Topic: Just curious, How many people like OOB?

[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.