Topic: What have You Liked /Disliked on KCW

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Another thing I've noticed that I like a lot.

Two nights ago, I was involved in taking a planet from the enemy and then boosting up its DV after I took it.  I noticed that during the boosting phase, the only missons I dre were Planetary Defense.

I don't know if this was an exceptional night, or if this has been the rule, but I really, really liked it.   it was still easier to defend than it was to attack, but attackers with extended Assault missions weren't facing defenders with two-minute patrols.

If this is repeatable and intentional, I'd be interested in learning how it was done.

-S'Cipio

[Dizzy]

No RM would feel comfortable leaving his/her team, yet to find that the flavor of a campaign changed and wasn't what they had agreed to RM in the first plkace would be placed in a difficult and utterly miserable position.

Admins exersize plenty of delicacy and sensitivity to the issue, to the server and to the players (and to their own reputation and well being)when contemplating a mid server rule change. Players do not. Players dont even think about the big picture. They are only concerned with winning and what suits them best. SO they can just STFU for all I care. Hah, you wont see me making a mid server rule change and check myself cuz Malak is on the server.

Like I said, and I wont say it again, these whiners have had their day and that day is over and they can now stfu.

[762_XC]

Server admins gone bad!

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I just hope that an admin can follow Scippy's example and have the balls to stick with the origional plan.  If you don't get the turnout, or the result youy want learn from it and do it different on the next server.  Changing aspects that aren't a technical problem relating to stability and the like only diminish that admins reputation.

[Julin Eurthyr]

On the RM / GW2 issue:

Rarely, if ever, are all the RM's in agreement as to a mid-server rule change.  Considering that no RM, in their right mind, will approve a rule change that hurts their team, I don't find that surprising at all...

And the debates to get a rule-change to earn unanimous approval can (see GW2), get quite nasty...

Meanwhile, the rules lawyers among us seek out every loophole to gain advantage, and unless the rules are written air-tight (I haven't seen an airtight set yet...), something's got to give in order to keep the server-flavor going.  Hence the need for periodic rule-changes...

[Dizzy]

I just hope that an admin can follow Scippy's example and have the balls to stick with the origional plan.  If you don't get the turnout, or the result youy want learn from it and do it different on the next server.  Changing aspects that aren't a technical problem relating to stability and the like only diminish that admins reputation.

I disagree chuut. You are basically damned if you do or dont. Sometimes if nothing is done the server turns into an AI shootout. How fun is that? Sure, I'd piss off a few players (even a handful) to keep the server going. THAT is what takes balls. Not sticking to your guns to be self righteous. You have no idea how few and far between servers are and how difficult and arduous they r to develop to see them go down the drain when something can be done to keep it alive.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Rules clarifications are ok and this is where the Admin has a valid role.  Rules changes without unanimous consent are where an admin loses credibility.

[Dizzy]

Admins cant lose credibility. They dont have any to begin with. 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I disagree chuut. You are basically damned if you do or dont. Sometimes if nothing is done the server turns into an AI shootout. How fun is that? Sure, I'd piss off a few players (even a handful) to keep the server going. THAT is what takes balls. Not sticking to your guns to be self righteous. You have no idea how few and far between servers are and how difficult and arduous they r to develop to see them go down the drain when something can be done to keep it alive.

Terry Schiavo  was kept alive for quite a while as well, they should have pulled the plug long before they did.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Admins cant lose credibility. They dont have any to begin with. 

Scippy does and so does Capt. Jeff 

[Father Ted]

Admins cant lose credibility. They dont have any to begin with. 

You sell yourself short. Having been on the working end of SS2, I have more than enough admiration for all admins. What Chuut and I are saying is that we don't argue with a needed rules change, but change for change's stake in the middle of a server, especially if it favors one side, will piss off many more players than it will please.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Admins cant lose credibility. They dont have any to begin with. 

You sell yourself short. Having been on the working end of SS2, I have more than enough admiration for all admins. What Chuut and I are saying is that we don't argue with a needed rules change, but change for change's stake in the middle of a server, especially if it favors one side, will piss off many more players than it will please.

BINGO!

[KBFLordKrueg]

Likes:
Good PvP action with heavy VCs for successful battles.
The bringing together of pilots who don't normally fly together.
DisLikes:
Territory map rules flip-floping (ie-Nebs were worth, 10@, then became 5, opposite for asteriods) after campaign had started.
IMPHO, rules really need to be set in stone before a campaign starts...an old discussion, no sense in details....

All in all, still an enjoyable campaign.  

[762_XC]

On the RM / GW2 issue:

Rarely, if ever, are all the RM's in agreement as to a mid-server rule change.  Considering that no RM, in their right mind, will approve a rule change that hurts their team, I don't find that surprising at all...

And the debates to get a rule-change to earn unanimous approval can (see GW2), get quite nasty...

Julin, no offense but your memory is a little faulty here. The rule change on GW2 hurt the Alliance, and I was the Alliance RM who approved it. The debate lasted about 5 seconds. It was not a difficult decision; the original rules (LDR run amok) were so badly stacked against the Coalition it was practically a no brainer.

Meanwhile, the rules lawyers among us seek out every loophole to gain advantage, and unless the rules are written air-tight (I haven't seen an airtight set yet...), something's got to give in order to keep the server-flavor going.  Hence the need for periodic rule-changes...

This however, is a VERY good point.

[KBF MalaK]

Likes:
Good PvP action with heavy VCs for successful battles.
The bringing together of pilots who don't normally fly together.
DisLikes:
Territory map rules flip-floping (ie-Nebs were worth, 10@, then became 5, opposite for asteriods) after campaign had started.
IMPHO, rules really need to be set in stone before a campaign starts...an old discussion, no sense in details....

All in all, still an enjoyable campaign.  

thats exactly what I'm saying, but since I've only played all of 3 missions on the server (the second day) before deciding it was funked I have NO reason to whine. But I did sign on with the intention of actually playing and every time I decided to try again, there we're different rules. No offense Dizzy, many liked the server, I did not. So I deleted my post so YOU wouldn't go off on any of my other items on the don't like list.
No accusations
NO blaming
NO finger pointing

Why you get so crazy ?? who knows. It wasn't me

[Hexx]

Something that should be said about rules changes- sometimes they're needed simpy due to the players.

One of the "infamous" ones- concerning the LDR on GW2 was required, because J'inn believed that the community
would police itself, that not an overwhelming number of players would sign up for the LDR cheeseboats.
(the poor man disagreed with me here, senility was obviously already setting in)
Once he was proven wrong , and far more people signed up to fly LDR than he expected a change was required.

In that case an admin thought he could throw something extra in for the community, and that the community would be responsiible
enough not to sign up in droves to fly the uber ships, he was wrong, they did, it screwed part of teh server up, and then people
got pissed when he tried to fix it.

Of course it worked out in the end, as I got to tell him "I told you so"... of course then he had DH screw up the damn yards for the LDR..

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

GW2 cost us the SSCF.

There were better ways to handle the problem there than the way it was done.  Glad some enjoyed it after the fix, personally I'd have preferrred to keep the players and lose the server, but just my opinion.

[Hexx]

Without opening another debate about it, or blaming the SSCF (as there were of course other people involved with the LDR stuff)
GW2 was a situation where a group of players decided not to announce they were flying for the "uber" race when J'inn
asked people, then decided to fly it when the server actually started.

I'm disappointed players left over it, but at least some of those who left contibuted to the problem, and could have helped avoid it
entirely if they'd just said who they were flying for beforehand.

Heck I was supposed to be leading the LDR (<sigh> The "Chairman Hexx" days...) and J'inn had told me I'd have less than 10 pilots for the whole thing.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

If I remeber correctly the SSCF had indicated before the server that they planned to fly LDR

[762_XC]

Not exactly. Hooch planned it as something of a kitty Pearl Harbor. Unfortunately it worked a little too well.

The SSCF was not the only issue. The Coalition was drawing LDR AI most of the time, making their missions a nightmare. Another unintended consequence.