Topic: OOB and SFC

[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