Topic: Just curious, How many people like OOB?

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Just curious, How many people like OOB?

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I voted for like the idea but would like it done differently.

I would prefer a limit of the number of capital ships online at a given time, but no restriction as to who was allowed to fly it. 

For example:  Only 3 DNs allowed online per side at a given time.  If you log on and want on and less than 3 are flying them at present you can buy one.  If you have one and log on and 3 are already on the board, someone will have to trade theirs in.  This way everyone has a chance to fly one, and no side is deprived of the opportunity to have them on the map merely because the assigned player isn't available.

[762_XC]

Well there are many types of OOB - full OOB a la LB4, or even dreads only a la SS2 could be considered OOB.

I like variety myself, from server to server.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Well there are many types of OOB - full OOB a la LB4, or even dreads only a la SS2 could be considered OOB.

I like variety myself, from server to server.

I agree there 762 I like the variety, but we have seen alot of strict OOB lately and I've heard at least 5 active players getting tired of it the way its been done, and I know of several more who have lost interest in the game due to it, whether it be they want to fly bigger ships sometimes but are casual players, or that they want to fly restricted ships, or they just plain don't like being told what they can and can't fly.

Like I voted, I do like the OOB concept, just prefer a less ridgid structure to it.  Its also why I rarely make a request for an OOB ship, even though I might be better "qualified" to have one (nutter hours ), because I would be denying someone else the opportunity.  Be nice to be able to fly one when needed online though, but I wont intrude on someone else's chance to have fun regardless of any strategic considerations.

[IAF Lyrkiller]

I am w/ chuut on this, and who btw voted for OOB w/o stating why they liked it?

[FPF-Wanderer]

Well, pretty much everyone knows how I feel about OOB, heheh, but I voted "Prefer it but it isn't perfect" instead of "I love it" since, IMO, it won't be perfect until we have SQL and a web-based shipyard based on the SFB/F&E Order of Battle.  But that's just me. 

Lyr, that was me that voted for OOB w/o stating why I like it, since I'm in the middle of writing why, heheh.

Chuut, I wonder about those active players you mentioned getting tired of the way it's been done, and the others that have lost interest.  What exactly are their objections?  Even as casual players they have had a chance to fly an OOB ship, all they had to do was ask.  Heck, there have been times when we had a hard time filling out the list of available ships!  And as to "just plain don't like being told what they can and can't fly", I suppose I can understand where they are coming from, but do those players really want to go back to the days of DN/BCH fests?  I know I don't, there isn't any "realism" to it, and it forces those who prefer smaller ships to get into bigger ships just to be able to compete.

Yes, it's true that we have lost a lot of players due to the OOB rules, but to be perfectly honest, I feel those players were unwilling to compromise in order to make a better game for everyone, and that's too bad. 

[Grim]

I like variety myself, from server to server.

Ditto.

Though i was opposed to the whole idea of putting more OOB, rules and restrictions into lower ships i see OOB fine for DN's and BCH's apart from that annything lower and i'm not a fan of the idea. In fact i was worried the way OOB was going becomming more strict etc that it would start to advance down to the lower ships.

In terms of a fun aspect i have to say i had more fun in terms of gameplay with less OOB, years ago when i could log on to a campaign and fly what i wanted providing i had the prestige.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

The chance to fly an OOB ship and fly the OOB ship they want are two different things Wandy, as is the ability to shift between 2 different OOB ships depending on what was needed or desired at any particular time.  Also alot of casual players might want to fly certain ships, but don't request them due to their lack of time online, feeling that they would hurt the team if they took one.  The same could be said of those pilots who question their own p v p skills, who might like to fly these ships, don't want to lose something that can't be replaced.

I think different ways (1 of which I outlined) can control the numbers of heavy iron on the board at a given time without totally limiting who can fly what.  We also might see some of the "heavy iron" used more boldly if it didn't result in loss of the OOB ship for the rest of the server.  I know DH has commented on not being able to find as much quality p v p when flying a DN, even vs other DNs.  So perhaps not losing such a ship forever might bring a bit more good p v p matches.  Care would still be required to avoid losing senseless VCs, but if the ship could be replaced pilots might be willing to stayand fight a bit more.  A few VCs aint much, but losing a ship that can control the map is.

As for those who prefer smaller ships I have alwways been in faver of having a "slot" area on servers for just such a thing.

[KBFTrajan]

i like the restrictions on keeping a limited number of DN's and BCH's online at once, but CA and below, i would rather have them unrestricted.

KBF Trajan

[GDA-Agave]

I voted for like the idea but would like it done differently.

I would prefer a limit of the number of capital ships online at a given time, but no restriction as to who was allowed to fly it. 

For example:  Only 3 DNs allowed online per side at a given time.  If you log on and want on and less than 3 are flying them at present you can buy one.  If you have one and log on and 3 are already on the board, someone will have to trade theirs in.  This way everyone has a chance to fly one, and no side is deprived of the opportunity to have them on the map merely because the assigned player isn't available.

Ditto.   But just to clarify, only capital ships of BCH size and larger need be restricted.   All CA and smaller should be available once their production year rolls around.   Another note:  If certain ships are seen as cheese, then the Admin should just drop them from the list, not restrict them.   Be careful here though, one person's cheese is another one's strategic hex flipper.   A good census of pilot opinion should work here.  Not going to please everyone, but that's just life.   

My humble opinions,

Agave

[Kroma BaSyl]

To the pilots that left because of OOB, I say if you don't like it then run a server without OOB. Simple. I for one would have left the game if I had to play one more unrestricted and boring server where I have to fight the same 3 cheese ships over and over because that is all anyone would ever fly.

I do agree that OOB as seen on the GW series could use further refinement. However, I do not like the idea of 3 DNs on at a time though, at least for that type of server.  What I would propose for refining that OOB system is to allow for much freer transfering of the ships between players, with little more than a public post that the transfer has occured. With the 3 DNs at a time rule it is hard to attach meaningfull VCs to those ships, also what happens when 1 is killed (does the side only have 2, or are there no consequences to losing that dread)?

I would also ammend the OOB rules to unrestrict any ship DD and below, but would still maintain a CP system for CL and larger specialty ships.

That said, I don't think there needs to be one official OOB system for all dynas. Let's have servers for everyones tastes. You will find me spending most of my time on the OOB servers though, as I just can't take unrestricted servers seriously anymore.

[Commander Maxillius]

I think OOB sucks.  Thought it sucked when it was first mentioned and still think so now.  Why am I still here?  Why, to provide a spirited CL fight to any BCH owner on late in a server



BTW: I'll run a server if you're paying for the high-speed connection so I can.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I think OOB sucks.  Thought it sucked when it was first mentioned and still think so now.  Why am I still here?  Why, to provide a spirited CL fight to any BCH owner on late in a server

So everyone had restricted ships but you? Maybe the restrictions didn't go far enough.

BTW: I'll run a server if you're paying for the high-speed connection so I can.

Most admins of late, don't even have their own hardware, so that copout doesn't hold any water. It is just an excuse for not testing your ideas on the public market place.

[FPF-DieHard]

BTW: I'll run a server if you're paying for the high-speed connection so I can.

Frey works cheap 

[FPF-DieHard]

OOB is nice, I like the Build points system from GW but we need to have more dynamic transfers.  I wish that the technology would cath up with the creativity, most people who have and issue would have less of a problem if this happened behind the scenes.

[Grim]

Ditto.   But just to clarify, only capital ships of BCH size and larger need be restricted.   All CA and smaller should be available once their production year rolls around.   Another note:  If certain ships are seen as cheese, then the Admin should just drop them from the list, not restrict them.   Be careful here though, one person's cheese is another one's strategic hex flipper.   A good census of pilot opinion should work here.  Not going to please everyone, but that's just life.

I agree about the restriction on BCH and above and that the CA and lower should be available to all, and well pointed out about how perception of so called "cheese ships" may differ. Well said 

That said, I don't think there needs to be one official OOB system for all dynas. Let's have servers for everyones tastes. You will find me spending most of my time on the OOB servers though, as I just can't take unrestricted servers seriously anymore.

I couldnt agree more, plenty of servers for different tastes, if people dont like the server then all they have to do is not fly it.

[Green]

OOB, no OOB ... enjoy them both.

But I have to admit I liked the GW4 OOB, which provided a well equipped shipyard, that allowed anyone who wanted to have a big ship to have one.  All you had to do was ask.

[Hexx]

OOB, no OOB ... enjoy them both.

But I have to admit I liked the GW4 OOB, which provided a well equipped shipyard, that allowed anyone who wanted to have a big ship to have one.  All you had to do was ask.

<sniff> all I ever wanted was a DNH..

[FPF-DieHard]

OOB, no OOB ... enjoy them both.

But I have to admit I liked the GW4 OOB, which provided a well equipped shipyard, that allowed anyone who wanted to have a big ship to have one.  All you had to do was ask.

<sniff> all I ever wanted was a DNH..

You got a BCV!!!! 

Wait a tick, how can anyone say people were deprived when both Hexx and J'inn got BCHs?

[Hexx]

Only after you started drinking...

[Kroma BaSyl]

BTW Chuut, options 2 and 5 are basically the same.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Only after you started drinking...

Actually it was after I started drinking. No way he was giving the OOB ship to me during the "CB" insident(s).

[Green]

OOB, no OOB ... enjoy them both.

But I have to admit I liked the GW4 OOB, which provided a well equipped shipyard, that allowed anyone who wanted to have a big ship to have one.  All you had to do was ask.

<sniff> all I ever wanted was a DNH..

Oops, you're right, my bad.  Let me edit that post ....

OOB, no OOB ... enjoy them both.

But I have to admit I liked the GW4 OOB, which provided a well equipped shipyard, that allowed anyone who wanted to have a big ship to have one.  All you had to do was ask.

Edit:  Unless you were Hexx of course ... but I mean come on, really, it was Hexx!!!

There ... that's better.

[Hexx]

OOB, no OOB ... enjoy them both.

But I have to admit I liked the GW4 OOB, which provided a well equipped shipyard, that allowed anyone who wanted to have a big ship to have one.  All you had to do was ask.

<sniff> all I ever wanted was a DNH..

Oops, you're right, my bad.  Let me edit that post ....

OOB, no OOB ... enjoy them both.

But I have to admit I liked the GW4 OOB, which provided a well equipped shipyard, that allowed anyone who wanted to have a big ship to have one.  All you had to do was ask.

Edit:  Unless you were Hexx of course ... but I mean come on, really, it was Hexx!!!

There ... that's better.

<sigh>

Anyone else remember the good ole days when everyone bashed J'inns flying skills?
There's alot to be said for history..

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

BTW Chuut, options 2 and 5 are basically the same.

Thought about that but there is a difference.  Option 2 implies that OOB is prefered over non OOB, while Option 5 admits that OOB might be good in principle but needs to be revamped before it is actually preferred.

[el-Karnak]

I voted "Like the idea, but would like it done differently than in the past" because no one listens to my solution that would take full advantage of the game functionality available instead of doing outside-of-the-box stuff that make OOB tedious and frustrating.  Co-ordinating the shipyard, mission scripts and shiplist on a strict set format can do lotsa cool things with minimum hassle. 

Admin. a server then and show how it's done you irritating, aggravating, arrogant, stuck-up, snobby frog? 

I siimply don't have the time anymore. One reason I retired from scripting is that I no longer have the time to do a quality job. If you can't do it right then don't do it all, messa always say.   Okey-Dey?!

[GDA-S'Cipio]

I'm a big fan of OOB.  Otherwise you just fly for a few hours, build up points, and suddenly the stars are perpetually full of heavy iron regardless of how many ships you kill.  

Likewise, I'm not that fond of the idea of a set number of DN's on the board at a time.  If there are three on the board and I kill one, then someone else sees "there are only two on now" and -- presto! -- there are three again.  

Keltset had a pretty good system on his SQL servers.  He had a seperate shipyard you accessed with the chat program.  You could search it for DNs, or whatever you wanted, and it would tell you how many were present.  You could buy it and your current ship went into the yard.

When you got done for the night, you could put the DN back in the yard and it was available for someone else to take.  If you got it killed, however, it was gone for good.

-S'Cipio

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

voted prefer as I think it's good if not over done.

[IAF Lyrkiller]

OOB, no OOB ... enjoy them both.

But I have to admit I liked the GW4 OOB, which provided a well equipped shipyard, that allowed anyone who wanted to have a big ship to have one.  All you had to do was ask.

<sniff> all I ever wanted was a DNH..

You got a BCV!!!! 

Wait a tick, how can anyone say people were deprived when both Hexx and J'inn got BCHs?

EXCUSE ME!!!!

DH, you denied me the ship that i wanted.

enough said 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Likewise, I'm not that fond of the idea of a set number of DN's on the board at a time.  If there are three on the board and I kill one, then someone else sees "there are only two on now" and -- presto! -- there are three again.  

and more potential VCs to earn......

[deadmansix]

I myself think that there should be an OOB,and that is should include DNs,BCHs, and all limited production ships aka speciality ships like GW4 that in my view was well done but still needs refining and I think that refining will come with SQL.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

The results are interesting so far, with a pretty even split in opinions ......

8 love it, 8 dislike it, 5 don't care one way or the other, 9 like it better with it than not, but would like some changes, and 9 want to revamp the system as they don't prefer it,  but see some merit in the general concept, just not as it is.

My whole intent was to see where people fell on this issue and wondering if there was any reason to spend time thinking up a way to reconcile those who liked and those who disliked OOB, so that more people would be content with the practice.  If everyone loved it or at least preferred it there would be no need to waste thought on it.  If everyone hated it there would be little reson to try to keep it in any form.  It seems that there is a disparity in how people percieve it though, therefore perhaps some time might be spent in thought about how to tailor it to a more general concensus of approval.

Of course a server admin can and should do whatever they please, but most admins are interested in a good turnout and hope to please as many as possible, as long as it doesn't interfere with their concept.  There is of course nothing wrong with an admin doing things exactly how they want, after all they are taking the time and trouble to provide a free service, and if you don't like it don't play on it.  Yet this poll suggest that an admin and the community might consider putting their thinking caps on about the issue as I think it is fair now to say there is no majority when it comes to this issue, at least not after 39 responses    

[FPF-DieHard]

It doesn't matter Chuut, admins will do what they want to do no matter what, regardless of polls. 

[762_XC]

There was much discussion of this after LB4. Again, many loved it and many hated it.

Pros of OOB:

- You don't have to fight heavy metal all the time
- Allows of more operational strategy, as capital ships are really worth something
- Works well with the disengagement rule
- PvP kills really mean something when you take a piece off the board
- People get introduced to more areas of the shiplist

Cons of OOB:

- People don't get to fly heavy metal all the time
- Some people HAVE to fly heavy metal all the time
- It gets boring flying the same ship after a while
- People are more afraid to lose their ship in PvP

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

It doesn't matter Chuut, admins will do what they want to do no matter what, regardless of polls. 

What part of this did you not understand DH?

There is of course nothing wrong with an admin doing things exactly how they want, after all they are taking the time and trouble to provide a free service, and if you don't like it don't play on it.

Of course there is the possibility that a new idea might be used if an admin liked it, the single ship rule comes to mind.  Someone used to protest it so vigourously.........

[Kroma BaSyl]

8 love it, 8 dislike it, 5 don't care one way or the other, 9 like it better with it than not, but would like some changes, and 9 want to revamp the system as they don't prefer it,  but see some merit in the general concept, just not as it is.

So interpreted another way. 27 like OOB, 8 don't like OOB, and 5 are indifferent.

[Kroma BaSyl]

It doesn't matter Chuut, admins will do what they want to do no matter what, regardless of polls. 

Let's not confuse them with actual facts.

[KBF-Soth]

What I've heard from most is not so much about flying DNs but the ability to fly a BCH .I agree with limited field numbers.I dont think you should play 3 or 4 hrs on a "campain server" and be expecting to fly a BCH which leads me to like to see it tied in with rank.If I've logged on enough time to be say an Adm.,I feel you've earned the right to fly anything BCH and under. Pick out the ships admins feel are specialty ships ( like last GW but toned down, CLs and under no matter what should never be restricted. )Keep the VC bounty on the BCH and keep the prices on ships dwn so PvP is a little more of a slugfest then a dance.BCH could also technically be assigned until said rank is reached.Since (and this goes for both sides) we see pretty much the same people in the same heavy iron almost all of the time, ( and I know the reasons so don't scream at me,amount of time you are on ect.) I dont see how the fielding of ships will change really that much until the near the end of a standard 2 wk campain.Also like Chutt's idea for the assinged DN a race in the middle of a war wouldn't dock a DN just because the assigned Capt.was on shore or sick leave

[Kroma BaSyl]

It doesn't matter Chuut, admins will do what they want to do no matter what, regardless of polls. 

What part of this did you not understand DH?

My guess is the part where you thought that a poll with unclearly differenciated choices actually add up to the case you think you were making. I can just as easily interpret the results as "the vast majority like OOB as opposed to unrestricted servers".  There is no clear mandate for change appearent in the results as you would like to interpret the results, or what exactly that change might be.

I  prefer gradual change and would thus opt for using the existing OOB from GW4 and begin to refine it as I suggested in my first post, as opposed to tossing it all out because Chuuts poll showed an unclear result, except that people prefer OOB to non-OOB.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

8 love it, 8 dislike it, 5 don't care one way or the other, 9 like it better with it than not, but would like some changes, and 9 want to revamp the system as they don't prefer it,  but see some merit in the general concept, just not as it is.

So interpreted another way. 27 like OOB, 8 don't like OOB, and 5 are indifferent.

Liking the basic concept of an OOB to place some restrictions on what might be flown and liking OOB as has been practiced are 2 entirely different things.

Take my personal vote in Option 5 as an example, while I like the concept of OOB I find it too limiting.  Now I like the idea as the DN/ Battleships fests of the past, and squadrons of 3 droners is just no fun to play against.  Yet I dislike a system where player oportunities to fly what they want or what is needed by restrictive guidelines, unless they are afforded the ability to do so at least ocassionally.  Getting to fly a BCV when they want to fly a DN doesn't cut it for me.  Having to stand in line when all available DN slots are  are currently online, but knowing they will likely get a shot later does work for me.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Don't get me wrong Kroma, there are some good elements in the current OOB system as used on GW4,  I like the idea of limiting specialty ships as well, just not the idea of assigning them.  I had lots of fun on GW4, but to be honest I much preferrred GW1 .  I could jump in a BCH and fly it when I needed to and jump out when I wanted to, and not have to worry about taking up or not using an assigned slot.

I do agree with you that improving the ship transfer system would address one of the major flaws in the system used on GW4, and applaud any efforts at trying something new to 'tweak" it.  Nothing wrong with a bit of trail and error.  Neither am I proposing that the idea be entirely scrapped as enough people like it that it has to have something going for it, although I think you misinterpreted the results (and/or perhaps I did as well), but you are right that the poll was likely poorly worded as we seem to read it in two different ways. 

Still that being said, is it not worthwhile to consider the possibility of a totally different kind of OOB system where some of those not as inclined to OOB be brought into the in favor of category rather than have those in favor try to marginalize them until they decide why bother and go play another game?  I know my fun has diminished with the loss of players (certain ones in particular) who have left the game for this reason.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Don't get me wrong Kroma, there are some good elements in the current OOB system as used on GW4,  I like the idea of limiting specialty ships as well, just not the idea of assigning them.  I had lots of fun on GW4, but to be honest I much preferrred GW1 .  I could jump in a BCH and fly it when I needed to and jump out when I wanted to, and not have to worry about taking up or not using an assigned slot.

I would think my proposal to allow unlimited transfer of OOB ships would solve this.

although I think you misinterpreted the results (and/or perhaps I did as well), but you are right that the poll was likely poorly worded as we seem to read it in two different ways. 

The problem with your poll is that it is to easily left up to interpretation since it was poorly constructed. What is more valuable are the actual suggestions on new OOB systems or tweaks to existing ones, as the poll doesn't really tell us anything, since it can be interpreted however you want it to be.

Still that being said, is it not worthwhile to consider the possibility of a totally different kind of OOB system where some of those not as inclined to OOB be brought into the in favor of category rather than have those in favor try to marginalize them until they decide why bother and go play another game?  I know my fun has diminished with the loss of players (certain ones in particular) who have left the game for this reason.

Players are being lost due to time mainly, and who is to say that without OOB there would be more players now. The one thing your poll seems to show quite clearly is that OOB is keep more players around than not.

And as I have said before, no one need be marginalized, run a server with the setup you like, just don't expect me to fly it if I don't like it.

[el-Karnak]

I'm a pretty big fan of meritocracy on the dyna. If one side gets rolled cuz the other side was not organized enough or motivated enough to put in a good dyna campaign then that's never the admin.'s fault, OOB or no OOB.

And as I have said before, no one need be marginalized, run a server with the setup you like, just don't expect me to fly it if I don't like it.

You are plenty smart dino.  Admin. can only push the limit so far before there's a negative reaction. You can use a wheelbarrow to bring in the pile of dynas that went OTT in some area and ended up having attendance issues.

Personally, I think GW2 had it about right. That's when J'inn had the ships costed out about the way I always liked them. It's simple: a BCH will always cost 5 times the amount of a CA. DN will cost 10 to 15 times. For those that are concerned about the casual gamers not getting their heavy iron. Well, with the mission packs available and PvP mucho big PP bonuses the EEK missions are handing out like lollipops, if you can't make 40k of PP over a 10 day period in a dyna campaign then you are not really participating anyway.  Basically, it similar to saying that an ARM/RM that can't put in min. 2 hours per night, six out seven nights a week, is not really doing their RM/ARM job either and a substitution needs to be made.

[FPF-DieHard]

Hmm, litterbox 5 was so much fun wasn't it 

Sign me up for OOB of some sort from now until the end of time.

[FPF-Bach]

I dislike OOB personally and voted as such.  It was OK in the beginning but has grown WAY to restrictive IMO.

First it was the battleships, then it was the Dreadnoughts, next the Heavy Battle Cruisers, somewhere in there it was solo escorts.  Now most recently the specialty ships have been restricted.  Before you know it we'll all be flying frigates....wait no we won't because there won't be anybody left to fly with.  

I'm obviously being a bit facetious however, the limits have to stop somewhere, with the current developing trend of limiting more and more and more I don't see this as a positive thing as eventually if the trend continues you will alienate everyone that you have not already/

[Green]

8 love it, 8 dislike it, 5 don't care one way or the other, 9 like it better with it than not, but would like some changes, and 9 want to revamp the system as they don't prefer it,  but see some merit in the general concept, just not as it is.

So interpreted another way. 27 like OOB, 8 don't like OOB, and 5 are indifferent.

Liking the basic concept of an OOB to place some restrictions on what might be flown and liking OOB as has been practiced are 2 entirely different things.

Like we were talking aobut yesterday Chuut ... overall, a majority of players do like OOB.  I am interested in what you define as "has been practiced" means.  We've seen various iterations of OOB come out the last few/many servers.  Which one of the OOB rules are you talking about?

[FPF-DieHard]

I'm obviously being a bit facetious however, the limits have to stop somewhere, with the current developing trend of limiting more and more and more I don't see this as a positive thing as eventually if the trend continues you will alienate everyone that you have not already/

I honestly think our player base would have been loarger had we taken more anti-cheesing measures in the past.

[FPF-Bach]

I'm obviously being a bit facetious however, the limits have to stop somewhere, with the current developing trend of limiting more and more and more I don't see this as a positive thing as eventually if the trend continues you will alienate everyone that you have not already/

I honestly think our player base would have been loarger had we taken more anti-cheesing measures in the past.

Yes, and all that would have taken was to limit the BB and dread fest that went on for SO long to a full OOB and BCHs to a LESSER extent then they are now.  I think we've gone overboard at this point.

[el-Karnak]

I'm obviously being a bit facetious however, the limits have to stop somewhere, with the current developing trend of limiting more and more and more I don't see this as a positive thing as eventually if the trend continues you will alienate everyone that you have not already/

I honestly think our player base would have been loarger had we taken more anti-cheesing measures in the past.

There's nothing wrong with cheese. It just needs to be priced appropriately in the shipyard.

[FPF-DieHard]

There's nothing wrong with cheese. It just needs to be priced appropriately in the shipyard.

That's a silly way to control cheese, all that does is limit access to the nutters.

[FPF-DieHard]

I'm obviously being a bit facetious however, the limits have to stop somewhere, with the current developing trend of limiting more and more and more I don't see this as a positive thing as eventually if the trend continues you will alienate everyone that you have not already/

I honestly think our player base would have been loarger had we taken more anti-cheesing measures in the past.

Yes, and all that would have taken was to limit the BB and dread fest that went on for SO long to a full OOB and BCHs to a LESSER extent then they are now.  I think we've gone overboard at this point.

No OOB can work and be balanced if you removed half the shiplist.  Remove everything from R5 and beyond, maybe leave in the stock NCA and CCH ships.  Bamn, balanced shiplist with little or not OOB needed.

Anyone interested in trying that on a real campaign?

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

8 love it, 8 dislike it, 5 don't care one way or the other, 9 like it better with it than not, but would like some changes, and 9 want to revamp the system as they don't prefer it,  but see some merit in the general concept, just not as it is.

So interpreted another way. 27 like OOB, 8 don't like OOB, and 5 are indifferent.

Liking the basic concept of an OOB to place some restrictions on what might be flown and liking OOB as has been practiced are 2 entirely different things.

We've seen various iterations of OOB come out the last few/many servers.  Which one of the OOB rules are you talking about?

good point Greenie, I was primarily referring to

Assigning of ships to individual players and the restricting of the ships available to anyone at anytime.

I am more in favor of the idea of any limit on ships to be done without such assignments, instead limiting what is online at any time but allowing anyone to be able to fly them.

The secondary part is the production cycle approach.  I feel that although it might be appealing to have a capital ship removed from play after destruction, the cons of this practice outweigh the pros.  The cons being:

1. players will fly more conservatively with the heavy iron where they disengage in a chancy situation rather than risk losing the ship for the team in many cases

2. dreadnaughts being escorted by dreadnaughts.

3. non "aces" not comfortable flying heavy iron on the front, and therefore missing out on the fun of flying these boats, which in some cases might be their favorites, for fear of losing them for the team.  To lose a few VCs is one thing but to lose something that cant be replaced is another.

Some might argue that a production cycle approach is more "realistic", yet we need to step back and remember that this is a game and as such fun should take precedence over the "reality" of an imaginary universe.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

No OOB can work and be balanced if you removed half the shiplist.  Remove everything from R5 and beyond, maybe leave in the stock NCA and CCH ships.  Bamn, balanced shiplist with little or not OOB needed.

Anyone interested in trying that on a real campaign?

Well not sure what R5 and beyond included, but if it lets anyone fly what they want anytime they want and is relatively balanced sign me up.  Sounds great.  BTW DH enjoying WCH alot.   

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Like we were talking aobut yesterday Chuut ... overall, a majority of players do like OOB. 

Like I was pointing out Yesterday Green...... a majority may like the concept of some limits in principle, but less than 1/2 are thrilled the ones they are see on recent servers.

[Grim]

I dislike OOB personally and voted as such.  It was OK in the beginning but has grown WAY to restrictive IMO.

First it was the battleships, then it was the Dreadnoughts, next the Heavy Battle Cruisers, somewhere in there it was solo escorts.  Now most recently the specialty ships have been restricted.  Before you know it we'll all be flying frigates....wait no we won't because there won't be anybody left to fly with. 

I'm obviously being a bit facetious however, the limits have to stop somewhere, with the current developing trend of limiting more and more and more I don't see this as a positive thing as eventually if the trend continues you will alienate everyone that you have not already/

Well said Bach 

[FPF-DieHard]

Some might argue that a production cycle approach is more "realistic", yet we need to step back and remember that this is a game and as such fun should take precedence over the "reality" of an imaginary universe.

The fantasy realism is what makes this fun for a lot of people.  Your own poll even idicates that the OOB system is fun for most people.

Honestly, we simply need a more fluid transfer system and the GWish OOB system would be great.   Hopefully, SQL one day will allow this to be completly transparent.

[Hexx]

Some might argue that a production cycle approach is more "realistic", yet we need to step back and remember that this is a game and as such fun should take precedence over the "reality" of an imaginary universe.

The fantasy realism is what makes this fun for a lot of people.

Actually the fantasy of imaging what the Andorian in your sig is doing next is what makes it fun for me.

[FPF-DieHard]

Actually the fantasy of imaging what the Andorian in your sig is doing next is what makes it fun for me.

Blue fever . . .

[Grim]

Seems to me from the thread so far that most people support OOB in some form or another, a few of us however feel its being introduced too much and that say DN and BCH restriction is enough.

I was under the impression with the GW series that the reason for all the OOB was to keep it more in line with history and also turn SFC more SFB like. Of course SFC is based on SFB but i was under the belief that there is a difference between based on and actually becomming it. Perhaps that is the problem...

I like the variation that the GW series has brought in terms of something different and its excellent that there are different servers offering different things. I just hope that this series doesnt change the way that future servers become because i like having servers with loads of rules and restirctions and some without, hence why i'm totally opposed to creating a universal server guidlines that are applicable to future servers in terms of OOB rules etc.

And whatever you say about who likes what etc, the population of players is declining, so something must be going wrong somewhere..

[Kroma BaSyl]

1. players will fly more conservatively with the heavy iron where they disengage in a chancy situation rather than risk losing the ship for the team in many cases

This is not a con, it is a pro. Valuable assets should be conserved, this adds to the strategic aspects of the D2 for me. Without this type of strategic element I might as well just spend all my efforts on the PBR league.

2. dreadnaughts being escorted by dreadnaughts.

This will happen with any OOB or no OOB. If this is an issue then make a rule to prohibit it, but it has nothing to do with this issue.

[Hexx]

Actually I honestly don't think either OOB or Non OOB has hurt worse.
People who liked small ships and *some* realism got fed up that anyone who put the hours in had a BB (or three)
People got fed up when everyone could afford a BCH, and had a BCH, and then some new player signed on in a CL.
And of course people got fed up when races with droners managed to race around the map in 2 minutes missions.

I personally very much like the idea that if a DN is destroyed, that side suffers. It adds (imho) a little exceitement and interest to the game.
Having 3 DN's/side no matter what seems kinda really,really stupid to me.
(But hey, if YOU think it's a good idea it doesn't mean I think you're stupid too, just probably)

The problem really is that the general shiplists of the Various Empires are too unbalanced against the "non traditinal opponent"

[FPF-DieHard]

 

I personally very much like the idea that if a DN is destroyed, that side suffers. It adds (imho) a little exceitement and interest to the game.
Having 3 DN's/side no matter what seems kinda really,really stupid to me.
(But hey, if YOU think it's a good idea it doesn't mean I think you're stupid too, just probably)

The problem really is that the general shiplists of the Various Empires are too unbalanced against the "non traditinal opponent"

What he said.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Actually I honestly don't think either OOB or Non OOB has hurt worse.
People who liked small ships and *some* realism got fed up that anyone who put the hours in had a BB (or three)
People got fed up when everyone could afford a BCH, and had a BCH, and then some new player signed on in a CL.
And of course people got fed up when races with droners managed to race around the map in 2 minutes missions.

I personally very much like the idea that if a DN is destroyed, that side suffers. It adds (imho) a little exceitement and interest to the game.
Having 3 DN's/side no matter what seems kinda really,really stupid to me.
(But hey, if YOU think it's a good idea it doesn't mean I think you're stupid too, just probably)

The problem really is that the general shiplists of the Various Empires are too unbalanced against the "non traditinal opponent"

Something is wrong here.  Hexx is making sense, and we all know that never happens.

One side being without a key ship after they lose it is what adds a lot of spice to the D2 for me.  That does make the players in key ships more cautious, but as Kroma said I see that as a benefit.  With the disengagement rule, if a key ship runs from opposition all the time then it is as good as dead.  It won't be doing anything important.

-S'Cipio

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

One side being without a key ship after they lose it is what adds a lot of spice to the D2 for me.  That does make the players in key ships more cautious, but as Kroma said I see that as a benefit.  With the disengagement rule, if a key ship runs from opposition all the time then it is as good as dead.  It won't be doing anything important.

-S'Cipio

Would a super low ship replacement value add any spice for you Scippy?, I could see that as a way to achieve the same thing without limiting what could be flown.  Lose your DN and your in a frigate, due to your captain's incompetence.  Might keep the numbers of big ships down on a server, especailly if the larger boats were priced high.  You could even start players off with a decent chunk of PP so that even casual players could get a fairly large ship, but it would hurt if they lost it.

[Kroma BaSyl]

One side being without a key ship after they lose it is what adds a lot of spice to the D2 for me.  That does make the players in key ships more cautious, but as Kroma said I see that as a benefit.  With the disengagement rule, if a key ship runs from opposition all the time then it is as good as dead.  It won't be doing anything important.

-S'Cipio

Would a super low ship replacement value add any spice for you Scippy?, I could see that as a way to achieve the same thing without limiting what could be flown.  Lose your DN and your in a frigate, due to your captain's incompetence.  Might keep the numbers of big ships down on a server, especailly if the larger boats were priced high.  You could even start players off with a decent chunk of PP so that even casual players could get a fairly large ship, but it would hurt if they lost it.

Sounds great, but that scheme has never worked.

[el-Karnak]

There's nothing wrong with cheese. It just needs to be priced appropriately in the shipyard.

That's a silly way to control cheese, all that does is limit access to the nutters.

Silly Feddie.    Don't ya know how to modify a player's account to bump up their PP yet? 

If a RM wants to waste BP on cheese ships instead of BCHs, DNs then that's their prerogative.

As for nutters getting good ships...gee if they can pile up mucho PPs to get their own special ship without RM sugar-daddy help then it sounds like they earned it to me.   

[FPF-DieHard]

One side being without a key ship after they lose it is what adds a lot of spice to the D2 for me.  That does make the players in key ships more cautious, but as Kroma said I see that as a benefit.  With the disengagement rule, if a key ship runs from opposition all the time then it is as good as dead.  It won't be doing anything important.

-S'Cipio

It is kinda funny, look at the Attrition rate of Big Iron on the GW series.  How many big ships still died though they are being cautious? 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Would a super low ship replacement value add any spice for you Scippy?, I could see that as a way to achieve the same thing without limiting what could be flown.  Lose your DN and your in a frigate, due to your captain's incompetence.  Might keep the numbers of big ships down on a server, especailly if the larger boats were priced high.  You could even start players off with a decent chunk of PP so that even casual players could get a fairly large ship, but it would hurt if they lost it.

Sounds great, but that scheme has never worked.

Was there a technical problem I'm not aware of?  Can't recall a server set up like that, either was a long time ago, or I wasn't on it. 

You could even price down some of the better line light cruisers so no one would be totally left out in the cold if you wanted.  Say the CLC, CWLP, MCC, D5L, etc

[FPF-DieHard]

How much lower can light cruisers get?   They are practically free now.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

How much lower can light cruisers get?   They are practically free now.

Perhaps too cheap in some instances.  You would price up the specialty ships and keep the line ships and command variants cheaper.  That way losing a line ship wouldn't cramp the PP much, but losing specialty ships or big guns would put a hurt on ya.  I'm thinking like 20k for a drone boat, and so on, but starting players with about 20k so that they could buy a specialty ship early, but it would hurt to replace em.  If you don't give a big chunk of PP up front you'd keep the casual players out in the cold.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Would a super low ship replacement value add any spice for you Scippy?, I could see that as a way to achieve the same thing without limiting what could be flown.  Lose your DN and your in a frigate, due to your captain's incompetence.  Might keep the numbers of big ships down on a server, especailly if the larger boats were priced high.  You could even start players off with a decent chunk of PP so that even casual players could get a fairly large ship, but it would hurt if they lost it.

Sounds great, but that scheme has never worked.

Was there a technical problem I'm not aware of?  Can't recall a server set up like that, either was a long time ago, or I wasn't on it. 

You could even price down some of the better line light cruisers so no one would be totally left out in the cold if you wanted.  Say the CLC, CWLP, MCC, D5L, etc

Sorry Chuut, not sure what planet you have been living on for the last 5 years, but the PP pricing methodl has been proven to be an ineffective method of cheese control that heavily favors nutters to the exculsion of casual players. If you think it is that great though, put up a server and see how many people fly it.

[FireSoul]

I like OoB. I like the idea if I kill a OoB ship player, I know that it shouldn't be coming back. It's a worthwhile effort type of situation.

.. it makes you feel like the opponent is a PRIZE.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Sorry Chuut, not sure what planet you have been living on for the last 5 years, but the PP pricing methodl has been proven to be an ineffective method of cheese control that heavily favors nutters to the exculsion of casual players. If you think it is that great though, put up a server and see how many people fly it.

Don't think I've ever seen one in which a lost DN got you down to frigate/lt. cruiser in a heartbeat.  As for favoring nutters, likely, a very valid point, then again all that effort should be worth something.  There may be some ways around this, have to get my head working on it though.

I'm just offering up ideas, though Kroma, take em or leave em not matter what planet you are on  .  As for the designing of my own server it might just happen, if Hexx can do one......why not me.......   I guarentee one thing if I do, will be something quite different as I think I'm ready to try something beyond standard operating procedures.  If I do hope you will at least try it out, even if you think you will hate it.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Don't think I've ever seen one in which a lost DN got you down to frigate/lt. cruiser in a heartbeat.  As for favoring nutters, likely, a very valid point, then again all that effort should be worth something.  There may be some ways around this, have to get my head working on it though.

I'm just offering up ideas, though Kroma, take em or leave em not matter what planet you are on  .  As for the designing of my own server it might just happen, if Hexx can do one......why not me.......   I guarentee one thing if I do, will be something quite different as I think I'm ready to try something beyond standard operating procedures.  If I do hope you will at least try it out, even if you think you will hate it.

Pricing schemes have been tried in the past, and have always failed to limit the total amount of cheese on the board. They also heavily favor nutters to the exclusion of casual players. That is just the nature of the beast. About the only think pricing schemes are good for is limiting drones, which I am fairly certian you are not in favor of.

Doing something "different" is welcome (although you have yet to propose anything truely different), but their is no standard operating procedure.

I will probably play any server you put up regardless of the settings, however, I am unlikely to treat it as a serious server that I invest a lot of time in if I can see clearly that the settings will lead to a cheese fest.

As many people have said here already, I prefer a D2 that is a "Campaign" with meaningful team based strategic objectives. One where team assests and resources are limited and actively managed, as opposed to a "Server" where anything goes. I like the simulated econ you get with an OOB and what it adds to the "Campaign". 

[el-Karnak]

Sorry Chuut, not sure what planet you have been living on for the last 5 years, but the PP pricing methodl has been proven to be an ineffective method of cheese control that heavily favors nutters to the exculsion of casual players. If you think it is that great though, put up a server and see how many people fly it.

Au contraire, mon chere Gorn. Relatively speaking, SS2 had pretty good participation rate and was a competitive dyna even though I thought the restricted ship classes were a little cheap and it turned into a BCV fest; BCH fest for ISC cuz the I-BCV was useless flea-trap that's not worth the BCH cost-like shipyard price tag.  I liked the way Jeff was starting to group small-time CVs into the NCA class.

I would setup the shipyard costs like this:

Shipyard Costs
Hull Type              Class Type         Heavy Cruiser Cost Multiplier               Restricted Ship Class
DN                           BATTLESHIP                  40                                                    YES
DN                           DREADNOUGHT              15                                                    YES
CV                           CARRIER                        10                                                    YES
CA                           HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER   5                                                      NO
CA,CL                       NEW_HEAVY_CRUISER     4                                                      NO
CA                           HEAVY_CRUISER              1                                                      NO
CL                           LIGHT_CRUISER             0.75                                                    NO
FF, F                        WAR_DESTROYER         0.40                                                    NO
FF, CL                      DESTROYER                  0.25                                                    NO
FF                           FRIGATE                       0.10                                                    NO
F                             FREIGHTER                 0.075                                                    NO
SB                           STARBASE                      20                                                    NO
BT                          BATTLE_STATION           12                                                     NO
BS                          BASE_STATION                 8                                                     NO
*(eg. Tugs)             SPECIAL                        6.5                                                     YES

Restricted class basically means the ships of this class have been purposely priced out of the reach of casual players. They would have to have it assigned by the race leaders. The amount of restricted class ships available for assignment for a particular race is governed by Build Points (BPs), each BP is worth a pre-set amount of PPs, as determined by how many economic assets a race has for a given round. Lots of things you can do with this shipyard cost model. The so-called cheese ships like droners could be assigned as NCA class making them 4 times the cost of a line CA. For example, a K-DWD costs 4 times as much as a K-D7W or a F-NCD+ costs 4 times as much as a F-CB. Lose that droner and it will hurt PP account wise. It also more properly represents their specialty status. Personally, if I can run a mission in a F-CB close to the time of a F-NCD+ then I'm keeping the F-CB cuz I can lose 4 of them for every F-NCD+ lost. Plus, F-CB is more PvP capable ship.

In addiition, if a nutter can pile up enough PP to get their own restricted class ship then they have basically earned it. I have never understood this "punish-the-nutter" mentality versus "leaving the nutter alone and give more opportunities to the casual player" mentality. When OOB goes OTT then you are basically punishing the nutters. Going after nutters is like an Airline company taking away all the frequent-flyer programs from its best customers and slapping them with a surcharge for all the ailine miles they logged. How long will that airline stay in business, ya think?!

I also mentioned making the dyna more syngernistic between the shipyard, shiplist and missions. Something that DIP took a stab at but failed to due to lack of techie help.  Basically, Restricted Class ships also get a more nasty time in the EEK missions by design. The EEK missions will pick on the Restricted Class ships to make the mission more harder. Eg:  BBs, DNs, BCHs face an extra enemy AI in EEK Patrols. This helps stop the cake-walk missions for players flying these kind of ships and it encourages that these players find an escorting player in a non-Restricted Class ships so the escort can draft an easier mission. Et voila, this EEK feature in conjuction with the disengagment rule for PvP has the heavy iron ships flying on the dyna with escorts, which is exactly how it should be.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Au contraire, mon chere Gorn. Relatively speaking, SS2 had pretty good participation rate and was a competitive dyna even though I thought the restricted ship classes were a little cheap and it turned into a BCV fest; BCH fest for ISC cuz the I-BCV was useless flea-trap that's not worth the BCH cost-like shipyard price tag.  I liked the way Jeff was starting to group small-time CVs into the NCA class.

Thanks for making my point Karnak. I quit SS2 after the 4th week for the most part because it had turned into a DN, CV, BCH fest. The high cost of ships on that server did nothing to curb their usage. Thus pricing is an ineffective means to get the ship mixture on a server that I prefer. Plain and simple.

In addiition, if a nutter can pile up enough PP to get their own restricted class ship then they have basically earned it. I have never understood this "punish-the-nutter" mentality versus "leaving the nutter alone and give more opportunities to the casual player" mentality.

There is no punish the nutter mentality except in your own head. It is simply a make the game excessible to all players mentality.

When OOB goes OTT then you are basically punishing the nutters.

This is a completely false statment. There is no proof that OOT OOB hurts nutters any more than it would hurt casual players. On an OOB server nutters still end up with the restricted ships because the team knows that those limited resources are put to best use in the hands of the players that will be on the most.

You are confusing the fact that the nutter nolonger gets to spend his PP in the game engine with the fact that restricted ships tend to go to players with prestige.

[Capt Jeff]

So, how about a little of both?

Let's have a example here.....

Say the server allows for 2 DNs, 3 BCH's, and 2 specialty ships to be online at one time.

Have build periods, depending on campaign lengh of say 1 week for longer ones, and half week for shorter ones.

If a DN, BCH, or specialty ship is lost, that side loses that ship until the next build period.

So, if you lose a DN, you now can only have 1 on at a time until the next build.

That side is charged a set amount of VC's to replace the dead ship at the end of each cycle.

So, as long as above ships are cheap enough......

1.  Anyone can fly above ships if there is a open slot.
2.  The loss of one of those ships affects the campaign as you can not field as many at a time.  (makes killing them worth something)
3.  VC cost to the losing side to replace lost ships.


Just my .02

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Pricing schemes have been tried in the past, and have always failed to limit the total amount of cheese on the board. They also heavily favor nutters to the exclusion of casual players. That is just the nature of the beast. About the only think pricing schemes are good for is limiting drones, which I am fairly certian you are not in favor of.

Yes various pricing schemes have bee tried but perhaps not all.  And if you did have unlimited availability I could see some price increase on drones being acceptable, that never bothered me much except where they were very heavily overpriced and not much pp could be made with mediums and you would lose money on fast ones.  Giving drone boats and carriers a big BPV increase but allowing for full reloads might be interesting to try.

Doing something "different" is welcome (although you have yet to propose anything truely different), but their is no standard operating procedure.

Not on this thread, as I was borrowing the OOB control idea from SFC3 where they managed to make it work to the satisfaction of most, but I have done so elsewhere.

I will probably play any server you put up regardless of the settings, however, I am unlikely to treat it as a serious server that I invest a lot of time in if I can see clearly that the settings will lead to a cheese fest.

 

couldn't ask for more, same as I looked at the GW series after the OOB was added after GW1, and while I've played a fair amount less than usual I have had great fun on those

As many people have said here already, I prefer a D2 that is a "Campaign" with meaningful team based strategic objectives. One where team assests and resources are limited and actively managed, as opposed to a "Server" where anything goes.

I agree with that statement 110%  I just see a different balance as being able to preserve this.  Love ideas like Secret VCs that encourage strategy beyond trench warfare, a more interesting map that opens up stategic options you dont see with straight and uniform borders, etc.  I see limiting online numbers of capital ships as a limit on reasources, and perhaps some minor regulations that would favor line ships over specialty ones.  

As a side note, I'd love to strip down the BCVs of all races or just get rid of them as I think a BCV should not be a BCH plus fighters, but rather a ship that with fighters was roughly equal to a BCH.  Then it would become a choice whether to fly a BCH or a BCV rather than a given that the BCV would be superior in all things and the defacto choice.  

I like the simulated econ you get with an OOB and what it adds to the "Campaign". 

That part I dislike, would perfer something in the map setup with trade routes of open hexes with high econs to determine production via shipyards rather than the holding of planets being the sole determinant of what is able to be built.  What would be cool is if there is a way to allow for certain missions to reduce econ value instead of DV, or perhaps have some missions do both.  Would open up the field for commerce raiding and "U-boat" warfare.  

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

So, how about a little of both?

Let's have a example here.....

Say the server allows for 2 DNs, 3 BCH's, and 2 specialty ships to be online at one time.

Have build periods, depending on campaign lengh of say 1 week for longer ones, and half week for shorter ones.

If a DN, BCH, or specialty ship is lost, that side loses that ship until the next build period.

So, if you lose a DN, you now can only have 1 on at a time until the next build.

That side is charged a set amount of VC's to replace the dead ship at the end of each cycle.

So, as long as above ships are cheap enough......

1.  Anyone can fly above ships if there is a open slot.
2.  The loss of one of those ships affects the campaign as you can not field as many at a time.  (makes killing them worth something)
3.  VC cost to the losing side to replace lost ships.


Just my .02

not a bad propossal Jeff, but it fails to adress one of my biggest problems with assigned non-replaceable ships, that is the non "ace" factor.

What I call a "non-ace"  is a player casual or nutter who doesn't consider themselves overly skilled at pvp, lets call him "X".  Well X really would really like to fly a DN but is uncomfortable doing so because he doesn't want to lose the team's asset.  He could fly it behind the lines, but knows that would defeat the purpose of it.  So he puts away his chance at personal enjoyment and challange for the sake of the team, flying his non-OOB or lesser-OOB ship, often meating opposition pilots in the Big Iron ships and having to run from them due to not having much chance in the matchup.

X therefore doesn't get to fly the ship he would like to, nor does he get the chance to fight anyone on equal terms who is not in a non-OOB ships.  His loses more confidence in his pvp skills and his opportunity to practice them in even matchups is lessened.  The elitism of the assigned non-replacable OOB ships, (compounded in my view by trench warfare setups) therefore causes them to lose interest in the game, play less enthuastically, play less time, and perhaps grow frustrated and leave.

[Kroma BaSyl]

So, how about a little of both?

Let's have a example here.....

Say the server allows for 2 DNs, 3 BCH's, and 2 specialty ships to be online at one time.

Have build periods, depending on campaign lengh of say 1 week for longer ones, and half week for shorter ones.

If a DN, BCH, or specialty ship is lost, that side loses that ship until the next build period.

So, if you lose a DN, you now can only have 1 on at a time until the next build.

That side is charged a set amount of VC's to replace the dead ship at the end of each cycle.

So, as long as above ships are cheap enough......

1.  Anyone can fly above ships if there is a open slot.
2.  The loss of one of those ships affects the campaign as you can not field as many at a time.  (makes killing them worth something)
3.  VC cost to the losing side to replace lost ships.


Just my .02

Keeping the OOB as with GW4 but allowing transfers of ships more freely, allows for the exact same thing.

[Kroma BaSyl]

As a side note, I'd love to strip down the BCVs of all races or just get rid of them as I think a BCV should not be a BCH plus fighters, but rather a ship that with fighters was roughly equal to a BCH.  Then it would become a choice whether to fly a BCH or a BCV rather than a given that the BCV would be superior in all things and the defacto choice. 

Just make them cost more build points.

I like the simulated econ you get with an OOB and what it adds to the "Campaign". 

That part I dislike,

Then we want different things from campaigns.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Keeping the OOB as with GW4 but allowing transfers of ships more freely, allows for the exact same thing.

Incorrect, as Jeff's propossal makes no mention of using held planets as a basis for determining build points, one reason I like it better.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

As a side note, I'd love to strip down the BCVs of all races or just get rid of them as I think a BCV should not be a BCH plus fighters, but rather a ship that with fighters was roughly equal to a BCH.  Then it would become a choice whether to fly a BCH or a BCV rather than a given that the BCV would be superior in all things and the defacto choice. 

Just make them cost more build points.

Dont want to use build points at all, and as most CVS class fit the bill I want I'd likely just eliminate the BCVs.

I like the simulated econ you get with an OOB and what it adds to the "Campaign". 

That part I dislike,

Then we want different things from campaigns.

Perhaps, but there might be much in common as well.  Could be a matter of finding the right mix.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Keeping the OOB as with GW4 but allowing transfers of ships more freely, allows for the exact same thing.

Incorrect, as Jeff's propossal makes no mention of using held planets as a basis for determining build points, one reason I like it better.

The CPs, didn't rely of planets, just the BPs. No reason they couldn't be treated the same per se. However, having BPs based on Planets better simulates the econ you were driving at earlier. They don't have to be based on planets, but could be based on other strategic assets like keeping open trade routes, or asteroid hexes, whatever.

You seem to want conflicting things, that can all be solved with a BP system, even though you have some religious objection to it.

[el-Karnak]

Thanks for making my point Karnak. I quit SS2 after the 4th week for the most part because it had turned into a DN, CV, BCH fest. The high cost of ships on that server did nothing to curb their usage. Thus pricing is an ineffective means to get the ship mixture on a server that I prefer. Plain and simple.

I only quit SS2 early cuz the I-BCV sucked big-time and was tired of flying the I-CCZ ad nauseam.  Still, SS2 pulled in the most players relative to other dynas over the last 18 months. U Can't dispute that.

As a side note, I'd love to strip down the BCVs of all races or just get rid of them as I think a BCV should not be a BCH plus fighters, but rather a ship that with fighters was roughly equal to a BCH.  Then it would become a choice whether to fly a BCH or a BCV rather than a given that the BCV would be superior in all things and the defacto choice.

Yeah, dump the BCVs. They are more trouble than they are worth. There's a big hunk cheese culled out from the shiplist already.

[FPF-DieHard]

, I'd love to strip down the BCVs of all races or just get rid of them as I think a BCV should not be a BCH plus fighters, but rather a ship that with fighters was roughly equal to a BCH. 

It's called a strike carrier.   Just elimated BCVs from the list, issue solved.

[FPF-DieHard]

The CPs, didn't rely of planets, just the BPs. No reason they couldn't be treated the same per se. However, having BPs based on Planets better simulates the econ you were driving at earlier. They don't have to be based on planets, but could be based on other strategic assets like keeping open trade routes, or asteroid hexes, whatever.

You seem to want conflicting things, that can all be solved with a BP system, even though you have some religious objection to it.

Actually, IMHO the econ shouldn't count on assets held, it has too much of a snowball efect.   Econ should be set at the start of the server and left alone.

[FPF-DieHard]

Yeah, dump the BCVs. They are more trouble than they are worth. There's a big hunk cheese culled out from the shiplist already.

Question, do people still want tons of cheese in the list or not?  One simple way to curb the need for OOB is to go with liberal use of the letter R.   

[FPF-Bach]

, I'd love to strip down the BCVs of all races or just get rid of them as I think a BCV should not be a BCH plus fighters, but rather a ship that with fighters was roughly equal to a BCH. 

It's called a strike carrier.   Just elimated BCVs from the list, issue solved.

Then the BCV's were taken away....

[el-Karnak]

not a bad propossal Jeff, but it fails to adress one of my biggest problems with assigned non-replaceable ships, that is the non "ace" factor.

The non-ace factor hurts attendance, IMHO. When restricted ships are doled out there's no way to do it without somebody being left out and not liking it.  Strict Command and Control ship assignment based on a captain's experience and ability with a mixture of politics is the purview of the RL Military naves like USN, RN, French Navy, etc.  But in a game, there's no suck-it-up for the team monetary compensation in the form of a military career job involved.  So, take that aspect of the game out and leave a door open to, at least, the non-ace nutters to get the ship they want. It gives people the independence to work towards a goal that is concrete in its realization and rewards just most of online games. You grind it out enough and then you'll earn enough prestige to get what you want. That's what many ex-SFCers are doing right now on EVE Online and SWG. Doing many missions towards a goal. There's no middle-man involved controlling their destiny.

The only cost is that sooner or later the dyna will overload with cheese when everyone achieves their big ship goal. By that time it's the dyna's 4 to 5 week mark and it's time to wrap up anyway. But, the road getting there was fun. For me the goal of getting into a fun ship like the I-CCZ was reached early on in SS2. There was no other good ship to look forward too cuz the I-BCV sucked so when my SS2 journey ended I moved onto DomWars. But, it does not mean that I did not have a blast on SS2 while I was there. Cuz I did.

[Grim]

Question, do people still want tons of cheese in the list or not?  One simple way to curb the need for OOB is to go with liberal use of the letter R.   

Cheese perception may differ from person to person or race to race, if you are going to axe more stuff as you percieve it as being cheese you need to be careful you dont piss people off.

[Kroma BaSyl]

 Still, SS2 pulled in the most players relative to other dynas over the last 18 months. U Can't dispute that.

That is idiotic, SS2 pulled in the most players in the last 18 months because it was 18 months ago, and this game continues to get long in the tooth. No other reason than that.

[FPF-DieHard]

. . . you need to be careful you dont piss people off.

 

[Kroma BaSyl]

The CPs, didn't rely of planets, just the BPs. No reason they couldn't be treated the same per se. However, having BPs based on Planets better simulates the econ you were driving at earlier. They don't have to be based on planets, but could be based on other strategic assets like keeping open trade routes, or asteroid hexes, whatever.

You seem to want conflicting things, that can all be solved with a BP system, even though you have some religious objection to it.

Actually, IMHO the econ shouldn't count on assets held, it has too much of a snowball efect.   Econ should be set at the start of the server and left alone.

I tend to agree, but it would be an interesting concept for a server.

[Kroma BaSyl]

, I'd love to strip down the BCVs of all races or just get rid of them as I think a BCV should not be a BCH plus fighters, but rather a ship that with fighters was roughly equal to a BCH. 

It's called a strike carrier.   Just elimated BCVs from the list, issue solved.

or make them cost more.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Yeah, dump the BCVs. They are more trouble than they are worth. There's a big hunk cheese culled out from the shiplist already.

Question, do people still want tons of cheese in the list or not?  One simple way to curb the need for OOB is to go with liberal use of the letter R.   

Line Crusier Hell here we come.

[Kroma BaSyl]

. . . you need to be careful you dont piss people off.

 

<snicker>

[el-Karnak]

, I'd love to strip down the BCVs of all races or just get rid of them as I think a BCV should not be a BCH plus fighters, but rather a ship that with fighters was roughly equal to a BCH. 

It's called a strike carrier.   Just elimated BCVs from the list, issue solved.

or make them cost more.

No, that's idiotic cuz you just said that pricing does not inhibit cheese.

[Kroma BaSyl]

, I'd love to strip down the BCVs of all races or just get rid of them as I think a BCV should not be a BCH plus fighters, but rather a ship that with fighters was roughly equal to a BCH. 

It's called a strike carrier.   Just elimated BCVs from the list, issue solved.

or make them cost more.

No, that's idiotic cuz you just said that pricing does not inhibit cheese.

Cost more BPs silly.

[FPF-Bach]

Question, do people still want tons of cheese in the list or not?  One simple way to curb the need for OOB is to go with liberal use of the letter R.   

Cheese perception may differ from person to person or race to race, if you are going to axe more stuff as you percieve it as being cheese you need to be careful you dont piss people off.

What Grim said.  

[FPF-Bach]

. . . you need to be careful you dont piss people off.

 

<snicker>

You 2 can laugh all ya want now, but the phrase "if you build it, they will come" isn't going to apply forever.

I can see Eve on the horizon seeming like a better and better...alternative for alot of players.  Just look at how many we've already lost to it.

[FPF-Bach]

PS Kroma get on over to the PBR forum and schedule the FPF vs GDA match please.

[Kroma BaSyl]

. . . you need to be careful you dont piss people off.

 

<snicker>

You 2 can laugh all ya want now, but the phrase "if you build it, they will come" isn't going to apply forever.

It doesn't apply now. Just look at all the unrestricted servers in your campaign selector. You are implying that if the servers were run with your preferred settings there would be more people or that it would stem the flow, I believe this is incorrect. You also imply some aggagance on our part where none exists. If you know a better way to run it then do so. It is a free market dynaverse, let the best ideas florish.

BTW, the snicker was in regard to the fact that it is impossible to run any server without pissing someone off.

[Kroma BaSyl]

PS Kroma get on over to the PBR forum and schedule the FPF vs GDA match please.

I am still waiting to hear from my guys, seem most are away for Xmas. Sunday ain't looking good right now, but I will keep trying.

[FPF-Bach]

PS Kroma get on over to the PBR forum and schedule the FPF vs GDA match please.

I am still waiting to hear from my guys, seem most are away for Xmas. Sunday ain't looking good right now, but I will keep trying.

That is fine if you can't do it, was just looking for some kind of acknowledgement that you saw the message.

[FPF-DieHard]

PS Kroma get on over to the PBR forum and schedule the FPF vs GDA match please.

I am still waiting to hear from my guys, seem most are away for Xmas. Sunday ain't looking good right now, but I will keep trying.

Let me know soon, I have whoring to schedule.

[FPF-DieHard]

It doesn't apply now. Just look at all the unrestricted servers in your campaign selector. You are implying that if the servers were run with your preferred settings there would be more people or that it would stem the flow, I believe this is incorrect. You also imply some aggagance on our part where none exists. If you know a better way to run it then do so. It is a free market dynaverse, let the best ideas florish.

BTW, the snicker was in regard to the fact that it is impossible to run any server without pissing someone off.

The point is us OOB people like OOB but we aren't saying that this is how all servers should be.   I think variety is good, not all servers should have restrictions.   

Just happnes that Kroma, J'inn, and myself happen to be running GW which is the only thing going on right now and all 3 of us like OOB.   

Other people can run servers anyway they like, like Kroma says, it is a free-market Dynaverse.   Last open server I played on (LB5) sucked so bad it was disgusting, just my preference. 

You can always nag Dizzy to make SGO4 an open server 

[Green]

PS Kroma get on over to the PBR forum and schedule the FPF vs GDA match please.

I am still waiting to hear from my guys, seem most are away for Xmas. Sunday ain't looking good right now, but I will keep trying.

That is fine if you can't do it, was just looking for some kind of acknowledgement that you say the message.

I've heard Kroma not being able to "do it" is pretty common Bach.  Though he does keep trying ... his attempts have been flacid.  If FPF would still like a match this Sunday, give a yell and we'll try to get 3 for the match.

[FPF-Bach]

I've heard Kroma not being able to "do it" is pretty common Bach.  Though he does keep trying ... his attempts have been flacid.  If FPF would still like a match this Sunday, give a yell and we'll try to get 3 for the match.

I'll post over in the PBR forum so as not to get to much more off topic here.

[FPF-Bach]

It doesn't apply now. Just look at all the unrestricted servers in your campaign selector. You are implying that if the servers were run with your preferred settings there would be more people or that it would stem the flow, I believe this is incorrect. You also imply some aggagance on our part where none exists. If you know a better way to run it then do so. It is a free market dynaverse, let the best ideas florish.

BTW, the snicker was in regard to the fact that it is impossible to run any server without pissing someone off.

I am well aware that it certainly is impossible to run a prefect serve and not piss some people off no matter what you try to do that is a given. 

I disagree and believe that is does apply now though.  It applies to all of the SERIOUS servers that are promoted in advance by the admins running them.  I certainly wouldn't say that it applies the "unrestricted" servers you mention that are running, alot of the players are barely aware of these if at all.  With that in mind I'm implying anything beneath what I'm saying only what I'm saying directly please do not presume to know what someones implications are as there is no way for you to KNOW exactly what someone may or may not be implying.  I did however BASICALLY state that our playerbase is still declining and it will continue to do so especially if we continue to alienate players ideas and opinions by rolling on the floor laughing or snickering at them.  The point here is that a serious server that is actively being promoted and an "unrestricted" server that is just up and running aren't the same things in concept.

As far as this being a free dynaverse market, agreed that it is, however as far as running my own server, MAYBE someday I will but, it won't be today and it won't be tommrow.  In the meantime though I will certainly voice any opinion I have on this subject or any other regardless of the status of whether I've run my own server or not.

PS Neither the spell checker, the dictionary nor I know what aggogance means.  I can only infer its meaning.

[FPF-DieHard]

They game is old, the player-base will delcine no matter what and even if we could get 100 people on a server with a cheesefest, i'd be bored of it and not likely play.

The GW like OOB system with a more fluid transfer method should aloow everyone to fly something cool, not lock you into the boring routine of flying the same ship for 3 straight weeks, and keep the cheese at an acceptable balance level.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I am well aware that it certainly is impossible to run a prefect serve and not piss some people off no matter what you try to do that is a given. 

I am sure you are, but you seem to be unaware of the fact that DH and I were laughing at the fact that Grims post seemed to indicate that he is not. Instead you read it as general condemnation of new ideas.

I disagree and believe that is does apply now though.  It applies to all of the SERIOUS servers that are promoted in advance by the admins running them.  I certainly wouldn't say that it applies the "unrestricted" servers you mention that are running, alot of the players are barely aware of these if at all.  With that in mind I'm implying anything beneath what I'm saying only what I'm saying directly please do not presume to know what someones implications are as there is no way for you to KNOW exactly what someone may or may not be implying.  I did however BASICALLY state that our playerbase is still declining and it will continue to do so especially if we continue to alienate players ideas and opinions by rolling on the floor laughing or snickering at them.  The point here is that a serious server that is actively being promoted and an "unrestricted" server that is just up and running aren't the same things in concept.

That ain't my problem, I like a certian type of server, and am only willing to invest my time and effort in ones that are to my liking. Others are free to expend effort investing in server that are to their liking. I believe that those that promt servers more want people to play on them more than others, thus they spend the extra effort. They will do what they feel will draw more players. Right now that seems to be OOB servers. Someone please but up a less restrictive server and promt it and we will see.

[Hexx]

Let's get back on topic here... am I to understand that I was FINALLY going to gte to
fly a Lyran BCV with FIGHTERS and now I'm not???


Bastards..

[Grim]

I am aware that its near impossible to find a perfect server, each persons tastes are different etc and i understand that.

I was just pointing out with my comments about the mentality of making radical changes etc without at times consulting the playerbase for their opinions. I know that some server admins feel its their server and they shall run it as it sees fit

This is highlighted by a recent quote from a server admin "Wrong, I'll do whatever the heck I think is best, this is not a Democracy. I'm not looking for public input at this time nor do I think I'm ever going to be looking for it. "

Directed to the person who made the quote above- Fine i understand and accept that point of view you run the server as you see fit, fair enough.

However surely its more beneficial for the community at large to be consulted over changes in terms of restrictions etc, this goes back to my comment of potentially pissing off people. Surely you want players to play your dynas? sure they can choose not too and fair enough its their decision but surely the admins want to see a high number/ competitive server as it should make the admin feel good that the campaign they have created is universally approved and liked this in my view should be the admins aim to get people to like the server concept. This also ties in with complaints of balance in terms of numbers, if one race feels that their selection of ships or whatever is ruined by the admins choice to nerf or remove then this will cause all sorts of problems and complaints about balance of numbers.

And i'll also repeat what i said about Cheese perception may differ from person to person or race to race and needs to be considered,

In terms of declining of numbers i have spoken to various former d2 players who have either left the game or gone purely to gsa play and a large proportiton of them agreed that there is too much rules and regulations nowaydays and even arguments produced by OOB and other shiplist related issues between certain races have made them leave the game. This is not purely the only reason why they have left as DH rightly said the game is ageing, but it is a significant reason nonetheless.

My final comment  is this, all i want to see a variety of different servers all offering different things so there is plenty of choice to the players on what they choose to fly or not. I onlly voiced my concerns over OOB etc as from the comments i had seen over the past few dynas it seemed to me that dynas were all heading the same way in temrs of strict OOB and that OOB to an extent in my opinion was starting to go too far.

[Hexx]

IIn terms of declining of numbers i have spoken to various former d2 players who have either left the game or gone purely to gsa play and a large proportiton of them agreed that there is too much rules and regulations nowaydays and even arguments produced by OOB and other shiplist related issues between certain races have made them leave the game. This is not purely the only reason why they have left as DH rightly said the game is ageing, but it is a significant reason nonetheless.

And before that we all heard from numbers of players (and techically larger numbers at the time) who quit because of the
-lack of regulations,- multiple BB fleets, BCHfests, PhG's
G racks, lack of being able to compete with someone who built up prestige and could afford multiple DN's/BB's/CVA's, the lack of fighter CnC (reCavIII's,)
 the lack of restricitons on Escorts and droners, the mission time disparity between droners and races without drones, multiple ship fleets that
work exceptionally well for some races (Droners) and poorly for others (Lyrans, Roms)

Really I have no issue with people saying they like/hate/wnat to change OOB stuff.
Personally I like it -but I'm not really interested in flying DN's so I'm not the best person to comment because I don't care
if I'm assigned one or not.
What I don't like is this" I've talked to players and they left because of OOB.."

No F*cking kidding.
(and it's not a shot at Chuut or Grim there buds, others have said it and I hate it as much)


PLayers have left for that reason, as well as the lack of OOB reason, they've left cuz the game is old, they've left
cuz they feel like playing something else. If you want to argue for OOb or non OOB fine, just don't bring that stupid "players left because of xxx"
stuff into it.
Goes both ways.

As has been said- if you've got some good ideas throw them out, I'm trying to set up a couple of servers and have
absolutley no qualms about stealing ideas that I think will work and using them for my own.

[Grim]

I'd like to clarify i was talking about players recently who have suddenly disapeared from the game over the past few dynas, i'm well aware people left for other reasons as you mentioned prior to this.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I am aware that its near impossible to find a perfect server, each persons tastes are different etc and i understand that.

I was just pointing out with my comments about the mentality of making radical changes etc without at times consulting the playerbase for their opinions.

What mentality? The player base pursecution is just in your head. Players opinions do matter, just because the admins of one server series disagree with your particular opinions doesn't prove that those admins aren't doing what they believe they and the other players want.

I know that some server admins feel its their server and they shall run it as it sees fit

This is highlighted by a recent quote from a server admin "Wrong, I'll do whatever the heck I think is best, this is not a Democracy. I'm not looking for public input at this time nor do I think I'm ever going to be looking for it. "

And they are absolutely correct. They aren't running a public trust, they are spending their free hours creating a campaign that they want to enjoy flying. If their idea of fun doesn't appeal to others then they will be playing alone.

Directed to the person who made the quote above- Fine i understand and accept that point of view you run the server as you see fit, fair enough.

However surely its more beneficial for the community at large to be consulted over changes in terms of restrictions etc, this goes back to my comment of potentially pissing off people.

No it is more beneficial to the community to have more servers. Nothing will ever be done successfully by committee, that has been proven repeatably. If you want to organize a communittee poll governed server I encourage you to try it. There is absolutely no way to do it without pissing people off. Better to just make your own decision and stick it out there and see what happens.

Surely you want players to play your dynas?

I do, and they are.

sure they can choose not too and fair enough its their decision but surely the admins want to see a high number/ competitive server as it should make the admin feel good that the campaign they have created is universally approved and liked this in my view should be the admins aim to get people to like the server concept.

No I don't do it for the glory of high player counts or peer approval. I invest my time in a server because I think it will be a fun diversion of my time. I just don't think your idea of fun is fun, thus I will not invest my efort there. If you come up with a good idea that sounds like fun I am all ears. I just haven't heard any here yet. If you have then dammit organize the community and run a server.

And i'll also repeat what i said about Cheese perception may differ from person to person or race to race and needs to be considered,

You haven't shown that it wasn't. You will never get everyone to agree so at some point the admin has to use his best judgement and just go with it.

In terms of declining of numbers i have spoken to various former d2 players who have either left the game or gone purely to gsa play and a large proportiton of them agreed that there is too much rules and regulations nowaydays and even arguments produced by OOB and other shiplist related issues between certain races have made them leave the game. This is not purely the only reason why they have left as DH rightly said the game is ageing, but it is a significant reason nonetheless.

I disagree, I have spoken to more players that woldn't be around if the cheese wars had continued unabated.

My final comment  is this, all i want to see a variety of different servers all offering different things so there is plenty of choice to the players on what they choose to fly or not. I onlly voiced my concerns over OOB etc as from the comments i had seen over the past few dynas it seemed to me that dynas were all heading the same way in temrs of strict OOB and that OOB to an extent in my opinion was starting to go too far.

You all make the wild assumption that there is some sort of secrete conspiracy to make the servers that way, or that the "serious" or "promoted" ones are. "Promoted" what a joke. I believe Jinn made the same number of promotion posts as every other server recently run, which is to say 1. Or did I miss his Super Bowl spot? Server with merit get the attention due to people being interested in them, and those have tended to be OOB servers of late, so you do the math.

Or if you disagree with my opinion run one and see.

[el-Karnak]

, I'd love to strip down the BCVs of all races or just get rid of them as I think a BCV should not be a BCH plus fighters, but rather a ship that with fighters was roughly equal to a BCH. 

It's called a strike carrier.   Just elimated BCVs from the list, issue solved.

or make them cost more.

No, that's idiotic cuz you just said that pricing does not inhibit cheese.

Cost more BPs silly.

Dash ezactly right!! Hick!!  BPs equal PP that you can spend in the shipyard for those mucho expensive cheese ships that nutters can still get on their own if they play hard enough.

Gossssh Durn it!! Hick!! This Gorn Tequila is rancid!!

Great stuff!! Gimme some more!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS. I was being facetious about taking out BCVs to prove a point. Leave all the ships in so everyone is happy.

[Grim]

And they are absolutely correct. They aren't running a public trust, they are spending their free hours creating a campaign that they want to enjoy flying. If their idea of fun doesn't appeal to others then they will be playing alone.

I find that comment disturbing, so you are saying that the players opinion doesnt matter? 

In terms of who plays thats utter BS, admins may say that they dont care about player numbers, what a crock of s**t, admins of course want to see players flooding their servers as it shows their effort that they put in is worthwhile and its not just them that like the server concept. If i ran a server spent ages developing on it and noone turned up i would be demorialised, perhaps its just personal opinion but surely i wouldnt be the only one who had that opinion if the same circumstances applied.

[el-Karnak]

. . . you need to be careful you dont piss people off.

 

<snicker>

You 2 can laugh all ya want now, but the phrase "if you build it, they will come" isn't going to apply forever.

I can see Eve on the horizon seeming like a better and better...alternative for alot of players.  Just look at how many we've already lost to it.

That's pretty much the wave of future these pay-for-play online games. SWG is doing so well that LucasArts and SOE just announced they are adding 20 to their game development staff to keep up with all the on-going game enhancements and maintenance fixes. It gives the user a sense that the game will continually evolve with no end in sight.  EVE Online, I'm sure, is doing the same. But, it aint cheap. Personally, LucasArts has taken way more from my bank account than I will ever spend on SFC, unless I count in the man-hours costs for all the mission scripting I did:  SWG game $30, JTL Expansion add-on $20, one month subscription $15, six months subscription $77 for a current grand total of: $142. That should keep me until 04/2005. 

I really need to work for SOE and get stock options.

It's all a matter of what you think is worth your $$$. BTW, what the *#(# I am doing posting here when I should be playing SWG. All posting is getting expensive in terms of lost SWG playing time.  

[FPF-DieHard]

I find that comment disturbing, so you are saying that the players opinion doesnt matter? 

Honestly, appeasing the masses has no bearing on any decision I've ever made as an admin.  Part of the reason I got into the mess was because I got tired of bitching about how other servers were run and decided to step up.  Of course i want people to play, but I'm not going to set something up that I think is dumb and then go through the trouble of admining it.

Opinions are like assholes, most smell worse than mine.  

But then again, I'm a dick  

In terms of who plays thats utter BS, admins may say that they dont care about player numbers, what a crock of s**t, admins of course want to see players flooding their servers as it shows their effort that they put in is worthwhile and its not just them that like the server concept. If i ran a server spent ages developing on it and noone turned up i would be demorialised, perhaps its just personal opinion but surely i wouldnt be the only one who had that opinion if the same circumstances applied.

I would rather play the game i want to play with a lower number of people than to play a "Sockfoot's War" over and over again.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

   Last open server I played on (LB5) sucked so bad it was disgusting, just my preference. 

That wasn't the main reason for problems with that server, and it did use a partial OOB

You can always nag Dizzy to make SGO4 an open server 

  OH DIZZY.............

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Well I for one have no problem with admins setting up a server as they see fit without consulting others.  If you paint a picture and no one is paying you a commission for it, should you paint something you don't want to just because someone else wants you to do it? 

The idea presented, however, is that if admins are trying to create a server with a good mass appeal as an objective, it is important for them to know how players feel about various issues, and to look at any ideas presented, whether they use them or not.

I do not condemn the use of OOB in any form by an admin as I appreciate their efforts whether I like the result or not.  But this does not mean that I cannot offer suggestions and try to encourage them to consider other methods which I think are worth looking at.  If I ever get too bored with it I can always try to create my own vision, or move on to another game. 

One of the biggest factors in the loss of options and fun is player loss for whatever reason.  Therefore I am trying to come up with systems which might reach across differences in points of view on preferred setup, so as to have the best mass appeal.  It might work or it might fall on its face, but perhaps it deserves a chance, then again perhaps it doesn't.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Keeping the OOB as with GW4 but allowing transfers of ships more freely, allows for the exact same thing.

Incorrect, as Jeff's propossal makes no mention of using held planets as a basis for determining build points, one reason I like it better.

The CPs, didn't rely of planets, just the BPs. No reason they couldn't be treated the same per se. However, having BPs based on Planets better simulates the econ you were driving at earlier. They don't have to be based on planets, but could be based on other strategic assets like keeping open trade routes, or asteroid hexes, whatever.

Not exactly like I was proposing but sounds more interesting than having them planet based and It would be worth a shot.

You seem to want conflicting things, that can all be solved with a BP system, even though you have some religious objection to it.

Don't see them as conflicting at all, but if you see them as such how can your "magical" BP system solve them if they are in such conflict? 

And no I have no religious objection to it, if you would look at my post you will see that while I might prefer trying something else, I have stated that I have had fun flying on servers with a BP system, just that they might be more fun with a different system.  The use or non use of a BP system therefore hasn't kept me off a server, only limited my amount of time spent on it, hardly a religious objection, unlike someone who claims they will not fly at all on a non OOB server, or will not fly on one because of OOB.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I find that comment disturbing, so you are saying that the players opinion doesnt matter? 

Honestly, appeasing the masses has no bearing on any decision I've ever made as an admin.  Part of the reason I got into the mess was because I got tired of bitching about how other servers were run and decided to step up.  Of course i want people to play, but I'm not going to set something up that I think is dumb and then go through the trouble of admining it.

Opinions are like assholes, most smell worse than mine. 

But then again, I'm a dick   

In terms of who plays thats utter BS, admins may say that they dont care about player numbers, what a crock of s**t, admins of course want to see players flooding their servers as it shows their effort that they put in is worthwhile and its not just them that like the server concept. If i ran a server spent ages developing on it and noone turned up i would be demorialised, perhaps its just personal opinion but surely i wouldnt be the only one who had that opinion if the same circumstances applied.

I would rather play the game i want to play with a lower number of people than to play a "Sockfoot's War" over and over again.

He totally doesn't get it DH. He still thinks we should be working for him, and doesn't realize no one is stopping him from realizing his own vision.

[FPF-Bach]

Well I for one have no problem with admins setting up a server as they see fit without consulting others.  If you paint a picture and no one is paying you a commission for it, should you paint something you don't want to just because someone else wants you to do it? 

The idea presented, however, is that if admins are trying to create a server with a good mass appeal as an objective, it is important for them to know how players feel about various issues, and to look at any ideas presented, whether they use them or not.

I do not condemn the use of OOB in any form by an admin as I appreciate their efforts whether I like the result or not.  But this does not mean that I cannot offer suggestions and try to encourage them to consider other methods which I think are worth looking at.  If I ever get too bored with it I can always try to create my own vision, or move on to another game. 

One of the biggest factors in the loss of options and fun is player loss for whatever reason.  Therefore I am trying to come up with systems which might reach across differences in points of view on preferred setup, so as to have the best mass appeal.  It might work or it might fall on its face, but perhaps it deserves a chance, then again perhaps it doesn't.

Very well said Chutt!

[FPF-Bach]

He totally doesn't get it DH. He still thinks we should be working for him, and doesn't realize no one is stopping him from realizing his own vision.

Of course he gets it, he just has different opinion one which he is entitled to.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Not exactly like I was proposing but sounds more interesting than having them planet based and It would be worth a shot.

So at least one good idea did come out of this thread, ironic that it was mine. <snicker>

Don't see them as conflicting at all, but if you see them as such how can your "magical" BP system solve them if they are in such conflict? 

You wanted to allow more pilots to fly the ships they like. Ammending the GW4 OOB rules to allow easier transfers does this, while still maintaining those ships strategic significance to the larger campaign, and doesn't result in a cheese fest.

You also wanted a campaign that made use of strategic objective to effect econ, but what is the point of effecting econ if it doesn't effect team assets. Using the D2 native econ system with the shipyard and pricing, just plain doesn't work on many levels, including getting the shipyard to play nice. It also heavily favors nutters over casual players, and would mean that after a PvP loss you are doomed to PP farming. Not my idea of fun. However, an econ system that uses BPs and CPs to effect ship availability does work, it ain't perfect yet, but it is the best thing that I have heard for steering the servers that I will invest my efforts into that I have heard so far. When I hear a better idea I through out the old, as I have no other attachment to it.

[FPF-Bach]

They game is old, the player-base will delcine no matter what and even if we could get 100 people on a server with a cheesefest, i'd be bored of it and not likely play.

Exactly that's why those of us that are left need to try and work harder in order to at least try and maintain the player base that we DO still have.

[Kroma BaSyl]

He totally doesn't get it DH. He still thinks we should be working for him, and doesn't realize no one is stopping him from realizing his own vision.

Of course he gets it, he just has different opinion one which he is entitled to.

No he doesn't and appearently neither do you. You are absolutely entitled to your own opinions and entitled to spend your time working on and playing on servers you like.  He and you however, seem to think that I and other admins are obliged to waste our time on servers we don't like just because others want us to, but won't spend their own time creating them. Is it the fault of the admins that created and ran the most recent popular servers that they didn't meet your personnel expectations? Why can't someone else put up a server that meets their needs? Why do I have to agree with your idea of fun in order for you to have your fun? Make your own fun. It isn't our responsibility to insure your fun. It is your own. Some of us have taken on the responsibility for are own brand of fun, and you and Grim seem to think we owe it to you to tailer our brand of fun to meet your needs. You have implied that our idea of fun came out of malice or indifference to player needs, but this isn't true, that had nothing to do with it. It comes from experience and understanding of what is fun to ourselves and those we like to play with.

We welcome you to create your own brand of fun, and if it really is fun, we would like to play right along with you, but I ain't investing my efforts to achieve fun on ideas I don't feel will eventually be fun. And no matter what you and Grim think, it isn't my responsibility to do so. It is yours.

If there is enough of you with similar ideas get together and design a server, I am sure you can get DH or Frey to host, and I will even offer web space and design services. But if no one plays it, please don't blame it on that silly promotion crap, maybe it is the premise that is lacking.

[Kroma BaSyl]

They game is old, the player-base will delcine no matter what and even if we could get 100 people on a server with a cheesefest, i'd be bored of it and not likely play.

Exactly that's why those of us that are left need to try and work harder in order to at least try and maintain the player base that we DO still have.

Sounds like you just volunteered to run a community friendly and designed server. May God have mercy on your soul.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

You also wanted a campaign that made use of strategic objective to effect econ, but what is the point of effecting econ if it doesn't effect team assets.

Economic VCs is also a part of my idea, right now VCs are awarded for things like bases and planets as well as destroyed ships, but other economic assets have been largely ignored.  An enemy taking economic damage would affect their willingness and ability to make war.

As for OOB not allowing for "cheese" fleets, I think it is more a matter of OOB redefining them, a player with a DN on the board when the other side doesn't have one available could also be considered cheese.  More free acess of transfers would definately help here, and I'm eager to see what you come up with but there are other difficulties with it (and likely the system which I proposed has its own deficiencies as well) which I have already addressed that will not be solved by easier transfers.  

[Grim]

I have my opinion and you have yours Kroma i accept that its of course something we are both entitled to. On a serious note this thread is getting perhaps a bit too heated...

[FPF-Bach]

I am sure you are, but you seem to be unaware of the fact that DH and I were laughing at the fact that Grims post seemed to indicate that he is not. Instead you read it as general condemnation of new ideas.

I don't think your reading Grim's true intent.  Why do you think his concerns are funny?  He is concerned about a dwindling playerbase and is making a statement about trying not to piss people off which COULD POSSIBLY dwindle it further whether intentional or not.  Also I didn't read anything as a condemnation of new ideas I read it as an implication that Grim's opinion which he is entitled to have and voice didn't matter.

It's obvious that admins CAN and WILL do what they think is best for their servers and that is their prerogative nobody is disputing that.  

That ain't my problem, I like a certain type of server, and am only willing to invest my time and effort in ones that are to my liking. Others are free to expend effort investing in server that are to their liking. I believe that those that promt servers more want people to play on them more than others, thus they spend the extra effort. They will do what they feel will draw more players. Right now that seems to be OOB servers. Someone please but up a less restrictive server and promt it and we will see.

That's fine you are entitled and to your own opinion and interests.  I certainly won't laugh at you for it like it's some kinda joke.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I have my opinion and you have yours Kroma i accept that its of course something we are both entitled to. On a serious note this thread is getting perhaps a bit too heated...

I wouldn't take a Gorn wearing a tutu too seriously Grim......thats just the way he expresses himself 

I don't think he has any intention of making this a "heated" discussion.  I might not always agree with him, but I know he says what he does not to antagonize but to try to improve the game according to his perceptions, same as I do. 

I salute him for all the time and effort he has put in no matter if I agree or disagree with the results.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I don't think your reading Grim's true intent.  Why do you think his concerns are funny?  He is concerned about a dwindling playerbase and is making a statement about trying not to piss people off which COULD POSSIBLY dwindle it further whether intentional or not.  Also I didn't read anything as a condemnation of new ideas I read it as an implication that Grim's opinion which he is entitled to have and voice didn't matter.

It's obvious that admins CAN and WILL do what they think is best for their servers and that is their prerogative nobody is disputing that.   

That's fine you are entitled and to your own opinion and interests.  I certainly won't laugh at you for it like it's some kinda joke.

You know Bach I am beginning to wonder if you even bother reading my posts. I have already told you several times that neither DH or I were laughing at Grims idea. We were laughing at the funny little comment he made about how we should be trying not to piss people off. DH and I find that funny because it is impossible not to piss someone off as we have learned through experience. Nothing sinister was meant by it. You continue to read more into it even though I have repeatably corrected you on your mispreception of our mirth, for reasons only you know. If you can't except my explianation then that is your problem, but the fact remains no one ever laughed at Grims opinion, we just don't agree with it and therefore aren't going to waste our free time with it.

You are right that we feel his opinion shouldn't have to matter to us though. But then we also agree that our opinions shouldn't have to matter to you. It is a free dynaverse, make your own brands of fun.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I have my opinion and you have yours Kroma i accept that its of course something we are both entitled to. On a serious note this thread is getting perhaps a bit too heated...

I wouldn't take a Gorn wearing a tutu too seriously Grim......thats just the way he expresses himself 

I don't think he has any intention of making this a "heated" discussion.  I might not always agree with him, but I know he says what he does not to antagonize but to try to improve the game according to his perceptions, same as I do. 

I salute him for all the time and effort he has put in no matter if I agree or disagree with the results.

LOL...heated?  LOL....If anyone got heated it is Grim and Bach for us not taking their opinions as truth. I have simply been saying, if you have a better idea present it. If I like it I will adopt it and lobby for it, if I don't like it I reserve the right to ignore it. I have also said I support your efforts to take your own ideas and make them reality with your own efforts, and have offerred suggestions and web services to help make that a reality. Yet some how this isn't enough, appearently I must adopt their brand of fun and invest my all my efforts for theirs.

[likkerpig]

Kroma is just a little cranky... 'tis the season of "brotherly love" and his favorite squeeze hasn't been around. But just in time, he's back, just for Kroma.... Dr Feelgood!

[FPF-Bach]

LOL...heated?  LOL....If anyone got heated it is Grim and Bach for us not taking their opinions as truth. I have simply been saying, if you have a better idea present it. If I like it I will adopt it and lobby for it, if I don't like it I reserve the right to ignore it. I have also said I support your efforts to take your own ideas and make them reality with your own efforts, and have offerred suggestions and web services to help make that a reality. Yet some how this isn't enough, appearently I must adopt their brand of fun and invest my all my efforts for theirs.

Nah not heated at all nor do I think Grim was either.  Kroma you live for these forum "discussions" so I doubt you were getting heated just having fun trying to heat everyone else up.

 I just typed a big retort to your last message but then got the "more posts have been made blah blah blah" comment before actually posting it and didn't hit post before I viewed them.  I will attempt to mimic what I was going to post tommorow sometime if I get around to it.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Nah not heated at all nor do I think Grim was either.  Kroma you live for these forum "discussions" so I doubt you were getting heated just having fun trying to heat everyone else up.

I ain't trying to heat you guys up, I am trying to fire you up to get together and produce you own brand of fun. I feel diversity is good for the game, NOTr conformity.  IDIC people.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

 Love ideas like Secret VCs that encourage strategy beyond trench warfare, a more interesting map that opens up stategic options you dont see with straight and uniform borders, etc.

I too miss the secret VCs given to each side.  I also like the old racial VC's, which gave each race something to fight for on their own.

I dislike, would perfer something in the map setup with trade routes of open hexes with high econs to determine production via shipyards rather than the holding of planets being the sole determinant of what is able to be built.

That I've already done with DOE, and will likely do again.  With Squad Commander I went a step further and eliminated planets altogether (aside from capitals), instead using asteroid hexes as the hexes with highest econ.  They still represented populated systems, but didn't discriminate against those (like Lyran) who have a harder time assaulting fixed positions with phaser IV's.

 What would be cool is if there is a way to allow for certain missions to reduce econ value instead of DV, or perhaps have some missions do both.  Would open up the field for commerce raiding and "U-boat" warfare.  

In its simplest form this requirs SQL.  It can't be done with missions on the flatfile database.

However, I intend to try and do something similar on Econ War with a DB editor.  Missions won't change the econ of hexes, but achieving VC's will.

-S'Cipio

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

In its simplest form this requirs SQL.  It can't be done with missions on the flatfile database.

However, I intend to try and do something similar on Econ War with a DB editor.  Missions won't change the econ of hexes, but achieving VC's will.

-S'Cipio

Now if you matched a race up with its pirate counterpart and put the same shiplist in for both you might could have an aspect of economic warfare with addition of economic VCs, just a thought.

[FPF-DieHard]

They game is old, the player-base will delcine no matter what and even if we could get 100 people on a server with a cheesefest, i'd be bored of it and not likely play.

Exactly that's why those of us that are left need to try and work harder in order to at least try and maintain the player base that we DO still have.

Look at the polls, more people are into some form of OOB than none.   

[FPF-Bach]

Look at the polls, more people are into some form of OOB than none.   

You are correct, on this particular poll that is indiacted, however does that mean we shouldn't still try to keep the other 10 people that are not fully into some form of OOB?

You have 49 votes, 33 people are into some form of OOB 10 are not and 6 are indifferent.  While this is not a complete tell of our entire player base it give us a good baseline to go with.  My question to you is would you rather play on a server with 39 players or one with 49?

You don't have to cater to what everyone wants but, you shouldn't disregard other players and their opinions as if they are meaningless in the process.

On a side note Grim took a hiatus from this game back in July so he is one of the players who has left and is considering a return.  If you check the Hydran forum at SFC2.NET he lasted posted there on 7/16/04.  If a player returns then we should welcome them back.  This-

Wrong, I'll do whatever the heck I think is best, this is not a Democracy. I'm not looking for public input at this time nor do I think I'm ever going to be looking for it. "

is not the way to go about it.  Although you may feel that way you shouldn't go out of your way to rub peoples noses in it a bad taste will be left discouraging further participation.

[FPF-DieHard]

Wrong, I'll do whatever the heck I think is best, this is not a Democracy. I'm not looking for public input at this time nor do I think I'm ever going to be looking for it. "

is not the way to go about it.  Although you may feel that way you shouldn't go out of your way to rub peoples noses in it a bad taste will be left discouraging further participation.

Oh come on, you guys are worse than ex-girlfriends with bring up p00p that you said 20 years ago out of context 

[Commander Maxillius]

Wrong, I'll do whatever the heck I think is best, this is not a Democracy. I'm not looking for public input at this time nor do I think I'm ever going to be looking for it. "

is not the way to go about it.  Although you may feel that way you shouldn't go out of your way to rub peoples noses in it a bad taste will be left discouraging further participation.

Oh come on, you guys are worse than ex-girlfriends with bring up p00p that you said 20 years ago out of context 

Can you honestly say there's anything about that statement that could POSSIBLY be read as anything BUT hopelessly concieted???  While I agree with you that you have the right to set up your servers how you want, it's a bad idea to make a point to try to exclude people.

[FPF-DieHard]

. . . While I agree with you that you have the right to set up your servers how you want, it's a bad idea to make a point to try to exclude people.

Please, like I have to try to be a dick.  For some of us, it just comes naturally 

[Kroma BaSyl]

They game is old, the player-base will delcine no matter what and even if we could get 100 people on a server with a cheesefest, i'd be bored of it and not likely play.

Exactly that's why those of us that are left need to try and work harder in order to at least try and maintain the player base that we DO still have.

Look at the polls, more people are into some form of OOB than none.   

Forget the polls, my - karma is up. I must have been successful at getting under someones skin.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Wrong, I'll do whatever the heck I think is best, this is not a Democracy. I'm not looking for public input at this time nor do I think I'm ever going to be looking for it. "

is not the way to go about it.  Although you may feel that way you shouldn't go out of your way to rub peoples noses in it a bad taste will be left discouraging further participation.

Oh come on, you guys are worse than ex-girlfriends with bring up p00p that you said 20 years ago out of context 

Can you honestly say there's anything about that statement that could POSSIBLY be read as anything BUT hopelessly concieted???  While I agree with you that you have the right to set up your servers how you want, it's a bad idea to make a point to try to exclude people.

You too continue to miss the point. He isn't making the point that he is going to exclude people so much as pointing out that he will always do what he thinks is best for the servers he works on regardless of the result of polls or th vocal minority on the forums (which was the context from which that quote was taken out of). If you feel excluded it is of your own doing, as there is nothing stopping the lot of yo from trying out your own ideas.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Look at the polls, more people are into some form of OOB than none.   

You are correct, on this particular poll that is indiacted, however does that mean we shouldn't still try to keep the other 10 people that are not fully into some form of OOB?

You have 49 votes, 33 people are into some form of OOB 10 are not and 6 are indifferent.  While this is not a complete tell of our entire player base it give us a good baseline to go with.  My question to you is would you rather play on a server with 39 players or one with 49?

You don't have to cater to what everyone wants but, you shouldn't disregard other players and their opinions as if they are meaningless in the process.

On a side note Grim took a hiatus from this game back in July so he is one of the players who has left and is considering a return.  If you check the Hydran forum at SFC2.NET he lasted posted there on 7/16/04.  If a player returns then we should welcome them back.  This-

Wrong, I'll do whatever the heck I think is best, this is not a Democracy. I'm not looking for public input at this time nor do I think I'm ever going to be looking for it. "

is not the way to go about it.  Although you may feel that way you shouldn't go out of your way to rub peoples noses in it a bad taste will be left discouraging further participation.

Here is the point Bach. Why do DH and I have to agree to incoporate or pretent to like Grim or anyone elses ideas? We are just expressing our opinion of them as we have thought this stuff out and have come to different conclusions than you guys. We also have our own vision of the dynas we want to invest our time in. We use players ideas all the time, hell I doubt DH ever had an original thought in his life, he mostly just plagerizes anyway. We don't use every idea though as no one dyna can be everything to everyone. If you really care about keeping those 10 players around then I suggest you put up a dyna that meets their and hopefully a wider array of players needs in addition to those being run along the OOB scheme of play. We have the other 39 satisfied, and feel that to attempt to appease that 10 players would alienate 10 players from the other camp, which happens to be the camp that is most fun for us.

[Grim]

You dont have to agree with what i think about the OOB issue, you have your opinion and i have mine fair enough. I did state near the begining of the thread that i found OOB for BB/DN/BCH is i believe fair enough as that seems to be the general concensus by most players that that is enough.

I only voiced my oppostion to the idea of implementing more OOB in terms of starting to look at CA's, CL's etc. which i think is going to far. Perosnally I dont like OOB but with the DN/BCH thing i can live with it and fly a dyna that hs those rules but starting to implement more i would perosnally choose not to fly that server. I have flown dynas that have OOB on both DN's and BCH's and despite the fact at times i find it annoying that i cant fly the ship that i want i can deal with it. Sure i could ask the RM if i could fly a restricted ship but thats not the point.

DH may create threads at times to ask for opinions but from several comments he has stated recently he has showed his true nature that he doesnt give a toss what those people say. So dh why ask for opinions if you state they dont matter? You go on about cheese all the time, there is no universal agreed defintion on what is cheese and what isnt, either way your crusuade against so called cheese in order to acheive balance is going to have an impact either stopping indiviualds play or even helping to decline certain races playerbase. You are not going to be able to achieve full balance without some races feel that they are getting shafted someway.

The playerbase is declining, sure its because the game is ageing and becomming less popular, but you have to admit we had major drops in numbers from people who still regard OP as a good game to play but due to arguments over the past few dynas relating to shiplist and other issues such as race quarrels. So i dont think you can entirely blame new games such as EVE and the ageing of OP as the major factor why people recently have given up the game. I am full aware there were a large amount of players that left a long time ago as mentioned by Hexx, but we have also seen major declines recently say over the past few dynas.

Overall my posts were made in context to the frustration i had and my fears for the future, which of course i'm entitled to.

This will probably be my last post on the subject, i dont have the time or the effort to argue with you Kroma/DH, we have a difference of opinion i guess we leave it at that.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Here is a idea I got last night after thinking about Chuut's original proposal on just having a total number of DNs allowed. That I think might appease the non-OOB types to a certian extent.

How about in addition to the OOB BP/CP assigned ships, that are now freely transferable once every 12 hours. You create three separate FM like positions. One can be used for DNs. It is basically a standing DN that a side can always have online, and it is first come first serve who gets it. The ship still counts for VCs if killed or captured (so it can't be used on suicide missions), but if it is lost the player is just banned from filling that FM position for 24 hours.

The DN  counts towards the teams 3 max online at anyone time. This basically means that the BP built DNs will end up being limited two online at a time with the other slot having priority to pilots that didn't get assigned a ship. However, pilots assigned a DN could also fill the FM slot if they have 2 other assigned DNs already on and no unassigned pilots wants to fly the DN.

A BCH FM position works the same as the DN position but isn't subject to any max online rule.

A Specialty ship FM position works the same as the BCH but isn't subject to VC penalties. (or maybe it is. Like 1 VC if you lose one). It would still be subject to a pilot getting killed can't fill that position for 24 hours though.

In my head this is a compromise that allows both the OOB people to still get the strategic significance out of an econ based resource allocation system, keeps the cheese down, but allows every players the opportunity to still  fly those cheesy ships we all love.

[Kroma BaSyl]

You dont have to agree with what i think about the OOB issue, you have your opinion and i have mine fair enough. I did state near the begining of the thread that i found OOB for BB/DN/BCH is i believe fair enough as that seems to be the general concensus by most players that that is enough.

I only voiced my oppostion to the idea of implementing more OOB in terms of starting to look at CA's, CL's etc. which i think is going to far. Perosnally I dont like OOB but with the DN/BCH thing i can live with it and fly a dyna that hs those rules but starting to implement more i would perosnally choose not to fly that server. I have flown dynas that have OOB on both DN's and BCH's and despite the fact at times i find it annoying that i cant fly the ship that i want i can deal with it. Sure i could ask the RM if i could fly a restricted ship but thats not the point.

DH may create threads at times to ask for opinions but from several comments he has stated recently he has showed his true nature that he doesnt give a toss what those people say. So dh why ask for opinions if you state they dont matter? You go on about cheese all the time, there is no universal agreed defintion on what is cheese and what isnt, either way your crusuade against so called cheese in order to acheive balance is going to have an impact either stopping indiviualds play or even helping to decline certain races playerbase. You are not going to be able to achieve full balance without some races feel that they are getting shafted someway.

The playerbase is declining, sure its because the game is ageing and becomming less popular, but you have to admit we had major drops in numbers from people who still regard OP as a good game to play but due to arguments over the past few dynas relating to shiplist and other issues such as race quarrels. So i dont think you can entirely blame new games such as EVE and the ageing of OP as the major factor why people recently have given up the game. I am full aware there were a large amount of players that left a long time ago as mentioned by Hexx, but we have also seen major declines recently say over the past few dynas.

Overall my posts were made in context to the frustration i had and my fears for the future, which of course i'm entitled to.

This will probably be my last post on the subject, i dont have the time or the effort to argue with you Kroma/DH, we have a difference of opinion i guess we leave it at that.

Honestly Grim, I ain't mad at you and neither is DH. We were not laughing at your idea either. It is just an inside joke about trying not to piss people off that we found funny. It has been a running joke for a why, and you accidentally quoted it perfectly. It was the height of irony that you posted it in the context you did in our warped little world. Nothing personnel was meant by it.

As Bach alluded to, it is just my posting style that I like to incite debate. This is my brand of forum fun. I am hoping to incite some D2 Server creating vigor out there though. The surest sign that we need a dyna to play on is when the forum post count and temperature start to soar.

[762_XC]

What I call a "non-ace"  is a player casual or nutter who doesn't consider themselves overly skilled at pvp, lets call him "X". 

Rhymes with...

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

What I call a "non-ace"  is a player casual or nutter who doesn't consider themselves overly skilled at pvp, lets call him "X". 

Rhymes with...

<Snicker>

wondering who would catch that 

[FPF-Bach]

Oh come on, you guys are worse than ex-girlfriends with bring up p00p that you said 20 years ago out of context 

DH you posted it 8 days ago.  It's not exactly out of context either you may not have been talking specifically about OOB but you were talking about ships.  Are you going to try say that the quote in question is not your approach in general and that it only applies to OOB and that you are completly open to everything else....   didn't think so.

[FPF-Bach]

You too continue to miss the point. He isn't making the point that he is going to exclude people so much as pointing out that he will always do what he thinks is best for the servers he works on regardless of the result of polls or th vocal minority on the forums (which was the context from which that quote was taken out of). If you feel excluded it is of your own doing, as there is nothing stopping the lot of yo from trying out your own ideas.

How do you know what context that quote was in, you don't even have access to the forum it was posted in?

[Kroma BaSyl]

You too continue to miss the point. He isn't making the point that he is going to exclude people so much as pointing out that he will always do what he thinks is best for the servers he works on regardless of the result of polls or th vocal minority on the forums (which was the context from which that quote was taken out of). If you feel excluded it is of your own doing, as there is nothing stopping the lot of yo from trying out your own ideas.

How do you know what context that quote was in, you don't even have access to the forum it was posted in?

He has made the exact same post on these forums in the context I meantioned. Several times in fact. So that is how smarty pants.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Oh come on, you guys are worse than ex-girlfriends with bring up p00p that you said 20 years ago out of context 

DH you posted it 8 days ago.  It's not exactly out of context either you may not have been talking specifically about OOB but you were talking about ships.  Are you going to try say that the quote in question is not your approach in general and that it only applies to OOB and that you are completly open to everything else....   didn't think so.

No I believe he is saynig he will make his own decision ultimately as to what he will do with a server he works on. Because he isn't running a community approved and designed server. However, just because he doesn't have to listen to and incorporate your ideas doesn't mean he doesn't listen to ideas. He just isn't bound by polls or a desire or responsibility to please all parties, because server admining ain't a democracy.

[FPF-Bach]

Here is the point Bach. Why do DH and I have to agree to incoporate or pretent to like Grim or anyone elses ideas? We are just expressing our opinion of them as we have thought this stuff out and have come to different conclusions than you guys. We also have our own vision of the dynas we want to invest our time in. We use players ideas all the time, hell I doubt DH ever had an original thought in his life, he mostly just plagerizes anyway. We don't use every idea though as no one dyna can be everything to everyone. If you really care about keeping those 10 players around then I suggest you put up a dyna that meets their and hopefully a wider array of players needs in addition to those being run along the OOB scheme of play. We have the other 39 satisfied, and feel that to attempt to appease that 10 players would alienate 10 players from the other camp, which happens to be the camp that is most fun for us.

It appears that I  am not the only one that is missing the point here and it's very apparent that you have no concern for the player base as a whole just the ones that see things your way.

I never typed anywhere that you and DH HAD to agree to do anything please find that I did and quote me on it if you can.  I even went so far is to say it's your server and you can obviously do what ya want.  I'm not telling anyone they have to do anything what planet are you on?

The point is everybody knows you can't please everybody no matter what, but why not take the extra step when it comes to forum decorum and try not to drive more people away?

[FPF-Bach]

Here is a idea I got last night after thinking about Chuut's original proposal on just having a total number of DNs allowed. That I think might appease the non-OOB types to a certian extent.

How about in addition to the OOB BP/CP assigned ships, that are now freely transferable once every 12 hours. You create three separate FM like positions. One can be used for DNs. It is basically a standing DN that a side can always have online, and it is first come first serve who gets it. The ship still counts for VCs if killed or captured (so it can't be used on suicide missions), but if it is lost the player is just banned from filling that FM position for 24 hours.

The DN  counts towards the teams 3 max online at anyone time. This basically means that the BP built DNs will end up being limited two online at a time with the other slot having priority to pilots that didn't get assigned a ship. However, pilots assigned a DN could also fill the FM slot if they have 2 other assigned DNs already on and no unassigned pilots wants to fly the DN.

A BCH FM position works the same as the DN position but isn't subject to any max online rule.

A Specialty ship FM position works the same as the BCH but isn't subject to VC penalties. (or maybe it is. Like 1 VC if you lose one). It would still be subject to a pilot getting killed can't fill that position for 24 hours though.

In my head this is a compromise that allows both the OOB people to still get the strategic significance out of an econ based resource allocation system, keeps the cheese down, but allows every players the opportunity to still  fly those cheesy ships we all love.

Ah Kroma I guess maybe you might care after all. 

[FPF-Bach]

What I call a "non-ace"  is a player casual or nutter who doesn't consider themselves overly skilled at pvp, lets call him "X". 

Rhymes with...

Too funny....

[Kroma BaSyl]

I am not the only one that is missing the point here.  and it's very apparent that you have no concern for the player base as a whole just the ones that see things your way.

So then I am the one that doesn't care about the player base just because I don't want to waste my time immplementing their ideas. That is why I waste my time working on servers and offering free web services to any that want to invest their time in a server idea of there own. 

I never typed anywhere that you and DH HAD to agree to do anything please find that I did and quote me on it if you can.  I even went so far is to say it's your server and you can obviously do what ya want.  I'm not telling anyone they have to do anything what planet are you on?

You are telling me how to conduct myself on the forum, because you misconstrued the intent behind my and DHs laughing at something Grim said.  You are so thin skinned and reationary you have taken slight were no was intended and can't let go of the idea. Other than that we have simply stated what he didn't like about the ideas we have seen put forth so far and said we would ultimately do what we want, and have encouraged other to do the same. You interprete this as arogance, and accuse us of being calluse and completely selfish in our quest to make a dyna that only we and the like minded can enjoy. Yet you have offerred nothing of your own, but derision on the character and intent of those that do. What exactly do you think will be the result to the community if the last few admins that actually put up servers are alinated by those few players that like to play servers a different way, and won't bother to put up their own?

The point is everybody knows you can't please everybody no matter what, but why not take the extra step when it comes to forum decorum and try not to drive more people away?

Sorry but if you are going to be so thin skinned and unable to understand the fact that you misunderstood the initial slight then that is your problem not mine. I am under no obligation to unruffle anyones feathers.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Here is a idea I got last night after thinking about Chuut's original proposal on just having a total number of DNs allowed. That I think might appease the non-OOB types to a certian extent.

How about in addition to the OOB BP/CP assigned ships, that are now freely transferable once every 12 hours. You create three separate FM like positions. One can be used for DNs. It is basically a standing DN that a side can always have online, and it is first come first serve who gets it. The ship still counts for VCs if killed or captured (so it can't be used on suicide missions), but if it is lost the player is just banned from filling that FM position for 24 hours.

The DN  counts towards the teams 3 max online at anyone time. This basically means that the BP built DNs will end up being limited two online at a time with the other slot having priority to pilots that didn't get assigned a ship. However, pilots assigned a DN could also fill the FM slot if they have 2 other assigned DNs already on and no unassigned pilots wants to fly the DN.

A BCH FM position works the same as the DN position but isn't subject to any max online rule.

A Specialty ship FM position works the same as the BCH but isn't subject to VC penalties. (or maybe it is. Like 1 VC if you lose one). It would still be subject to a pilot getting killed can't fill that position for 24 hours though.

In my head this is a compromise that allows both the OOB people to still get the strategic significance out of an econ based resource allocation system, keeps the cheese down, but allows every players the opportunity to still  fly those cheesy ships we all love.

That is a capital idea!

While it doesn't go as far as I'd personally like, the spirit of compromise I see is very positive. This might be a perfect solution and it might not, but it is definately a step in the right direction.

The major difficulties here would be in coordination, especially with those not on voice comms.  Have to think about implementation a bit I think.  

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Oh and BTW Kroma,

I didn't mean to imply above that an admin should have to compromise their views on how to run their servers.  What I meant that it was nice to see you look at an idea and develope it into a compromise between two views in what you percieve into making a better server from your point of view as well.

[Kroma BaSyl]

  I would make any non assigned OOB ships worth the same number of VCs however, as an opponent in an assigned OOB ship would be risking VCs  and it wouldn't be fair to discount VCs awarded for a similar level ship just because it is non assigned.

That is already in there.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

  I would make any non assigned OOB ships worth the same number of VCs however, as an opponent in an assigned OOB ship would be risking VCs  and it wouldn't be fair to discount VCs awarded for a similar level ship just because it is non assigned.

That is already in there.

Must have read that one a bit too fast the first time, indeed it is 

[el-Karnak]

Using the D2 native econ system with the shipyard and pricing, just plain doesn't work on many levels, including getting the shipyard to play nice. It also heavily favors nutters over casual players, and would mean that after a PvP loss you are doomed to PP farming. Not my idea of fun.

Wrong!!  EEK has a simpleton PP farming mission that can even get player X a 1000 PP in a 5 to 8 minute missions: EEK Homeworld Defence.  EEK Planet Defence is a 800 pp no-brainer too.  I told DH and J'inn to use it in GW so that casual players would get into good ships real quick. But, I guess they like torturing people. *snicker*

Anyway, the Admins. need to be more thorough in researching out the tools available for the dyna for the betterment of all.  Personally, I think any dyna development group that does not have an active scripter involved is cutting themselves short big-time. But that's just my wee little opinionated opinion.

[FPF-DieHard]

I ask for feedback all the time.  I just don't see it as a binding referendum.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I'm curious about one aspect of the FM-like positions.

Are those assigned OOB ships also allowed to fill these slots and what priorities should be given.

I'm thinking that they should be allowed to fill them, but should be second priority.

By this I mean 2 things

1.  That a pilot could fill an FM slot to fly a different OOB ship than the one they were assigned should they want.

2.  That if a pilot without an OOB assigned ship wants the FM-like slot, any pilot currently filling the FM-like slot that has an OOB ship should defer to that player.

One problem does come to mind however, suppose a pilot is flying an assigned slot for a F-BCF and he wants to play around with a F-BCJ, so he uses a vacant FM-like position.  If he is killed does that just remove him from the FM-like position for 24 hours, remove him from flying any OOB ship for 24 hours, or be considered as the destrucion of his assigned OOB ship?  I'd have to say I favored the later option.

[FPF-DieHard]

Wrong!!  EEK has a simpleton PP farming mission that can even get player X a 1000 PP in a 5 to 8 minute missions: EEK Homeworld Assault.  I told DH and J'inn to use it in GW so that casual players would get into good ships real quick. But, I guess they like torturing people. *snicker*

The casual player can't beat your missions

[Kroma BaSyl]

What I meant that it was nice to see you look at an idea and develope it into a compromise between two views in what you percieve into making a better server from your point of view as well.

What's funny, is that anyone is under the impression that this isn't the case already. Several people think admins create rules out of spite or to delibrately punish players that like to play the game differently than they do. I have never seen evidence of this. I see admins that create the dynas the way they like them, and consistantly try to make them fit as wide an audience as possible so long as it doesn't completely undermine the type of dyna they are trying to create. Some people just feel personnelly slighted if their idea isn't adopted or the admin can't find a solution that allows for both.

Word to the wise, if you want to influence an admin to make their dyna more to your own liking, you will have more success if you not only describe how the proposed change makes the dyna more to our own liking, but how that change can be smoothly integrated in to the scheme that they are driving for. If you can't do this, you have no right to expect the admin to change his vision, and every responsibility to put up or shut up if you still want to see you idea become reality. DH simply put people on alert to this reality of how dynas actually come to be as sometimes people think a poll or community opinion has some kind of binding authority over what admins will or should do. DH disspelled them of that notion, and made it clear that you have no right to get frustrated if the ideas posted or voted on here don't make it into his server. If people want that then they need to organize such a democratic endevor. Fire up the DIP again. <snicker>

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

A Specialty ship FM position works the same as the BCH but isn't subject to VC penalties. (or maybe it is. Like 1 VC if you lose one). It would still be subject to a pilot getting killed can't fill that position for 24 hours though.

I'd go with the VC point penalty Kroma, there should be some risk attatched to a specialty ship outside of the normal production schedule, might even consider boosting it to 2 VCs, or perhaps have a couple of categories based on the specialty ship itself, perhaps making a drone boat or pf tender worth 2, as they speed up mission times, but keeping other ships which don't have as much impact at 1 VC.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I'm curious about one aspect of the FM-like positions.

Are those assigned OOB ships also allowed to fill these slots and what priorities should be given.

I'm thinking that they should be allowed to fill them, but should be second priority.

In essence yes, and it says that above. The implication of the way I have it layed out though is that an assigned pilot that fills the FM position as a second priority if no unassigned pilot wants the slot at that time is that he could choose to fly any available DN at that time and not necessarily just the one that was built and assigned to him. He would be basically, parking his DN and filling the more versital slot. Thius if he loses the FM DN or BCH, just the VCs are lost and he is banned from filling that FM slot again for 24 hours. He can then  take his assigned DN out of dock so long as the max DN online rule isn't violated. An assigned DN may never fill the FM slot though. Also the pilot is still bound by the disengagement rule.

[FPF-Bach]

I am not the only one that is missing the point here.  and it's very apparent that you have no concern for the player base as a whole just the ones that see things your way.

So then I am the one that doesn't care about the player base just because I don't want to waste my time immplementing their ideas. That is why I waste my time working on servers and offering free web services to any that want to invest their time in a server idea of there own. 

I never typed anywhere that you and DH HAD to agree to do anything please find that I did and quote me on it if you can.  I even went so far is to say it's your server and you can obviously do what ya want.  I'm not telling anyone they have to do anything what planet are you on?

You are telling me how to conduct myself on the forum, because you misconstrued the intent behind my and DHs laughing at something Grim said.  You are so thin skinned and reationary you have taken slight were no was intended and can't let go of the idea. Other than that we have simply stated what he didn't like about the ideas we have seen put forth so far and said we would ultimately do what we want, and have encouraged other to do the same. You interprete this as arogance, and accuse us of being calluse and completely selfish in our quest to make a dyna that only we and the like minded can enjoy. Yet you have offerred nothing of your own, but derision on the character and intent of those that do. What exactly do you think will be the result to the community if the last few admins that actually put up servers are alinated by those few players that like to play servers a different way, and won't bother to put up their own?

The point is everybody knows you can't please everybody no matter what, but why not take the extra step when it comes to forum decorum and try not to drive more people away?

Sorry but if you are going to be so thin skinned and unable to understand the fact that you misunderstood the initial slight then that is your problem not mine. I am under no obligation to unruffle anyones feathers.

Um thin skinned no surely not, if that were the case then I'd have started name calling and throwing slander by now.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Bach can't possibly be thin skinned, he has Die Hard in his fleet 

[Kroma BaSyl]

Um thin skinned no surely not, if that were the case then I'd have started name calling and throwing slander by now.

Please do.

[el-Karnak]

Wrong!!  EEK has a simpleton PP farming mission that can even get player X a 1000 PP in a 5 to 8 minute missions: EEK Homeworld Assault.  I told DH and J'inn to use it in GW so that casual players would get into good ships real quick. But, I guess they like torturing people. *snicker*

The casual player can't beat your missions

U mean you can't win the EEK Homeworld Defence mission where all you gotta do is fly away and watch the enemy impale itself on your home-world.

I'm glad you admitted it DH. I'm the best SFC player around. *snicker*

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Um thin skinned no surely not, if that were the case then I'd have started name calling and throwing slander by now.

Please do.

Don't worry about it Bach, he is a Cubs fan and thus obviously has no self-respect

<Snicker>

P.S.  The Cubs are also my favorite National League eam 

[Kroma BaSyl]

I'm obviously being a bit facetious however, the limits have to stop somewhere, with the current developing trend of limiting more and more and more I don't see this as a positive thing as eventually if the trend continues you will alienate everyone that you have not already

Since you seem to have forgotten Bach, here is where you escalated the debate to heated levels by accusing the admins of continuing to alienating everyone they haven't already, when all they ever did was put up servers that they wanted to play on themselves. Why you draw the conclusion, that just because someone puts up a server that is to their own liking they are therefore responsible for those that are left without a server that meets their liking when they didn't even bother to create one themselves, is beyond me.

You started out in your very first post in the thread accusing those that work so hard to create the few server that still exists of being responsible for the alienation everyone that has left the game of late and of continuing to do so. If our brand of fun alienates you, then maybe you should stop blaming us for your lack of fun and try creating some of your own. Take responsibility for your own fun and stop always blaming others when their idea of fun doesn't meat your expectations.

[Kroma BaSyl]

And whatever you say about who likes what etc, the population of players is declining, so something must be going wrong somewhere..

Missed this earlier. This is an incorrect conclusion as to why player numbers contine to decrease. Something doesn't have to be wrong with the way the recent dynas have been played for the numbers of an aging niche game to continue to decrease. This too is a warped mindset that lays the blame for the decline in player numbers at the feet of the one thing that is keeping the game alive at all, the admins.

[Grim]

Kroma i posted that 2 days ago and since then i have explained reason why the population has declined being a combination of things. And as i stated in a few posts earlier main reason why we have lost of chunk of players recently i.e. over the past few servers is due to argumnets between races over various other things such as shiplist related issues. Its this excess baggage over the past few servers which recently have drove players off.

I advise for once you accept that someone may have a difference of opinion to yours, its not a hard concept to understand, there are many points of view to everything. I accept your point of view over OOB, i believe its wrong so i have my own opinion. And too my knoweldge i have hardly critiicised your opinions with the venom you have towards me.

Grow the f*ck up quite frankly, i accept your opinion took it into conisideration and mine differs, big deal.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Kroma i posted that 2 days ago and since then i have explained reason why the population has declined being a combination of things. And as i stated in a few posts earlier main reason why we have lost of chunk of players recently i.e. over the past few servers is due to argumnets between races over various other things such as shiplist related issues. Its this excess baggage over the past few servers which recently have drove players off.

And I still disagree that the reason for the decline is due to arguements or server settings. There have always been arguements over server settings. The game will continue to lose players even if everyone always agrees, because it is getting old and for no other reason, and I simply point out that that general line of thinkinig where you attempt to blame the decline on the very people that keep the game alive is counter productive.

I advise for once you accept that someone may have a difference of opinion to yours, its not a hard concept to understand, there are many points of view to everything. I accept your point of view over OOB, i believe its wrong so i have my own opinion. And too my knoweldge i have hardly critiicised your opinions with the venom you have towards me.

It isn't direct criticism I am trying to counter. It is the mindset that the very people that spend their hard effort creating servers are to blame for the general decline that I am trying to counter. You have repeatably implied that they are to blame or must be doing something wrong. And todate, I haven't shown any venom towards you, I have simply stated why I don't like your idea or propensity to blame others for your lack of fun.

Grow the f*ck up quite frankly, i accept your opinion took it into conisideration and mine differs, big deal.

So you are finally starting to catch on. I believe this is what we have been telling you all along. It is just your inability to accept the fact that admins are only obliged to create servers that fit their own opinions and your mindset that blames them for the decline of the dyna because of this, that is a deal at all.

[Grim]

Its obvious you want a slanging match Kroma, well you wont get one from me i wont stoop to the level of personal insults.

In some ways i admire your passion to the topic, but however criticising me cause of a difference of opinion and that you inability to be unable to comprehend what opinions are and how they differ from person to person is beyond me. You should accept my opinion differs from yours but you clearly cant.

I have taken into account what you have said and i still disagree with it. But at least i accept your opinion even though i dont agree with it.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Its obvious you want a slanging match Kroma, well you wont get one from me i wont stoop to the level of personal insults.

Honestly, what personnel insult? The only thing close to a personnel insult I have seen so far was where you told me to "Grow the F up". I just disagreed with you and your conclusions.

In some ways i admire your passion to the topic, but however criticising me cause of a difference of opinion and that you seem to be unable to comprehend what opinions are and how they differ from person to person is beyond me. You should accept my opinion differs from yours but you clearly cant.

I have taken into account what you have said and i still disagree with it. But at least i accept your opinion even though i dont agree with it.

I haven't criticised you, I criticised your idea and preception that the admins are to blame for decreasing player numbers.  Where does it say I don't except your opinion? I just said I disagree with it and will therefore not invest effort in it, and have suggested that if you feel strongly enough about it you should pursue it yourself. You guys are unreal.

[Grim]

I haven't criticised you, I criticised your idea and preception that the admins are to blame for decreasing player numbers.  Where does it say I don't except your opinion? I just said I disagree with it and will therefore not invest effort in it, and have suggested that if you feel strongly enough about it you should pursue it yourself. You guys are unreal.

I never said that admins are purely to blame for a decline in players numbers, there are many reasons why on a recent basis numbers have declined which i have stated and so have others. The only reason i talked about servers in the first place was the comment that DH made concerning that fact he has asked opinions for servers then states he doesnt give a sh*t about their opinions. Now for example what if someone who thinks to themself hmm i have a great idea but oh wait they dont give a sh*t really so no point really, then there is a potential loss of ideas that could keep the communty going longer.

I was merely pointing out its more beneficial in my mind to get the community involved at any point, whatever people say the community is declining surely we would want to try and keep it alive as long as possible. Server admins can do what they like, run servers the way they want i was just pointing out i believe the state that the community is in its more beneficial to create servers that the community likes in attempt to keep player retention and thus slow the decline. I'm all for a variety of different types of server as i stated earlier.

But going back to this original topic it appears to me that future servers are going to be more strict in terms of OOB, fair enough if the majority of the playerbase wants that, but from what i've seen and heard and in this poll there is no comprehensible majority that want pure OOB in servers. Of course my prediction may be wrong and if in the future what i said is untrue than i accept that, i just want to make sure there is a balance of servers avaialbale to cater all tastes and so that the player can choose.

[FPF-DieHard]

Can everyone just accept the fact that I have no tact and move on?   

[Grim]

Can everyone just accept the fact that I have no tact and move on?   

Ok

Really is no need to belittle yourself, i respect you as a player and of course for the time and effort you put into running campaigns despite at times our radical difference in opinion.

[FPF-Bach]

I'm obviously being a bit facetious however, the limits have to stop somewhere, with the current developing trend of limiting more and more and more I don't see this as a positive thing as eventually if the trend continues you will alienate everyone that you have not already

Since you seem to have forgotten Bach, here is where you escalated the debate to heated levels by accusing the admins of continuing to alienating everyone they haven't already, when all they ever did was put up servers that they wanted to play on themselves. Why you draw the conclusion, that just because someone puts up a server that is to their own liking they are therefore responsible for those that are left without a server that meets their liking when they didn't even bother to create one themselves, is beyond me.

You started out in your very first post in the thread accusing those that work so hard to create the few server that still exists of being responsible for the alienation everyone that has left the game of late and of continuing to do so. If our brand of fun alienates you, then maybe you should stop blaming us for your lack of fun and try creating some of your own. Take responsibility for your own fun and stop always blaming others when their idea of fun doesn't meat your expectations.

Yeah whatever Kroma I agree to disagree.

Merry Christmas.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I never said that admins are purely to blame for a decline in players numbers,

You are correct, you never said purely. Why you need to blame anyone at all though  is beyond my understanding.

[Hexx]

What I call a "non-ace"  is a player casual or nutter who doesn't consider themselves overly skilled at pvp, lets call him "X". 

Rhymes with...

"Likkerpig" doesn't really rhyme with "X"

Dumbasses.

[Kroma BaSyl]

But going back to this original topic it appears to me that future servers are going to be more strict in terms of OOB,

Actually, while you and Bach, were rationalizing and defending your right to blame the admins. I proposed a solution that attempted to make a compromise that allows for a win-win. You guys might have missed it though or dismissed it out of hand since it's source is to blame for the down fall of the dyna.

[Hexx]

Again
if anyone has an actual idea (aside from Kroma and chuut's pathetic attempt) for OOB /Non oob on a server
post it here. (Or link to it, If there was one I've probably forgotten it)
I have not one, but TWO servers I'n thinking of running now (and of course that KCW thing sometime)
If it's a cool idea I'll be more than happy to swipe it.

Oh and just for punishment we'll make DH run the servers on his box.
<snicker>

[Kroma BaSyl]

Yeah whatever Kroma I agree to disagree.

I have no issue with disagreement. It is when you feel the need to blame someone as a means of strengthening your own position I take issue with. It is possible for you to put forth a new idea or way of doing things without a backhanded slap at those that have done it differently in the past you know. Instead you started off in your very first post on the topic with that type of accusation. I bolded it for you, it has nothing to do with disagreement on server setting. It has to do with your approach to getting your ideas accepted by those that invest their time creating the dynas. You will catch more flies with honey.

[Kroma BaSyl]

if anyone has an actual idea

God it is scary when he talks like that. It is almost like he is making sense.

[likkerpig]

What I call a "non-ace"  is a player casual or nutter who doesn't consider themselves overly skilled at pvp, lets call him "X". 

Rhymes with...

"Likkerpig" doesn't really rhyme with "X"

Dumbasses.

Shaddup and get into your outfit, customers are waiting! With LeRoy off you are pulling a double shift!




Oh, take a damn bath first!



Damn uppity midgets!

Merry X-mas!

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Again
if anyone has an actual idea (aside from Kroma and chuut's pathetic attempt) for OOB /Non oob on a server
post it here. (Or link to it, If there was one I've probably forgotten it)
I have not one, but TWO servers I'n thinking of running now (and of course that KCW thing sometime)
If it's a cool idea I'll be more than happy to swipe it.

Oh and just for punishment we'll make DH run the servers on his box.
<snicker>

What about an OOB that makes assigning eternal police cruisers to a 1 player from each race.

Hmmm....Lets see:

Lyran:  Hexx,  nah better make it Likkerpig, Hexx will get there on his own.
Kzinti:  Green
Hydran: 762
Klingon:  WarSears
Gorn:  Kroma
ISC:  Julin
Romulan:  Dizzy
Federation:  Die Hard

Yeah I kinda like that.......

[Laflin]

My two cents about the servers... Seems to be a natural progression in progress - when the games were first released there were many fans and many that just wanted to fly the ships they saw on TV and in the movies for years.  Others were long time SFB players delighted to escape the hex prison and play in almost real time.  As time went on, the game began to get old, and players dropped off of the screen for various reasons.  As even more time went by, the number of hardcore SFB players began to outnumber the casuals - hence the growing emphasis on rules to even out the game.  Personally I see the future of the game going almost completely over to the SFB set - pretty much nothing can be done about it.  It IS a pretty old game, by now, and the remaining players are entitled, as Kroma stated, to play in the way they like .  The only reason I plan on still playing the game is that the guy that I bought the game to originally play with is a SFB nut.  Sadly, even I have to face the facts.