Topic: Concept of Wild Geese -- Ideas and opinions

[ShadowLord]

ON THE SUBJECT OF WILD GEESE

I do believe there is a place for geese on servers. That being said I can now say I also think we should look at several additional options for geese and the when and how  they are used.
Let me start by saying first off why I didn’t like it when I was called out as a goose. It was very simply a case of Hex Flipping vs PVP. As most of you know I do flip hexes but after an hour or so of that, I reach my limit and would either log off or hunt PVP. I was called to switch sides as a goose because the coalition was up in terms of Hexes however they were also down a great deal of PVP points which is where it hurt me to be called out.
So ideas for geese in future.
A)   shorter period of side switching then 72 hrs  (yes maybe as short as 24 or 48)
B)   no further switching during the last 72 hrs of a server that way geese can become part of major operation plans (this doesn’t mean a goose might not have been assigned permanent duty on a different side then what they stared on)
C)   if your tying in number of hexes owned then Nutters should be geese
D)   if your tying in pvp battle points then PVP players should be geese
E)   there are some players like risky who excel at both.
F)   New ideas for geese, how about for PVP geese killing a goose is worth an extra point so for example in SGOV – while flying a LC a kill is worth 1 however if it’s a kill on a goose its worth 2. You could also make his/her own kills only worth ½ of what they would normally be.  This idea isn’t explained to well yet so don’t rip me apart to much for it. And the more I read it the more I begin to wonder if it has any merit or is just stupid.
G)   Perhaps geese should specify what time they usually play online  and called as needed for those time periods when the other side dominates a server.
H)   I forget which alliance made the comment of TS  on Sunday that something has to be done to help the newer players learn when some of the others have over 5 years exp. This is an excellent point and maybe one that geese can focus on? Those who sign up for geese could spend some of their time flying  with the newer players and try to help teach them tactics.

Anyways just a few ideas – there is merit in the geese concept, as much as I didn’t want to switch I remember Fri night I went to bed early when I saw a big red wave start to dominate the map. Sat night I found myself and dizzy as the only two members online for a hour or two and felt my position as a goose was more justified at that time.

And Kudos to LK and the entire Coalition for ensuring none of the goose were made to feel like we betrayed our side – LK even continued to allow us to have forum access. 

Please list your ideas or reasons why you don’t even like the concept at all. But remember all dizzy is doing with WG is trying to make the server balance and fun for everyone.

[762_XC]

I like geese, but having them switch back and forth every so often is silly. Once a week max. And definitely not at the end of the server.

Also # of hexes is too arbitrary. We really need someone to either a) find Darkelf or b) figure out how to tally total missions run.

[KBF-Kapact]

I personally don't like the idea of Geese at all. I feel that if a side is able to bring an overwhelming number to pilots to the war, and they are able to completely dominate the server, then they deserve to win. I understand that it may tend to discourage those few who end up on the losing side... I just happen to feel that the concept of switching a number of folk to another side because their side is doing too good is just inherently wrong. I'll still play, no matter, but I'll never volunteer to be a WG, and I'll always disagree with the concept.



 

[Lepton]

Rather than missions run, I'd like to see player numbers tracked.  If someone can come up with a script that reads the flatfile and makes a webmap, I think someone should be able to write a script that periodically queries the server to find out player numbers on each side.

[trO]

I can understand the need for the WG. 

But is there any way to make sure the side's are more even before the server starts?

[FPF-DieHard]

I personally don't like the idea of Geese at all. I feel that if a side is able to bring an overwhelming number to pilots to the war, and they are able to completely dominate the server, then they deserve to win. I understand that it may tend to discourage those few who end up on the losing side... I just happen to feel that the concept of switching a number of folk to another side because their side is doing too good is just inherently wrong. I'll still play, no matter, but I'll never volunteer to be a WG, and I'll always disagree with the concept.



 

Don't be surprised if one day you fight only AI.   

[762_XC]

Rather than missions run, I'd like to see player numbers tracked.  If someone can come up with a script that reads the flatfile and makes a webmap, I think someone should be able to write a script that periodically queries the server to find out player numbers on each side.

That doesn't tell the story Lepton. There are players who log on to a server and run 3 or 4 missions then quit, and there are players like Chuut (and Soth, omg).

[FPF-DieHard]

I can understand the need for the WG. 

But is there any way to make sure the side's are more even before the server starts?

No.   Polls don't work, are never acurate, and people lie.  

The only thing and admin you can do is make sure each side has a zealous RM to rally the troops and nag people to show up set the races on each alliance with a "best guess" as to what will be even.  

For the record, I don't like the idea of people switching sides but I've been on boths sides of a blowout and that sucks more.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I like the idea of the geese in general and was switching sides covertly on occassion before there was such a concept.  Use of the geese shouldn't necessarily be used to totally balance a server, but they are a good tool for preveenting an obvious blowout based on player numbers and can help keep a team interested in playing.

Perhaps a better way of using the geese would be to have them constantly switching based on numbers online.  Say if their side had a pilot advantage of +5 pilots on they either log off or if they want to play they switch sides.  This way they woulddn't ever be forced to play on the other side, but they would have the option if they were wanting to play.  This policy could also be relaxed if their side was trailing notably allowing them to stay on with their team of choice if they were currently losing the server by some predetermined margin.

[FPF-DieHard]

Rather than missions run, I'd like to see player numbers tracked.  If someone can come up with a script that reads the flatfile and makes a webmap, I think someone should be able to write a script that periodically queries the server to find out player numbers on each side.

That doesn't tell the story Lepton. There are players who log on to a server and run 3 or 4 missions then quit, and there are players like Chuut (and Soth, omg).

Missions run is the only valid figure but is a pain in the balls to calculate.   Dark Elf wrote a convertor that would convert a Flatfile DB to SQL and then you could run a query to determine how many missions were ran by each side.   DE is MIA, so unless sombody else figured out how to do what DE did . . .

 . . .  we are left with counting hexes which is not perfect either.   As was pointed out on SGO5, not all hexes are created equal (though IMHO all hexes should be 5 DV so the map changes a lot).  

Maybe total DVs changed?

[Lepton]

Rather than missions run, I'd like to see player numbers tracked.  If someone can come up with a script that reads the flatfile and makes a webmap, I think someone should be able to write a script that periodically queries the server to find out player numbers on each side.

That doesn't tell the story Lepton. There are players who log on to a server and run 3 or 4 missions then quit, and there are players like Chuut (and Soth, omg).

That may be true, but mission counts don't really tell the story either if a number of those missions were important PvP battles that kept folks out of a number of hexes.  May be a bad example.  I have argued in the past that missions run generally translate into hex DVs and hexes taken, so missions run and hexes are basically the same thing to a large extent.

I suggested player numbers in that the general attitude around here has been if your side can't muster its folks then that's their tough -bleep-, an attitude I generally despise.  So I thought at least people might be more amenable to seeing player numbers balanced in general over the life of the server, assuming that on average people play about the same amount of time.

How would one call or recall the WG based on missions run?  Sounds like an exceedingly arbitrary determination.  You'd be back to using something like the system we just used on SGO5.  I think folks can grok with player numbers easier than missions run.  Might not be the most exact system, but it might work.

[FPF-DieHard]

Most EVIL thing an admin can do is simply stop the server if it is a blowout and not restart until the players come up with a solution.

[Hexx]

Most EVIL thing an admin can do is simply stop the server if it is a blowout and not restart until the players come up with a solution.

Actually I'd argue most evil thing they could do would be to track down the players on the larger side and burn their houses down
until the sides balanced.
Your is probably more legal oriented though.


I kinda like the idea of the geese, but I think they should go at the end of VP rounds.
Also I think the idea of balancing (if it's possible) Map & PVP VC's would help out.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I suggested player numbers in that the general attitude around here has been if your side can't muster its folks then that's their tough -bleep-, an attitude I generally despise. .

I don't think that is the general concensus Lepton, but I agree with you in your perception of that attitude.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Most EVIL thing an admin can do is simply stop the server if it is a blowout and not restart until the players come up with a solution.

I like it!

[el-Karnak]

There's really only one method to solve the number imbalance problem. Speeches and volunteer groups are nice but no one really pays attention unless they get some good old fashioned push back.  It's kinda like your doctor telling his/her patients to lay off the cheese burgers and tabacco, but most won't listen until they get that first heart attack and/or stroke.

The server kit should have come with an option to limit the number of logons per race. So, you'll have to do it manually.  At any one time during dyna play, just state that no one side can have more than a preset number of players logged on then the other side.  Once the players realize that the Admin. is serious about enforceing this rule then you will have a few flame a little on the forums and leave, but most will be "encouraged" to stick with the low-numbered side.

Another more simpler option is to just set the Max Logon limit for the whole dyna to a low-balled number that equals what would be the max. num of logons the admin. would want for any one side. Like 25 perhaps.  That will either encourage poople to log on and play cuz otherwise someone might take your spot (ie. the buffalo stampede effect) or the dyna will start a big flame war. Either way it could be fun to watch for all. 

And, that's your blunt and cutting-to-the-point analysis for the day.  I hope you enjoyed it.

[Lepton]

I have suggested in the past that folks should just log on to the side that is deficient in numbers to keep things balanced.  No one would play any particular side.  Generally, this has been poo-pooed as not allowing strategic blahs blahs blahs, yada yada yadas.  I don't particularly care which race I fly or what side.  I am also not particularly concerned with who wins or loses, but then again I don't play much so I am not deeply invested in any particular server or its outcome.

If we all want to do member-measuring (not member in the sense of belonging to a club), then the current system is fine.  No offense to anyone who thinks the current system is fine.  There used to be alot more gnashing of teeth over these issues.  Maybe all the wackos who wrapped their self-worth up in the outcome of a game have finally left this place and we can all act civilized and civil now.

No Hooch, No Zeppa. That seemed to take care of things.  Not to single anyone out.  Hell,  I used to get pretty hepped up about stuff here myself.

[KBFLordKrueg]

I can understand the need for the WG. 

But is there any way to make sure the side's are more even before the server starts?

No.   Polls don't work, are never accurate, and people lie.  

The only thing and admin you can do is make sure each side has a zealous RM to rally the troops and nag people to show up set the races on each alliance with a "best guess" as to what will be even.  

For the record, I don't like the idea of people switching sides but I've been on boths sides of a blowout and that sucks more.

IMOHPO...
DieHard is right...the Leader is the key.
As an example...SGO5...
The Alliance, right up to the end, had more pilots signed up than the Coalition, but couldn't stop the Coalition steady push into their space.
RMs should first of all be prepared to BE THERE. Signing on as an RM and then making only a brief appearance on a server doesn't exactly inspire pilots. I know stuff happens that may prevent an RM from fullfilling their obligations, but, then the ARM should be prepared to fill the shoes of leadership.
And before anyone starts flaming, I mean no disrespect to ANY RM on any server...ever.
But, if you volunteer for the RM slot, you need to BE IN CHARGE.
Taking the RM slot so you can get first choice of assigned ships is about the worst reason to be RM.
RMs need to compliment pilots who perform great deeds, such as killing a superior ship, earning massive amounts of Prestige or other notable contributions to the campaign.
RMs should not belittle players who don't do so well. Work with lesser skilled pilots to help them improve, make sure they have wings, maybe even help them personally with battle tactics (you'd be surprised how well that works alone  ).
Historically, any great battle that is won is credited to the Commander, not the grunts who fought and died in battle.
But, then the Commanders usually reward those that performed well with promotions and such.
If there was a way, I would do the same during campaigns.
But, I have to suffice with threads praising their efforts and verbal rewards, possibly giving notable pilots first choice of assigned ships and the like.
You be surprised how simple things like that will make players WANT to play...maybe play more than they normally do, contribute more because they feel like they are appreciated, and  Enjoy the game a little more, maybe even try and convince friends to play...
And above all, the RM needs to be quick to deal with ANY player issues, wether it be with friend or foe, firmly, but fairly.
Be willing to compromise and haggle, not be unyielding and uncaring about player issues. Even if it IS something trivial.
If they know you'll be there for THEM, they'll be there for YOU...for the TEAM.
Being an RM isn't always easy, and not always fun...
Constantly updating posts, dealing with problems, etc. isn't always preferable to flying and fighting, but, it is an essential part of the RM's duty.
Doing those things will inspire pilots, make them WANT to be a part of your TEAM and work harder to gain victory.  
And, in the long run, makes being RM a little more rewarding.
RMs who can do these things will win support and respect from the pilots who fly with them...and those pilots will return again and again for many campaigns.  
Yes, it is just a game...some take it more seriously than others...some just don't care one way or the other.
But, the Leader is the key to getting players to stick out a campaign. Motivation and inspiration come form the one in charge, in ANY instance, from gaming or RL.
Our community is no different.  

[Hexx]

I can understand the need for the WG. 

But is there any way to make sure the side's are more even before the server starts?

No.   Polls don't work, are never acurate, and people lie.  

The only thing and admin you can do is make sure each side has a zealous RM to rally the troops and nag people to show up set the races on each alliance with a "best guess" as to what will be even.  

For the record, I don't like the idea of people switching sides but I've been on boths sides of a blowout and that sucks more.

<snips huge speech>

Well I guess that certainly put me in my place.. 

Yes I'll take teh blame for the Alliance getting whacked on SGO5, they needed a more inspirational RM after Brax had the hurricane (or was it two).
Actually any leader like figure would have been handy..

But I have to agree, getting a solid RM who knows the players on his (or her) side is far more important than setting up some geese rules.

[Lepton]

Bah, if I need a leader to stroke my ego to stay on a server, I might as well shoot myself in the head.  I stay on til I'm bored then I'm out of there.  It's a game, folks.  If folks did that more often, we might not be concerned about who wins or loses, who's on what side, server numbers, etc.  We might just say, "Hey, that was fun, good night."

I guess I'm glad playing leader trips your trigger, Krueg (a phrase I hate), but this ain't work for me.  I do that eight hours a day.  I need another job? Then you gotta pay me, lol.

[KBF-Kapact]

I personally don't like the idea of Geese at all. I feel that if a side is able to bring an overwhelming number to pilots to the war, and they are able to completely dominate the server, then they deserve to win. I understand that it may tend to discourage those few who end up on the losing side... I just happen to feel that the concept of switching a number of folk to another side because their side is doing too good is just inherently wrong. I'll still play, no matter, but I'll never volunteer to be a WG, and I'll always disagree with the concept.



 

Don't be surprised if one day you fight only AI.   

That wouldn't happen. There are too many people here who like their side enough, and the RM's are good enough to keep people playing. I understand the need to avoid blowouts.... I just happen to think WG is not the best solution. It penalizes winners. It's like if the AI on my computer was programmed to lose half of it's hull integrity if I start losing. I'm prepared to lose if my skills aren't up to it, and I think that the possibility of losing a server is far better motivation for leaders to get people playing. I think that the main reason the Coalition won was because Krueg not only worked his @ss off online, but he kept his pilots motivated. Now, I haven't been in as many of these as some others, so I don't necessarily know as well as others.... I just don't think that WG is the solution to blowouts. 

[KBF-Kapact]

I can understand the need for the WG. 

But is there any way to make sure the side's are more even before the server starts?

No.   Polls don't work, are never acurate, and people lie.  

The only thing and admin you can do is make sure each side has a zealous RM to rally the troops and nag people to show up set the races on each alliance with a "best guess" as to what will be even.  

For the record, I don't like the idea of people switching sides but I've been on boths sides of a blowout and that sucks more.

That's a fair point. I haven't been on the business end of a blowout.

[Lepton]

Winners, losers, sides, victory.  I don't think in these terms.  I believe those who do will be disappointed in the long run.

[KBF-Kapact]

Bah, if I need a leader to stroke my ego to stay on a server, I might as well shoot myself in the head.  I stay on til I'm bored then I'm out of there.  It's a game, folks.  If folks did that more often, we might not be concerned about who wins or loses, who's on what side, server numbers, etc.  We might just say, "Hey, that was fun, good night."

I guess I'm glad playing leader trips your trigger, Krueg (a phrase I hate), but this ain't work for me.  I do that eight hours a day.  I need another job? Then you gotta pay me, lol.

Not really a matter of stroking egos..... not for me anyway. The Black Fleet gave me plenty of reason to appreciate them, and they've got my loyalty. I know it's a game.... once it becomes work I find a new game. But I appreciate the fact that somebody I personally respect (and owe a lot to for that matter) is working his @ss off, so that's why I'm there when I can be. If the Black Fleet found itself in Alliance.... first I'd try to figure out why, then I'd be Alliance.

Oh, and I acknowledge a good game whether I win or lose, but I'd still rather win.

[KBF-Kapact]

Winners, losers, sides, victory.  I don't think in these terms.  I believe those who do will be disappointed in the long run.

You're entitiled to your opinion. I play to enjoy, but I also play to win.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

The real issue here, gentlemen, is stopping a server blowout so one side does not get a landslide victory which inevitably results in the other side just giving up.

People only play a game if they still have 'some' chance of winning, so the aim then becomes how to make a campaign competitive for both sides without premalising one side for actually just playing well. Campaign competitivity is criticised when side has a perceived advanatge over another side for a plethora reasons, whether it be unbalanced numbers, unbalanced shiplist, unbalanced VCs, etc. etc. etc.

But let's suppose we are able to solve all of these problems 100% and create a perfectl;y balanced server. What would be the end result? A stalemate of course. If we balance each side for missions run, for example, we are 'adjusting' the VCs so that each side effectively has the same number of missions. If the Wild Geese system is perfected, then here we are balancing player numbers perfectly as well. And assuming all other things are also kept equal, then inevitably this can only lead to a stalemate.

I put it to you then, that balancing a server should not be our goal AFTER the server has started. All teams should start with exactly the same chance for winning, yes, and in this regard, sever balance should be achieved before the campaign begins, but once it has started it should be left to run its course. And if problems are discovered along the way, then we create solutions to those problems for the next campaign. In my opinion, if a server does blowout one way or the other, then let it. The server may conclude prematurely and a winner anounced, but that just means we start the next server soon, and hopefully with a better starting setup.

[Hexx]

The real issue here, gentlemen, is stopping a server blowout so one side does not get a landslide victory which inevitably results in the other side just giving up.

People only play a game if they still have 'some' chance of winning, so the aim then becomes how to make a campaign competitive for both sides without premalising one side for actually just playing well. Campaign competitivity is criticised when side has a perceived advanatge over another side for a plethora reasons, whether it be unbalanced numbers, unbalanced shiplist, unbalanced VCs, etc. etc. etc.

But let's suppose we are able to solve all of these problems 100% and create a perfectl;y balanced server. What would be the end result? A stalemate of course. If we balance each side for missions run, for example, we are 'adjusting' the VCs so that each side effectively has the same number of missions. If the Wild Geese system is perfected, then here we are balancing player numbers perfectly as well. And assuming all other things are also kept equal, then inevitably this can only lead to a stalemate.

I put it to you then, that balancing a server should not be our goal AFTER the server has started. All teams should start with exactly the same chance for winning, yes, and in this regard, sever balance should be achieved before the campaign begins, but once it has started it should be left to run its course. And if problems are discovered along the way, then we create solutions to those problems for the next campaign. In my opinion, if a server does blowout one way or the other, then let it. The server may conclude prematurely and a winner anounced, but that just means we start the next server soon, and hopefully with a better starting setup.

I'd agree & disagree- I think if fluid VP's can be written and balanced it's possible to balance out a server with different VP ideas.
We keep striving for this "equal" balance of VP's when it's obvious that the two sides don't balance out well anymore.

[KBFLordKrueg]

Bah, if I need a leader to stroke my ego to stay on a server, I might as well shoot myself in the head.  I stay on til I'm bored then I'm out of there.  It's a game, folks.  If folks did that more often, we might not be concerned about who wins or loses, who's on what side, server numbers, etc.  We might just say, "Hey, that was fun, good night."

I guess I'm glad playing leader trips your trigger, Krueg (a phrase I hate), but this ain't work for me.  I do that eight hours a day.  I need another job? Then you gotta pay me, lol.

Think what you want, sir. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
But, what REALLY "Trips my trigger" is when I see more and more players tell me "I had a blast on this campaign!, when's the next one?"
Because I know they'll come back for the next one, thus keeping the game I like to play alive.  
I don't consider it a "job"...it's just part of my game that I like to play.
Maybe I just enjoy the game more than you do, I don't know.
But then again, I enjoy my RL job, too. No matter how much work it turns out to be.
The stuff here I do for fun...Role Play...fantasy...
Isn't that why we all do it?  

[KBFLordKrueg]

 

 . . .  we are left with counting hexes which is not perfect either.   As was pointed out on SGO5, not all hexes are created equal (though IMHO all hexes should be 5 DV so the map changes a lot).  

Maybe total DVs changed?

That might result in a Side with 2-3 days of good numbers (or even good nutters) to wipe out another Empire completely, especially on smaller maps.
And we all know what happens when THAT happens, huh...? 
Shoot..Soth and Kaz could probably wipe out a Empire all by themselves in 2-3 days with nothing but 5 DV hexes...

[FPF-DieHard]

And we all know what happens when THAT happens, huh...? 
Shoot..Soth and Kaz could probably wipe out a Empire all by themselves in 2-3 days with nothing but 5 DV hexes...

Not with a really big map.  I just think the "psycological" effects of flipping 10 5-DV hexes is cooler than 1 50-DV hex.

[Lepton]

I'm not taking a shot at you, Krueg.  I have no problem with you in the slightest.  I'm glad you enjoy your role (even if you are just this side of self-aggrandizing in your post), but perhaps if fellows need to be influenced to stay on a server or even come back to a server, then maybe, just maybe, they don't want to be there in the first instance.

I just find it a strange mentality or idea that we have to somehow influence people to get on the server and stay on the server.  If they want to, fine.  If not, no biggy.  I am not saying that anyone uses any undue influence on anyone else, but whole "work harder for victory" stuff is just not my bag.

I'm going to stop posting on this thread now.  I think it would be cool to balance player numbers.  I think it would be cool if people switched sides at will to make that happen and just had a good time.  I can see how that would not be what people would want and why.

I'm fine with whatever is decided here.  Any system is probably as good as any other if people can get on-board with it.

[KBFLordKrueg]

I put it to you then, that balancing a server should not be our goal AFTER the server has started. All teams should start with exactly the same chance for winning, yes, and in this regard, sever balance should be achieved before the campaign begins, but once it has started it should be left to run its course. And if problems are discovered along the way, then we create solutions to those problems for the next campaign. In my opinion, if a server does blowout one way or the other, then let it. The server may conclude prematurely and a winner anounced, but that just means we start the next server soon, and hopefully with a better starting setup.

I agree..However...
How to you judge balance before a server?
Can't do it by the players that sign up.
Again, SGO5 for example..
The Alliance had better numbers on paper throughout the entire campaign.
Especially through the first week until we started picking up several latecomers.
I was seriously worried for the first few days.
But, after those few days it became apparent that the numbers signed up weren't the same as the ones who SHOWED up. Almost the opposite...
Maybe we should explore why players don't stick out a campaign, or not show up for a campaign after signing up.  

[FPF-DieHard]

Maybe we should explore why players don't stick out a campaign, or not show up for a campaign after signing up.  

Um, you figure that out and I'll try to fgiure out a woman's mind.  I think I'll be finished first.

[Hexx]

I actually think it has something to do with the extreme timeframes (gamewise) on some of the servers
Especially (maybe) for newr players
You sign up, jump on a server and it's 2263, it's not really pulse pounding exciting ship combat
(No offence to those of you who like early era)
So you take a few days off, it's 2273 and the servers's underway you jusmp on a start flying
Pretty soon it's 77 then 80 and tactics you've just learned in ships are now obsolete.

I really think the games served better in the middle eras, 73ish-80. After the war cruiser builds come out
before Xtech.

[Soreyes]

Shoot..Soth and Kaz could probably wipe out a Empire all by themselves in 2-3 days with nothing but 5 DV hexes... 
 
 
 

Hell I think Chuut, Dib, Risky and I did that one night on AOTK2
 

[Dfly]

another idea for the WG issue.

Take a team of say 6 pilots(4 hex flippers and 2 PvP if it works that way). 
They become a WG Team, lead by a WG RM.
3 on one team, 3 on the other.

The RM controls the switching, if needed.  I dont suggest he switch often, or even in big increments.  It would need to be someone who is trusted by both sides to be fair and impartial(as can be).

Perhaps some triggers would include:

total hex control >X%
total PvP points >X%
total fixed bases/planets >X%

This would be only to help prevent blowouts, not to give it mood swings every 2 days.  A server anywhere near equal would be left as it is to run it's course.  A server showing a large lead over short time would get some adjustment.  The adjustment most likely would not be enough to shift the balance, but would be to help keep it competitive.

PS: I dont think Krueg was actually patting himself on the back, but I doubt his back is itchy.  BTW Good post on RM duties Krueg.


I have flown on both alliance and coalition teams over several servers now, rotating between them almost every server.  I have been on blowouts, and they are much worse than ending up as a WG.

IF such system could be used, I will volonteer my services as RM for WG on such said server, allowing for RL not being an issue.

[FSD Warp10]

1st off let me thank the many people on both sides friend and foe for the good battles and fair play. I am opposed to using the wild geese in the future. I think you should make the sides as even as you can and let the chips fall where they may. Having people switch from side to side is demoralizing and pointless in my opinion. I don't think the main point is to have a perfectly balanced server, but rather how you handle the struggle when things go wrong. As for people giving up when things don't go your way...It's not what FSD does. We fight harder when outmanned and outgunned. I remember a couple of times when there was 10+ of the enemy on line and only 3 FSD on to represent the Alliance. Some people apparently get discouraged....We consider this a target rich environment! I will play either way but the best servers I have flown on where the most contested and lobesided ones. I agree with earlier statements by many that said the leader makes all the difference in the world. A leader is one who welcomes any of his side when he sees they have joined, and makes them feel like a member of the team,not ignoring them and  not one who bitches at you because you logged on with a dred which was at the time legal and then he buys another without looking to see what is on and gets busted, then bitching at you for YOUR error LOL. A leader who has a plan is a must. You win these things by having daily goals and an organized fighting force. Numbers alone do not ensure victory. Thanks to all of you who make these things happen.
 

[Dizzy]

I am opposed to using the wild geese in the future. I think you should make the sides as even as you can and let the chips fall where they may. Having people switch from side to side is demoralizing and pointless in my opinion. I don't think the main point is to have a perfectly balanced server, but rather how you handle the struggle when things go wrong. As for people giving up when things don't go your way...It's not what FSD does. We fight harder when outmanned and outgunned. I remember a couple of times when there was 10+ of the enemy on line and only 3 FSD on to represent the Alliance. Some people apparently get discouraged....We consider this a target rich environment!

Not singling you out, Warp but you just happen to be the one to put into words exactly what needs to be addressed. And that is there are many players just like you. Me for example. On GW1, myself and one or two others held off the entire Coalition and saved the Mirak from losing their HW even when most of all the entire Alliance players had quit. I felt just as you, when the chips are down I fight harder, and I'm ALL for a target rich enviornment. But what of the otherside?

Duck pointed out perfectly to me the reason for my using the geese which is player number imbalance leading to a landslide and a server blowout. He said when he was on the Coalition side he had to wait in line for someone to fight... Or logoff. Him hitting AI was to draw attention only.

So you see, its more than you think. There are more than two sides to this issue. And there is more than one player type. You and I take the extreme challenge. Others have disimilar interests and for many good reasons you may or may not understand, they quit a server when there is no hope of victory.

A server admin who 'Lets the chips fall where they may' is one who isnt concerned about how a server turns out. I have personally witnessed a server being won early by more player numbers and then populated by only one side and then they too quit because there is no one to fight. Servers are too far and in between to be left to who shows up in greater numbers. I hope this is a concept you are willing to play with, because there isnt gonna be another good server without the geese.

[shin]

well as far as player numbers, as soon as i hear about a new server ready to have testing doen soon...ill post every little bit in the 32nd's e-group. if their interested theyll come in but im sure most will be new to the d2....or even op in general, but i hear from another member that msot has op ....ill do what i can for new players (hopefully), but if i get any at all to show up then ill need help in teaching them about d2 ....thats all i have to say about player numbers ....as for WG...i love the idea, i mean some people dont want to hex flip, like me for example, because for several servers its all i COULD do due to my connection, and i got burned out really quick because of it so i usually sat around until i was ready to run a few missions again then break once more...now that i am ABLE to pvp its what i want, not to fight ai....i want interaction with the enemy not their hexes. i hope this clears up a few things for some players with a new attitude to playing preferance

[ShadowLord]

Follow up concept/ideas

A) Most of us tend to see that wild geese do have a role in this game, very simply put with a limited player base it's just to damn easy to have blowouts.

B) Victory conditions will determine the "proper" use of geese.

C) Geese should not be used to ultimately change who wins a server  but to maintain a competative balance for all, to that end the use of geese must be monitored.

D) The idea of a RM for geese is very valid and DFLY has both the skill and temperment to fit that role, I for one would definately second his nomination.  With Geese having an RM -- that RM would have ultimate say over who what when and where geese are used, he/she would work in conjuction with both RM's to determine this -- however it would be the Geese RM who makes the final decision.

Again there only initial opinions of mine..after a day or two I am sure others will have better ideas or refine the ones I just listed.

KHH_ShadowLord
(PS and yes Geese can be changed from server to server)

[el-Karnak]

Maybe we should explore why players don't stick out a campaign, or not show up for a campaign after signing up.  

I think part of the reason is that people have good intentions, but then reality hits them when the campaign starts.  Sometimes, it hard NOT to signup for a campaign even though you are a little un-realistic about whether you have the time to play.

[Dizzy]

B) Victory conditions will determine the "proper" use of geese.

No, the minute you trigger geese for deployment based on VC totals is the moment the Geese are designed to win a server. Nonono. They are to prevent landslide victories. Not to determine who wins a server.

C) Geese should not be used to ultimately change who wins a server  but to maintain a competative balance for all, to that end the use of geese must be monitored.

Now you're talking.

D) The idea of a RM for geese is very valid and DFLY has both the skill and temperment to fit that role, I for one would definately second his nomination.  With Geese having an RM -- that RM would have ultimate say over who what when and where geese are used, he/she would work in conjuction with both RM's to determine this -- however it would be the Geese RM who makes the final decision.

Bad idea. Set conditions should trigger the geese. Not a person on their judgement. You'd never hear the end of it. You cant second guess yourself on an issue like this. SGO5 was too little to late. The 4 geese that switched was like firing a bb at an oncoming locomotive. Despite all the bruhaha the VC's ended up dead even.

However, to a lesser extent, Geese on SGO5 worked tho, they gave the Alliance the morale boost they needed and the extra manpower on the field to be at least competitive. I was very pleased with how it worked out even thos the Coalition won hands down.

[ShadowLord]

I dont know Diz -- much of this is judgement calls..

First off Points B and C really go hand in hand -- Victory conditions may indeed dicate when WG get used however the BOTTOM Line that I think all players can and will agree on is WG are used to keep the server competative and fun for everyone online -- not to determine the winner...

That being said -- what if the Big Blue machine had actually showed up in the last 48 hrs to cut supply lines? then no vp for the red team based on Hexes (planets gained) and again the last 48 hours could have determined if a VP was awarded for 2.0 kill ratio .. I will grant you that 2.0 kill ration for a VP was the key..1.5 would have been to low.

As for my agreement about a WG RM -- Hell first off you wont ever find me offering to do that job -- but it does take the determination to employ them away  from the two RM's or whoever is the person running the server. It allows for what is the best "neutral option there is " yes I do see problems with this as well and am only waiting for a better idea to come along.
I am sure others can and will come up with it in the next few days.

All that being said I have to say so far this post is going better then expected. Opinions and ideas are getting expressed without a big bang flame war going on.

WHAT NO FLAME WAR???
Imagine that

[Riskyllama]

what if geese didnt go straight from the coalition to the allaince, but spent time (maybe a day)as say pirates or aliens and slowed down operations on both sides of the lines...this might allow for a period of time where if one side is having a reallly good day or two, it doesnt allow the geese to cause the entire server to flip around

[Dfly]

B) Victory conditions will determine the "proper" use of geese.

No, the minute you trigger geese for deployment based on VC totals is the moment the Geese are designed to win a server. Nonono. They are to prevent landslide victories. Not to determine who wins a server.

C) Geese should not be used to ultimately change who wins a server  but to maintain a competative balance for all, to that end the use of geese must be monitored.

Now you're talking.

D) The idea of a RM for geese is very valid and DFLY has both the skill and temperment to fit that role, I for one would definately second his nomination.  With Geese having an RM -- that RM would have ultimate say over who what when and where geese are used, he/she would work in conjuction with both RM's to determine this -- however it would be the Geese RM who makes the final decision.

Bad idea. Set conditions should trigger the geese. Not a person on their judgement. You'd never hear the end of it. You cant second guess yourself on an issue like this. SGO5 was too little to late. The 4 geese that switched was like firing a bb at an oncoming locomotive. Despite all the bruhaha the VC's ended up dead even.

However, to a lesser extent, Geese on SGO5 worked tho, they gave the Alliance the morale boost they needed and the extra manpower on the field to be at least competitive. I was very pleased with how it worked out even thos the Coalition won hands down.

Dizzy, how can you say NO to idea B , then give a "Bad idea.  Set conditions should trigger the geese." in response to D ?  You are countering yourself if I am reading it properly

Risky, I dont beleive the WG would switch often, or even after a couple good days on a server.  I have seen weekends belong to one team, and evenings belong to the other, with a near balance over a week period.  I think it would take a fair amount of unbalance to bring out the WG.

[Dizzy]

B) Victory conditions will determine the "proper" use of geese.

Dizzy, how can you say NO to idea B , then give a "Bad idea.  Set conditions should trigger the geese." in response to D ?  You are countering yourself if I am reading it properly

"Bad idea.  Set conditions should trigger the geese." are different than triggering them on Victory conditions

Geese are to prevent a landslide. Not a win. They dont flip if someone is winning, only if its a runaway server. You have to recognize the difference no matter how subtle. Its a really important difference.

[762_XC]

Set conditions are unlikely to be able to predict the paramaters which define a landslide but not a win.

[Dizzy]

Set conditions are unlikely to be able to predict the paramaters which define a landslide but not a win.

Right, but I wouldnt want it vice versa.

[Matsukasi]

Not with a really big map.  I just think the "psycological" effects of flipping 10 5-DV hexes is cooler than 1 50-DV hex.

I nearly took a mental pants-crap on IDSL when I logged on 31 hexes behind the lines one night. Fuuuuuuuun stuff ducking the KBF and Dizzy on my way home. Good point.

[FPF-Paladin]

Finding myself behind the lines (or teaming up with someone to cross it intentionally ) have been some of the most heart-pounding times I've had crossing map area.

I think the Geese is a good idea, if only for the fact it's a step in the direction of a heated war for both sides.  Sorry to hear about Coalition pilots having to be in line to find someone to fight... I've played nothing but Alliance for campaigns so your side of the story is something I can't say I know much about.  Something I'd like to change someday...  Next time, get my attention via /whisper or something, if I'm not on an operation or have current orders (and the pp for replacements) I'll grab something fun and try to make the fight worth your time   I don't mind losing one bit, and I promise you the last things you'll see if I'm going down is probes being fired at you while I moon you out the holes in my cruisers hull

That said, I'd also be willing to sign up for the Geese if needed.  It's a step in the right direction.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Not with a really big map.  I just think the "psycological" effects of flipping 10 5-DV hexes is cooler than 1 50-DV hex.

I nearly took a mental pants-crap on IDSL when I logged on 31 hexes behind the lines one night. Fuuuuuuuun stuff ducking the KBF and Dizzy on my way home. Good point.

LOL, and remember Maverick's epic struggle to get back to the Klingon homespace on that same server 

[el-Karnak]

Geese idea would work in one method:  don't have all the races at war when the server starts. Just keep one race per side as "neutral" (ie. Admin says U can't play that race).  Then, sometime during the dyna the Admin. has one chance per side to declare the "neutral" race active and allow players from any side to join. But, if you switch sides to play the "neutral" race gone war happy, then U cannot switch back. Admin. does not have to declare the neutral races of both sides active at the same time. Just  one chance per side to have the neutral race declare war.

There are many historical analogy to this method.  In the German campaign of 1813, Napoleon faced Russia and Prussia for the first 8 months of the year. Napoleon was trying to get a decisive victory over Russia and Prussia so that Austria would stay neutral.  The Russians and Prussians successfully survived an Auterlitz-like knock-out defeat in 2 battles, and then Austria declared war on France in August. Napoleon, who had re-conquered all of Germany, then lost the Battle of Leipzig and was thrown out of Germany. France fell in April, 1814.

[Dfly]

another idea for the WG issue.

Take a team of say 6 pilots(4 hex flippers and 2 PvP if it works that way). 
They become a WG Team, lead by a WG RM.
3 on one team, 3 on the other.

The RM controls the switching, if needed.  I dont suggest he switch often, or even in big increments.  It would need to be someone who is trusted by both sides to be fair and impartial(as can be).

Perhaps some triggers would include:

total hex control >X%
total PvP points >X%
total fixed bases/planets >X%

This would be only to help prevent blowouts, not to give it mood swings every 2 days.  A server anywhere near equal would be left as it is to run it's course.  A server showing a large lead over short time would get some adjustment.  The adjustment most likely would not be enough to shift the balance, but would be to help keep it competitive.

PS: I dont think Krueg was actually patting himself on the back, but I doubt his back is itchy.  BTW Good post on RM duties Krueg.


I have flown on both alliance and coalition teams over several servers now, rotating between them almost every server.  I have been on blowouts, and they are much worse than ending up as a WG.

IF such system could be used, I will volonteer my services as RM for WG on such said server, allowing for RL not being an issue.

Dizzy, please note the colored part of the quote from an earlier posting I made.  In now way am I suggesting the Geese swing the win, just slow a blowout.

[KBF-Kapact]

Geese idea would work in one method:  don't have all the races at war when the server starts. Just keep one race per side as "neutral" (ie. Admin says U can't play that race).  Then, sometime during the dyna the Admin. has one chance per side to declare the "neutral" race active and allow players from any side to join. But, if you switch sides to play the "neutral" race gone war happy, then U cannot switch back. Admin. does not have to declare the neutral races of both sides active at the same time. Just  one chance per side to have the neutral race declare war.

There are many historical analogy to this method.  In the German campaign of 1813, Napoleon faced Russia and Prussia for the first 8 months of the year. Napoleon was trying to get a decisive victory over Russia and Prussia so that Austria would stay neutral.  The Russians and Prussians successfully survived an Auterlitz-like knock-out defeat in 2 battles, and then Austria declared war on France in August. Napoleon, who had re-conquered all of Germany, then lost the Battle of Leipzig and was thrown out of Germany. France fell in April, 1814.

I like that. It is something that, as you point out, could happen.

[Dizzy]

Karnak, had that on SG4, the ISC were unleashed on the Alliance because they had a runaway win in sight (and they did win a landslide in the end)... The Alliance didnt want to play ball, however, and the server narrowly averted a blowout because a few ISC hung in to hit the Alliance and the Coalition held together because of strong leadership, although a few did give up and quit. 3 sided servers suck, they down work, never will and I'll never touch one again. Besides that, your idea has server gf technical issues that'd be hard to solve.

[KBF-Crim]

Finding myself behind the lines (or teaming up with someone to cross it intentionally ) have been some of the most heart-pounding times I've had crossing map area.

I think the Geese is a good idea, if only for the fact it's a step in the direction of a heated war for both sides.  Sorry to hear about Coalition pilots having to be in line to find someone to fight... I've played nothing but Alliance for campaigns so your side of the story is something I can't say I know much about.  Something I'd like to change someday...  Next time, get my attention via /whisper or something, if I'm not on an operation or have current orders (and the pp for replacements) I'll grab something fun and try to make the fight worth your time   I don't mind losing one bit, and I promise you the last things you'll see if I'm going down is probes being fired at you while I moon you out the holes in my cruisers hull

That said, I'd also be willing to sign up for the Geese if needed.  It's a step in the right direction.

Paladin...I believe the "standing in line" reference was refering to a past server...there was no shortage of PvP on slave girls..."hit em where they aint" was actually kind of a challenge...