Topic: You cannot avoid a cheese server without pissing off people...

[Dizzy]

I fight for the casual player. Always have. A lot of these type players are still around. They have families and jobs and love the game, but because they arnt on enough, or their skills arnt up to par, they never get a chance to fly the good stuff because most of the recent servers have all had CnC or OoB restrictions that strangle them. On the flip side, if you open the flood gates, the server degenerates into a boring nasty cheesefest. I've been on both types of server and I hold no love for either. So is there a way to achieve balance? Is there a way so that casual player can get special ships without the server turning into a cheesefest? Is there a practical way of doing it that is easy and simple?

 
In running my server with some sort of CnC or OoB, here are the things I want to AVOID:

1.) A cheesefest where everyone has a BC and a droner or carrier.
2.) Cutting out the casual player.
3.) A convoluted and difficult OoB system like GW4.
4.) Pissing someone off each build cycle because they wernt able to get the ship they wanted.
5.) Rewarding the 733t or nutters at the expense of others.

Here are some of the ideas that have been used or are proposed.

1.) A penalty box. When you have your special ship destroyed, you cant fly another one for 'x' amount of time.
2.) Prestige. You have to earn 'x' amount of money to buy one.
3.) Have 'x' amount of Big Iron on the map at any one time.
4.) Have a Build Points program where ships are built, handed out and kept track of thoughout the server.
5.) Attach VC's to special ships exempting line ships.
6.) Restrict special ships to a percentage of total players on the map at a time.
7.) I'm sure I missed some. Post them mb>?

The problem with the above is that in one form or another they conflict with the things I want to avoid doing in a server. I've even thought of combinations...

I'm fairly stuck at the point where all these idaes suck. And I'm invairiably gonna piss people off in order not to have a cheese server...

[FPF-DieHard]

The question is, will a restrictive server piss off more people than a Cheesefest? 

It is IMPOSSIBLE for any server to not devolve into a Cheesefest aftet 2280 without servere restrictions, OOB, etc.

[Commander Maxillius]

Romulan civil war, but have the whole server in early, say, start it in 2240 or so, and end it 2265.  That way EVERYONE has crap to fly and ya don't have to deal with the hard-coded drone speed problem.


Shiplist additions may be needed for the period before 2260 to make it interesting.

[Bonk]

How about this one: run the server on a shiplist with the specialty ships removed from production (specialed), then maybe twice or 3 times a week swap in the list that puts the specialty ships into production for about 3-6 hours, thus limiting their production but making them available to all who can afford them. I think this can be done without rebooting the server and could be automated by a scheduled batch file which could run more frequently if synced with the servers turn time and economy cycle. hmmm...

edit: We have never really seen a situation that uses the auction feature of the shipyards effectively, the above setup might actually be able to produce heated auctions...

[Bonk]

Romulan civil war, but have the whole server in early, say, start it in 2240 or so, and end it 2265.  That way EVERYONE has crap to fly and ya don't have to deal with the hard-coded drone speed problem.


Shiplist additions may be needed for the period before 2260 to make it interesting.

Anyone have the quick rundown on the hardcoded drone speeds situation? (high on the list after SQL...)

[Hexx]

For the VC's -what about a system where every pvp is reported with big ships ebing worth say 10 (DNH) down to 1 (FF)
Beating a DNH with a DNH is worth say 1/2 vps (so 5), but beating one with a CWL is worth say 4 or 5 times the amount.
In multiple ship missions you count the biggest ship, so a DNH jumped by a CWL and a CCH would be worth fewer points than a DNH jumped (and somehow deafeated by) 2 x CWL's.
It wouldn't even be that much record keeping, let's face it- with the lower player counts of today, and with hte smack talk that goes with a server
most PVP victories are mentioned (at least in passing) anyway.
We simply would need to record them.

[Age]

 What exactly is a cheese server I  keep hearing this term and don't understand ?I wouldn't mind a basic server 24/7 to hop on anytime someone wanted to play on the Dyna and for Trianing as IP you always have to set it up once the skirmish is fineshed.

[FPF-DieHard]

Best Idea I like so far is use a BP/CP system like GW4 but have more fluid (instant) transfers of Specialty and Capital ships.

[Doomstone]

For the VC's -what about a system where every pvp is reported with big ships ebing worth say 10 (DNH) down to 1 (FF)
Beating a DNH with a DNH is worth say 1/2 vps (so 5), but beating one with a CWL is worth say 4 or 5 times the amount.
In multiple ship missions you count the biggest ship, so a DNH jumped by a CWL and a CCH would be worth fewer points than a DNH jumped (and somehow deafeated by) 2 x CWL's.
It wouldn't even be that much record keeping, let's face it- with the lower player counts of today, and with hte smack talk that goes with a server
most PVP victories are mentioned (at least in passing) anyway.
We simply would need to record them.

In theory, that idea is similar to the SFB victory points system. Except in SFB it was based on actual BPV.

That might actually work as an expansion to a web-based reporting system. The one used for RDSL was good enough at the time, but both SL and GZ had far more evolved reporting systems. They included databases of pilot and team stats, as well as battle history lookup features.

What would be really cool is if someone could take the existing battle log stats from the D2 server, import them into a league-type web interface, and add the victory point calculator module. <wishful thinking>

[Doomstone]

What exactly is a cheese server

a girl that brings you h'ors d'oeuvres

[Hexx]

Best Idea I like so far is use a BP/CP system like GW4 but have more fluid (instant) transfers of Specialty and Capital ships.

That's just beacause I used big words in my idea right?
I'll try and tone down the language a bit there...

[Hexx]

Best Idea I like so far is use a BP/CP system like GW4 but have more fluid (instant) transfers of Specialty and Capital ships.

See the "real " problem with that is that if (for some ungodly reason) someone actually wanted to fly a DN.
(I have no idea why, I hate them , but some of you are looney enough to try it)
You have to admit DH that there would not be a chance in hell that poor Lyrkiller
(from the other thread... such a poor name.. but I digress) would ever get his hands on a DNH in your yards.

All joking aside if a new player wanted to try flying a DNH on a server, it wouldn't happen.
What the community has to decide id this an acceptable or unacceptable thing?

I'm more than willing to agree to such terms, but I'm not the best person to ask as I have zero interest in ever flying a DN, I
don't really enjoy flying a BCH.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

What exactly is a cheese server I  keep hearing this term and don't understand ?I wouldn't mind a basic server 24/7 to hop on anytime someone wanted to play on the Dyna and for Trianing as IP you always have to set it up once the skirmish is fineshed.

A server in which everyone flies the ships that -- in the game's background material -- is supposed to be very rare.  (because in a "real" world, they'd be so expensive to build and maintain.)  Everyone is in a BCH or DN, a dedicated droner with fast missiles, or a carrier filled only with topline fighters.  No one flies the line ships that are "supposed" to be the backbone of the fleet.

-S'Cipio

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Anyone have the quick rundown on the hardcoded drone speeds situation? (high on the list after SQL...)

In year one, you get slow drones.  In years 2-18, you get medium drones.  Thereafter you get fast drones.

-S'Cipio

[Green]

Here are some of the ideas that have been used or are proposed.

1.) A penalty box. When you have your special ship destroyed, you cant fly another one for 'x' amount of time.
2.) Prestige. You have to earn 'x' amount of money to buy one.
3.) Have 'x' amount of Big Iron on the map at any one time.
4.) Have a Build Points program where ships are built, handed out and kept track of thoughout the server.
5.) Attach VC's to special ships exempting line ships.
6.) Restrict special ships to a percentage of total players on the map at a time.

#1 sounds like it has potential.
#4 is, I thought, what was used on GW4 ... and I liked it.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

Combinations sounds good.

A VC point system with build points for construction and specialty ships like on GW4, but expanded. And a second system for buying ships (albeit very expensive) so that people can still work towards buying bigger ships.

[madelf]

Expand the OOB for carriers, make it even more restrictive.  One squad type III, one squad type II, 2 squads type I for a 4 squad carrier.  One squad type II one squad type I for a 2 squad carrier.  I can hear the CVA and d6u pilots crying already.

Bump drone COST shy high.  That way no one can just affoard top notch drones at $60 a drone.  Would make the games alot more balanced between the cruisers that use their own equipment, and the races that have vast attrition units on board.

VCs for disengaging a ship that out classes you 1v1, #%$!   

Flame away, I happen to hate using AI and fast drones.

edited for spelling

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

What about incorporating the economic 'cost' of high-tech equipment into a production schedule. The Hydrans supplied the Federation with a limited number of gatling phasers, as a result, Ph-Gs were only found on Escorts and state-of-the-art fighters which were in short supply, hence only assigned to large ships like Heavy Carriers.

The cost of equipping a ship, say with fast drones, for a year, could use up one production point. Races, such as the Kzinti, would have a racial flavour, whereby more of their production is geared to producing amunition, and perhaps it only costs them half a point.

Mind you, the more accurate or 'realistic' such a system becomes, the more elaborate it needs to be.

[Green]

Expand the OOB for carriers, make it even more restrictive.  One squad type III, one squad type II, 2 squads type I for a 4 squad carrier.  One squad type II one squad type I for a 2 squad carrier.  I can hear the CVA and d6u pilots crying already.

Bump drone COTS shy high.  That way no one can just affoard top notch drones at $60 a drone.  Would make the games alot more balanced between the cruisers that use their own equipment, and the races that have vast attrition units on board.

VCs for disengaging a ship that out classes you 1v1, #%$!   

Flame away, I happen to hate using AI and fast drones.

While we're at it, can we ban plasma?

[Hexx]

I'm willing to trade banning fast drones for Plasma.

[Green]

I'm willing to trade banning fast drones for Plasma.

Cool.  That's two for it.  Come on, anyone else?

Ban Fast Drones!  Ban Plasma!

Now everyone chant....

Ban Fast Drones!  Ban Plasma!
Ban Fast Drones!  Ban Plasma!
Ban Fast Drones!  Ban Plasma!

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

Can anyone say... Shuttle duels at dawn with just a 360 degree Ph-III?

[762_XC]

Can anyone say... Shuttle duels at dawn with just a 360 degree Ph-III?

360 degree?? OMG, that is pure cheese.

[FPF-DieHard]

Expand the OOB for carriers, make it even more restrictive.  One squad type III, one squad type II, 2 squads type I for a 4 squad carrier.  One squad type II one squad type I for a 2 squad carrier.  I can hear the CVA and d6u pilots crying already.

Going with SFBish fighters and Fighter CnC, but I think you are on to something . . .

Bump drone COST shy high.  That way no one can just affoard top notch drones at $60 a drone.  Would make the games alot more balanced between the cruisers that use their own equipment, and the races that have vast attrition units on board.

VCs for disengaging a ship that out classes you 1v1, #%$!   

Flame away, I happen to hate using AI and fast drones.

edited for spelling

Madelf's got a point here, so simple it is brilliant.  Make flying "Cheese" ships un-economical, who'll want to fly a PF tender when PFs are 1000 PP each?  This simply could be the form of control.

[FPF-DieHard]

All joking aside if a new player wanted to try flying a DNH on a server, it wouldn't happen.
What the community has to decide id this an acceptable or unacceptable thing?

Which is why we need open servers and closed.   Dizzy simply doesn't want SG4 to be a fully-open server.

I have no problem pissing people off.

[Hexx]

Expand the OOB for carriers, make it even more restrictive.  One squad type III, one squad type II, 2 squads type I for a 4 squad carrier.  One squad type II one squad type I for a 2 squad carrier.  I can hear the CVA and d6u pilots crying already.

Going with SFBish fighters and Fighter CnC, but I think you are on to something . . .

Bump drone COST shy high.  That way no one can just affoard top notch drones at $60 a drone.  Would make the games alot more balanced between the cruisers that use their own equipment, and the races that have vast attrition units on board.

VCs for disengaging a ship that out classes you 1v1, #%$!   

Flame away, I happen to hate using AI and fast drones.

edited for spelling

Madelf's got a point here, so simple it is brilliant.  Make flying "Cheese" ships un-economical, who'll want to fly a PF tender when PFs are 1000 PP each?  This simply could be the form of control.

Only problem I see here is those of us who manage to amass 300K + on a 2week server still ahve the money to buy anything they want.
Still I suppose there shoulkd be some benfit to those who put in the time for their race.
But can we waqit a server or so to try?
I'm kinda looking forward to a Lyran BCH with not 2, but 4 groups of drone chucking Klink Fighters.
Lets see 762 beat me then...

[FPF-DieHard]

I'm kinda looking forward to a Lyran BCH with not 2, but 4 groups of drone chucking Klink Fighters.
Lets see 762 beat me then...

2 Groups, the L-BCV has 2 Squads of fighters.   

[GDA-S'Cipio]

While we're at it, can we ban plasma?

No need to ban plasma.  Just let everyone have the ability to buy fast drones and fighters, and you'll see plasma vanish on its own. 

-S'Cipio

[Dizzy]

Lots of good feedback here. Let me first touch off on this, then get into Madelf's reply. Someone once wrote:

I am a casual player w/ limited playing time. and what time i do have to play, i play w/ all my heart. And by no means that anything will change. I am NOT like Flufster.

He goes on further to say he get's passed up regularly for big Capitol ships.
I sympathize with players such as these, but with Big Iron, sometimes casual players have to be cut out of the action simply because of strategic concerns that they arnt online enough. It is necessary to have a DN on the board most of the time, and thus, casual players get the shaft.

So here's what I propose to fix this. Recently, I went to this big resort place upon getting a free stay over offer in the mail. Once there I had to go thru this lengthy process by which they presented a rather simple time sharing pitch in which I pay less than the value of a permanent resort condo, but in doing so are only allowed to enjoy it a few months out of the year... The same can be done with Dreads. 'Time Sharing'.

In SG4, I think we should invoke a 'time sharing' rule in which a FM (Field Marshall, one of a select few appointed by an RM to fly a large capitol ship) must share his ship with a casual player, thus spreading around the wealth. I personally, don't want someone flying my Dread when I'm offline and then find out he killed it, but hey, if that's what it takes to make casual players happy, I'll gladly do it.

Next topic, Madelf:

Bump drone COST sky high.  That way no one can just affoard top notch drones at $60 a drone.  Would make the games alot more balanced between the cruisers that use their own equipment, and the races that have vast attrition units on board.

VCs for disengaging a ship that out classes you 1v1, #%$!    Flame away, I happen to hate using AI and fast drones.

Someone said do that to PF's as well as Drone costs. Well, that doesnt impact the nutter. But the casual player, they'd get screwed. So no to that type of control method. 

VC's for disengaging I agree with wholeheartedly. In doing so, however, this would discourage less skillful players from flying larger ships which is moving in the wrong direction. We want to encourage fights. There are seldom few people who tacobell leading you around the map on a boring chase then disengage at the very end when you have spent hours getting the upper hand on a larger foe. Woe unto them for wasting your time. Thankfully the majority are not like that. And the other problem, and I can already hear it, is who outclassed who? So no to that, it just isnt practical.


Now here's something really interesting:

What about incorporating the economic 'cost' of high-tech equipment into a production schedule. The Hydrans supplied the Federation with a limited number of gatling phasers, as a result, Ph-Gs were only found on Escorts and state-of-the-art fighters which were in short supply, hence only assigned to large ships like Heavy Carriers.

The cost of equipping a ship, say with fast drones, for a year, could use up one production point. Races, such as the Kzinti, would have a racial flavour, whereby more of their production is geared to producing amunition, and perhaps it only costs them half a point.

Mind you, the more accurate or 'realistic' such a system becomes, the more elaborate it needs to be.

I'd like to hear more ideas about this one. Elaborate, complex and complicated are the things it cannot be if it were to be adopted...

So "Time Sharing" is a good idea I think and should be discussed more.

Something else I am considering and have discussed with others is to allow everyone to fly what they want w/o cheese on the map all at once. I was thinking with using time sharing coupled with either limited builds of BC's (so if u pop enough they will run out till the next build) or using the 'x' number on the map at a time idea. To encourage more players to engage with BC's perhaps we should drop VC awards with them? The penalty box would then come into effect. Couple that with other combinations... But it has to be kept simple. I dont want a lot of paper work like GW 4 was.

More feedback is welcome.

[Hexx]

I'm kinda looking forward to a Lyran BCH with not 2, but 4 groups of drone chucking Klink Fighters.
Lets see 762 beat me then...

2 Groups, the L-BCV has 2 Squads of fighters.   

Hmmmph.
So we can build a BCH with 4 Pf's but only
2 fighter groups?
Sounds like the Anti-Lyran sentiments have reached new heights...

[Bonk]

While we're at it, can we ban plasma?

No need to ban plasma.  Just let everyone have the ability to buy fast drones and fighters, and you'll see plasma vanish on its own. 

-S'Cipio

Roms and Gorns are supposed to have fighters, never understood why 30 years of playtesting was chucked out the window with "either PFs or fighters - not both".  ??? Therein lies the problem.

While we're at it, there should only be one pseudo plasma per launcher per mission. (multiple pseudos - talk about curds!)

[benbean]

I like the share the big iron idea.

It was done on RDSL with the Locknar ship.

Rather than assigning the "specials", have the admin create the accounts for them. That way you can limit the number of them on the server and no one gets to attached to a particular ship, other than the ship their own account has. This also has the added affect of, in PvP, you can fly a BCH/DN without the enemy knowing who is actually flying it.(is that my Romulan side showing again?).

[Kroma BaSyl]

While we're at it, there should only be one pseudo plasma per launcher per mission. (multiple pseudos - talk about curds!)

Consider it payback for the lack of Plasma bolts. Give me plasma bolts and you can take back pseudo regen.

[Kroma BaSyl]

If it were up to me, which it ain't, I would take the system used on GW4 and modifiy it so that FF/DD class specialty ships are completely unrestricted (and I mean all FF/DD ships, Z-DF+, K-F5D, G-PFT etc), and I would also make both purchased BP and CP ships transferable between cycles, with nothing more than a post announcing the transfer in the appropriate thread.

[Bonk]

While we're at it, there should only be one pseudo plasma per launcher per mission. (multiple pseudos - talk about curds!)

Consider it payback for the lack of Plasma bolts. Give me plasma bolts and you can take back pseudo regen.

Fair enough.

[FPF-DieHard]

The "Time-sharing" concept is good, this can be accomplished with Dynamic transfers.   

Like Kroma suggested, let all really small Specialty ships (DD/DW and lower) be available to all.   Use a BP/CP system similar to GW BUT allow those ships to be transfered often and instantaneously with a post on the forums.

[Hexx]

What about a system where you can only fly capital ships for x days over the oucrse of a server.
Ex DH could only have flown the DNH for (say 2 days/week) or 4 days total over the course of the server.
That way your big ships would have to get passed around, wouldn't really need to resrict specialty ships (imho)

[Dizzy]

If it were up to me, which it ain't, I would take the system used on GW4 and modifiy it so that FF/DD class specialty ships are completely unrestricted (and I mean all FF/DD ships, Z-DF+, K-F5D, G-PFT etc), and I would also make both purchased BP and CP ships transferable between cycles, with nothing more than a post announcing the transfer in the appropriate thread.

Posting by an RM or ARM, I'd think instant transfers would be fine.

In addition to your above idea, I think time sharing with players would be good. Spread around the Big Iron so to speak. I think reducing the number of VC's one gets for the loss of a VC ship would help encourage their PvP aggresiveness.

[Dizzy]

That is similar to time sharing, Hexx. It's basically however the RM chooses to do it.

[FPF-DieHard]

I think reducing the number of VC's one gets for the loss of a VC ship would help encourage their PvP aggresiveness.

PvP VCs keep big Iron out of casual hands more than anything else.  I mean, who in their right mind would give a BCH to Hexx or J'inn if they are worth VCs?

[Kroma BaSyl]

I think reducing the number of VC's one gets for the loss of a VC ship would help encourage their PvP aggresiveness.

PvP VCs keep big Iron out of casual hands more than anything else.  I mean, who in their right mind would give a BCH to Hexx or J'inn if they are worth VCs?

Nobody in their right mind ever would, they would save them for Kroma, because they know how fast he goes through them.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Posting by an RM or ARM, I'd think instant transfers would be fine.

Yes, agreed.

[FPF-DieHard]

Posting by an RM or ARM, I'd think instant transfers would be fine.

Yes, agreed.

Next question, with Dynamic Transfers and the opening up of DD and smaller hulls as generally available, what is the correct amount of "points" per team per time period? 

The 10 points per side per 2-3 day period used in GW4 is too much with Dynamic Transfers.  You really don't need more than 2-3 DNs total if they can be transfered with a post from an RM/ARM/Server Admin. 

[Kroma BaSyl]

Next question, with Dynamic Transfers and the opening up of DD and smaller hulls as generally available, what is the correct amount of "points" per team per time period? 

The 10 points per side per 2-3 day period used in GW4 is too much with Dynamic Transfers.  You really don't need more than 2-3 DNs total if they can be transfered with a post from an RM/ARM/Server Admin. 

With potentially higher attrition you might still need them, hard to say. Maybe 6-7 points per side per round though.

[Bonk]

How about this one: run the server on a shiplist with the specialty ships removed from production (specialed), then maybe twice or 3 times a week swap in the list that puts the specialty ships into production for about 3-6 hours, thus limiting their production but making them available to all who can afford them. I think this can be done without rebooting the server and could be automated by a scheduled batch file which could run more frequently if synced with the servers turn time and economy cycle. hmmm...

edit: We have never really seen a situation that uses the auction feature of the shipyards effectively, the above setup might actually be able to produce heated auctions...

Anybody notice this post?

Here's the problem with OoB: Cliques.

Is it not acceptable that limited ships be somewhat random in their distribution so everyone has a chance to fly them? Is it an absolute must that fleet leaders / RMs pick who gets what ships? If that is the case, then you will always have a problem with this.

The OoB that I envision is automated; if its in the yards and you can afford it, its yours, as long as someone else doesn't get it first. Real simple.

[Kroma BaSyl]

How about this one: run the server on a shiplist with the specialty ships removed from production (specialed), then maybe twice or 3 times a week swap in the list that puts the specialty ships into production for about 3-6 hours, thus limiting their production but making them available to all who can afford them. I think this can be done without rebooting the server and could be automated by a scheduled batch file which could run more frequently if synced with the servers turn time and economy cycle. hmmm...

edit: We have never really seen a situation that uses the auction feature of the shipyards effectively, the above setup might actually be able to produce heated auctions...

Anybody notice this post?

Here's the problem with OoB: Cliques.

Is it not acceptable that limited ships be somewhat random in their distribution so everyone has a chance to fly them? Is it an absolute must that fleet leaders / RMs pick who gets what ships? If that is the case, then you will always have a problem with this.

The OoB that I envision is automated; if its in the yards and you can afford it, its yours, as long as someone else doesn't get it first. Real simple.

It just isn't all that different than just pricing them out of everyone but the nutters range. What if you 3-6 hour window is the middle of the night for my part of the world?

[Bonk]

It just isn't all that different than just pricing them out of everyone but the nutters range. What if you 3-6 hour window is the middle of the night for my part of the world?

Yup, the batch would need to be adjusted to make it more frequent for shorter periods to adjust for this. (say twice per day for one or two turns only - too keep the numbers of special ships low).

Price em relatively low so most can afford them, just make them actually rare.

[Kroma BaSyl]

It just isn't all that different than just pricing them out of everyone but the nutters range. What if you 3-6 hour window is the middle of the night for my part of the world?

Yup, the batch would need to be adjusted to make it more frequent for shorter periods to adjust for this. (say twice per day for one or two turns only - too keep the numbers of special ships low).

Price em relatively low so most can afford them, just make them actually rare.

OK, so this basically makes the assignment non-personnel, and potentially more fair.  For specialty ships I just don't see why this is necessary. There were more ships than pilots for the most part, as we had to build and place these ships in inventory until we found willing pilots. If you make them tranferable mid cycle, then it becomes even less of an issue. As to the big iron, it kind of depends on wether they have VCs on their head or not. But even supposing they don't then I still don't see the need if they are transferable.  If the idea is to limited the total number of DNs on the board by only building a limited number of them in the yard you just change which pilots get them and which don't. You can't even transfer them around this way and run the risk that one side might not even get a capital ship if they don't happen to have someone viewing the shipyard at that particular moment.

If I understand your intention correctly though, you want to make the assignment of the big ships "fairer". But that brings up the question of what is "fair". Is it fair to allow the limited capital ships to be flown by pilots that just happened to be lucky enough to be logged in when they were built (a lottery in effect), as opposed to someone that dedicated a lot more time and effort to the strategic effort of the campaign that wasn't?  Not saying it is or isn't. However, if that is the intent, then it would be easier to handle this by pulling names out of a hat and then assigning them.

[Bonk]

Lottery, yes. Hat, no. Batch file to automate OoB shiplist swapping, yes. (Till we stabilise the kit on SQL)

The shipyard can be set to leave ships in the yard for longer periods (default is only 4 turns), so when the limited list is swapped in for a short time to produce limited ships, the limited ships will stay in the yards longer, allowing them to be purchased by the fleet after they discuss it amongst themselves or put it to auction. Less luck involved that way, just control over limited ship abundances that does not require a bunch of administrative work for players and admins.

I say this mostly from the fact that once I am on a server I cannot be bothered with the trouble of pleading my case for any particular ship I might desire, I'll just fly what's available without complaining. I find the same crew who wants to keep limited ships assigned by RMs or whatever are the same people who are always in large ships and are also the first to complain about "BB fests"... 

I want to see an OoB that is transparent to the user and fair.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Sorry, but it still sounds like more trouble than it is worth. There was never a need to plead your case from my experience. We were begging for volunteers in fact. If you still think that process was unfair then change the process to make it more fair, like first come first serve as to ship requests.

I see to outcomes from this approach, 1 you will either have to many DNs flying around again, or 2 you will have capital ships going to either those lucky enought to have been logged in at the right time or nutters with the deepest bidding pockets.

[Bonk]

From what you suggest, what we need then, is an "on-demand" shipyard.

Lets say the Alliance and Coalition leadership receives the OoB from the campaign admin, then each side's RM is given access to an "on-demand" shipyard, where they login and distribute any ship on the shiplist to any pre-existing player accounts.... like on my webmap shipyard, but instead of just being able to buy ships for your account anytime direct from the shiplist, you can buy them for anyone on the server.. RM's would be expected to stick to the OoB given, and players would still have to trade in ships manually if the limited ship is to be transferred to another captain. I can do this relatively easily, but it requires an SQL server of course... .  That is my best possible solution for the current OoB desires as I see them.

I still think production frequency and PP controls are the best solution for a user-transparent OoB on the flatfile tho - yes it will favour nutters, but so does the current system if you think about it.

[Kroma BaSyl]

From what you suggest, what we need then, is an "on-demand" shipyard.

Lets say the Alliance and Coalition leadership receives the OoB from the campaign admin, then each side's RM is given access to an "on-demand" shipyard, where they login and distribute any ship on the shiplist to any pre-existing player accounts.... like on my webmap shipyard, but instead of just being able to buy ships for your account anytime direct from the shiplist, you can buy them for anyone on the server.. RM's would be expected to stick to the OoB given, and players would still have to trade in ships manually if the limited ship is to be transferred to another captain. I can do this relatively easily, but it requires an SQL server of course... .  That is my best possible solution for the current OoB desires as I see them.

Exactly what I would like to see one day.

I still think production frequency and PP controls are the best solution for a user-transparent OoB on the flatfile tho - yes it will favour nutters, but so does the current system if you think about it.

They are probably the best solution for a user-transparent OoB, but that doesn't mean that a user-transarent OoB is the best thing for the dyna. It has the potential to cause more problems than it solves, favoring nutters over casual players or making the ships to generally available than is intended. It is an impreice OoB control mechanism that's only advantage as far as I can see is to help those to embarassed to speak up and ask for a ship that is sitting in dock. Now if you want to roughly limit certian ships then fine, but if you want true OoB it is just to cludgy a solution.

I completely disagree that the current system favored nutters. It may have favored "favorites", but the amount of PP the pilot had made no difference from what I saw.

My main issue with this approach comes down to the fact that I prefer a pure OoB server. I think of the Dyna as more of a team vs individual game. Not everyone can play quarterback at once. We could pass the ball around a bit more and maybe expand the depth of the bench at QB with freer transfers and maybe removing VCs (thus every game ain't the Superbowl), but I don't really like the idea of walkons at key team positions at their own whim. If a teams resources are to be limited in a campaign, then the team (and/or their leadership) ought to deside how those resources are used and assigned for the overall benefit of the team.

[KBFLordKrueg]

From what you suggest, what we need then, is an "on-demand" shipyard.

Lets say the Alliance and Coalition leadership receives the OoB from the campaign admin, then each side's RM is given access to an "on-demand" shipyard, where they login and distribute any ship on the shiplist to any pre-existing player accounts.... like on my webmap shipyard, but instead of just being able to buy ships for your account anytime direct from the shiplist, you can buy them for anyone on the server.. RM's would be expected to stick to the OoB given, and players would still have to trade in ships manually if the limited ship is to be transferred to another captain. I can do this relatively easily, but it requires an SQL server of course... .  That is my best possible solution for the current OoB desires as I see them.

I still think production frequency and PP controls are the best solution for a user-transparent OoB on the flatfile tho - yes it will favour nutters, but so does the current system if you think about it.

I would love to this be possible. I had pilots literally waiting for days to buy certain ships because they happened not to be in the yards when they were on.
As for the OOB, yeah, it's kind of a pain from an RM standpoint. But, I do prefer an "hard" OOB server as opposed to a loose OOB or none at all.
I even liked the specialty ship thing. It made a lot more pilots get back to flying the line ships and expand their horizons beyond flying a drone boat and flipping hexes. 
It's good for the Warrior Soul.
I hope we'll see it again in GW5 
I think some lessons were learned about how it works and I'll definitly be more careful about tracking what ships are in service and what was destroyed. Plus, I think all the players now understand they should report even the specialty ship kills.

[Dizzy]

Total economy has a lot to do with how many ships show up in the yards, krueg. GW series so far has been anemic on economy. That's easily fixed so the yard is full of choices.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Total economy has a lot to do with how many ships show up in the yards, krueg. GW series so far has been anemic on economy. That's easily fixed so the yard is full of choices.

That won't solve anything. Economey wasn't the issue with the GW servers. There are plenty of ships of all hull sizes being built, the issue is that outdated and redundant ships of the various classes get built in place of the ones people want to buy. This cannot be fixed with econ, it requires server side restricting and proper LYA in the shiplist.

[Dizzy]

I did that yla on SG3. Expect it on SG4. In fact, when 2275 rolls around, there is so much in the yards you cant find what you are looking for. So I phase out old models the year before. Example: F-XX YLA is 2274 and the F-XX+  YFA is 2275. That way there is no year overlap. And yes, the econ has everything to do with the quantity of ships seen in the shipyard. That's what I was talking about. Hopefully we will again see fast shipyards on the order of 5-7.5 minutes long, Keeps things rolling along. I cant stand 10-20 minute shipyards. Peeps dont have that kinda time to wait around.

[FPF-Paladin]

*makes a list of the things people said were good*

*makes a list of the things people complained about*

Well, no matter what the ruleset, mission packs and OOB restrictions (some amount of OOB is necessary I think, we're just using systems not relying on SQL that make the paperwork difficult) I know one thing that ~everyone~ will complain about:  No servers to play.


Build it and they will come, likely irregardless of the ruleset.  Whether or not they stay... well *shrugs* that's in the ballpark of the server admins and personal preference of the players I guess...

[Kroma BaSyl]

I did that yla on SG3. Expect it on SG4. In fact, when 2275 rolls around, there is so much in the yards you cant find what you are looking for. So I phase out old models the year before. Example: F-XX YLA is 2274 and the F-XX+  YFA is 2275. That way there is no year overlap.

Exactly, what needs to be done. I recalled you had done this on SG3, best feature of that server that I have not seen consistantly reused.

And yes, the econ has everything to do with the quantity of ships seen in the shipyard. That's what I was talking about. Hopefully we will again see fast shipyards on the order of 5-7.5 minutes long, Keeps things rolling along. I cant stand 10-20 minute shipyards. Peeps dont have that kinda time to wait around.

I don't disagree that econ builts more ships, I do disagree that building more ships is the issue though. Having a higher econ to only build more of what people don't want to buy doesn't solve anything. And on the GW servers the econ built more than enough ships of all hull classes, they were just not the ones people wanted to buy. You were suggesting that improving the econ would lead to more ships, which you concluded would mean more of the ships people want to buy. Without restricting or LYAing the noise, increasing the econ won't help that much if at all. Restricting and LYAing the noise will though, and if you do that I think you will find that the econ settings on the GW servers builds more than enough ships. It is a matter of quality vs quantity. You propose a brute force means of getting the ships that people want in the yards, and I am simply saying that isn't necessary if the quality of the ships can be improved. This way you can avoid other unintended consequences that might come from making such drastic econ tweaks.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

*makes a list of the things people said were good*

*makes a list of the things people complained about*

*Realizes that this is two copies of the same list

*Starts looking for a nice, cool gun and a clock tower.


-S'Cipio

[FPF-DieHard]

Total economy has a lot to do with how many ships show up in the yards, krueg. GW series so far has been anemic on economy. That's easily fixed so the yard is full of choices.

That won't solve anything. Economey wasn't the issue with the GW servers. There are plenty of ships of all hull sizes being built, the issue is that outdated and redundant ships of the various classes get built in place of the ones people want to buy. This cannot be fixed with econ, it requires server side restricting and proper LYA in the shiplist.

No, I LYA'd out all the outdated crap.   The server kit just chose not to built what people wanted and I have zero control over that.

[FPF-DieHard]

I did that yla on SG3. Expect it on SG4. In fact, when 2275 rolls around, there is so much in the yards you cant find what you are looking for. So I phase out old models the year before. Example: F-XX YLA is 2274 and the F-XX+  YFA is 2275. That way there is no year overlap.

Exactly, what needs to be done. I recalled you had done this on SG3, best feature of that server that I have not seen consistantly reused.

Um, I DID this and the shipyards still got stupid. 

[Kroma BaSyl]

Total economy has a lot to do with how many ships show up in the yards, krueg. GW series so far has been anemic on economy. That's easily fixed so the yard is full of choices.

That won't solve anything. Economey wasn't the issue with the GW servers. There are plenty of ships of all hull sizes being built, the issue is that outdated and redundant ships of the various classes get built in place of the ones people want to buy. This cannot be fixed with econ, it requires server side restricting and proper LYA in the shiplist.

No, I LYA'd out all the outdated crap.   The server kit just chose not to built what people wanted and I have zero control over that.

So there is no other way to keep the shipyard from building the other crap? What happens if you just outdate the other crap? Does it stop showing up in AI missions too, or is that part of the client list? If it does is that a bad thing?

[FPF-DieHard]

So there is no other way to keep the shipyard from building the other crap? What happens if you just outdate the other crap? Does it stop showing up in AI missions too, or is that part of the client list? If it does is that a bad thing?

The problem on GW3 was the Server diecided to built K-D5Ws and not K-FDWs.   Both ships are peers, same hull class, and come out at the same time.  We had a similar problme on GW4 when it took days for the Romulans to find their Fast Firehawks.

If you restrict the common NCAs, they will not show up as AI in the ED missions.

look, the Shipyards are pot luck until SQL controls everything. 

[Kroma BaSyl]

If you restrict the common NCAs, they will not show up as AI in the ED missions.

look, the Shipyards are pot luck until SQL controls everything. 

No arguemnet on the SQL issue, but I thought that it was possible to restrict OR LYA the common NCAs on the server side only, thus only affecting the shipyard and not the AI draws. Is that not ture, if using the LYA method as well as the "restricted" method?

[FPF-DieHard]

If you restrict the common NCAs, they will not show up as AI in the ED missions.

look, the Shipyards are pot luck until SQL controls everything. 

No arguemnet on the SQL issue, but I thought that it was possible to restrict OR LYA the common NCAs on the server side only, thus only affecting the shipyard and not the AI draws. Is that not ture, if using the LYA method as well as the "restricted" method?

That don't work, you see those AI markers that appear when you start a mission?   What happens is the server generates a ship based off of the server-side ship list and you "draft" that AI into your mission.  If the K-D5W is restricted in the server-side list, it cannot generate that AI for you to draft.

[Kroma BaSyl]

If you restrict the common NCAs, they will not show up as AI in the ED missions.

look, the Shipyards are pot luck until SQL controls everything. 

No arguemnet on the SQL issue, but I thought that it was possible to restrict OR LYA the common NCAs on the server side only, thus only affecting the shipyard and not the AI draws. Is that not ture, if using the LYA method as well as the "restricted" method?

That don't work, you see those AI markers that appear when you start a mission?   What happens is the server generates a ship based off of the server-side ship list and you "draft" that AI into your mission.  If the K-D5W is restricted in the server-side list, it cannot generate that AI for you to draft.

I see, is that just for the NW missions? I assume this holds true whether the ship is LYAed or "R"ed out.

[madelf]

Total economy has a lot to do with how many ships show up in the yards, krueg. GW series so far has been anemic on economy. That's easily fixed so the yard is full of choices.

That won't solve anything. Economey wasn't the issue with the GW servers. There are plenty of ships of all hull sizes being built, the issue is that outdated and redundant ships of the various classes get built in place of the ones people want to buy. This cannot be fixed with econ, it requires server side restricting and proper LYA in the shiplist.

No, I LYA'd out all the outdated crap.   The server kit just chose not to built what people wanted and I have zero control over that.

As mentioned before, the romulan yards were just LITTERED with freighters.  Since the server had no convoy raids, why were they in the list at all?

<EDIT>  And I hate the fed rank icons too =p

[Dizzy]

Why do death row inmates get their arm swabbed with alcohol before being given lethal injection>?

[CaptJosh]

<smartassed> Because they could get infected and di...oh</smartassed> 

[FPF-DieHard]

As mentioned before, the romulan yards were just LITTERED with freighters.  Since the server had no convoy raids, why were they in the list at all?

<EDIT>  And I hate the fed rank icons too =p

Now you tell me

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I did that yla on SG3. Expect it on SG4. In fact, when 2275 rolls around, there is so much in the yards you cant find what you are looking for. So I phase out old models the year before. Example: F-XX YLA is 2274 and the F-XX+  YFA is 2275. That way there is no year overlap.

Exactly, what needs to be done. I recalled you had done this on SG3, best feature of that server that I have not seen consistantly reused.

Um, I DID this and the shipyards still got stupid. 

Ummm shouldn't that read

  Um, I got stupid and the shipyards did this.

<Snicker>