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.