Topic: Just curious, How many people like OOB?

[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.