Topic: PBR v4.0

[FPF-Bach]

This is all fine and good, however I VEHEMENTLY disagree with ANY rule changes once a cycle has already started.  We can not set a precedent for this by accepting it now.  By changing rules mid cycle you change the conditions in which a fleet committed to fly that cycle under, changes like these should be reserver for the next cycle.

We have to many chiefs and not enough Indians around here if you ask me.  We have people who are in no position of authority making statements here and there in various posts such as the post about flying matches whenever you want and not in sequential order.  I do know this to be considered acceptable but isn't going in order much easier?  Anyway that's just an example I'm not taking up an issue with that.  My main point is that if I don't see something actually posted by Kel then it doesn't carry much weight with me.

[KHH Jakle]

This is all fine and good, however I VEHEMENTLY disagree with ANY rule changes once a cycle has already started. 

the accepted norm has been that unless there is an huge imbalance uncovered, all discussions are geared towards makeing changes for the NEXT cycle.

And when I say "has been" I am referring to how things stood in GZ.

Along that same tac, and since you bring it up, it was accepted in GZ to play matches out of order - as long as you got the ones due done when they needed to get done.

I don't believe Kel's intent is to some how rewrite the book on everything that was.  Of course I could be wrong...

About the Chiefs thing....sounds to me like you are discouraging the offering up of ideas and debating on them by the players at large.  However, I could be misreading you.

And specific to this thread - It's PBR, so me throwing out rule tweaks and modifications should be nothing out of the ordinary.

[KHH Jakle]

The Command ship must be either the largest hull class in the squadron or only one step lower, i.e. a D5L can be the command ship for 2 D5W?s, but a FWL cannot.

This can be interpreted in too many ways. You will need to specify exactly what ships can command what, or there will be arguments.

An FWL is a war destroyer. Isn't that one step below a D5, which is a war cruiser? What is the hierarchy between DD's, DW's, CL's, and CW's?

Use Move Cost as the determining factor.  Quick, easy, undebatable.

Sorry - I didn't clarify my terminology.

When I use generic terms like FF-Hull, CL-Hull, CA-hull, DN-hull I am referring to the buckets that ships are grouped in the ship selection interface: ex, the D5, D5K, D5L, along with all the F5H's are CL-Hull, while the D7, D7L, D5W are all CA-hull.  More generally, FF's, DD's, DW's are FF-Hull.  CL's, CW/NCL's, HDW's are CL-hull.  CA's, NCA's and BCH's are CA-hull.  DN's, BB's are DN-hull.

Firesoul has I think accurately captured this across all races and fixed some of Taldrens errors, like saying the NCA's were CL-Hulls.

I like this better than using movement cost just because - in my mind - it's easier.  But that can be hashed out one way or the other pretty easily.  The bigger part is to get everybody - or a decent majority - to agree to the principle
I

Fine, except I disagree with the notion that a DW should be classed with frigates. That has always seemed completely absurd to me.

DH's idea is more logical - use move cost.

so could I get an example of how the move cost breaks would determine command/consorts relationships?

[762_XC]

Class the ships by move cost first. In general:

FF = 1/3
DD,DW = 1/2
CW = 2/3
CA, BCH = 1

Make the rule state that the command ship cannot have a move cost 2 classes lower than any other ship in the squadron.

P.S. I would omit the 3/4 bracket since there aren't many ships that use it, and it is functionally equivalent to the 2/3 bracket for this purpose.

So, an FWL (1/2) could lead a D5 squadron (2/3) but not a D7 squadron (1).

Tugs with support pods might warrant an exception - maybe consider it as an unladen tug for this rule.

[Dfly]

discussions in former GZ about rule changes always (almost) applied to the next cycle.  We would fly the current cycle all the while discussing possible changes to be made to the next cycle, or discussions about relevant ship combos that perhaps did not properly fit the matrix in this cycle. all changes to be made at the end of the current cycle before the next cycle started.

[Corbomite]

What ever happened to KISS?

[KHH Jakle]

What ever happened to KISS?

That's what you guys are for. 

Everything that starts with me is generally a delusion of grandeur, and then if people like the concept, they usually think of a much simpler way to implement it 

[FPF-DieHard]

Noting wrong with a little convoluted discusion as long as it distills down to something less complicated.

[FPF-Bach]

the accepted norm has been that unless there is an huge imbalance uncovered, all discussions are geared towards makeing changes for the NEXT cycle.

If that is the case then this is all a moot point.  It SEEMED to me that it was being implemented now for this cycle.  My apologies if that is really the case that it will be next cycle and not this one.

Along that same tac, and since you bring it up, it was accepted in GZ to play matches out of order - as long as you got the ones due done when they needed to get done.

I understand that this is accepted and was not making an issue of it.  If you read what I stated I was simply using it as an example that people NOT in positions of leadership within the league are making statements about things that may or may not actually be a rule.

I don't believe Kel's intent is to some how rewrite the book on everything that was.  Of course I could be wrong...

I don't believe that that is Kel's intent either, nor did I state as such.

About the Chiefs thing....sounds to me like you are discouraging the offering up of ideas and debating on them by the players at large.  However, I could be misreading you.

Not at all I mainly concerned of rules being implemented without a majority vote from the fleets.

And specific to this thread - It's PBR, so me throwing out rule tweaks and modifications should be nothing out of the ordinary.

It's not out of the ordinary and I really don't have an issue with the PBR issues that are being modified or tweaked.  I would only have an issue with them being implemented after the start of a cycle without a vote and majority decision.

It was not my intent to offend I was just concerned about rules being implemented.  I've seen D2 servers crash and burn to many times because of mid-server rule changes.  It's not the exact same thing but the idea is similar.

Regards,

Bach

[Kroma BaSyl]

What ever happened to KISS?

You'll have to sweet talk me first.

[FPF-Bach]

discussions in former GZ about rule changes always (almost) applied to the next cycle.  We would fly the current cycle all the while discussing possible changes to be made to the next cycle, or discussions about relevant ship combos that perhaps did not properly fit the matrix in this cycle. all changes to be made at the end of the current cycle before the next cycle started.

Understood, however my fleet has only been involved in about 1/2 of a cycle.  All of the minuscule things you all take for granted are not known to us.

[762_XC]

What ever happened to KISS?

You'll have to sweet talk me first.

Yeah right!

[KHH Jakle]

Kel - close this one for me.  I want to synthesis alot of what's in here and reapply it.  I'll then post a PBR v 4.1 thread.

Thanks