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.