Topic: OOB and SFC

[GDA-Agave]

Well, as far limiting the amount of big capital ships, instead of the whole OOB idea which seems to be so popular right now, why can't we try using the Fixed Capital Ships idea which the SFC3 crowd used.? ?This idea clearly states that each side/empire could only have so many of each category of capital ship on the server at any one time, NO SHIP ASSIGNMENTS.? ?

Example:? ?(per side)

1 x BB
2-3 x DN
4-6 x BCH

or

Example:? (per empire)

1 x DN
3 x BCH

This idea skips the whole 'posting to a forum for assign', 'posting to a forum to switch ships' which seems like so much work, and need additional rules.

Positives of this idea:

(1)? you can easily check if a side/empire has more than its share of big capital ships on by just looking on the server.? If each of these type ships are clearly defined, all you would have to do is right click on all the opposing pilots names and count the BCHs, DNs, and BBs.
(2)? underplayed side/empire would always have it full compliment of big capital ships on the server.? ?This would help the underplayed races to hold important hexes against the sides/empires which have more pilots all 24 hrs of every day.
(3) making these ships less expensive that the biggest non-restricted ships would allow pilots to fly these big ships who might not normally get assigned one.
(3) LESS RULES CONCERNING HAVING TO POST STATUS, switching, production, BPs for production, when to build, what to build, what to convert, BPs to convert, etc.,? WHERE DOES IT ALL END!!!
(4) You could expand this rule to cover drone bombardment ships, pure escorts, anything!!

(continued on next post)

[GDA-Agave]

Now, as far as DNs and their escorts.

Since everyone seems to love OOB and all its ramifications, why not restrict what can restrict what can escort DNs/BBs?

Just include a rule saying, "No DNs/BBs can be drafted by an allied DN/BB.? ?If this happens, the extra DN will have to disengage from the mission (which one is up to the admins, or even both as Kroma suggested)."? This would be an exception to the normal disengagement rule we've been using for awhile, and would cover instances where allied DNs are accidentally drafted by their allies.? ?If a pilot is purposefully drafting another DN over and over, then a penalty would be assessed against him.

Seems a simple addition to all the rules we've been using for the past few servers.


Agave

[GDA-Agave]

Ok, final thoughts.

It just seems to me that we have taken the variety, and flavor of the different ships a pilot can fly.? ? With the prompting of "Cheese! That's cheese!? It creates an unfair advantage!" we have limited just about every specialized ship that is in the shiplist these past servers.? ? How overwhelmed do you think a new pilot feels when they log into a server and get all the numerous rules told to them, and are told they have to "go through channels" to fly the ship they learned to fly from the single player missions.? ?Where is it all gonna end?? ?Are we going to have to setup future servers with stock SFB tournament ships so we can all know that these ships we designed for fair and equal play?? ?That's where we going folks, in my humble opinion.? ?And it's sapping the enjoyment I get from this game.? ? AND I REALLY LOVE THIS GAME!!

Is all these complicated rules just a sign of something much deeper?? ?Have we all just stopped playing this game to have fun?? ?To get on a server and enjoy flying with friends without having to worry about the pressures we experience in the real world.? ?I'll give you a very example that I've noticed over the last few servers I've flown.? Pilot X is assigned a ship, usually a big capital one.? ?He gleefully takes this ship out to the front line to engage the enemy.? ?If he succeeds in destroying lots of enemy ships and can bring the ship back to the spacedock in one piece, he is applauded, congratulated, etc.? ?Now, if he promptly gets killed, he is greeted with..........well...........other responses.? ?Only in a few instances have I heard his fellow pilots say to him, "I know you're disappointed you lost that ship, but DID YOU HAVE FUN?"? ?In the end, isn't that what we have all come to play on the SFC2 dyna servers want?? TO HAVE SOME FUN!!? ? The attitudes of our pilot base is really starting to have an effect upon our community.? ?Have some of you not started to notice that some of our best pilots no longer want whatever ships we're limiting if they can't take it up to the front line without incurring all the negative crap he will get if he loses it.

Think about it folks.? ?Because what we do as the main pilot/admins will determine whether we will have a pilot base who will even want to fly on these dyna servers.? ?We hold the future of this gaming community in our hands.? ? Let's try to treat it a little better before we alienate each other.


Agave

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

 

[GDA-S'Cipio]

I'll give you a very example that I've noticed over the last few servers I've flown.? Pilot X is assigned a ship, usually a big capital one.? ?He gleefully takes this ship out to the front line to engage the enemy.? ?If he succeeds in destroying lots of enemy ships and can bring the ship back to the spacedock in one piece, he is applauded, congratulated, etc.? ?Now, if he promptly gets killed, he is greeted with..........well...........other responses.? ?Only in a few instances have I heard his fellow pilots say to him, "I know you're disappointed you lost that ship, but DID YOU HAVE FUN?"?

I disagree with you on the OOB aspect. I like OOB, and am not fond of a "so many on at once" rule. I prefer the big ship to be gone after I kill it, whereas with the latter rule a new one can pop right back on.

I TOTALLY agree with you on your above point, however. I've stated over and over in the Gorn forums that the ships are available to all Gorn, and I don't care much if you break one.

I'll even give a ship to you, if you give up your traitorous ways and come home.(Bastard.)

-S'Cipio

Edited to remove all the weird "?"'s that the forum dumped all over it.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Great posting Agave I agree with you 100% with the exception of the BBs flying together rule, I just say in regard to that that they not be allowed to collect VCs nor force the disengagement rule if flying in tandem unless they fight an equal force.  With no VCs to be gained and no disengagement enforced, they will do a much better job of policing themselves.

[KBF-Kurok]

 

[Bob Graham]

AMEN BROTHER AGAVE!!!

[Kroma BaSyl]

I disagree with you on the OOB aspect. I like OOB, and am not fond of a "so many on at once" rule. I prefer the big ship to be gone after I kill it, whereas with the latter rule a new one can pop right back on.

This is my one objection to this rule as well. How about if the ship (BB,DN, or BCH) is killed that team is down that ship for 24 hours. This would remove it from the board and the action for a period giving the opposing force the relief from having to continually fighting it for a time, but without it being a permenant lose the RMs will be more generous in spreading the wealth, and the pilots won't have to worry about DH bitchin them out.  Some minor VCs could also be awarded for the kill in this setup too, I would think, but I wouldn't make them enough to discourage junior pilots from getting the chance to fly them.

I like this idea a lot otherwise Agave. 

[KBF-Crim]

I'll give you a very example that I've noticed over the last few servers I've flown.? Pilot X is assigned a ship, usually a big capital one.? ?He gleefully takes this ship out to the front line to engage the enemy.? ?If he succeeds in destroying lots of enemy ships and can bring the ship back to the spacedock in one piece, he is applauded, congratulated, etc.? ?Now, if he promptly gets killed, he is greeted with..........well...........other responses.? ?Only in a few instances have I heard his fellow pilots say to him, "I know you're disappointed you lost that ship, but DID YOU HAVE FUN?"? ?In the end, isn't that what we have all come to play on the SFC2 dyna servers want?? TO HAVE SOME FUN!!? ?

The attitudes of our pilot base is really starting to have an effect upon our community.? ?Have some of you not started to notice that some of our best pilots no longer want whatever ships we're limiting if they can't take it up to the front line without incurring all the negative crap he will get if he loses it.

Think about it folks.? ?Because what we do as the main pilot/admins will determine whether we will have a pilot base who will even want to fly on these dyna servers.? ?We hold the future of this gaming community in our hands.? ? Let's try to treat it a little better before we alienate each other.


Agave

Although I agree with the spirit of your posting,

I take slight issue with the two above quotes,

The Gorn have flown with us several times on a few different servers, and this does NOT happen in our camp...and neither I ,nor coalition high command would stand for it....

Think about it.

These ship we fly are assets in a war game....assets in a war game are destroyed...it's part of the frickin game...it is the nature of the beast...

You CANNOT play a wargame honestly and expect to NOT loose assets...

If some people on either side are having a problem dealing with that fact in an adult manner...then that needs to be addressed on a case by case basis....if Pressure from command doesnt work to curb this attitude....then peer pressure SHOULD ....

I recently posted a general chew out on sportsmanship for the Coalition and anyone else who might listen...But this was addressing more of how we players and commanders interact with each other as Empire players rather than team mates....

If you are having problems with team mates....address it...but dont view such behaviour as universal practice...because it is not.

This is a game...the majority of us see it as such...

Getting bent out of shape is one thing ( we ALL do from time to time)...but being abusive is another...

Such behaviour is shunned and distained by us as a group...and by me personally...

Thanks

[Capt Jeff]

I disagree with you on the OOB aspect. I like OOB, and am not fond of a "so many on at once" rule. I prefer the big ship to be gone after I kill it, whereas with the latter rule a new one can pop right back on.



-S'Cipio

Something like what Kroma just posted......

Say 2 DN's, 4 BCH, 2 Specialties are allowed per side.....(would vary per server of course)

Say there is a "Build cycle"  every X amount of days.  If a DN was lost, that side would be down until the next cycle, and VC's would be subtracted from that side to replace the lost ship.

I would like to do something like this if SS3 ever gets off the ground....

[FPF-DieHard]

If you don't like OOB the soulution is simple, setup a server with no OOB. ?If Dizzy and J'inn can do it, anyone can (except for maybe Hexx).

That said, I think we may have taken things a bit too far and need to loosen up a bit.? Many of the ships controled by OOB quite frankly don't need to be.

We also need to "close the gap" between the "haves" and the "have nots" in OOB.? The gap between CCH and BCH in my opinion is acceptable but once those BCHs get refitted into BCV/BCS ships, it's too much.? Un-restricted ships need to get better as the OOB ships do.

Wars are economic, I like the fact that loosing a captial ships hurt a sides ability to fight.? ?It should, it may be a game but it is a WAR game.

Stay tuned . . . .

[Dizzy]

Some general thoights...

What we have on SGO4 is fine. It supports the player base.

Lessons learned, tho, there are too many ships in dock leading me to believe we had too many points to spend. A revised BP/CP of 3/3/3 and a floating BP should suffice. Make the capitol ships more tight this way. Also, to make build rounds easier, if the server runs a year a day, have a build cycle every 2 years, but plan them out every 4 years ahead of time. so they only need to be messed with every 4 days.

Some ships dont need to be 'specialed' out because they suck to much to be built. So make em free. Easy to do, see what was built this server, and compare to what wasnt.

VP's for ship losses suck. Maybe even rid of them for capitol ships. Losing one should be penalty enough. That being said, tho, total attrition should come into play vs map VC's to keep in check a server being won over a land grab thru sheer plsyer numbers. Say, total attrition per VC round affects the Map VC % somehow, or capitol ship attrition or something. Map VC's need to not be the sole form of determining a server victory.

3-way servers suck.

Hidden VC's and R/P need to be carefully explained and setup so that they are fair and balanced. Best not to use them at all if you can sell such a plain straight up server this way.

Ship transfers... I think we are on to something. This 24hr method allowed a lot of peeps to fly the ships they wanted... It was a slight pain for the RM's to keep track of it all, but it worked. To make it work better, assign the same ship to 2 or 3 ppl. When one transfers it to spacedock, the others may take it out. Sure it puts it on the map more, but it is also a more present target. This would ease the transfer posting and allow us to cut it back to once a day or every two days with the same ship assigned to multiple peeps.



 

[Kroma BaSyl]

I'll give you a very example that I've noticed over the last few servers I've flown.? Pilot X is assigned a ship, usually a big capital one.? ?He gleefully takes this ship out to the front line to engage the enemy.? ?If he succeeds in destroying lots of enemy ships and can bring the ship back to the spacedock in one piece, he is applauded, congratulated, etc.? ?Now, if he promptly gets killed, he is greeted with..........well...........other responses.? ?Only in a few instances have I heard his fellow pilots say to him, "I know you're disappointed you lost that ship, but DID YOU HAVE FUN?"? ?In the end, isn't that what we have all come to play on the SFC2 dyna servers want?? TO HAVE SOME FUN!!? ?

The attitudes of our pilot base is really starting to have an effect upon our community.? ?Have some of you not started to notice that some of our best pilots no longer want whatever ships we're limiting if they can't take it up to the front line without incurring all the negative crap he will get if he loses it.

Think about it folks.? ?Because what we do as the main pilot/admins will determine whether we will have a pilot base who will even want to fly on these dyna servers.? ?We hold the future of this gaming community in our hands.? ? Let's try to treat it a little better before we alienate each other.


Agave

Although I agree with the spirit of your posting,

I take slight issue with the two above quotes,

The Gorn have flown with us several times on a few different servers, and this does NOT happen in our camp...and neither I ,nor coalition high command would stand for it....

Think about it.

These ship we fly are assets in a war game....assets in a war game are destroyed...it's part of the frickin game...it is the nature of the beast...

You CANNOT play a wargame honestly and expect to NOT loose assets...

If some people on either side are having a problem dealing with that fact in an adult manner...then that needs to be addressed on a case by case basis....if Pressure from command doesnt work to curb this attitude....then peer pressure SHOULD ....

I recently posted a general chew out on sportsmanship for the Coalition and anyone else who might listen...But this was addressing more of how we players and commanders interact with each other as Empire players rather than team mates....

If you are having problems with team mates....address it...but dont view such behaviour as universal practice...because it is not.

This is a game...the majority of us see it as such...

Getting bent out of shape is one thing ( we ALL do from time to time)...but being abusive is another...

Such behaviour is shunned and distained by us as a group...and by me personally...

Thanks

I have flown for both sides multiple times, and I have yet to find a discernable difference in the attitudes and behavior of either. There are good and bad apples in each camp. There are the hyper competitive types in each as well. I have heard both coalition and alliance pilots grip about access to OOB ships, whether they don't feel worthy to ask for them or have been turned down when they have asked. In general, poor behavior and negativity isn't shunned enough by either side. The other thing I have found universal is that all sides think their S**t don't stink and that these are issues that have only to do with their opponents.  If you want specific examples PM me and I will out line them.

I do agree however, with the spirit of your post that this behavior is unacceptable, from anyone.

[GDA-Agave]

I'll give you a very example that I've noticed over the last few servers I've flown.? Pilot X is assigned a ship, usually a big capital one.? ?He gleefully takes this ship out to the front line to engage the enemy.? ?If he succeeds in destroying lots of enemy ships and can bring the ship back to the spacedock in one piece, he is applauded, congratulated, etc.? ?Now, if he promptly gets killed, he is greeted with..........well...........other responses.? ?Only in a few instances have I heard his fellow pilots say to him, "I know you're disappointed you lost that ship, but DID YOU HAVE FUN?"? ?In the end, isn't that what we have all come to play on the SFC2 dyna servers want?? TO HAVE SOME FUN!!? ?

The attitudes of our pilot base is really starting to have an effect upon our community.? ?Have some of you not started to notice that some of our best pilots no longer want whatever ships we're limiting if they can't take it up to the front line without incurring all the negative crap he will get if he loses it.

Think about it folks.? ?Because what we do as the main pilot/admins will determine whether we will have a pilot base who will even want to fly on these dyna servers.? ?We hold the future of this gaming community in our hands.? ? Let's try to treat it a little better before we alienate each other.


Agave

Although I agree with the spirit of your posting,

I take slight issue with the two above quotes,

The Gorn have flown with us several times on a few different servers, and this does NOT happen in our camp...and neither I ,nor coalition high command would stand for it....

Think about it.

These ship we fly are assets in a war game....assets in a war game are destroyed...it's part of the frickin game...it is the nature of the beast...

You CANNOT play a wargame honestly and expect to NOT loose assets...

If some people on either side are having a problem dealing with that fact in an adult manner...then that needs to be addressed on a case by case basis....if Pressure from command doesnt work to curb this attitude....then peer pressure SHOULD ....

I recently posted a general chew out on sportsmanship for the Coalition and anyone else who might listen...But this was addressing more of how we players and commanders interact with each other as Empire players rather than team mates....

If you are having problems with team mates....address it...but dont view such behaviour as universal practice...because it is not.

This is a game...the majority of us see it as such...

Getting bent out of shape is one thing ( we ALL do from time to time)...but being abusive is another...

Such behaviour is shunned and distained by us as a group...and by me personally...

Thanks

Crim,

I'm sorry if you felt I was pointing my finger at the coalition leadership.? ? I realized that when I put in the phrase "last few servers" that they were mostly the GW servers.? ? I WAS NOT making a pointed complaint at the coaltion, but a general point I have been found true on all sides.? (as Kroma posted to as well.)? ?I certianly apologized if you felt these statements directed at you or any of your fleetmates.? ?I can promise you they were not.? ?I have really enjoyed flying coalition on the GW servers and having the chance to mix-it-up with some pilots I don't normally get to fly with.

My statements above are all general opinion statements I have been thinking about lately, and I just felt like venting.? ?I am a type of person who would seek out a specific person if I had a problem with them.? ? Trust, I ain't shy.

I hope this post has helped shed some light on how I meant my post to be read.

Thanks,

Agave

[KBF-Crim]

I'll give you a very example that I've noticed over the last few servers I've flown.? Pilot X is assigned a ship, usually a big capital one.? ?He gleefully takes this ship out to the front line to engage the enemy.? ?If he succeeds in destroying lots of enemy ships and can bring the ship back to the spacedock in one piece, he is applauded, congratulated, etc.? ?Now, if he promptly gets killed, he is greeted with..........well...........other responses.? ?Only in a few instances have I heard his fellow pilots say to him, "I know you're disappointed you lost that ship, but DID YOU HAVE FUN?"? ?In the end, isn't that what we have all come to play on the SFC2 dyna servers want?? TO HAVE SOME FUN!!? ?

The attitudes of our pilot base is really starting to have an effect upon our community.? ?Have some of you not started to notice that some of our best pilots no longer want whatever ships we're limiting if they can't take it up to the front line without incurring all the negative crap he will get if he loses it.

Think about it folks.? ?Because what we do as the main pilot/admins will determine whether we will have a pilot base who will even want to fly on these dyna servers.? ?We hold the future of this gaming community in our hands.? ? Let's try to treat it a little better before we alienate each other.


Agave

Although I agree with the spirit of your posting,

I take slight issue with the two above quotes,

The Gorn have flown with us several times on a few different servers, and this does NOT happen in our camp...and neither I ,nor coalition high command would stand for it....

Think about it.

These ship we fly are assets in a war game....assets in a war game are destroyed...it's part of the frickin game...it is the nature of the beast...

You CANNOT play a wargame honestly and expect to NOT loose assets...

If some people on either side are having a problem dealing with that fact in an adult manner...then that needs to be addressed on a case by case basis....if Pressure from command doesnt work to curb this attitude....then peer pressure SHOULD ....

I recently posted a general chew out on sportsmanship for the Coalition and anyone else who might listen...But this was addressing more of how we players and commanders interact with each other as Empire players rather than team mates....

If you are having problems with team mates....address it...but dont view such behaviour as universal practice...because it is not.

This is a game...the majority of us see it as such...

Getting bent out of shape is one thing ( we ALL do from time to time)...but being abusive is another...

Such behaviour is shunned and distained by us as a group...and by me personally...

Thanks

I have flown for both sides multiple times, and I have yet to find a discernable difference in the attitudes and behavior of either. There are good and bad apples in each camp. There are the hyper competitive types in each as well. I have heard both coalition and alliance pilots grip about access to OOB ships, whether they don't feel worthy to ask for them or have been turned down when they have asked. In general, poor behavior and negativity isn't shunned enough by either side. The other thing I have found universal is that all sides think their S**t don't stink and that these are issues that have only to do with their opponents.? If you want specific examples PM me and I will out line them.

I do agree however, with the spirit of your post that this behavior is unacceptable, from anyone.

Kroma....Agave noted a specific example of INTER TEAM problems and eluded that this may be symptomatic in the community at large....I addressed this to the best of my knowledge as a coaltion player since the D2's inception...

Our crap stinks like anyone elses....but I have NEVER...EVER been yelled at for loosing a ship...by ANYONE....and trust me...I've lost my share and then some.....nor would I ever get bent because a player looses a ship...

Bitching about access to OOB ships isnt the same as jumping down a teamates throat for loosing a ship....

Complaints about balance and uberness isnt the same as jumping down a teamates throat for loosing a ship...

I wasnt trying to point fingers at anyone...and my team isnt filled with non stinking angels .....but this certain behaviour isnt present in our ranks....and I wont let the impression that it is, stand without rebuttal...

As I said...I recently publicly chastised MY OWN TEAM for what I felt was poor sportsmanship in public discourse with the alliance ....such discourse started by the alliance I might add...

So once again...if you have a problem with players attitudes ...address it...to do otherwise is to enable the same behavoiur to go unchecked to the detriment of your whole team...

Because I assure you...I personally dont stand for this behaviour amongst my peers...and if this became a problem...they wouldnt be my peers for long...

So in essance....YES...I agree that all players and commanders alike should keep in mind that this is a game....for pleasure....

You certainly wouldnt expect to play F&E and NOT loose a TON of ships...sometimes faster than your production can keep up with...

Placing too much importance on ship loss will ensure that capitol ships are never given to non aces.....those non aces will be marginalized...and they will never have a chance to improve their skills....

Once again...not trying to ruffle anyones feathers....it's just good advice...

It's all about the game.

[KBF-Crim]

Crim,

I'm sorry if you felt I was pointing my finger at the coalition leadership.? ? I realized that when I put in the phrase "last few servers" that they were mostly the GW servers.? ? I WAS NOT making a pointed complaint at the coaltion, but a general point I have been found true on all sides.? (as Kroma posted to as well.)? ?I certianly apologized if you felt these statements directed at you or any of your fleetmates.? ?I can promise you they were not.? ?I have really enjoyed flying coalition on the GW servers and having the chance to mix-it-up with some pilots I don't normally get to fly with.

My statements above are all general opinion statements I have been thinking about lately, and I just felt like venting.? ?I am a type of person who would seek out a specific person if I had a problem with them.? ? Trust, I ain't shy.

I hope this post has helped shed some light on how I meant my post to be read.

Thanks,

Agave

Heh...I knew where the finger was pointed ...just didnt know which finger

No...I didnt think it was addressed to specific people...

And let me apologise for giving the impression that I was pointing a finger back at the Alliance...I dont fly alliance so I dont know first hand what goes on over there....but we hear tidbits...and we see off hand comments...

I basiclly wanted to echo what you said while pointing out that at least in this one area...we run a pretty tight ship...

I feel bad enough when I lose a ship...I'd be crushed if someone started barking at me for it...

Face it...most of us are hopeless junkies...we are WAY beyond help... .....but this could surely turn off anyone who just joined up...

[FPF-DieHard]

As I said...I recently publicly chastised MY OWN TEAM for what I felt was poor sportsmanship in public discourse with the alliance ....such discourse started by the alliance I might add...

Crim, you take cheap sots every chance you get.? You are part of the problem.

EDIT:  WTF is with these damned "?"

[Dizzy]

Our crap stinks like anyone elses....but I have NEVER...EVER been yelled at for loosing a ship...by ANYONE....and trust me...I've lost my share and then some.....nor would I ever get bent because a player looses a ship...

Bitching about access to OOB ships isnt the same as jumping down a teamates throat for loosing a ship....

Complaints about balance and uberness isnt the same as jumping down a teamates throat for loosing a ship...

Gotta jump in here... I noticed that the coalition will give ANYONE a capitol ship. And they silently cringe when it is lost, but no one gets yelled at. I'm a bit surprised by the civility of it all. It seems the attitude over here on this side of the fence is to spread around the iron, make peeps happy and stuff.

Now, I havent been around for the bitch sessions I hear DH gives each time someone messes up, but I wouldnt put up with it for a second. Last time he bitched at me I simply turned off TS. he has his moments.

[FPF-DieHard]

Now, I havent been around for the bitch sessions I hear DH gives each time someone messes up, but I wouldnt put up with it for a second. Last time he bitched at me I simply turned off TS. he has his moments.

GO make another server that rewards picking on Newbs and STFU

[FireSoul]

.. chill...
.. and thanks for editing your post.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Our crap stinks like anyone elses....but I have NEVER...EVER been yelled at for loosing a ship...by ANYONE....and trust me...I've lost my share and then some.....nor would I ever get bent because a player looses a ship...

Bitching about access to OOB ships isnt the same as jumping down a teamates throat for loosing a ship....

Complaints about balance and uberness isnt the same as jumping down a teamates throat for loosing a ship...


I wasnt trying to point fingers at anyone...and my team isnt filled with non stinking angels .....but this certain behaviour isnt present in our ranks....and I wont let the impression that it is, stand without rebuttal...

As I said...I recently publicly chastised MY OWN TEAM for what I felt was poor sportsmanship in public discourse with the alliance ....such discourse started by the alliance I might add...

This may be due to the fact that those big ships haven't been passed around as much. Call it more a passive aggressive issue on the Coalition side of things, thus I feel that the bitching about access to OOB ships is inherently related to this issue. It is just another form of negativity and excussionism that the current OOB system has lended itself too. But I can also assure you that jumping down teamates throats is not condoned by the otherside either. When it happens bitch slapping occur. My point was really more about the fact that these team based rebuttles and defensivness about particular occurances of bad behavior are in themselves conter-productive. Instead we should all take a good hard look at how we behave personally and take meseaurs to improve our own attitudes and behaviors. I applaud you for chastising your own team when it was appropriate, but attempting to point the blame for it happening at the hands of the alliance smacks of a lack of self realization and denial. Go back and look at the first post on the issue, it started with a thinly veiled slight at the admins and player base of the opposing team and was posted momments after the insidant. Thus trying to blame other for starting a discourse on the issue is just more counter-productive blame laying, and diminishes your attempt to clean up your own act.

So once again...if you have a problem with players attitudes ...address it...to do otherwise is to enable the same behavoiur to go unchecked to the detriment of your whole team...

Because I assure you...I personally dont stand for this behaviour amongst my peers...and if this became a problem...they wouldnt be my peers for long...

So in essance....YES...I agree that all players and commanders alike should keep in mind that this is a game....for pleasure....

You certainly wouldnt expect to play F&E and NOT loose a TON of ships...sometimes faster than your production can keep up with...

Placing too much importance on ship loss will ensure that capitol ships are never given to non aces.....those non aces will be marginalized...and they will never have a chance to improve their skills....

Once again...not trying to ruffle anyones feathers....it's just good advice...

It's all about the game.

You won't get any disagreement from me on that, which is why I like Agaves suggestion.

[KBF-Crim]

As I said...I recently publicly chastised MY OWN TEAM for what I felt was poor sportsmanship in public discourse with the alliance ....such discourse started by the alliance I might add...

Crim, you take cheap sots every chance you get.? You are part of the problem.

EDIT:? WTF is with these damned "?"

Hmmm.....part of the problem...

Ok...sure.....

P.S.  Thanks for editing your post.

[Dizzy]

GO make another server that rewards picking on Newbs and STFU

U mean awarding VP's when they get killed?

EDIT:

Oh, and I've let a few newbs go. What's a couple VP's?

And I didnt mean to take a shot at you. We all know how agitated you get when you learn of a loss of a big ship. That's the mark of a good comander, but of course, your stories are rumored ten tall and two wide. But you did bitch at me. You always have over something... There is no pleasing you. I apologize yet again.

[KBFLordKrueg]

Our crap stinks like anyone elses....but I have NEVER...EVER been yelled at for loosing a ship...by ANYONE....and trust me...I've lost my share and then some.....nor would I ever get bent because a player looses a ship...

Bitching about access to OOB ships isnt the same as jumping down a teamates throat for loosing a ship....

Complaints about balance and uberness isnt the same as jumping down a teamates throat for loosing a ship...

Gotta jump in here... I noticed that the coalition will give ANYONE a capitol ship. And they silently cringe when it is lost, but no one gets yelled at. I'm a bit surprised by the civility of it all. It seems the attitude over here on this side of the fence is to spread around the iron, make peeps happy and stuff.

Without stepping into all this other stuff here...
As RM for the Klingons and/or the Coaltion on the past few servers...
I do believe in "spreading the wealth". Yes it does kinda hurt when a player loses a capitol ship on an OOB server, but, I find usually the player that loses it punishes himself more than anything else.
My simple solution for assigning ships...post "Hey this is what we got, who wants one?" Then hand them out to the first ones to post back. I have, on occasion, asked players to let someone else have it in cases where the first one to ask either already has some type of "build" ship, or who has already had mutiple build ships and lost them, to give everyone a chance to fly something nice.
Handing them out to the first ones to post is one of my methods to encourage players to actually read the forums, hopefullt they'll read the Daily Ops and stuff, too, not just the Build threads. 
I know many are or have been unhappy that they cannot fly whatever they want whenever they want. But, I like the OOB and I do believe in trying to let players have fun with their favorite ships. If they lose it, so be it...it's just a game, real Empires will not fall because of it. Yes, sometimes it wears on ya, but, I always try and remember that. I get stressed like the rest on occasion and recently even yelled on VT for everyone to shut up during a tense battle with a wing while several were talking at once (I'm never going to live that down, now  ). But that is extremlly rare for me. We all have our faults...
But, I have NEVER griped at someone for losing a VC ship, even if they did it doing something foolish.
Without players, this community will die...and if players aren't happy, we won't keep them around long...
I find the flaming posts about campaigns more stressful than anything else sometimes...
let's all try and remember we're supposed to be having FUN here...remember fun? 

[Kroma BaSyl]

Our crap stinks like anyone elses....but I have NEVER...EVER been yelled at for loosing a ship...by ANYONE....and trust me...I've lost my share and then some.....nor would I ever get bent because a player looses a ship...

Bitching about access to OOB ships isnt the same as jumping down a teamates throat for loosing a ship....

Complaints about balance and uberness isnt the same as jumping down a teamates throat for loosing a ship...

Gotta jump in here... I noticed that the coalition will give ANYONE a capitol ship. And they silently cringe when it is lost, but no one gets yelled at. I'm a bit surprised by the civility of it all. It seems the attitude over here on this side of the fence is to spread around the iron, make peeps happy and stuff.

Without stepping into all this other stuff here...
As RM for the Klingons and/or the Coaltion on the past few servers...
I do believe in "spreading the wealth". Yes it does kinda hurt when a player loses a capitol ship on an OOB server, but, I find usually the player that loses it punishes himself more than anything else.
My simple solution for assigning ships...post "Hey this is what we got, who wants one?" Then hand them out to the first ones to post back. I have, on occasion, asked players to let someone else have it in cases where the first one to ask either already has some type of "build" ship, or who has already had mutiple build ships and lost them, to give everyone a chance to fly something nice.
Handing them out to the first ones to post is one of my methods to encourage players to actually read the forums, hopefullt they'll read the Daily Ops and stuff, too, not just the Build threads. 
I know many are or have been unhappy that they cannot fly whatever they want whenever they want. But, I like the OOB and I do believe in trying to let players have fun with their favorite ships. If they lose it, so be it...it's just a game, real Empires will not fall because of it. Yes, sometimes it wears on ya, but, I always try and remember that. I get stressed like the rest on occasion and recently even yelled on VT for everyone to shut up during a tense battle with a wing while several were talking at once (I'm never going to live that down, now  ). But that is extremlly rare for me. We all have our faults...
But, I have NEVER griped at someone for losing a VC ship, even if they did it doing something foolish.
Without players, this community will die...and if players aren't happy, we won't keep them around long...
I find the flaming posts about campaigns more stressful than anything else sometimes...
let's all try and remember we're supposed to be having FUN here...remember fun? 

 

I agree and understand the sentiments, the pressure that the current OOB system places on pilots and their commanders is one of the reasons I liked Agave's idea. I wanted OOB to limit the total number of DNs on, not to mimic F&E economy per se. A system that keeps the numbers of DNs/BCHs down, while giving some penalty for killing them (period that they can't be flown and/or minor VCs), but still creates a situation where both the pilots and commanders are less stressed about the responsibility to the team should they lose one, is what I am looking for. Take Avage's idea, plus the 24 hour penalty box, and a no DNs escorting DNs rule and I would be happy.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Agree with Kroma's post, have always supported this type of OOB (remember my dreaded polls back in December  ) but I kinda like the minor tweaks Kroma put on about the penalty period.  As for the no DNs escorting DNs, I really could care less, just award them no VCs for such missions.  There are times when it does make sense for them to work in tandem, like taking out starbases. I wouldn't want them to to impaired in this function, but with no VCs for such missions, and no disengagement penalty either, there will be little incentive for them to fly together for other purposes.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Agree with Kroma's post, have always supported this type of OOB (remember my dreaded polls back in December  ) but I kinda like the minor tweaks Kroma put on about the penalty period.  As for the no DNs escorting DNs, I really could care less, just award them no VCs for such missions.  There are times when it does make sense for them to work in tandem, like taking out starbases. I wouldn't want them to to impaired in this function, but with no VCs for such missions, and no disengagement penalty either, there will be little incentive for them to fly together for other purposes.

Ohhhh, I like that, how about to VCs and if they kill a DN/BCH the ship isn't banned for a day. If they die, however, they are.

[KBFLordKrueg]

Some general thoughts...

What we have on SGO4 is fine. It supports the player base.

Lessons learned, tho, there are too many ships in dock leading me to believe we had too many points to spend. A revised BP/CP of 3/3/3 and a floating BP should suffice. Make the capitol ships more tight this way. Also, to make build rounds easier, if the server runs a year a day, have a build cycle every 2 years, but plan them out every 4 years ahead of time. so they only need to be messed with every 4 days.

Some ships don't need to be 'specialed' out because they suck to much to be built. So make em free. Easy to do, see what was built this server, and compare to what wasn't.

VP's for ship losses suck. Maybe even rid of them for capitol ships. Losing one should be penalty enough. That being said, tho, total attrition should come into play vs map VC's to keep in check a server being won over a land grab thru sheer player numbers. Say, total attrition per VC round affects the Map VC % somehow, or capitol ship attrition or something. Map VC's need to not be the sole form of determining a server victory.

3-way servers suck.

Hidden VC's and R/P need to be carefully explained and setup so that they are fair and balanced. Best not to use them at all if you can sell such a plain straight up server this way.

Ship transfers... I think we are on to something. This 24hr method allowed a lot of peeps to fly the ships they wanted... It was a slight pain for the RM's to keep track of it all, but it worked. To make it work better, assign the same ship to 2 or 3 ppl. When one transfers it to spacedock, the others may take it out. Sure it puts it on the map more, but it is also a more present target. This would ease the transfer posting and allow us to cut it back to once a day or every two days with the same ship assigned to multiple peeps.



 

IMHPO...regarding the "lessons learned"
agreed...however, some of the ships in dock are there because in later years they are just outclassed, but in the earlier years they were in use.

agreed...some of the "specialty" ships listed are worse than the "line" ships..for sure..

disagree..I like the VCs for every kill. It does allow some pilots who kill something to contribute to the over all war effort. Also helps encourage PvP, IMO. I'm getting really bored with "land grab" style servers..

Strongly Agree...3 way servers NEVER seem to work out. Someone always gets double-teamed. Saw this coming even before server launch.

Not sure...the VCs surrounding Organia (for example) were hinted at in the rules, just not clearly outlined for all. It was caught onto by one side, but not by all. Didn't really have a big problem with that one. However, I could see where it could cause problems, depending on the circumstances.

again, not sure...transfers are OK, but, since the set times for transfers were largely ignored, perhaps something like 1 per 24 or 48 hour period would be better. Especially considering the many time zones involved with players literally all around the world.

[Corbomite]

I think transfers should be able to happen at will as long as it is posted. The total number of specialty/capital ships should be limited by number or number online at one time, but I can't decide which is better. Either way it seems like a lot of paperwork and someone needs to keep track of it at the expense of playing.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I think transfers should be able to happen at will as long as it is posted. The total number of specialty/capital ships should be limited by number or number online at one time, but I can't decide which is better. Either way it seems like a lot of paperwork and someone needs to keep track of it at the expense of playing.

Totally agree.

I don't think PvP VCs on every ship encourages PvP, rather disengagement. Now maybe if there was also a VC penalty for disengaging from an equal or lesser ship we would see more decisive battles with PvP VCs on every kill.

[Dizzy]

Let anyone fly a special ship. But if they die in one use a 'penalty box, on a 2 week server they lose the privilage of flying another for 24hrs, on a 3week server, 48hrs.

That way no transfers for special ships and everyone gets to fly what they want.

I think special ships should be worth 1 VP, but line ships, no.

Capitol ships still should be built and assigned, but many peeps can be assigned the same BC. Whoever is on can fly it or whatever they work out.

Capitol ships should be worth less VP's than more because losing it as a Build ships is painful enough.

Hrmmm. Thats decent... Keeps the paperwork down considerably, helps encourage PvP, lets more players fly more ships, the 'special' ships that wernt built this server get to be flown now...

[Kroma BaSyl]

Let anyone fly a special ship. But if they die in one use a 'penalty box, on a 2 week server they lose the privilage of flying another for 24hrs, on a 3week server, 48hrs.

Doesn't remove the killed ship from the board. Should ban anyone from flying it for the time period.

That way no transfers for special ships and everyone gets to fly what they want.

We discussed this a bit last night. On a server with all races, I think this approach is fine. But on a server like GW, where it is one or two races vs 1 or 2 races, a truer CP OOB is still necessary to keep down the tedium of facing the same ship over and over.

I think special ships should be worth 1 VP, but line ships, no.

Totally agree.

Capitol ships still should be built and assigned, but many peeps can be assigned the same BC. Whoever is on can fly it or whatever they work out.

Freer transfers will allow this, but if their is still VCs and the perminant elimination of the ship the pressure to not commit to decisive engagements and limit (self imposed or otherwise) who gets assigned them will still be there, which is why I like Agave's alternative for OOB point systems. His suggestion also greatly cuts down on the paper work. It is in fact very similar to what you did initially with the FM system and penalty box on SG3.

[Dizzy]

What, like have 'x' amount of BC's/DN 'built' and when one is lost, that BC/DN gets put into a penalty box for a few days?

Say the Alliance is allowed 3x Dreads (for simplicity all are built the same time). One gets axed and then they are down to 2 for 48hrs (have a 48hr penalty box), then the 3rd dread can be fielded again. This way, it cuts out OoB somewhat, course you could always designate what capitol ships are what.

Same with BC's. You could appoint FM's who can fly them and 1st come 1st serve or whatever they work out.

[Kroma BaSyl]

What, like have 'x' amount of BC's/DN 'built' and when one is lost, that BC/DN gets put into a penalty box for a few days?

Say the Alliance is allowed 3x Dreads (for simplicity all are built the same time). One gets axed and then they are down to 2 for 48hrs (have a 48hr penalty box), then the 3rd dread can be fielded again. This way, it cuts out OoB somewhat, course you could always designate what capitol ships are what.

Same with BC's. You could appoint FM's who can fly them and 1st come 1st serve or whatever they work out.

Yes that is basically what Agave proposed at the top of the thread, plus my ammendment. This could be applied to specialty ships as well.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Well, it all depends upon what you are trying to do.  Simulate warfare, or force more PvP.

If you are trying to simulate warfare, I think the OOB  and VC's in SG4 is actually doing a rather good job.  Massive battlefleets get built to "win the war", but once built they are afraid to risk themselves because of the harm their loss will do to their empires.  The big iron either runs or is run from, while smaller vessels are more willing to risk themselves.

There may not be a way to heighten the simulation in a way to encourage more fatal PvPs, since heightening the simulation will only make captains more cautious.

Now if you want to encourage more PvP, then stand the simulation on its head.  All ship kills get you 1 VC.  All forced disengagements get you 2 VC's. 

"But what if I'm in a CA, and he's in a BB?  Why should he get 2 VC's for making me run?  That's not realistic!"

Remember, I'm not trying to be "more realistic", I'm tryng to generate more fatal PvPs.  If the other side's BB can gain all those points from making you run, that gives your side even more reason to gang up and kill it, right?  After that, with proper OOB, you'll have a BB and they won't.  Then it's their turn to run.

You want to make it more interesting?  No ship may disengage while outnumbered.

Yes, these are extreme, and they aren't "realistic", but if they get you what you want in an "Iron Man" campaign........

-S'Cipio

[FPF-DieHard]

The 5 VC point penalty for DNs disenging in even numbers on SS2 was great. 

This forced DNs the engage in decicive combat but wasn't "stupid" or overly complicated.

Imaging the change in dynamic when a DN is worth 3 if killed or 6 if run off in a 1v1 . . .

[Kroma BaSyl]

Well, it all depends upon what you are trying to do.  Simulate warfare, or force more PvP.

If you are trying to simulate warfare, I think the OOB  and VC's in SG4 is actually doing a rather good job.  Massive battlefleets get built to "win the war", but once built they are afraid to risk themselves because of the harm their loss will do to their empires.  The big iron either runs or is run from, while smaller vessels are more willing to risk themselves.

This was why I liked the idea of BPs/CPs originally, as it was a better simulation. I think it took a few servers for captians and commanders to fully grasp and react to the new concept, which has now lead to a fairly accurate simulation of warfare with the cautiousness pilots show with the captial ships. The unintended consequence is that accurate simulation does not necessarily equal fun, at least for many. This is do to fewer decisive battles and more self or otherwise imposed presure on the pilots that command those ships. Ultimately, I would prefer a game that is more fun over an accurate simulation. I think Agave's idea, plus the ammendment may be a decent compromise that preserves some of the simulation, while expanding the fun.

There may not be a way to heighten the simulation in a way to encourage more fatal PvPs, since heightening the simulation will only make captains more cautious.

Now if you want to encourage more PvP, then stand the simulation on its head.  All ship kills get you 1 VC.  All forced disengagements get you 2 VC's. 

"But what if I'm in a CA, and he's in a BB?  Why should he get 2 VC's for making me run?  That's not realistic!"

Remember, I'm not trying to be "more realistic", I'm tryng to generate more fatal PvPs.  If the other side's BB can gain all those points from making you run, that gives your side even more reason to gang up and kill it, right?  After that, with proper OOB, you'll have a BB and they won't.  Then it's their turn to run.

You want to make it more interesting?  No ship may disengage while outnumbered.

Yes, these are extreme, and they aren't "realistic", but if they get you what you want in an "Iron Man" campaign........

I don't think it has to be that extreme with the proposed solution.  I think a happy medium can be found. It may be possible to have our BBs and eat them too.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Somehow, I think standing the entire OOB system on it's head might be the way to go...  Basically a complete re-write...

Hence my proposal:

Instead of BPs being allocated to ships, allocate them to the pilots.  I've affectionately called the BPs in this proposal to "lives"...

As most balance arguments revolve around ships with "limits" in SFB, whether it's a limit on the MSC, under Rule S8.0, or some miscellaneous thing in the rules somewhere, that is going to be my "restriction" basis.  Any ship so limited would be restricted, and cost the pilot a number of lives if lost, but this leaves the "line" ships, up to BCH, as free-to-fly.

I'm also considering a system which limits the missions that ships can fly, ie, escorts must either be drafted, or they can initiate a defense mission (shipyard / planet / base defense, convoy escort being defensive).  Commando boats and Drone Bombardment ships can either raid (shipyard / convoy raids), or assault (bases / planets), or be drafted (squadron role).  Special ships that violate this provision will be penalized VCs (ie, an escort cought patrolling will cost their team 1-5 VCs).  This will cut down on the number of ships being restricted.

The only things I haven't completely answered for this proposal are:
1: How long should I penalize players after they die, aka: how long are the build cycles going to be?  Part of this system is that if you die in a special ship, you are prevented from flying another (no matter how many lives you have), until the next build cycle.

2: I would like to see if point-saving and general attrition would keep the number of special ships down, this would be more prevalent twoard the end of a build cycle when multiple people have lost their lives.  Due to popular demand, I've considered a limit of how many big ships can be online at one time, though I'd make the limit kick in for players of Commodore rank or higher.  This does mean that there could be lots of BCHs around, but, most of them will be casual players, and therefore not constantly ruining the server for the OOB-loving nutters...   As a balance to casual players, I'd free up the ability for Commodores to fly special ships once enough players make Rear Admiral.  This wouldn't occur until at least 25% of a race's playerbase makes RA, maybe closer to 33%, but I wouldn't wait till 50% make it, as that could be way too many players in some races.  How many ships should a race get to fly at the upper levels, and what playerbase should I use to have the cut-off start at?

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Hence my proposal:

Instead of BPs being allocated to ships, allocate them to the pilots.  I've affectionately called the BPs in this proposal to "lives"...

Otherwise known as Prestige Points? 

Make the price of specialty ships high enough, and you've automatially built in a "time out" period between the loss of a specialty ship and the time you can buy another.

-S'Cipio

[FPF-DieHard]

Hence my proposal:

Instead of BPs being allocated to ships, allocate them to the pilots.  I've affectionately called the BPs in this proposal to "lives"...

Otherwise known as Prestige Points? 

Make the price of specialty ships high enough, and you've automatially built in a "time out" period between the loss of a specialty ship and the time you can buy another.

-S'Cipio

We know this doesn't work, PP price fizing only favors nutters over casual players.

I think the OOB system we've been using is okay, we just need to loosen up the transfers and un-restrict more ships.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

There may not be a way to heighten the simulation in a way to encourage more fatal PvPs, since heightening the simulation will only make captains more cautious.

Now if you want to encourage more PvP, then stand the simulation on its head.  All ship kills get you 1 VC.  All forced disengagements get you 2 VC's. 

"But what if I'm in a CA, and he's in a BB?  Why should he get 2 VC's for making me run?  That's not realistic!"

Remember, I'm not trying to be "more realistic", I'm tryng to generate more fatal PvPs.  If the other side's BB can gain all those points from making you run, that gives your side even more reason to gang up and kill it, right?  After that, with proper OOB, you'll have a BB and they won't.  Then it's their turn to run.

You want to make it more interesting?  No ship may disengage while outnumbered.

Yes, these are extreme, and they aren't "realistic", but if they get you what you want in an "Iron Man" campaign........

-S'Cipio

This gets away from the focus on the line heavy cruiser thus I have to say I have zero interest in such a scheme, it would only encourage plyers to get into the biggest and baddest ships and combinations and fly around in packs of 3 hoping missions would hold.

[FPF-DieHard]

I'm about to commit herressy . .. .

Why not do a serious server with nothing larger than a CCH and no specialty ships bigger than a CL.  No OOB, fly whatever you want.

Would that fly?  I'd love it.

[Grim]

The problem is there are some players who are good at pvp, those who arent and those who are beginners and are new to the game and are inexperienced.

You need to accomidate the various types of players, in terms of sgo 4 i think the 1VC per ship might have satisified the hardcore pvpers, but havent the people who are not as good as pvp or beginners new to the game. It provides satisfaction to the pvp focused and driven players that they are getting something out of the skills they display in destroying ships and gaining vc's for their side, but in terms of the lesser pvp skilled players it puts them off entered pvp encounters in fear of costing their side points.

As far as i was aware not everyone who plays for d2 plays purely for pvp.

I personally used to prefer the system where only a select few of ships gave vc's for kills and or disengagement.





 

[GDA-S'Cipio]

This gets away from the focus on the line heavy cruiser thus I have to say I have zero interest in such a scheme, it would only encourage plyers to get into the biggest and baddest ships and combinations and fly around in packs of 3 hoping missions would hold.

Not if the OOB is tight enough.  Once that BB is gone, it is gone.

-S'Cipio

[FPF-DieHard]

Not if the OOB is tight enough.  Once that BB is gone, it is gone.

-S'Cipio

Just ask Agave 

[Kroma BaSyl]

I'm about to commit herressy . .. .

Why not do a serious server with nothing larger than a CCH and no specialty ships bigger than a CL.  No OOB, fly whatever you want.

Would that fly?  I'd love it.

Screw that. CAs vs D7s. Zip lock SFB all the way baby!!!

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I'm about to commit herressy . .. .

Why not do a serious server with nothing larger than a CCH and no specialty ships bigger than a CL.  No OOB, fly whatever you want.

Would that fly?  I'd love it.

Screw that. CAs vs D7s. Zip lock SFB all the way baby!!!

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

This gets away from the focus on the line heavy cruiser thus I have to say I have zero interest in such a scheme, it would only encourage plyers to get into the biggest and baddest ships and combinations and fly around in packs of 3 hoping missions would hold.

Not if the OOB is tight enough.  Once that BB is gone, it is gone.

-S'Cipio

still ZERO interest,  disengagement from any hexx causing more VC loss than destruction is just plain silly.  And if that wont drive off the non pvp oriented types I don't know what would 

[FPF-DieHard]

still ZERO interest,  disengagement from any hexx causing more VC loss than destruction is just plain silly.  And if that wont drive off the non pvp oriented types I don't know what would 

What about equal?  I'm onlt talking about capital ships.  Line shuld be worth nothing.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

still ZERO interest,  disengagement from any hexx causing more VC loss than destruction is just plain silly.  And if that wont drive off the non pvp oriented types I don't know what would 

What about equal?  I'm onlt talking about capital ships.  Line shuld be worth nothing.

that is worth a discussion.

[Mog]

I'm about to commit herressy . .. .

Why not do a serious server with nothing larger than a CCH and no specialty ships bigger than a CL.  No OOB, fly whatever you want.

Would that fly?  I'd love it.

And how many times have I suggested this in the past? 

[Age]

I'm about to commit herressy . .. .

Why not do a serious server with nothing larger than a CCH and no specialty ships bigger than a CL.  No OOB, fly whatever you want.

Would that fly?  I'd love it.

And how many times have I suggested this in the past? 

I like this idea maybe just a couple of BCHs in each empire.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Hence my proposal:

Instead of BPs being allocated to ships, allocate them to the pilots.  I've affectionately called the BPs in this proposal to "lives"...

Otherwise known as Prestige Points? 

Actually, No.

Make the price of specialty ships high enough, and you've automatially built in a "time out" period between the loss of a specialty ship and the time you can buy another.

-S'Cipio

As DH said, PP-based systems favor the nutter and PP farmer.

I propose an independant BP system (which is what we're using now), but applied on a per pilot basis instead of per side.  The biggest complaint about the current OOB is that people lack the freedom to fly any given ship at their discretion, they need to get their RMs permission etc. to fly a ship...  Shifting the points to each player means no more asking for a ship, instead, they are allowed to spend their points on one.

Also, I think this could go a ways on livening up PvP combat.  With this system, the loss of a BB won't hurt the team directly, as they can always try to find a new pilot with enough lives to fly a BB.  However, by losing a BB, the player had / has consined themselves to flying line ships for most of the server prior to their BB purchase (to afford it), and for the remainder of the server after their BB's death, therefore potentially affecting their team's ability to fly heavy iron at a critical time...

On the flip side, there's a possibility that, for certain periods of time, the server would be flooded with heavy iron.  However, how is that different from say, SGO 4 here, where at one time there were over 50% of the players online (i'm guessing from that post by 762 with the SG4 ship distribution "snapshot" around here somewhere) of the pilots in DNs / Carrers / "special" ships...

Also, by allocating equal points to each pilot, that blurs the nutter / casual distinction as to who can fly heavy iron, as everyone gets the same chance to start with.  Meanwhile, the nutters can be rewarded with extra lives to reflect the time they were on-server (and a target), which will be a benefit, but, controlled with the proper moderation, the nutter won't overwhelm the server with enough PP to buy 3 BBs in the final week of a server...

[GDA-S'Cipio]

I propose an independant BP system (which is what we're using now), but applied on a per pilot basis instead of per side.  The biggest complaint about the current OOB is that people lack the freedom to fly any given ship at their discretion, they need to get their RMs permission etc. to fly a ship...  Shifting the points to each player means no more asking for a ship, instead, they are allowed to spend their points on one.

Also, I think this could go a ways on livening up PvP combat.  With this system, the loss of a BB won't hurt the team directly, as they can always try to find a new pilot with enough lives to fly a BB.  However, by losing a BB, the player had / has consined themselves to flying line ships for most of the server prior to their BB purchase (to afford it), and for the remainder of the server after their BB's death, therefore potentially affecting their team's ability to fly heavy iron at a critical time...


Also, by allocating equal points to each pilot, that blurs the nutter / casual distinction as to who can fly heavy iron, as everyone gets the same chance to start with.  Meanwhile, the nutters can be rewarded with extra lives to reflect the time they were on-server (and a target), which will be a benefit, but, controlled with the proper moderation, the nutter won't overwhelm the server with enough PP to buy 3 BBs in the final week of a server...

You're going to have to be more specific.  I'm still seeing no difference between what you describe above, and a server with very high starting PP and extra-extra expensive BB's.  How are the extra BP's allocated to nutters to reward their extra time on the server?  If it's based upon time or missions flown, isn't this just another word for prestige?

-S'Cipio

[KBF-Angel Slayer]

Hiow about sticking to the bounty type deal, with a twist?  You got a bounty on your head and you run, double bounty.  Only a complete ferengi would put one of their worst/newest pilots as a bounty.  By doing it this way, it would really make a pilot that had a bounty on his head think twice about running.

[GDA-Agave]

I'm about to commit herressy . .. .

Why not do a serious server with nothing larger than a CCH and no specialty ships bigger than a CL.  No OOB, fly whatever you want.

Would that fly?  I'd love it.

And how many times have I suggested this in the past? 

I agree Mog, you have suggested this several times in the past.

I WOULD LOVE A SERVER LIKE THIS!!   Thanks for suggesting it once again Diehard.

Ya know, that type of server seems like something Scipio would be good at.  <hint, hint, nudge, nudge>

[GDA-Agave]

Not if the OOB is tight enough.  Once that BB is gone, it is gone.

-S'Cipio

Just ask Agave 

ROFL!!

STFU Diehard!!

Another moment of infamy for this poor 'ole diluted lizard warrior.   

[Kroma BaSyl]

Not if the OOB is tight enough.  Once that BB is gone, it is gone.

-S'Cipio

Just ask Agave 

ROFL!!

STFU Diehard!!

Another moment of infamy for this poor 'ole diluted lizard warrior.   

Infamy?? Why, on Ghdar you are being hailed as a hero. It was your finest momment yet Brother Agave.

[Julin Eurthyr]

I propose an independant BP system (which is what we're using now), but applied on a per pilot basis instead of per side.  The biggest complaint about the current OOB is that people lack the freedom to fly any given ship at their discretion, they need to get their RMs permission etc. to fly a ship...  Shifting the points to each player means no more asking for a ship, instead, they are allowed to spend their points on one.

Also, I think this could go a ways on livening up PvP combat.  With this system, the loss of a BB won't hurt the team directly, as they can always try to find a new pilot with enough lives to fly a BB.  However, by losing a BB, the player had / has consined themselves to flying line ships for most of the server prior to their BB purchase (to afford it), and for the remainder of the server after their BB's death, therefore potentially affecting their team's ability to fly heavy iron at a critical time...


Also, by allocating equal points to each pilot, that blurs the nutter / casual distinction as to who can fly heavy iron, as everyone gets the same chance to start with.  Meanwhile, the nutters can be rewarded with extra lives to reflect the time they were on-server (and a target), which will be a benefit, but, controlled with the proper moderation, the nutter won't overwhelm the server with enough PP to buy 3 BBs in the final week of a server...

You're going to have to be more specific.  I'm still seeing no difference between what you describe above, and a server with very high starting PP and extra-extra expensive BB's.  How are the extra BP's allocated to nutters to reward their extra time on the server?  If it's based upon time or missions flown, isn't this just another word for prestige?

-S'Cipio

Okay.  I'll be a nice guy and repost (with a minor rewrite) the concept of the entire rule here for another perusal...   (you gotta do these kinds of things when you're looking for feedback...)

"Lives" system:

At the beginning of the server, each pilot gets 4 "lives" (my affectionate term for individual build points).
A player can earn 1 additional life upon the attainment of the Rear Admiral rank.

The ships are price according to the following scheme:

Small (CA and smaller) Specialty ships = 1 life
BCHs = 2 lives
DNs = 3 lives
BBs = 4 lives
Carriers add 1 life to the above prices, ie, a CVA (DN hull) = 3+1 or 4 points.  It's entirely possible that the CVLs will be only 1 BP instead of 2...

A list of ships will be posted / linked to here, suffice it to say that the ships affected by this list will be any / all ships with some kind of limit in SFB, whether it's limited build, shock, S8 restrictions, etc.  It is possible that other rules (missions selectable restrictions) will be written that will remove certain ships from this list.

New wrinkle: The use of a restricted ship "uses" a number of lives.  Even if the ship is returned, those lives are considered "used" for the remainder of the server.  "Used" lives can only be spent on a ship of equal or smaller hull size than they were originally used for.  Example:  A player buys a CVD (typical CA-hulled "Interdiction" carrier).  Upon it's return to spacedock, they still have 4 lives, but they have "used" 2.  Those 2 "used" lives can only be applied to the purchase of 2 individual 1 life ships, or another 2 life CA-hull.  They cannot be applied to the purchase cost of a DN, or even a 2 life BCH, as they are bigger than the CA they were originally spent on.  "Used" lives will be spent first, whenever possible, to preserve the ability to fly larger vessels later on in the server.  Used lives can be mixed with new lives, but only if the used lifes are being spent appropriately.  Example: Player buys a CVD.  Returns it.  Uses one of the 2 "used" lives on a DWDB (say Z-DWD), which is destroyed, permanently removing one life from his stock.  He can buy a CA-strike carrier, as the other "used" life is being spent on a CA, and he applies a new life to finish the cost.

Ships Online Limit:  Pilots who have reached Commodore rank and higher face a limit on how many "special" ships can be online at once.  Of these higher ranked people, there can only be 5 "smaller" specialty ships, 3 BCHs, 2 DNs and 1 BB online at any given time, per race.  Once 25% - 33% (still under consideration) of a race's playerbase reaches Rear Admiral rank, Commodores will become exempt from this limit.

Build Cycles: There are expected to be 6 build cycles on the server, with each one starting on Monday and Thursday.  A player is only allowed to fly 2 different special ships during a given build cycle (this allows vareity while not allowing free and at-will swapping among numerous special ships).  They are allowed to freely swap between their 2 selected special ships and line ships at will throughout the cycle, however.

Ship Destruction: Upon the loss of a ship, the player permanently loses the lives spent buying the ship.  Also, they are prohibited from buying any other special ships for the remainder of the build cycle.  They are forced to fly line ships till the next build cycle.

[Green]

I'm about to commit herressy . .. .

Why not do a serious server with nothing larger than a CCH and no specialty ships bigger than a CL.  No OOB, fly whatever you want.

Would that fly?  I'd love it.

Yes.  I also think it would be great.  The OOB started out small and pretty reasonable.  Unfortunately since then it has evolved into a monster rules listing.  The rules aren't necessarily bad, some are dang good, but they distract from simply playing the game.

[Marikar]

Julin, I think your idea of personal lives has some merit.

However, I look at what you propose and think it is too complicated.  The rules need to be simple so that any noob can quickly understand what is allowed and what is not.  Let me explain:

I am still learning the ropes for Dyna play, and the OOB rules were completely and to a much lesser extent baffaling to someone who has always played on non-oob servers.  The restrictions seem to rule out being able to play using anything than the stock CA, CL, DD, FF for each race.  Your life system would allow some much needed changes.  But simply using 1 life which can be reused (providing you havn't lost the ship) at will would be suficient for the speciality ships.

One big problem for me was and is in knowing what ship is what hull.  E.g.  Some races ship designations do not reflect the hull size but the name of the ship.  I think it will be too much for someone new to the servers.

I am also concerned that there could be a big problem keeping track of who has used what lives.

Therefore I would propose that the following rules be considered:
1.  Each person has 3 lives at the start of the server.  This is also the Maximum no of lives.
2.  A speciality ship will cost 1 life.  Denoted by the use of s before the ship type (as in the oob at the moment)
3.  A Command ship will cost 2 lives  and is denoted on the ship list by the use of a c.
4.  A Capital ship (DN class and above + all carriers) will cost 3 lives to use.  Denoted by a b.
5.  Lives may be reused provided the ship returned to spacedock
6.  Each person should have 1 life added at the end of each week of play.  This extra life is lost if it takes the total number of lives over 3.

The s mark should not be used for any ship with a hull of CL size or below, unless it carries fighters. (this rule may need changing for the Hydrans, not sure)

[Julin Eurthyr]

To help with live tracking:

I'll come up with some designation to add to the ships (maybe X-XXXr#), where the r = "restricted" and the # = how many lives it costs...

I'll see if I can come up with a less-complicated way of wording it, too...