Topic: Concept of Wild Geese -- Ideas and opinions

[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...