Topic: Just curious, How many people like OOB?

[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.