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

[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.