything is considered balanced in the favor of the Alliance. Hell they don't even have an unrestricted allied race. You got a FREE OOB ship for Christ sake. What a bunch of frigin babies.

[KAT J'inn]

Okay . . . traded notes with DH.

The 75% rule had unintended consequences.  I think the fairest way to do it is to say that 75% must be used each round (rounded down in the case of fractions)

Thus 4 out of 6 hits the mark and the remaining two can be banked

Feds would have to spend 7 out of 10

Roms 3 out of 4

Seems better that way.

Kroma please make the change.


Oh and Krueg . . .  what will it take to get you to send me a note with your concerns instead of flaming away here and getting everyone all riled up?    Cash?  Women?   Subscription to PlayKlink Magazine?  Name it.  <sigh>



P.S.   NOW LOOK WHAT YOU BONEHEADS HAVE DONE!!!  KROMA HAS HER PANTIES IN A BUNCH!!  LORD HELP US ALL.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Oh and Krueg . . .  what will it take to get you to send me a note with your concerns instead of flaming away here and getting everyone all riled up?    Cash?  Women?   Subscription to PlayKlink Magazine?  Name it.  <sigh>

Nothing, Krueg is being a tool. Plain and simple. To lazy to bother fullfilling his responsibility as an admin and to ready to start pointing fingers publically instead of trying to work it out. Hell I wouldn't have minded If he posted his concern publically, but is caling us cheaters really necessary?

PS, I'll make the change you requested. Wouldn't want it to be to balanced against the Klingons.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Doesn't matter that they're posting 3 DN-carriers while the entire coalition is Mathematically / YIS service datedly prohibited from building even 1 before Monday?  What happened to the carriers that SFB OOBs say we should have available here?  Could I have an explanation please?

If their are shiplist omissions or errors why haven't you posted about them during testing? Could I have an explaination please?

"Mathematical elimination": To reach 5 (the minimum 75% spend) in 2273 requires the puruchase of a 3 BP and 2 BP ship.  Not a single (for anyone) 2 BP ship is out till Monday.  To reach 6 requires the purchase of 2x3 BP or a 4 and 2 BP ship.  Obviously we can't buy a 2 BP ship till Monday...
"YIS elimination": No "direct build from BP" carriers are available to the Klingons for 3 BP in 2273.  This is a SFB-design, and cannot be argued.  There is no omission here.

So, due to ADB and mathematical reasons, we were prohibited from building a carrier.  J'inn's ruling has cleared this point up.  I'm just explaining what I was saying...

In this very post, the Federation has actually overspent their initial allotment of CPs.  If you count, they have 10 "specialty ships", and the fact that their DNL pilots are announced as being able to fly DVLs, there is 12 CPs spent in that post.

Your math is either off or you still haven't bothered to read the rules. A DVL (as well as any DN upgrade) is free if the upgrade was available when ship is initially built. the DVL was available in 2273.

Okay.  DVL is out on start date.  Blame me for not knowing all shiplists by heart.  Why did you list the pilots as ever touching DNLs?  I though the whole OOB threads were intended to avoid confusion??? 

Fine and fair indeed.  When they said the Alliance would be "favored" in the second half, as they "historically" were, I expected the favoring to be done via VCs etc. instead of the use of New Math... 

The coalition got all the extras, as I have listed above, but once again it is the same ol whiners. So you have one unintended "possible" (yes possible as you can still use all your points legally) disadvantage, and everything is considered balanced in the favor of the Alliance. Hell they don't even have an unrestricted allied race. You got a FREE OOB ship for Christ sake. What a bunch of frigin babies.

I haven't been whining all series.  Also, do I need to remind you how I played GW3?  Did you read the ending of my post?  I expect things to start getting rough for the Coalition in this half.  It is a given that carriers, with nifty SFB-fighters, and those especially-nifty F-14s are designed to whip the daylights out of anything outside the B-10 (which is still mired in Kzinti space... ) that doesn't have "5 magic G-racks".  And our "by the rules" counter is to leave the entire Carrier force in Kzinti space in favor of a pair of "Light" Dreadnoughts?  Sorry if I'm still stuck in a "strategic" thinking mode, and that my strategic thinking isn't limited to the "RTS" mold of outnumber / outtech the enemy...

[Kroma BaSyl]

"Mathematical elimination": To reach 5 (the minimum 75% spend) in 2273 requires the puruchase of a 3 BP and 2 BP ship.  Not a single (for anyone) 2 BP ship is out till Monday.  To reach 6 requires the purchase of 2x3 BP or a 4 and 2 BP ship.  Obviously we can't buy a 2 BP ship till Monday...
"YIS elimination": No "direct build from BP" carriers are available to the Klingons for 3 BP in 2273.  This is a SFB-design, and cannot be argued.  There is no omission here.

So, due to ADB and mathematical reasons, we were prohibited from building a carrier.  J'inn's ruling has cleared this point up.  I'm just explaining what I was saying...

Yeah to reach 6 required you to build to ships appropriate for the year, so sh*t. But your explaination still falls short of explaining the implied delibrate nerfing of your shiplist. I asked to to explain why you didn't bring up the issue earlier, and why you are arguing at all if you admit it is an SFB-design issue and not something we did delibrately.

Okay.  DVL is out on start date.  Blame me for not knowing all shiplists by heart.  Why did you list the pilots as ever touching DNLs?  I though the whole OOB threads were intended to avoid confusion??? 

No Julin, I blame you for shooting your mouth off implying one side is playing loose with the rules while forcing the other to adhere to them, and before even taking the time to get your facts straight. Because that is what you did. I imagine DH listed it that way for clarification that the DVL is built on the DNL hull. But no your right it is probably our fault that you are confused, since we should have known you guys would be to lazy to read the rules and test stuff out before the server and then bitch. I believe this makes 4 in a row, we should have known better.

I haven't been whining all series.  Also, do I need to remind you how I played GW3?  Did you read the ending of my post?  I expect things to start getting rough for the Coalition in this half.

I don't care about you equivacations. You expect it to get rough, but you bitch about it when it happens. The Coalition is the side getting the positive balance bumps on all fronts again yet you still whine the loudest. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. Apparently winning is all that matters to you.

It is a given that carriers, with nifty SFB-fighters, and those especially-nifty F-14s are designed to whip the daylights out of anything outside the B-10 (which is still mired in Kzinti space... ) that doesn't have "5 magic G-racks".  And our "by the rules" counter is to leave the entire Carrier force in Kzinti space in favor of a pair of "Light" Dreadnoughts?  Sorry if I'm still stuck in a "strategic" thinking mode, and that my strategic thinking isn't limited to the "RTS" mold of outnumber / outtech the enemy...

There are no givens, and Rom plasma D fighters can wipe the floor with ANY fed fighter. Funny how you weren't bitching about how unfair it was for the Allaince when they had no counter to the B10, instead you imply here how unfair it is that you no longer have it, then go on to bitch about "magic G-racks" whaaaaaa.

Jeez, how much do you have to win by, your side has still been given all the non-SFB bumps in extra ships and shiplist tweaks, yet you still accuse us of making it un-fair for your side. I can't beleive what a bunch of whinning little brats you guys are.

[KBFLordKrueg]

Oh and Krueg . . .  what will it take to get you to send me a note with your concerns instead of flaming away here and getting everyone all riled up?    Cash?  Women?   Subscription to PlayKlink Magazine?  Name it.  <sigh>

Nothing, Krueg is being a tool. Plain and simple. To lazy to bother fullfilling his responsibility as an admin and to ready to start pointing fingers publically instead of trying to work it out. Hell I wouldn't have minded If he posted his concern publically, but is caling us cheaters really necessary?

PS, I'll make the change you requested. Wouldn't want it to be to balanced against the Klingons.

Hm, as an Admin, should I have been notified of planned meetings to discuss these and other rule and set-up issues when they were being decided, rather than simply reading in the forums or emails that "rules updated per our conversation last".
Yeah, I blew up last night when I read that...if I got someone panties tied in a knot, I apologize. And I never called anyone a "cheater". If I really thought that was going on, I would not hesitate to do so.
As far as sending a PM or email to you guys for an answer, quite frankly, I doubt I would have recieved an answer before the server started. Took a week to get an answer about the B-10 after asking twice.
I'm not even going to get into a Pi****g contest over this. It will stand where it is, I will not even spend the 1 BP forfieted. 

[Julin Eurthyr]

Perhaps you forgot my appointment as SAC under Bach in GW3.  That explains why I wasn't complaining about the K-B10, I was attempting to devise legitimate strategies to properly kill it, with the players / builds provided by my RM...

Colorblindness made me fly Alliance for 1 GW server.  I flew it with all the gusto, skill and planning I throw into every server I get that involved in, and can actually fly.  I fought Fed under the restrictions presented, as they were "proper" for the server simulation.

Before I explain myself any further, I'll say this.  Next time an Alliance officer "suggests" a build schedule for a Coalition race, especially if that officer has ties to Administration / Alliance High Command, and that build is obviously disadvantageous, (IIRC, C5s are "light" dreads, being squared off against 3 carriers) perhaps one should expect the perception of rule fixing, even in the case of an 100% honest mistake.   As this situation is cleared (we're allowed to build the carrier), I would rather not debate it anymore.

[KAT J'inn]

Oh and Krueg . . .  what will it take to get you to send me a note with your concerns instead of flaming away here and getting everyone all riled up?    Cash?  Women?   Subscription to PlayKlink Magazine?  Name it.  <sigh>

Nothing, Krueg is being a tool. Plain and simple. To lazy to bother fullfilling his responsibility as an admin and to ready to start pointing fingers publically instead of trying to work it out. Hell I wouldn't have minded If he posted his concern publically, but is caling us cheaters really necessary?

PS, I'll make the change you requested. Wouldn't want it to be to balanced against the Klingons.

Hm, as an Admin, should I have been notified of planned meetings to discuss these and other rule and set-up issues when they were being decided, rather than simply reading in the forums or emails that "rules updated per our conversation last".
Yeah, I blew up last night when I read that...if I got someone panties tied in a knot, I apologize. And I never called anyone a "cheater". If I really thought that was going on, I would not hesitate to do so.
As far as sending a PM or email to you guys for an answer, quite frankly, I doubt I would have recieved an answer before the server started. Took a week to get an answer about the B-10 after asking twice.
I'm not even going to get into a Pi****g contest over this. It will stand where it is, I will not even spend the 1 BP forfieted. 

I think you missed my post.   I changed the rule.   It was unfair to the Klingons as it was worded.     As for the meetings.   I wrote all of the rules except for certain parts such as the Romulan ships and the build cycles as I didn't have enough info on that.   So the meetings were basically on those issues AFAIR.

I didn't put tons opf thought into it as I just really don't have the time to do so.   I figure there are logic mistakes.  I also figure you guys will catch them.

The rule needed to be changed as 75% of 6 just plain screws the Klingons.   So you guys get to bank 2 this round

[KAT J'inn]

planned meetings

BWHAHHAHHAHAHHA!!!!!    I don't think there ever was one.  At least not one I went to.   This is basically a J'inn's stream of consciousness server with poor Die Hard trying to pick up the pieces.

I really don't have the time to make plans like that.   I wish I did but I don't