Topic: Just curious, How many people like OOB?

[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.