Topic: Server Poll

[C-Los]

I ask this because someone I work with thinks there would only be 3 - 8 players left to play this game, and doesn't think its worth the time involved to make it......   

[FPF-DieHard]

What are the terms? 

90% a yes.

[KBF-Crim]

More like a 138 Clos...

[Bonk]

I will play on any server unconditionally. (though not neccessarily as a nutter)

[Father Ted]

I ask this because someone I work with thinks there would only be 3 - 8 players left to play this game, and doesn't think its worth the time involved to make it......   

Tell that wuss you work with to get off his arse and git'er done! Respect my authoritah!

[el-Karnak]

I ask this because someone I work with thinks there would only be 3 - 8 players left to play this game, and doesn't think its worth the time involved to make it......   

We need 2 things urgently in this community:

• A bonafide Alliance RM with credentials to match the KBF
• A Federation fleet or 2 to re-join the game

Right now, about the only race that can stand up to the KBF are the Kittys when they have enough allied races to back them up. AOTK2 was a good example of how a combined Mirak/Lyran FSD/ISC fleet can win under the leadership of a veteran Kitty RM.  Feds need to find the same combination.  Unfortunately, the Feds have been having these woeful leadership problems for years now.  Feds really have not been a force to be reckoned with after Hooch left.

Until we get the Alliance RM situation fixed, then I would tend to agree that holding a server is a dicey proposition.

[KBFLordKrueg]

I ask this because someone I work with thinks there would only be 3 - 8 players left to play this game, and doesn't think its worth the time involved to make it......   

We need 2 things urgently in this community:

• A bonafide Alliance RM with credentials to match the KBF
• A Federation fleet or 2 to re-join the game

 
I think you have enough of a Fed fleet...IMO, the problem is getting them to stick out the length of the server.
Shoot, all the way through SG0 5 the Alliance had more total players signed up (going by the forum count), but most of them were rarely seen after the first week. We picked up a few players during the course of the campaign that helped even the total numbers, and 90% of the Coalition that signed up, played it out right until the end.
*heard on TS by a former Alliance player*
The Alliance signs up...the Coalition SHOWS up...
Now...as to how to do that...

[762_XC]

Sides will be crucial. F-H-Z-R vs K-G-L-I perhaps?

Geese will probably be needed again.

RADIUS DISENGAGEMENT RULE. If you want people to play, make PvP mean something!

As for an Alliance RM, I'm sure we can dig one up.

[FPF-DieHard]

As for an Alliance RM, I'm sure we can dig one up.

 

[Grim]

The poll is looking positive so far, and yes i would be interested (RL time permitting) to participate in this.

[Bonk]

RADIUS DISENGAGEMENT RULE. If you want people to play, make PvP mean something!

You can't be serious? If that means what I think it means: i.e. a radius of effect of the disengagement rule greater thatn the hex the loss oxccured in? You'll be banned form seven hexes instead of one? If you want a game that welcomes veterans and PvP aces only sure...

PvP has always meant something, way before the exclusionary disengagement rule was concieved of. You lost your ship and were sent back to a base...

Lets say you whack a player and he comes back to the hex, well just whack him again, rinse and repeat until he has no pp left to buy even a frigate...

<shakes head>

I maintain that the disengagement rule has discouraged more new players than it has retained old cranky ones. It is just plain a bad idea, totally unnecsessary and panders to the egos of veteran aces.

It stinks, bad.


edit: case in point - the noisiest proponent of the disengagement rule that I can recall is Kroma, well where is he now?

It has not worked and will never work and will only do damage to the game.

[Dizzy]

Radius disengagement worked on Planets and bases on SG5, but I cant see it working anywhere else. Too hard to keep track of all the hexes. 1 is enough.

[el-Karnak]

As for an Alliance RM, I'm sure we can dig one up.

 

I know that I am getting shriller everytime I re-iterate this, but I guess I gotta do it anyway.

Any RM/ARM has to do the following:

• Play a minimum of 2 hours per night, 6 out of 7 days per week
• Read the forums on a strict daily basis
• Set up daily OP Ords threads in their team forums
• Keep in-house issues in-house, not aired out in a public domain flame-war

I know that most poeple are sensible enough to NOT volunteer for the RM/ARM job if they cannot commit to the above requirements. Any RM/ARM that still volunteers to do the job and CANNOT do the above requirements then they are most probably doing their side more harm than good, because sooner or later the players will get restless and then the destructive infighting starts which absolutely cremates any viable CnC structure.

If you go through the past dynas on both SFC2 and SFC3 and look at the leadership for the sides that win and the leadership for the sides that lose, then you will note that the winning side leaders are hitting on all cylinders of the above requirements while the losing side are not meeting the above requirements and are rapidly descending into leadership chaos and nasty infighting.

[FPF-Wanderer]

Hmmm...<contemplates coming out of RM retirement>...

[FPF-DieHard]

I was actualy laughing at the though of 762 making maps again 

[762_XC]

Bonk, as someone who nuttered on the last two campaigns I will tell you that PvP had ZERO effect on the outcome.

The ideal campaign strikes a balance between PvP and hex flipping. Right now it's all about hex flipping. You want to bring players back, make it more interesting than a single-player campaign.

P.S. My maps rock! 

[Bonk]

Bonk, as someone who nuttered on the last two campaigns I will tell you that PvP had ZERO effect on the outcome.

Right, so the disengagement rule has not helped. Pretty much what I was saying.

The ideal campaign strikes a balance between PvP and hex flipping. Right now it's all about hex flipping. You want to bring players back, make it more interesting than a single-player campaign.

In my experience its not just all about hex flipping, never has been. PvP has always played a role.  PvP plays a much stronger role when player numbers are higher and you're more likely to encounter enemy players on the map. So in my view the current logic many use is kind of a vicious circle of self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think the focus should be on the fun factor, and I agree that PvP provides much more of a thrill. (though late night sneaky underhanded hex-munching missions can be fun too...) 

[Strat]

What if winning a PvP match had more effect on turing and a hex than beating the AI?

That might encourage PvP as being more helpful in hex flipping.

Just an idea, dont really know much about the Dyna mechanics.

[762_XC]

It hasn't helped because it's too weak. It's been watered down to 60 min/30 min, which does nothing. On SS2 we had 100 min/ 50 min and PvP actually played a role as a result.

PvP is basically there for added flavor, because it has no effect on the map (which is the only thing that matters).

Player gets kicked out of hex #1, goes to work on hex #2. By the time he gets tracked down there he's back in hex #1. Net effect of PvP = 0.

[762_XC]

What if winning a PvP match had more effect on turing and a hex than beating the AI?

That might encourage PvP as being more helpful in hex flipping.

Just an idea, dont really know much about the Dyna mechanics.

This is the ideal solution. If we had working SQL we could make PvP victories worth more than PvAI victories, and we probably wouldn't even need a disengagement rule.

The question is whether we'll get to this point before the next server is ready.

[Strat]

Then all we need to do is beg and pray for SQL to work!

For so many more reasons than just this! lol

Please SQL work!  We are READY! 

[GDA-S'Cipio]

What if winning a PvP match had more effect on turing and a hex than beating the AI?

That might encourage PvP as being more helpful in hex flipping.

Just an idea, dont really know much about the Dyna mechanics.

This is the ideal solution. If we had working SQL we could make PvP victories worth more than PvAI victories, and we probably wouldn't even need a disengagement rule.

The question is whether we'll get to this point before the next server is ready.

Keltset actually had this working with SQL for his Dragon's Claw and Dragon's Tooth servers on EAW.   What are the odds people would show up for an EAW server again?

(Don't know if his success means SQL works better for EAW, or if it was just the result of lower player loads.)

-S'Cipio

[Father Ted]

I think I actually reloaded EAW a few months ago, but haven't really messed with it since. 

[762_XC]

Problem with EAW is it's 2 (3?) patches ago.

[Strat]

Isn't the SQL thing the reason we have a Beta going on right now?

Doesn't that mean we are close to having a Working SQL Dyna Server?

[KBFLordKrueg]

I know that I am getting shriller everytime I re-iterate this, but I guess I gotta do it anyway.

Any RM/ARM has to do the following:

• Play a minimum of 2 hours per night, 6 out of 7 days per week
• Read the forums on a strict daily basis
• Set up daily OP Ords threads in their team forums
• Keep in-house issues in-house, not aired out in a public domain flame-war

I know that most poeple are sensible enough to NOT volunteer for the RM/ARM job if they cannot commit to the above requirements. Any RM/ARM that still volunteers to do the job and CANNOT do the above requirements then they are most probably doing their side more harm than good, because sooner or later the players will get restless and then the destructive infighting starts which absolutely cremates any viable CnC structure.

If you go through the past dynas on both SFC2 and SFC3 and look at the leadership for the sides that win and the leadership for the sides that lose, then you will note that the winning side leaders are hitting on all cylinders of the above requirements while the losing side are not meeting the above requirements and are rapidly descending into leadership chaos and nasty infighting.

Very Good points...

[Commander Maxillius]

Problem with EAW is it's 2 (3?) patches ago.

EAW's final patch (2.0.3.6) was in 03 I believe, so if anyone's been working on SQL for a previous patch of EAW they've been locked in a basement without connectivity for 3 years.  I wouldn't be surprised of EAW's DB worked better with SQL though, since OP took sooo much effort to get it where it is, and it's still got elements that are broken (fighters v. shuttles for example).  Last I knew EAW was mostly fixed (more so than OP) apart from the Hand of Bethke.

If anyone wants to ressurect EAW for a server I still have it.

[Dfly]

I am one who flies a lot of hex flipping but loves the PvP part.  I find overall flying the PvP is actually hurting the team camp.  Reason being is this.

1-fly PvP, take 1 hour 22 minutes, win mission, enemy out of THAT hex(but good for all others) for 1 hour max.  GET 1 HEXX FLIP POINT

2-fly vs AI, take 1 hour 22 minutes, win all missions, GET 14 HEXX FLIP POINTS


Point being, the hexx flippers will ultimately win the campaign over the PvPers.  which ever team can hex flip(proper hexes that is) the most will ultimately win. 

In all the campaigns I have been involved in so far (roughly 7), this has been the case. I realize I have not got the umpteen campaigns under my belt as many have but there is definitely a trend here.  I dont care for the disengagement rule mostly, but do agree on if it happened on a base or planet it should encompass the 7 hexes.  I am all in favor of seing SQL working as stating a PvP is worth say 5 or 10 HEXX FLIP POINTS, but until then, the hexmunchers win the war.

[Hexx]

I fail to see the need to be awarding HEXX flipping points for any reason.

[KBF-Crim]

Disengagment WORKS...without it...there is simply no point is playing when outnumbered...

I remember the days before....and playing outnumbered against smaller ships that could simply jump into the next mission on your hex was a complete moral dropper...

1 hex is fine in normal space....area of operation is fine on planets.

And I DO think PvP  played a large role in SG5...without the kills we scored...we would have been routed...

[Dizzy]

Penalty box was cool too, I thought. Kept an opulent player from hoping right back in a DN after his was just popped.

[KBF-Crim]

I fail to see the need to be awarding HEXX flipping points for any reason.

Doh".....I had to read that twice to 'Get it"

 

[Bonk]

In my opinion Skull's "The Slot" was the best compromise I have seen, it allowed non-DN players to have some fun too and an effect on the campaign and for DN players to have their disengagement rule elsewhere on the map.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I have seen it said more than once that you might as well be playing the single player game. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The singleplayer game stops when you stop playing. The Dynaverse is a "Persistent Universe" first and foremost (and damn persistent at that, lol), anyway, it keeps running even if you are not there. Your actions have an effect that "persists". I think people need to remember this. It is a strategic game, not just a test of tactical prowess (though that is important too).

[C-Los]

IMPORTANT NOTE: I have seen it said more than once that you might as well be playing the single player game. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The singleplayer game stops when you stop playing. The Dynaverse is a "Persistent Universe" first and foremost (and damn persistent at that, lol), anyway, it keeps running even if you are not there. Your actions have an effect that "persists". I think people need to remember this. It is a strategic game, not just a test of tactical prowess (though that is important too).

People of the PvP mindset have a tendency to forget this.....   

My opinion has always been...."Disengagement rule Bah Humbug !"    Make the ship costs more and losing the ship 50% and no one will be replacing a ship so easily.... Plus I think for people who want PvP to run people off with the rule is at the same time saying they don't want it... Doh !!!!

Of course you all know I've felt this way ever since it was implemented.... 

[KBF-maQmIgh]

If you want a more PVP mindset then you need to go back to the old SFC Online Dennis was running. The map is NOT controlled in the game but outside the game to arrange PVP play. For example the Klingon Commander moves a D7, D6 and 2xF5s into a hex that contains a Federation CA and 2xDDs. If the fed decides to fight or cannot withdraw due to movememnt limitations then the fight is played out by the players. This can be a scheduled fight so it is all PVP. Imagine if you will using F&E to play the strategic game and then SFB to play out the battles.

This allows near puire PVP play.

[FPF-DieHard]

People of the PvP mindset have a tendency to forget this.....   

The rules have become too PvP oriented, and we wonder why casual players loose interest.

[Hexx]

People of the PvP mindset have a tendency to forget this.....   

The rules have become too PvP oriented, and we wonder why casual players loose interest.

Perhaps
But I'd still argue far more players left the game before we started the current trend
then afterwards.

With ship prices reduced on servers to keep casual players from losing interest,
no withdrawl penalty simply means you'll actually be hurting your side
in a close fought battle if you engage in PVP.
Same thing if your side is outnumbered, you'll cost your side the game if you fight PVP's.
With the (silly) claims that hex flipping is strategic, everyone is far better off
to run 2 minute missions against the AI than engage in a 20 minute (or likely longer) duel against
an enemy player.

The disengagement rule is fine, imo there should also be VP's for forcing big ships to run away or kills
(but we know how well that goes over... )

[KBF-maQmIgh]

You know what, lets try a different apporach WHO CARES! Put up a server with a set of well posted the predefined rules. I think most players here will come running...

[el-Karnak]

How did such a simple idea as the disengagement rule get so convoluted out of proportion?

Disengagement rule is vital to a dyna's survival. There's no getting around that. When you had someone like Fluf argue so forcefully for it a couple years ago for the SS2 server then there is no higher hex flipping authority that you need to consult with. You had practically the whole Romulan playerbase up in serverrevolt over the lack of a disengagement rule.  Most of them were not interested in SS2 w/o the rule and few remaining would play other races casually. ISC playerbase was in a pretty cranky mood too.  No self-respecting server admin. is going to argue with that. And, surprise, surprise, they don't.  You mess with the disengagnement rule and you may as well start shutting down the Romulan and ISC races. Lyrans won't be far behind.

But, the disengagement rule is supposed to be kept simple.  Its function is to replace the broken SQL database add-on to the dyna server kit. Basically, if SQL was working, any PvP match that results in a loss would have a MULTIPLE DV shift. What the actual DV shift should be is up for debate. I would go for something in the 10 DV shift range. Why? Cuz, on average most people do about 10 missions an hour.  But, we don't have the server kit to do this. So, we translate a 10 DV shift into an one hour banning from the hex the PvP match took place in for both fleeing an enemy or being destroyed.

That's it. Nice and simple.  To repeat:  you taco bell or die in a PvP match then you are banned to the hex for an hour. Admins. can play with the banning time, but they should not differentiate between taco belling and dying to stop any disengagement rule work-arouds. If SQL ever works, the same system will be used except it will be multiple DV shifts instead.

You can argue for waivers in cases of being heavily outnumbered in a PvP match. Just don't forget to get the missions scripters on the same page if they ever do multiple DV shifts in the scripts. GDA-Kel had the best system when he was able to shift the DVs in the server kit's middle-ware tier instead of having the functionality hard-coded in the client-tier mission scripts.

[GDA-Kel]

What if winning a PvP match had more effect on turing and a hex than beating the AI?

That might encourage PvP as being more helpful in hex flipping.

Just an idea, dont really know much about the Dyna mechanics.

This is the ideal solution. If we had working SQL we could make PvP victories worth more than PvAI victories, and we probably wouldn't even need a disengagement rule.

The question is whether we'll get to this point before the next server is ready.

Keltset actually had this working with SQL for his Dragon's Claw and Dragon's Tooth servers on EAW.   What are the odds people would show up for an EAW server again?

(Don't know if his success means SQL works better for EAW, or if it was just the result of lower player loads.)

-S'Cipio

Yep...my two servers did all that and more.  This was a post in the Gorn forums way back on July 13, 2003. 

Fellow Reptiles,

The Dragon's Teeth server is far enough along in testing that I can share with you my progress to date.

1. I have implemented a new feature called GNN, or Galactic News Network. The GNN will broadcast messages on general chat for all to see. Currently, it only broadcasts info concerning astounding victories by players and PvP wins by players.

2. Astounding victory bonus DV shift. All players get a bonus point of DV shift when they earn an astounding victory. For example, if you attack a clear enemy hex at DV 10 and earn an astounding victory, the DV will actually shift to 8, instead of 9.

3. PvP bonus DV shift. All players get 8 points of DV shift when they earn a PvP victory. For example, if you attack a clear enemy hex at DV 10 against an enemy player and win a victory, the DV will actually shift to 1, instead of 9.

4. The bonuses are cumulative, so an astounding victory against another player in a clear hex at DV 10 will lower the DV to 0 (1+ 1 + 8 ).

5. Now the bad news. The database is updated correctly with the proper DV values. However, each of our maps is NOT updated until another mission is run (or forfeited) in the hex where the astounding victory or PVP bonus was earned.

6. Shipyards. According to the D2 Server Admin forum on Yahoo, there is a memory leak in the shipyard functionality that causes the SQL D3 server to crash. Well, I suspect that this leak also exists in the SQL D2 server kit. To avoid this problem, I built my own shipayrd. The old shipyard is still active, so you can still buy ships the old way. To access the new shipyard, you must be in Gorn chat. Simply type YARD: and then the individual command. Current commands are 'show' and 'buy.' So, to view all ships in the yard, type:

The second, (and final) server, the Dragon's Claw implemented even more features such as:

Bases set to destruct ONLY when a hex changed owners, not when the first successful mission was run in the hex.  This made bases much more robust, but not indestructable. 

Built in line-of-supply.  You could only flip a hex for your empire if it could trace a LOS to a friendly supply point (base or planet).  If the hex was not in supply, then it flipped neutral and stayed that way.  This solved most of the deepstrike issues.  A player could deepstrike to his heart's content, but the best he could do would be to deny space to his opponent by flipping hexes to neutral if no LOS existed.

Players could own up to 5 ships, but only fly one at a time.  Ships could be spread out within your empire and the player could jump to any of his other ships by simply typing a command in the chat channel. 

Other than LOS (it was not completely debugged), all of these features worked correctly 100% of the time.  Everything was bug-free. 

Does anyone remember the Dragon's Claw and Dragon's Teeth servers?  I'll bet most do not, judging by the attendance on them.  At that time, the remaining community members decided to move to OP as the game of choice.  Very few stayed behind on EAW.  The OP SQL kit did not even exist, so there was no chance of moving this new functionality to OP.  when SQL became available for OP, it was more bugged than EAW I believe, so I did not choose to put the time and effort into porting my code to OP.  I actually looked more into SFC3 than OP.  Turns out SFC3 was even worse, so I retired from server developement permanently.

<ahem>  Sorry to hijack the thread....back to retirement now...

[Father Ted]

I'm gonna do something outside the box. I'm going to agree with Karnak. The disengagement rule should be kept. If you Taco Bell, you lose an hour, or whatever, in the hex. It may not mean much in your average asteroid hex, but if it's a VC planet, and everybody is dogpiling it, losing a DN for an hour means something. Also, players getting killed shouldn't be rewarded with a half DE penalty if they're flying an attrition ship. Be it an NCL, D5D, MCD, etc. they shouldn't be able to simply go back into the hex because they threw away a 2000 BPV ship that can be replaced as soon as the shipyard reloads.

I know nobody likes more rules, but I'd suggest that anybody losing a DN-CA has a 30 minute penalty, but CW-POL gets the full hour on a hex.

[Gook]

Need to see the "roolz" before any comiitments, but the signs in this thread don't look good.

[Hexx]

Need to see the "roolz" before any comiitments, but the signs in this thread don't look good.

I think the only thing really agreed upon so far is that the disengagement rule should be
kept in.
If you're against it for some reason that's cool
I have absolutely no problem flying on a server where it's not, but I think it's needed for
the vast majority of servers for simple balance.

[Strat]

I'm no Dynaverse philosophical genius, but explain to me please:

Why do we need poeple to leave a Hex for a specified amount of time when they die or lose? 

This prinicple I do not understand quite yet.

[762_XC]

Strat, the reason for the disengagement rule is to keep the Mirak from single handedly running away with the server.

Consider that your average patrol can be won in 3 minutes for a non-plasma race, and maybe 4 1/2 for a plasma race. A Mirak DF or DWD can do it in 1:40 (the time it takes to reach the AI). Fed and Klink droners can do this but not as reliably (since they draw stiffer AI).

The reasoning behind the rule was basically to rescue PvP (and plasma races by extension) from being totally obsolete. Since flipping hexes in a droner is far more efficient than fighting a human, droners would simply run away and come back into the same hex. If they died they'd drop another 500 pp (about .01% of their PP total) on a new ship.

[Hexx]

If you don't have them leave for a certain amount of time, PVP becomes pointless
Most players running hex flipping missions are flying small ships as they're the best hex flippers

A mission time against AI with the hex flipper is around the 2-3 minute mark,
usually closer to two for most races.
The mission time for a PVP is probably in the 20-30 minute mark.
So it makes no sense for a player trying to flip hexes to actually fight it out.
Let his ship die, hit the yards, back flipping hexes in however much time it takes
for the yards to cycle.
As there could (reasonably) be 8-10 missions run by one player on a hex while
another player is flying PVP, you're best off to avoid PVP altogether.

If your side is outnumbered by the other side the effect is of course multiplied.

By having a disengagement penalty it keeps hex flippers out of a hex for x amount of time if they
die, and usually 2x if they run. This lets one PVP win somewhat balance the lower mission time of an AI battle.


EDIT- and it's not just about the Mirak (they're simply the most famous for it)
Anything carrying 4 or more drone racks, Plasma PF's, or numbers of Fusion fighters on
a DD or smaller hull (actually CW for some) can do it easliy

[Bonk]

Need to see the "roolz" before any comiitments, but the signs in this thread don't look good.

I disagree, heated discussion is a good sign. It means there is interest.

... Plus I think for people who want PvP to run people off with the rule is at the same time saying they don't want it... Doh !!!!

I suspect I might be the only other person who underestands this tautology.

Does anyone remember the Dragon's Claw and Dragon's Teeth servers?  I'll bet most do not, judging by the attendance on them.  At that time, the remaining community members decided to move to OP as the game of choice.  Very few stayed behind on EAW.  The OP SQL kit did not even exist, so there was no chance of moving this new functionality to OP.  when SQL became available for OP, it was more bugged than EAW I believe, so I did not choose to put the time and effort into porting my code to OP.  I actually looked more into SFC3 than OP.  Turns out SFC3 was even worse, so I retired from server developement permanently.

<ahem>  Sorry to hijack the thread....back to retirement now...

Yes, I remember and thought they were pretty dang cool!    Things are improving, I have relatively stably OP SQL servers running, You are the only other one who truly understands the mechanics of it, (Well except for maybe DarkElf and Karnak) come back to us please!!! 

At least its good to see you around to put your 2¢ in anyway! 

[Grim]

I'm gonna do something outside the box. I'm going to agree with Karnak. The disengagement rule should be kept. If you Taco Bell, you lose an hour, or whatever, in the hex.

I have to agree.

[Bonk]

I'm gonna do something outside the box. I'm going to agree with Karnak. The disengagement rule should be kept. If you Taco Bell, you lose an hour, or whatever, in the hex.

I have to agree.

If we must...

But there should be no disengagement rule if you are destroyed. I mean you lost your ship you worked hard to get, you are sent back to base, away from the action...

Or, we can go for the full disengagment rule and only DN pilots get to enjoy action on the front... 

We need to get back to Skull's concept of "The Slot", it rocked!    Or perhaps people are unwilling to accept a No-Heavy Metal zone? The disengagment rule as it is, is just elitist, exclusionary and a total bummer for casual players, that is all there is to it.

[Grim]

Well from a personal standpoint i don't see what is wrong with the current system of disengagement, being if you disengage from a battle you cannot enter that hex for a period of time, if you get destroyed you can't enter that hex but the time is reduced in comparision to fleeing.

Like you posted Bonk, the "slot concept" introduced by Skull was a great idea, something which i believe should be implemented more often. A place where only smaller ships can enter, different disengagement rules used in these special areas e.g. further reduced time or no disengagement penalty whatsoever.

Benefit of having slots/other special areas on the map means that a person can decide for example what they feel like flying on the day, flying heavy metal one day under the standard disengagement rule, another day feeling like flying more intense PVP in a smaller ship area with less disengagement rules.

This should appease all types of players.

[KBF-Crim]

I'm no Dynaverse philosophical genius, but explain to me please:

Why do we need poeple to leave a Hex for a specified amount of time when they die or lose? 

This prinicple I do not understand quite yet.

Here is it is in a small nutshell...without the disengagment rule...

You can take the biggest ship you want...the cheese that goes crunch....I'll take an E4D....I'lll own as much space of you empire as I so wish...

Even if you lucky enough to catch me in a mission...I'll taco bell and just start another one...

No matter how many missions you run....I'll just gobble your space at 1:40 a pop....

After fighting for 3 or 4 hours and seeing you hexes flip red underneath you....you'll get it...

[Hexx]

I think everyone liked the idea of "the slot" iirc I even stole it for
the Mirror server (if only I'd actually played on it)
Just think everyone's been to preoccupied with other stuff to put it back in.

KCW will have a slot (for the F5 junkies)

....
Actually I had forgotten about that, doh!

[Strat]

Thanks guys.

I'm just asking so I can help brain storm solutions.

What is 'The Slot' idea?

[KBF-Crim]

I'm gonna do something outside the box. I'm going to agree with Karnak. The disengagement rule should be kept. If you Taco Bell, you lose an hour, or whatever, in the hex.

I have to agree.

If we must...

But there should be no disengagement rule if you are destroyed. I mean you lost your ship you worked hard to get, you are sent back to base, away from the action...

Or, we can go for the full disengagment rule and only DN pilots get to enjoy action on the front... 

We need to get back to Skull's concept of "The Slot", it rocked!    Or perhaps people are unwilling to accept a No-Heavy Metal zone? The disengagment rule as it is, is just elitist, exclusionary and a total bummer for casual players, that is all there is to it.

Bonk....see my post to strat...

Losing an E4D is like loosing a lighter when you have a case of them in the cupboard....

You not thinking in strategic terms....the the DV.....the SMALL ship is god....

[Bonk]

Thanks guys.

I'm just asking so I can help brain storm solutions.

What is 'The Slot' idea?

The slot is a zone on the map restricted to CLs and smaller so that casual players will not be driven off all the action zones by nutters in big ships.

[KBF-Crim]

Thanks guys.

I'm just asking so I can help brain storm solutions.

What is 'The Slot' idea?

The slot is a zone on the map restricted to CLs and smaller so that casual players will not be driven off all the action zones by nutters in big ships.

I'd REALLY  really really really like to herr burts PF floatilla's added and allowed to play there too...

[Bonk]

I'm gonna do something outside the box. I'm going to agree with Karnak. The disengagement rule should be kept. If you Taco Bell, you lose an hour, or whatever, in the hex.

I have to agree.

If we must...

But there should be no disengagement rule if you are destroyed. I mean you lost your ship you worked hard to get, you are sent back to base, away from the action...

Or, we can go for the full disengagment rule and only DN pilots get to enjoy action on the front... 

We need to get back to Skull's concept of "The Slot", it rocked!    Or perhaps people are unwilling to accept a No-Heavy Metal zone? The disengagment rule as it is, is just elitist, exclusionary and a total bummer for casual players, that is all there is to it.

Bonk....see my post to strat...

Losing an E4D is like loosing a lighter when you have a case of them in the cupboard....

You not thinking in strategic terms....the the DV.....the SMALL ship is god....

Yes, I fully understand that and it is a cheap and ugly tactic,

BUT

In my CL I am excluded from participating in any battles that are meaningful, because I am chased off by nutters in big ships that I have no chance of defeating. It gets bad enough that sometimes I just log off and go futz with server stuff to keep myself occupied. This should not happen.

In my opinion, the bad side of the disengagment rule outweighs the good side by a significant margin.

Why not just make a rule to stop the exact situation you describe without excluding casual players from all the significant battle zones?

[KBF-Crim]

I'm gonna do something outside the box. I'm going to agree with Karnak. The disengagement rule should be kept. If you Taco Bell, you lose an hour, or whatever, in the hex.

I have to agree.

If we must...

But there should be no disengagement rule if you are destroyed. I mean you lost your ship you worked hard to get, you are sent back to base, away from the action...

Or, we can go for the full disengagment rule and only DN pilots get to enjoy action on the front... 

We need to get back to Skull's concept of "The Slot", it rocked!    Or perhaps people are unwilling to accept a No-Heavy Metal zone? The disengagment rule as it is, is just elitist, exclusionary and a total bummer for casual players, that is all there is to it.

Bonk....see my post to strat...

Losing an E4D is like loosing a lighter when you have a case of them in the cupboard....

You not thinking in strategic terms....the the DV.....the SMALL ship is god....

Yes, I fully understand that and it is a cheap and ugly tactic,

BUT

In my CL I am excluded from participating in any battles that are meaningful, because I am chased off by nutters in big ships that I have no chance of defeating. It gets bad enough that sometimes I just log off and go futz with server stuff to keep myself occupied. This should not happen.

In my opinion, the bad side of the disengagment rule outweighs the good side by a significant margin.

Why not just make a rule to stop the exact situation you describe without excluding casual players form aall the significant battle zones.

*sigh*

Take the heavy cruiser of you chioce...I'll take an E4D.. NOT a light cruiser....a FRIGATE.....you'll see just how effective these ships can be in PVP...

A better example would be the D5D....a REAL CL....

I'll take ANY match against a BCH of your choice....and win more than 50%....I'll stand and fight on those odds any day..

Go ahead...devise a rule for droners....you then have to define what a droner is....oh like EVERY MIRAK ship in the list...

I can then take another ship , not defined as a droner...like an F5....and run 1:40 missions with it...and your back in the same boat....no boasting at all...

I can make you some movies if you need to see it with your own eyes...

[Strat]

How close are we to implementing SQL in a production environment, ie a real game?

[Bonk]

I'm gonna do something outside the box. I'm going to agree with Karnak. The disengagement rule should be kept. If you Taco Bell, you lose an hour, or whatever, in the hex.

I have to agree.

If we must...

But there should be no disengagement rule if you are destroyed. I mean you lost your ship you worked hard to get, you are sent back to base, away from the action...

Or, we can go for the full disengagment rule and only DN pilots get to enjoy action on the front... 

We need to get back to Skull's concept of "The Slot", it rocked!    Or perhaps people are unwilling to accept a No-Heavy Metal zone? The disengagment rule as it is, is just elitist, exclusionary and a total bummer for casual players, that is all there is to it.

Bonk....see my post to strat...

Losing an E4D is like loosing a lighter when you have a case of them in the cupboard....

You not thinking in strategic terms....the the DV.....the SMALL ship is god....

Yes, I fully understand that and it is a cheap and ugly tactic,

BUT

In my CL I am excluded from participating in any battles that are meaningful, because I am chased off by nutters in big ships that I have no chance of defeating. It gets bad enough that sometimes I just log off and go futz with server stuff to keep myself occupied. This should not happen.

In my opinion, the bad side of the disengagment rule outweighs the good side by a significant margin.

Why not just make a rule to stop the exact situation you describe without excluding casual players form aall the significant battle zones.

*sigh*

Take the heavy cruiser of you chioce...I'll take an E4D.. NOT a light cruiser....a FRIGATE.....you'll see just how effective these ships can be in PVP...

A better example would be the D5D....a REAL CL....

I'll take ANY match against a BCH of your choice....and win more than 50%....I'll stand and fight on those odds any day..

Go ahead...devise a rule for droners....you then have to define what a droner is....oh like EVERY MIRAK ship in the list...

I can then take another ship , not defined as a droner...like an F5....and run 1:40 missions with it...and your back in the same boat....no boasting at all...

I can make you some movies if you need to see it with your own eyes...

I resent the implication. 

The same thing holds when I fly gorn.

So you have to be an ace to be allowed to participate in any significant action on a server, is that it?

[el-Karnak]

Yes, I remember and thought they were pretty dang cool!    Things are improving, I have relatively stably OP SQL servers running, You are the only other one who truly understands the mechanics of it, (Well except for maybe DarkElf and Karnak) come back to us please!!! 

I can vouch for GDA-Kel. When he had his EAW-SQL servers up, I consulted with him on a few things and he graciously gave me the code for that server.  I proof-read out his topology and it looks pretty sound.

[FPF-DieHard]

I'm gonna do something outside the box. I'm going to agree with Karnak. The disengagement rule should be kept. If you Taco Bell, you lose an hour, or whatever, in the hex.

I have to agree.

If we must...

But there should be no disengagement rule if you are destroyed. I mean you lost your ship you worked hard to get, you are sent back to base, away from the action...

This is absolutely useless unless ships are really expensive.   It is no loss to loose a 500-2000 PP FF-CL ship if it means you can get in the hex quicker.

DNs have other restrictions, the X-amount works.   Don't break what is fixed.

[FPF-DieHard]

Yes, I fully understand that and it is a cheap and ugly tactic,

How do you specificly ban this without a Disengament/destruction penalty?

[Strat]

Yes, I fully understand that and it is a cheap and ugly tactic,

How do you specificly ban this without a Disengament/destruction penalty?

The reason I ask is becuase I'm gathering (guess that's why you all have already put so much effert into the SQL Kit), the ths SQL is the real solution.

I don't really know what SQL is possible of accomplishing in this appliction other than what others have said. (Like making PvP DV shifts higher than PvAI)

Once you do that, you can riase the prices of ships becuase PvP is (hopefully as we came make it withthe math) equal or more vaulable than fighitng AIs.

But in principle I think the best bet for the SQL is automating the applictions of a bunch of these rules.

For example, again, I don't know if its possible, with the disengagment rule..  If a person runs from a battle or died, let the server enforce them not playting there  by not giving that person any missions to play in that hex.

The problem I see happening is this:  There get to be more and more rules rules rules.  Fine and great and everything, we need them.  But the more and more a person has to worry about the rules he loses fun beucase of so much worring he has to do about the rules!

what ever rules you make, make the SQL do as much as possible of enforceing it.

If we could just implement the DV shifting value of a PvP vs PvsAI I think that solves a lot. Just a matter of working a smaller set of kinks.

[FPF-DieHard]

Agreed Strat, if SQL can set PvP to have a higher DV offset the Disengagment rule will no longer be needed.

[el-Karnak]

Thanks guys.

I'm just asking so I can help brain storm solutions.

What is 'The Slot' idea?

The slot is a zone on the map restricted to CLs and smaller so that casual players will not be driven off all the action zones by nutters in big ships.

You are gonna let a I-CLY run around the Slot in Middle Era? Or, a L-CWLP?

That's so cool. 

[GDA-Agave]

In my opinion, the disengagement rule works.  The biggest reason why I think this is because it gives underplayed races/sides a better chance to hold onto important strategic places.   If my race/side decides that planet Alpha must be held and we have half the number of pilots as our opponent, the disengagement rule gives us the opportunity to run off the enemy for a set period of time so we can reinforce the DVs or even attempt to take back some of the surrounding hexes.   This can be applied to assaults on breaking LOS, planets, bases, whatever.   It gives the underplayed race/side a chance to defend a given area with PvP instead of trying to match mission times (# of pilots) with their opponent.

That's it.   That's the main benefit IMHO.   You WILL NEVER stop the hex-munchers out in open space.   Hell, this one spot that you have decided to defend may be the only spot you have left in your empire!!!      That's the trade-off.   You either try to out-hex-munch your opponent or you make certain spots so f*ing dangerous for them to assault.   Isn't this the reason why most servers have been placing Victory points on planets, starbases, etc.   The admins are looking to promote highly contested areas where PvP, and only PvP will decide who ultimately keeps them.  Seems that way to me.   Of course, PvP defenders don't always succeed.   When one race/side has enough pilots to flip a hex while the defenders are still fighting their PvP missions, its a mute point.  Yer screwed!!       Get over it, it's a game, you don't always win!!  

As for the specifics of the disengagement rule, I have always been a proponent of equal time penalty for both disengaging and ship loss.   It's the time period that is important here.  If you allow a pilot to have a reduced penalty because he got his ship killed, pilots who fly disposable hex-flipper ships don't really suffer any REAL penalty.  Yeah, yeah, I know.  If you lose your ship and have the full time period, some people think its a double hit.   You're right, but if you reduce the ship replacement penalty, maybe more pilots would f*ing get over it.    Replacement value 80% or higher of original.  If you lost a heavy cruiser in the mission, you most likely would get a lesser heavy cruiser in return.   The admins probably have a pretty good idea what percentage would help here.

Another point I have about pilots bitching about losing their ship and having a FULL disengagement time penalty, if you're so worried about losing that ship in a mission you should not have bought it in the shipyard.   GET OVER IT!   IT'S A GAME!!  THINGS DON'T ALWAYS GO THE WAY YOU WANT!!   

Final point.   As for everyone always mentioning the Kzinti FIRST as the one race that needs to have their hex-munching abilities restricted, ALL RACES HAVE HEX-MUNCHERS!!   I have flown every Starfleet race over the last year and a half, and I have found ships in every arsenal that I could fly AI missions in 2:00, give or take :10.   EVERY RACE!!   I believe Hexx mentioned this earlier in this thread.    Granted, the Kzinti droner show up very early and only get better, but that's what they do.   That's their specialty!!   Every race can duplicate those fast mission times using the right ships, ship combos, etc., in some era.   If you don't know your empire's ship that fly quick mission, ask a veteran pilot.

Well, that's it for now.   I'll rave and rant some more later.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

How about... if you win a PvP mission, and if the hex belongs to an enemy... the hex flips to your side... with a DV of 1.

[762_XC]

A few people have said that all races have hex munchers, and this is true.

BUT

No one has a hex muncher that is as efficient as the DF from 2263 until the end of time. That is what sets the Mirak apart.

[GDA-Agave]

How about... if you win a PvP mission, and if the hex belongs to an enemy... the hex flips to your side... with a DV of 1.

At what DV level would this account for?   If I win a PvP match in a 30 DV hex of the enemy's, that would be some jump.   Could you set something like this so that it only happens when a hex is at DV 3 or less?

[KBF-Crim]

I resent the implication. 

Sorry...none intended...

The same thing holds when I fly gorn.

I would say this rule is of even more import for plasma races....

So you have to be an ace to be allowed to participate in any significant action on a server, is that it?

No no no....please dont misunderstand me...

Besides...I'm a berserker....not an ace....there is a slight difference...

Under the current system...there are multiple roles to be filled...

Hunter killer

Rapid responce

Hex maintenence

Trench warfare

Harrassment, distractionary force


We (the coalition)...try and break this down for the express purpose of giving every player the kind of play they are looking for....and still have impact on the "war effort"....

Some people dont like PvP for what ever reason....

Some people live for it...

Some people simply dont have the time to nutter (like me)...and giving casual players the abilty to make meaningful contributions is KEY to getting those casual players to show up when they can...

One of those ways to make a meaningful contribution...is being able to log on...jump into the fight...and run someone off...

[GDA-Agave]

No one has a hex muncher that is as efficient as the DF from 2263 until the end of time. That is what sets the Mirak apart.

I agree.  I did mention that, just not that particular ship.   But if you look at their lack of good  heavy cruiser and bigger PvP ships versus other empires, doesn't that balance things out?   It does in my opinion.

[Strat]

How about... if you win a PvP mission, and if the hex belongs to an enemy... the hex flips to your side... with a DV of 1.

Sounds good to me, make for some fierce battles.

What about in the case of Starbases?  That might still work becuase of you blow up a SP, well... Its dead.  What if you did 2 battles for those?  One to kill the SB and one to take the hex?  Just an idea.

And planets?  No blowing up planets, but they are supposed to be tougher right?  At least thats my non Dyna logic talking.  Make those 3 battles.  And since you are basically taking over the planet, let it have like 5  or 10 DV when its turned.

Here is an alternatetive to turning a hex with a dv of 1 in a single fight.  Make the DV proportionate to the number of attaking ships.  If say like 4 guys Side A attack a hex of Side B, who has one defender of one ship (lol, tough break), give a larger DV shift to the attackers than if a 1v1 was played and won.

On the flip side, if 4 guys sucessfully defend from 1 guy, give them a larger DV in defence, but not as much as a DV would be on that offence with the same match (4 Offence, 1 Defence)

This really gives a proper bonus to fleets fighting. 

On further thought:

It may be better that Defenders get equal shift on defence when successful.   I wa just thinking that why should they get equal when they have supplies and other nearby hexes already beloning to them.  The attackers are what are leaving all of that behind to hit inside enemy space. It is easier to defend than attack from an equal force.  But I'n not sure that thinking is logical in our application.

[762_XC]

No one has a hex muncher that is as efficient as the DF from 2263 until the end of time. That is what sets the Mirak apart.

I agree.  I did mention that, just not that particular ship.   But if you look at their lack of good  heavy cruiser and bigger PvP ships versus other empires, doesn't that balance things out?   It does in my opinion.

I'm not looking to change the race in any way whatsoever. I just want PvP to have an impact on the map, where now it doesn't.

That said I think the Mirak are very underrated in PvP. Their NCC fills the CA role nicely and their dreads are far from sucking.

[KBF-maQmIgh]

Another option to help with this might be to make drones more epensive, thus making rapid hex flipping with drones a COSTLY proposition. However after reading what this rule is intended to stop I have to agree it is needed in one form or another.

[KBF-Crim]

Another option to help with this might be to make drones more epensive, thus making rapid hex flipping with drones a COSTLY proposition. However after reading what this rule is intended to stop I have to agree it is needed in one form or another.

Sheesh...this is going WAY WAY back...but IIRC....I brought this up when EAW was still in production...IE..we were still fixing the Dyna because WON.net dropped out...

If one side was way more populated the the other...the more populated side would see stiffer AI opposition...

There was supposed to be some type of modifier present that would "balance" the sides out....ofcourse....the shipyard bidding was suppossed to do that to...with the more populated side facing much stiffer ship prices and etc...

Then again...I never got my pet feature either..."JOIN MISSION IN PROGRESS"

[CaptJosh]

Much as I would like that last option you mentioned, it would be devilishly hard to implement. Especially with the connection issues some folks have.

[KBF-Crim]

Much as I would like that last option you mentioned, it would be devilishly hard to implement. Especially with the connection issues some folks have.

Well Josh....there are plenty of other games that allow people to join battles and missions in progress....enter and leave areas etc....

the problem is how to synch it up...

The *heartbeat* codeing was supposed to do that....but I guess they never got around to it...

Alas....my kingdom for the scource code...

[Strat]

  Source Code  -  Source Code  - WE ALL WANT SOURCE CODE!  

[Bonk]

We have been over all of this a thousand times.

My suggestions to make the dreadnaught nutter aces happy:

- Eliminate the mirak as a race altogether (I'm perfectly fine with this).
- Play Romulan civil war every server, everbody in a sparrowhawk-L nothing else availabale... (I'm perfectly fine with this too)

But I suspect nothing will satisfy the dreadnaught nutter aces short of a gamespy based campaign.

You still missed the point I said above:

IMPORTANT NOTE: I have seen it said more than once that you might as well be playing the single player game. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The singleplayer game stops when you stop playing. The Dynaverse is a "Persistent Universe" first and foremost (and damn persistent at that, lol), anyway, it keeps running even if you are not there. Your actions have an effect that "persists". I think people need to remember this. It is a strategic game, not just a test of tactical prowess (though that is important too).

PvP DOES have an effect, if you cant see that, or it is not enough for you well I'm sorry. I have been busting my ass for years to get SQL to work even when I do, and we get sql missions tha shift the DV more for PvP I bet you'll find more reasons to exclude those who do not meet you standard of play from the fun of the Dynaverse.

Ask DieHard what I think of performance as a prerequisite for play... 

 

[Bonk]

Much as I would like that last option you mentioned, it would be devilishly hard to implement. Especially with the connection issues some folks have.

Well Josh....there are plenty of other games that allow people to join battles and missions in progress....enter and leave areas etc....

the problem is how to synch it up...

The *heartbeat* codeing was supposed to do that....but I guess they never got around to it...

Alas....my kingdom for the scource code...

SFC is a "coordinated launch" game. "Peer-to-peer late entry" will not likely happen even if we do get the client source. Gamespy refuses to acknowledge the Dynaverse Gaming Association and will not provide us with an updated SDK. 

[KBF-Crim]

We have been over all of this a thousand times.

I hear ya...and here we are doing it again...I thought this was allready settled...

My suggestions to make the dreadnaught nutter aces happy:

- Eliminate the mirak as a race altogether (I'm perfectly fine with this).

HUH?...elimnate an entire race?

My reply would be your own words from below...:

"you'll find more reasons to exclude those who do not meet you standard of play from the fun of the Dynaverse."


What race would be next to "get the boot"?

- Play Romulan civil war every server, everbody in a sparrowhawk-L nothing else availabale... (I'm perfectly fine with this too)

Why play at all?

But I suspect nothing will satisfy the dreadnaught nutter aces short of a gamespy based campaign.

And WHO are the DN aces????????

How many are there even allowed on a server at one time anymore?????  3?...and they arent allowed to wing together at all...

You still missed the point I said above:

IMPORTANT NOTE: I have seen it said more than once that you might as well be playing the single player game. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The singleplayer game stops when you stop playing. The Dynaverse is a "Persistent Universe" first and foremost (and damn persistent at that, lol), anyway, it keeps running even if you are not there. Your actions have an effect that "persists". I think people need to remember this. It is a strategic game, not just a test of tactical prowess (though that is important too).

PvP DOES have an effect, if you cant see that, or it is not enough for you well I'm sorry.

And Ii told you....field a fleet a DN's for every player on your side...we'll field a fleet of FRIGATES....we will own your space...

How "realistic" is that bonk?

How long would you play after that senario?

I have been busting my ass for years to get SQL to work

And I know that everyone appreciates that...

even when I do, and we get sql missions tha shift the DV more for PvP

That would ok...but we need to test the heck out of it...

I bet you'll find more reasons to exclude those who do not meet you standard of play from the fun of the Dynaverse.

I'm not sure this was addressed to me or not...but I'll take it anyways...

ASK ANYONE...AND I MEAN ANYONE...IF I HAVE EVER ONCE IN ALL THESE YEARS SOUGHT TO EXCLUDE ONE SINGLE PLAYER FROM PLAYING THE EXACT STYLE OF PLAY THEY WISH.

Ask DieHard what I think of performance as a prerequisite for play... 

Why should I ?....he allready sknows how 'WE" feel about it....it stinks...and has NO place in a gaming community...period.

 

[KBF-Crim]

Much as I would like that last option you mentioned, it would be devilishly hard to implement. Especially with the connection issues some folks have.

Well Josh....there are plenty of other games that allow people to join battles and missions in progress....enter and leave areas etc....

the problem is how to synch it up...

The *heartbeat* codeing was supposed to do that....but I guess they never got around to it...

Alas....my kingdom for the scource code...

SFC is a "coordinated launch" game. "Peer-to-peer late entry" will not likely happen even if we do get the client source.

I know Bonk..."join mission" just has allways been a feature I wanted to see in SFC...

Gamespy refuses to acknowledge the Dynaverse Gaming Association and will not provide us with an updated SDK. 

!?!....why in the hell are they doing that?...GSA even hosts a few of our gaming related sites?

We should just start bugging the hell out of them....

[Bonk]

We have been over all of this a thousand times.

I hear ya...and here we are doing it again...I thought this was allready settled...

My suggestions to make the dreadnaught nutter aces happy:

- Eliminate the mirak as a race altogether (I'm perfectly fine with this).

HUH?...elimnate an entire race?

My reply would be your own words from below...:

"you'll find more reasons to exclude those who do not meet you standard of play from the fun of the Dynaverse."


What race would be next to "get the boot"?

- Play Romulan civil war every server, everbody in a sparrowhawk-L nothing else availabale... (I'm perfectly fine with this too)

Why play at all?

But I suspect nothing will satisfy the dreadnaught nutter aces short of a gamespy based campaign.

And WHO are the DN aces????????

How many are there even allowed on a server at one time anymore?????  3?...and they arent allowed to wing together at all...

You still missed the point I said above:

IMPORTANT NOTE: I have seen it said more than once that you might as well be playing the single player game. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The singleplayer game stops when you stop playing. The Dynaverse is a "Persistent Universe" first and foremost (and damn persistent at that, lol), anyway, it keeps running even if you are not there. Your actions have an effect that "persists". I think people need to remember this. It is a strategic game, not just a test of tactical prowess (though that is important too).

PvP DOES have an effect, if you cant see that, or it is not enough for you well I'm sorry.

And Ii told you....field a fleet a DN's for every player on your side...we'll field a fleet of FRIGATES....we will own your space...

How "realistic" is that bonk?

How long would you play after that senario?

I have been busting my ass for years to get SQL to work

And I know that everyone appreciates that...

even when I do, and we get sql missions tha shift the DV more for PvP

That would ok...but we need to test the heck out of it...

I bet you'll find more reasons to exclude those who do not meet you standard of play from the fun of the Dynaverse.

I'm not sure this was addressed to me or not...but I'll take it anyways...

ASK ANYONE...AND I MEAN ANYONE...IF I HAVE EVER ONCE IN ALL THESE YEARS SOUGHT TO EXCLUDE ONE SINGLE PLAYER FROM PLAYING THE EXACT STYLE OF PLAY THEY WISH.

Ask DieHard what I think of performance as a prerequisite for play... 

Why should I ?....he allready sknows how 'WE" feel about it....it stinks...and has NO place in a gaming community...period.

 

Its like this:

I can't count how many times I have been driven off a server by ONE DN pilot.

I'm happliy running missions in my CL (often with a wing), I get spotted. A DN and his wing come along and draft me, inevitably leaving my wing behind... I have to disengage or die.

Rinse and repeat until Bonk leaves the server in disgust as he can then only fly inconsequential PP building missions behind the lines.

It only takes ONE DN to eliminate dozens of CL pilots from play. (with a disengagement rule in effect)

It is just not right,

[762_XC]

That's why we have OOB. If you have a DN terrorizing your lines it's up to your side to get a DN to counter him. If such a thing is as prevalent as you say, whatever side you are playing on needs to coordinate their assets better.

Or, do what all the other flippers do, and work around him. Trust me, it's easy.

The way we have things structured now, DN's and BCH's are limited, and CC's are line PvP ships. Players can get any of the above if they wish PvP but if they do so, they have to resign themselves to having a very limited effect on the map relative to the hex flippers. It's a tradeoff - be bored while fighting endless PvAI missions (but have a positive effect), or have fun in PvP (but have a very limited effect).

Ideally PvP and PvAI should both have a similar effect on the map. Right now it's all about who can kill AI faster.

[el-Karnak]

Much as I would like that last option you mentioned, it would be devilishly hard to implement. Especially with the connection issues some folks have.

Well Josh....there are plenty of other games that allow people to join battles and missions in progress....enter and leave areas etc....

the problem is how to synch it up...

The *heartbeat* codeing was supposed to do that....but I guess they never got around to it...

Alas....my kingdom for the scource code...

Play SWG and/or EVE to see this feature in action.  You also have to pay to see it action too, though.

[el-Karnak]

We have been over all of this a thousand times.

I hear ya...and here we are doing it again...I thought this was allready settled...

My suggestions to make the dreadnaught nutter aces happy:

- Eliminate the mirak as a race altogether (I'm perfectly fine with this).

HUH?...elimnate an entire race?

My reply would be your own words from below...:

"you'll find more reasons to exclude those who do not meet you standard of play from the fun of the Dynaverse."


What race would be next to "get the boot"?

- Play Romulan civil war every server, everbody in a sparrowhawk-L nothing else availabale... (I'm perfectly fine with this too)

Why play at all?

But I suspect nothing will satisfy the dreadnaught nutter aces short of a gamespy based campaign.

And WHO are the DN aces????????

How many are there even allowed on a server at one time anymore?????  3?...and they arent allowed to wing together at all...

You still missed the point I said above:

IMPORTANT NOTE: I have seen it said more than once that you might as well be playing the single player game. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The singleplayer game stops when you stop playing. The Dynaverse is a "Persistent Universe" first and foremost (and damn persistent at that, lol), anyway, it keeps running even if you are not there. Your actions have an effect that "persists". I think people need to remember this. It is a strategic game, not just a test of tactical prowess (though that is important too).

PvP DOES have an effect, if you cant see that, or it is not enough for you well I'm sorry.

And Ii told you....field a fleet a DN's for every player on your side...we'll field a fleet of FRIGATES....we will own your space...

How "realistic" is that bonk?

How long would you play after that senario?

I have been busting my ass for years to get SQL to work

And I know that everyone appreciates that...

even when I do, and we get sql missions tha shift the DV more for PvP

That would ok...but we need to test the heck out of it...

I bet you'll find more reasons to exclude those who do not meet you standard of play from the fun of the Dynaverse.

I'm not sure this was addressed to me or not...but I'll take it anyways...

ASK ANYONE...AND I MEAN ANYONE...IF I HAVE EVER ONCE IN ALL THESE YEARS SOUGHT TO EXCLUDE ONE SINGLE PLAYER FROM PLAYING THE EXACT STYLE OF PLAY THEY WISH.

Ask DieHard what I think of performance as a prerequisite for play... 

Why should I ?....he allready sknows how 'WE" feel about it....it stinks...and has NO place in a gaming community...period.

 

Its like this:

I can't count how many times I have been driven off a server by ONE DN pilot.

I'm happliy running missions in my CL (often with a wing), I get spotted. A DN and his wing come along and draft me, inevitably leaving my wing behind... I have to disengage or die.

Rinse and repeat until Bonk leaves the server in disgust as he can then only fly inconsequential PP building missions behind the lines.

It only takes ONE DN to eliminate dozens of CL pilots from play. (with a disengagement rule in effect)

It is just not right,

If you are only going to fly CLs on the dyna, then you definitely need to fly ISC.

[Bonk]

That's why we have OOB. If you have a DN terrorizing your lines it's up to your side to get a DN to counter him. If such a thing is as prevalent as you say, whatever side you are playing on needs to coordinate their assets better.

This does not work for me. The DN pilot must sleep sometime. What if there is no DN on my side? The side with a DN wins by default?

<sigh> Throws hands in the air.

Fine, you all win. The disengagement rule is the be-all-end-all solution to all our problems... 

I think it is assinine, I don't like it and never will and you can't make me...   

The emphasis needs to placed on fun, not exclusionary competitiveness and organisational pressure - that's work, not play.

I will play on servers regardless, I guess I'll just stay behind the lines forever, it will be like you say, pretty much like playing the single player campaign. 

[GDA-Agave]

Bonk,

Over the past couple servers, the Big Capital Ships have been unassigned.   Anybody who had the cash could step up and take a shot at the DN chasing off all the CLs.   If you have 5 pilots on, you could have 5 capital ships on, they just couldn't fly together (by server rule).

Now, one way how that rule could be improved, we should lower the cost of the restricted capital ships by 50% (or more even) so that casual players could get into one if they wished.   As with SGO5, casual pilots had to risk their whole PP cache if they wanted to jump into a DN to stop the enemy.   Not everyone is willing to do that.  So, reducing the costs should help.   The restricted ships are usually listed in the rules, and even given special designations (sBCH) on some servers.   Easily identifiable, and able to be counted.


Note to 762:   PvP does matter, it just doesn't change the DV as quickly.  (I like the thoughts about PvP wins getting larger DV shifts.)  I think we've had a pretty good balance between PvP and hex-munching on the last few servers.   The pilot count for each side were just not balanced, IMHO.   Then again, they never are, and probably never will be.

[FPF-DieHard]

This does not work for me. The DN pilot must sleep sometime. What if there is no DN on my side? The side with a DN wins by default?

Then fly a DN, we haven't had a true OOB server in almost a year.

Your argument is out-dated.

[FPF-DieHard]

If you are only going to fly CLs on the dyna, then you definitely need to fly ISC.

You spelled "Fed" wrong 

[FPF-DieHard]

Note to 762:   PvP does matter, it just doesn't change the DV as quickly.  (I like the thoughts about PvP wins getting larger DV shifts.)  I think we've had a pretty good balance between PvP and hex-munching on the last few servers.   The pilot count for each side were just not balanced, IMHO.   Then again, they never are, and probably never will be.

PvP matters little on D2 other than for braggin rights (and funny screenshots). 

Trying to make PvP matter ina D2 is like trying to fruck an hungry bear, you can do it but it is too painful and just not worth the trouble.

The funniest part of this whole conversation is the believe that anything other than player numbers affects the outcome of a server.   Keep it going, it's entertaining.   

[Bonk]

So, lets say I take the DN and lose it as I rarely fly them. What then?

I am chastised for losing a capital ship and banned from play for the next hour...

I don't like the disengagement rule at all.

The arguement that it is exclusionary and favors nutters and aces is not out dated it is plain fact. It spoils the fun for more that it saves it.

Anyway, its silly for me to argue this any longer I've had my say, whether its been understood or not.

[el-Karnak]

This does not work for me. The DN pilot must sleep sometime. What if there is no DN on my side? The side with a DN wins by default?

<sigh> Throws hands in the air.

You definitely need to fly ISC CLs. You can take an I-CLY and kick the living crap out of a F-DN.  Although, if you run into a F-DNH, you will have ask DH to give you a I-CLZf and it won't be so easy.  

[762_XC]

Agave,

Try stopping a hex flipper with PvP. See how easy it is for him to work where you're not, and you'll see what I mean. Sure you may catch him once or twice, but there's always another important hex. He'll just work around you.

I've done it and had it done to me, and each time it reinforced the reality that PvP ultimately does not matter.

[FPF-DieHard]

Try stopping a hex flipper with PvP.

You can't

As the "DN ace" who everyone is taking veiled shots at, how much time did I spend on a Z-DWD on the last server doing waht t00l described?

that saiid, D2 ain't a PvP game.  Square peg, round hole.

[762_XC]

I got it

If people think the "radius idea" is too complicated, how bout if you disengage from a hex, you have to log off for an hour?

[Dizzy]

Anyway, its silly for me to argue this any longer I've had my say, whether its been understood or not.

Ok, I dont understand your position. Can you restate, plz? I havent followed this thread entirely, so feel free to elaborate and make it easy for me to understand, I'm not too bright. I'm very interested in this type stuff as my server rules have touched orff on a lot of these thingees.

[FA Frey XC]

Okay, 'ere's my take on this :

1. HELL YEA I'D FLY STORM SEASON III !!!

2. Let's make a clarification here regarding PvP and the D2 campaigns - PvP is to the strategic aspect of winning the game via victory points and the like as a camel is to the ocean - they just don't work well together

Now if a server had a map that was better for a PvP, and the campaign itself was geared more towards PvP - perhaps specific requirements for each round regarding a number of PvP matches, or something else, but my point is a "General War" style campaign is won by the hexes flipped.

Period.

So that's the real distinction, IMHO., and what would need to be worked on for a PvP campaign to be successful.

[KBF-maQmIgh]

Okay how about this for a way to fix this issue of hex flipping. Pull a page from the Cavedog days of TA. Each hex records the battles fought in it over the course of the day. In the end the race with the highest winning percentage gets the hex. Now this will limit hex movement to one level each day but will make hex flippers have a whole lot less fun :-)

[FPF-DieHard]

2. Let's make a clarification here regarding PvP and the D2 campaigns - PvP is to the strategic aspect of winning the game via victory points and the like as a camel is to the ocean - they just don't work well together

I liked my "bear frucker" anology better . . .

[FPF-DieHard]

. . . but will make hex flippers have a whole lot less fun :-)

That is not the point.

[Father Ted]

So, lets say I take the DN and lose it as I rarely fly them. What then?

I am chastised for losing a capital ship and banned from play for the next hour...

I don't like the disengagement rule at all.

The arguement that it is exclusionary and favors nutters and aces is not out dated it is plain fact. It spoils the fun for more that it saves it.

Anyway, its silly for me to argue this any longer I've had my say, whether its been understood or not.

As somebody who's lost more than one DN on a server, I can safely say that once Die Hard takes his valium, the yelling on TS is hardly even noticeable anymore. He's really chilled out a lot since they upped his meds. Trust me...  

That being said, the point Crim and I are trying to make is that penalizing somebody in a MDC or D5D for losing their ship by kicking them out of the hex for only half as long as they would be barred for disengaging is no real penalty for a committed hex flipper. As soon as the yard pumps out another one, they'll just work another hex until the time limit expires. You could jack the prices through the roof for these ships, but then you'll be penalizing casual players, and each race has it's own hex flipper ranging from the Z-DF to G-MCC, and all points in between. Until SQL actually works, the disengagement rule, flawed though it may be, is the best option we have.

Skulls' Slot idea has great merit, and should be used more often. Also, I think Tool's suggestion of a radius around a hex should at least be tried.

[Hexx]

Although I admire and respect t00l as much as anyone else, the radius idea won't work
There will simply be too many arguments of who's out of what bucnh of hexes, plus
more stuff to keep track of.

I thought (to a degree) the hex around the planet (base?)  Dizzy implemented on SGO5 (or was it 6?)
worked OK, but hexes around an empty hex is just a crime against humanity.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

What about a map where the maximum DV is just 1 everywhere? One mission to flip the hex.

[Hexx]

What about a map where the maximum DV is just 1 everywhere? One mission to flip the hex.

...

I could flip the map myself overnight..
they'd all be at my mercy..

[FPF-DieHard]

Skulls' Slot idea has great merit, and should be used more often. Also, I think Tool's suggestion of a radius around a hex should at least be tried.

How about nothing bigger than a CCH?  On the whole server

[FPF-DieHard]

Although I admire and respect t00l as much as anyone else . . .

Oh man, where to start with this gem . . .

[KBF-Crim]

Its like this:

I can't count how many times I have been driven off a server by ONE DN pilot.

I'm happliy running missions in my CL (often with a wing), I get spotted. A DN and his wing come along and draft me, inevitably leaving my wing behind... I have to disengage or die.

Rinse and repeat until Bonk leaves the server in disgust as he can then only fly inconsequential PP building missions behind the lines.

It only takes ONE DN to eliminate dozens of CL pilots from play. (with a disengagement rule in effect)

It is just not right,

Ok...I'm gonna call you on that...name the pilot...and the server...

No one in his right mind...or in the coalition chain of command...is going to waste time chasing Bonk around the entire server map just to piss him off and have him leave the server......

Now...if you read my post above...I listed a break down of duties that appeal to "every" type of player...

I'll list them again: with a definition this time....

Hunter killer:   the aces....they specificly hunt the enemy CAPITOL ships that are worth VC's...casual players included...they dont mind sitting rock while you run a mission under them...

Rapid responce :  aces , average, and casual players online at the time who can drop what they are doing and move to face an enemy advance and tie them up..

Hex maintenence:  For casual players, noobs or people who simply dont like PvP for whatever reason..

Trench warfare: for people of any stripe who dont mind running endless missions on one hex or in one area

Harrassment, distractionary force:  aces, average ,casual, or even noobs.....this is the "hit em where they aint' mentality...this is often done before or during a major action to distract en ememy force and maybe pull players to the area...

NONE of these actions need be behind the lines....ALL are important to the over all effort to win a server...

And almost anyone can fill one or more of these rolls at any one time...

As I said...there SHOULD be something for every type of player to do on a server  SOMETHING WITH MEANING...if not...your team is doing something wrong...and you'll see players drop off due to a lack of moral...

If your team isnt sharing captiol ships amongs whom ever may wish to fly one....it's wrong...period.

If your having trouble ,getting run out of mission after mission...and no one wants to fly your wing and back you up OR give you the heavy iron to stand your ground...it's wrong...period..

[Hexx]

Again- and feel free to stop and acknowledge my brilliance here- we can ceratianly have a server with no disengagement penalty

I don't thin it will work for the majority, but don't see an issue with a serious one that turns in a free for all.
I think people get to uptight about trying something new(or old), server's usually only run 2-3 weeks so having no disengagement
penalty or (for exxample) having an Cap ship OOB that has finite number of ships is not the end of the D2 as we know it.

Now everyone stop arguing, and let's all get ready for the best server ever, KCW, which although it will have
a disengagement penalty, will also have a slot, and many many other ideas that I've stolen from more creative people.

[KBF-Crim]

So, lets say I take the DN and lose it as I rarely fly them. What then?

I am chastised for losing a capital ship and banned from play for the next hour...

Fly coalition..end of problem...any one that chastises you will get an ear full of crimmy...

I don't like the disengagement rule at all.

Fly outnumbered on a server...fly big iron....and watch your space melt around you...

The arguement that it is exclusionary and favors nutters and aces is not out dated it is plain fact. It spoils the fun for more that it saves it.

IMHO...you have not sucessfully made such an arguement...I have illustrated serveral ways to still have fun in a meaningful way and still be on the "front"...in spite of getting run out or even killed in a hex or two..

Anyway, its silly for me to argue this any longer I've had my say, whether its been understood or not.

I understand your point....I just disagree with it...

I also dissagree that PvP is meaningless in the D2 enviroment...such as 762 and DH have asserted...while I agree that it NOT the only factor in a victory..it is, none the less, a factor...*with the disengagement rule in place*...

The basic "rule set" of DV play has evolved over several years....frankly...we dont play ANY stock servewrs anymore at all...they all have rules that are over and above what the game can do or control....

There is a reason for this....

Some rules have driven players off....I fully aggree....

other rules have been the saving grace...and are the only reason ANYONE even bothers to play anymore...

The stock servers ALLWAYS where ruled by nutters....nothing but a race to the biggest ships...a BB fest where NO casual player even had a chance to compete...

At least now...a casual player can log in...run some missions...and actually effect how the war effort goes for his or her team...

[el-Karnak]

Some rules have driven players off....I fully aggree....

Y'all think rule changes here are bad for the playerbase. You have not seen nothing yet. Take a look at SWG. There have been 2 substantial game env. changes in 6 months to upgrade the combat play. Right now on the server I play on, there are 300 plus accounts being cancelled over it. SWG does not care, They just suck up more new players with new expansions tied into the latest SW movie release and give out 10 day trial accounts to replace the cranky old guard that leaves.  I have not really seen a lack of players on the server I play on. Just a lot of new players.

It's not very nice of SOE to the old guard, but that's business.

[KBF MalaK]

i REALLY hate the 'hex flipping thingy', so I'm gonna ask:
Is it possible to rig the server to allow a hex flip ONLY if won in a PvP match ?

I know it's a strech as you can have a DN sitting on a strategically important hex to 'hold' it , you could thus keep it prisoner allowing other hexxes to be DN free.

[el-Karnak]

i REALLY hate the 'hex flipping thingy', so I'm gonna ask:
Is it possible to rig the server to allow a hex flip ONLY if won in a PvP match ?

I know it's a strech as you can have a DN sitting on a strategically important hex to 'hold' it , you could thus keep it prisoner allowing other hexxes to be DN free.

It can be done. But, I don't think I would ever do that with EEK mission pack.

[KBF-Crim]

i REALLY hate the 'hex flipping thingy', so I'm gonna ask:
Is it possible to rig the server to allow a hex flip ONLY if won in a PvP match ?

I know it's a strech as you can have a DN sitting on a strategically important hex to 'hold' it , you could thus keep it prisoner allowing other hexxes to be DN free.

The other side of the coin is actually the problem bro....

If a team wanted to hold space.....all they have to do is stay out of those hexes and avoid the PvP battles....thus the hexes wont flip at all...

[Strat]

lol, then the other team could do the same, and it would remian a stalemate. 

At one point or another the teams would have to take the risk and fight battles in key areas or leave the server in a pause.

[KBF-Crim]

lol, then the other team could do the same, and it would remian a stalemate. 

At one point or another the teams would have to take the risk and fight battles in key areas or leave the server in a pause.

Not that anyone would do such a thing...but the way around that would be "rotting fur"...meet in a hex...lose a battle....rinse repeat...

[Dfly]

Hi Bonk.  I rarelly reply to your stuff as I feel you so command respect for your work done here but I have a question or comment on your words : 
"So, lets say I take the DN and lose it as I rarely fly them. What then?

I am chastised for losing a capital ship and banned from play for the next hour...

I don't like the disengagement rule at all.

The arguement that it is exclusionary and favors nutters and aces is not out dated it is plain fact. It spoils the fun for more that it saves it.

Anyway, its silly for me to argue this any longer I've had my say, whether its been understood or not."

Banned from play for the next hour?  You are not banned in any way.  you may not enter the hex you lost your DN in for 1/2 that time, or if it ran out, you are not allowed into that hex for 1 hour.  Did in any way you think you are banned for 1 hour from flying at all? or from flying another DN?  I hope not.  That one hex is the only hex you have no right to return to(unless using the 7 hex rule for planet-base).  all other 12000 hexes(more or less) you are allowed to fly in, which most of those belong to either enemy or neutral space.

I truly hope you are not chastised for losing your ship.  I have flown for both sides in the wars and some of it has been with CVA's, which I have actually lost one for the good guys, and was not chastised, even though it was my second campaign ever.  As for the coalition, i have never been chastised for losing a ship as they seem to do that quite well and often too. 

 Only disadvantage to the system I have seen is that it is really hard for the guy who flies maybe 5 hours a week to get anything bigger than a CA by the end of the campaign, unless he has lost absolutely no ships.    I would love to see ship costs, especially limited ships, dropped.  I would also love to see DNs and any big ships(BCH, etc) in limited numbers for the whole campaing.  ie: say only 3 total DN class ships allowed all server per side, only 5 BCH class ships allowed all server per side.  Each time you lose one, it is one less you may replace during server.    Numbers are up for adjustments as per how many, but I hope most get the idea.

[Dizzy]

Did in any way you think you are banned for 1 hour from flying at all? or from flying another DN?  I hope not. 

On my server he'd be banned from flying another DN for 12 hours.

[FPF-Wanderer]

Did in any way you think you are banned for 1 hour from flying at all? or from flying another DN?  I hope not. 

On my server he'd be banned from flying another DN for 12 hours.

<sigh>...is it really necessary to provoke people, bro?

[Dizzy]

Take off your anti-dizzy tinted glasses, Wanderer. I'd not intentionally provoke Bonk. He's my buddy. And you dont need to go defending him. He's perfectly capable of doing that himself. Now, to clear up a mess you seem to be starting before it becomes a mess, I was going further than crim by letting know that SGO5 had a penalty box rule. If this crap is gonna be discussed, that's an important part of the equation. Peeps on my server that found their capital ship blown up were restricted to lesser ships for 12 hours. My reasoning was to make a DN kill mean something. It doesnt if the killed DN player just goes and buys another one and is in the same hex 30 mins later.

Are you gonna come running to my defense at a pin drop that can be taken the wrong way, bro?

[Riskyllama]

I read it wrong too, until I remembered the penalty box thingy...I dont remember seeing wanderer on SGO5 so he might not've known about it. Frankly I didnt see many of the FPF on SGO5 other than tobin and diehard though. But back to the subject at hand, now we know....and knowing is half the battle.

[KBF-Crim]

Did in any way you think you are banned for 1 hour from flying at all? or from flying another DN?  I hope not. 

On my server he'd be banned from flying another DN for 12 hours.

<sigh>...is it really necessary to provoke people, bro?

Is his handle DIZZY....yes I think it is...

[KBF-Crim]

Take off your anti-dizzy tinted glasses, Wanderer. I'd not intentionally provoke Bonk. He's my buddy. And you dont need to go defending him. He's perfectly capable of doing that himself. Now, to clear up a mess you seem to be starting before it becomes a mess, I was going further than crim by letting know that SGO5 had a penalty box rule. If this crap is gonna be discussed, that's an important part of the equation. Peeps on my server that found their capital ship blown up were restricted to lesser ships for 12 hours. My reasoning was to make a DN kill mean something. It doesnt if the killed DN player just goes and buys another one and is in the same hex 30 mins later.

Are you gonna come running to my defense at a pin drop that can be taken the wrong way, bro?

Stew Phew

 

[KBF MalaK]

i REALLY hate the 'hex flipping thingy', so I'm gonna ask:
Is it possible to rig the server to allow a hex flip ONLY if won in a PvP match ?

I know it's a strech as you can have a DN sitting on a strategically important hex to 'hold' it , you could thus keep it prisoner allowing other hexxes to be DN free.

The other side of the coin is actually the problem bro....

If a team wanted to hold space.....all they have to do is stay out of those hexes and avoid the PvP battles....thus the hexes wont flip at all...

HMmmmm
Ya, thats a big FAT monkey wrench.

But it  could still go neutral.

[FPF-Wanderer]

Take off your anti-dizzy tinted glasses, Wanderer.

Well, you do have that effect on people, Diz.  You have to reap what you sow.  Let's face it, you do have a history of berating folks, putting them down, trying to provoke, and making a general asshat of yourself.  Not all the time, by any stretch, or even a majority of the time, but it is true that you have a history of this sort of behavior.  The fact that you italicised 'bro' to throw it back in my face is a perfect example.  You would get more of the accolades that you desire for your contributions to the community if you tried to use more civility and tact in your posts instead of falling back on trash talk.

And, yes, it's true, I didn't play on SGO5, so I did not know about the 12 hour rule.  I apologize.  But I'm sure that you can see where your one line statement could be taken out of context as a slam, particularly with your history.

At any rate, I'm putting out my hand to you.  I hope that you take it.  If not <shrug> there's not much else I can say.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

I read it wrong too, until I remembered the penalty box thingy...I dont remember seeing wanderer on SGO5 so he might not've known about it. Frankly I didnt see many of the FPF on SGO5 other than tobin and diehard though. But back to the subject at hand, now we know....and knowing is half the battle.

I was there...

[Riskyllama]

aye but due to time differences i dont think i saw you but once or so.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

If Capt. Jeff is running it I'm there.  My favorite servers EVER were Storm Season I and Storm Season II.  I might even be able to drag a couple of old folkes outta retirement for one of Jeff's specials.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

aye but due to time differences i dont think i saw you but once or so.

True... I was flying as Huntress of Lyra

[CaptJosh]

She even had her Huntres of Lyra pic as her sig on the sfc2.net forum. Meee-YOWser.