Topic: Concept of Wild Geese -- Ideas and opinions

[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)