Topic: Wild Geese proposal: the immediate geese

[Lepton]

I know this proposal will not be popular but I will suggest it any way.  I think as we saw on SG6 the geese seem to be rarely called out in time to balance a server and keep it interesting for the side that is ahead and frankly for the side that is behind in server attendance.  I would propose a simple fix to the geese system that I will call the immediate geese.  These are a group of players that sign up as geese before the server begins that make it their job to keep the sides as even as is possible.  The immediate geese's job is easy.  Upon signing onto the server, he or she joins whatever side is in need of players.  Any immediate geese that log on subsequently will continue to join the side that is lacking players until a balance in numbers can be achieved if that is possible.  As server numbers change, geese will have to switch sides to keep things even.  That's it and I think it's the best that can be expected, i.e. that the server be as balanced numerically as it can be at any one moment.  It's the best objective criterion that I can think of to regulate the geese.

The type of player that would like to be part of the immediate geese will be the player that has no particular attachment to who wins or losses a server, but merely enjoys playing the game.  He will in general have no particular race preference or be willing to set aside those preferences to do a service to the community.  With the advent of having any number of race accounts on one side, it is merely a step further to allow a player to switch sides easily to help balance the server.  I would count myself among those who'd be willing to be an immediate geese.  Anyone else think this is a good idea??

[KBF-Crim]

Having the geese makes it too easy to excuse not playing after signing up...

[FPF-DieHard]

It is a good idea.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

A big drawback here is that Geese players could not be allowed to know about any planned operations, it is too difficult not to use such knowledge when changing sides.  Even if you think you aren't using the info you likely are subconsciously.  Also plans are constantly made on voice coms as well, so there is a danger there as well.  Not saying it is impossible to do, just that it has some big drawbacks as well.

[Dizzy]

"Islamofascism is nothing but an empty propaganda term. And wartime propaganda is usually, if not always, crafted to produce hysteria, the destruction of any sense of proportion. Such words, undefined and unmeasured, are used by people more interested in making us lose our heads than in keeping their own."

Promoting anti-semitic paleolibertarian anarchocapitalists? hehehe

I just love Leptons idea. Perfect for the PvP lovers... I hate being stuck on the side with more numbers. Means I have to wait for PvP or fight AI. Sign me up!

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

The other drawback I see is that the situation online at any given moment is not necessisarily indictive of the overall server balance.

For example at 6 PM you have a 14- 9 Coalition/Alliance imbalance with 3 geese logging on.  They of course join the Alliance making the numbers 14-12.  Three hours later at 9 PM the numbers are at 8-8 when they all log off.  But one hour later at 11 PM  5 Alliance players sign on and it is now 8 - 13 in favor of the Alliance with no geese around. 

In this instance if the geese had not signed on at all a parity over time would have existed, but due to them trying to balance the numbers at any given time, they in effect created a numbers advantage for the side they joined.

The idea is a good one, but not so simple as it would look at first, various scenarios need to be considered.

[Hexx]

Chuut's right.

It's an interesting idea, but completely impractical unless you have everyone fly geese.

[Dizzy]

Awesome idea Hexx! Brilliant! An all Geese server!

[Father Ted]

I think Chuut's correct. There's an ebb and flow in numbers during different times of the day that is simply the nature of campaigns, artificially creating parity is a good idea in theory, but in practice it seems awkward, especially for the Goose.

For example, it's very early on a weekday morning. Deadman is flying Alliance against Kreug and Hexx. Chuut's a goose, so he logs onto the server as Alliance. Half an hour later, Jeff and I log on as Alliance, so in the span of 30 minutes, the number went from 2-1 Coalition to 4-2 Alliance. Is Chuut now obligated to log off and log back on as Coalition?

In the meantime, do we want him on TS listening to what we're planning to do, then he's forced to fly for the other side, but knows what we're up to? It's obvious we can't give him access to our forums because operations are planned in detail with little maps and orders from our current RM. Kinda leaves him out in the cold. Like I said, it's a good idea in theory, I'm not quite so sure in reality.

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

what geese produce...

[KBFLordKrueg]

I know this proposal will not be popular but I will suggest it any way.  I think as we saw on SG6 the geese seem to be rarely called out in time to balance a server and keep it interesting for the side that is ahead and frankly for the side that is behind in server attendance.  I would propose a simple fix to the geese system that I will call the immediate geese.  These are a group of players that sign up as geese before the server begins that make it their job to keep the sides as even as is possible.  The immediate geese's job is easy.  Upon signing onto the server, he or she joins whatever side is in need of players.  Any immediate geese that log on subsequently will continue to join the side that is lacking players until a balance in numbers can be achieved if that is possible.  As server numbers change, geese will have to switch sides to keep things even.  That's it and I think it's the best that can be expected, i.e. that the server be as balanced numerically as it can be at any one moment.  It's the best objective criterion that I can think of to regulate the geese.

The type of player that would like to be part of the immediate geese will be the player that has no particular attachment to who wins or losses a server, but merely enjoys playing the game.  He will in general have no particular race preference or be willing to set aside those preferences to do a service to the community.  With the advent of having any number of race accounts on one side, it is merely a step further to allow a player to switch sides easily to help balance the server.  I would count myself among those who'd be willing to be an immediate geese.  Anyone else think this is a good idea??

The Geese came in a few at a time, I was the one who recommended the whole group not be deployed at once.

And Chutt made a good point, player numbers swing depending on time of day, along with other factors, such as holidays, weekends, etc.
Having large numbers of players swicthing sides constantly would be, IMOHPO, detremental to the overall stragedy of particular sides.

Maybe if players who signed up actually SHOWED up....

I doubt there will ever be truely "balanced" campaigns.

Each side needs to learn to take the losses along with the victories.

Just MPO....

[762_XC]

The problem with the geese on SGO6 was that there really was only one goose. The other two did not want to switch, and did not even seem to realize they were geese until they were called.

[Lepton]

The other drawback I see is that the situation online at any given moment is not necessisarily indictive of the overall server balance.

For example at 6 PM you have a 14- 9 Coalition/Alliance imbalance with 3 geese logging on.  They of course join the Alliance making the numbers 14-12.  Three hours later at 9 PM the numbers are at 8-8 when they all log off.  But one hour later at 11 PM  5 Alliance players sign on and it is now 8 - 13 in favor of the Alliance with no geese around. 

In this instance if the geese had not signed on at all a parity over time would have existed, but due to them trying to balance the numbers at any given time, they in effect created a numbers advantage for the side they joined.

The idea is a good one, but not so simple as it would look at first, various scenarios need to be considered.

It works out through the law of averages.  And it is in no way impractical.  We all did it last server.  We switched from race to race at the drop of a hat.  Here the geese merely switch sides.  No biggie.  And as I said, it would have to be people with no particular attachment to who wins the server.  We have geese now.  Do they violate the confidences of the sides they fly for?  Are you telling me that Karnak for instance went and blabbed all the Coalition's plans to the Alliance?  I think not.  Any system could be abused.  We all play this game with a gentleman's oath to be fair and honest.  Do you doubt the trustworthiness of your fellows?  Come. Come.  Say it isn't so?

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

It works out through the law of averages. 

depends on your definition of "working out", I would guess it would work out by my definition not much better than 50%.  The side that is ahead when you have gesse on isn't necessarily the side that needs the pilots most over the course of the whole day, you might even be making the problem worse.  I prefer an attempt at balancing which would have very little chance of making an imbalance worse.  The previous method while less helpful than some would like at least doesn't do this.  It is good that folkes are thinking about this sort of thing an I applaud you for the effort Lepton, but I don't see this as a solution. 

We have geese now.  Do they violate the confidences of the sides they fly for?  Are you telling me that Karnak for instance went and blabbed all the Coalition's plans to the Alliance?  I think not.  Any system could be abused.  We all play this game with a gentleman's oath to be fair and honest.  Do you doubt the trustworthiness of your fellows?  Come. Come.  Say it isn't so?

Didn't you read my post above?

"A big drawback here is that Geese players could not be allowed to know about any planned operations, it is too difficult not to use such knowledge when changing sides. Even if you think you aren't using the info you likely are subconsciously."

No one would likely blab secret info, but they would have it in the back of their head and likely utilize it subconsciously.

[Dizzy]

I hadn't previously discussed this much, but I figure this might be the appropriate time since we are talking about planning and players switching sides... Once Hexx switched to the coalition and then I did, Krueg had left for the moment and there was a leadership vacancy. All the coalition plans were revealed to me, but Hexx and I had other ideas... Instead of following what Krueg had laid out, and knowing what the alliance had planned, Hexx and I got together and were going to take over the leadership of the coalition and surrender to the alliance France style and end the destructive war raging across the quadrant... Alas, Krueg came back before we could put our plan in motion, but I think it had a good chance of succeeding.

You cant ever trust a goose. 

[GDA-Agave]

I think that if Geese players were going to be used for a server all the elements need to be nailed down.   Particularly who the players are and when the switch times should be.    I don't like the idea of "immediate" Geese.   If they switch sides, they should stay there until the next look at players balance numbers are done.   Balancing players numbers on an hour to hour basis is just silly, IMHO.

Say, designate X number of players as Geese BEFORE the server starts.   Even have some alternates in case a regular Geese player has to drop out.  (when he/she does drop out, they would no longer be a Geese player for that server;  just in case they are able fly more later)  No more than 5 listed Geese players at any time would be my suggestion.

Switch times, say 3 days after server start, then every 5, 6, or 7 days after that.   Posts would be put on all necessary forums letting all sides know beforehand what is about to occur.  Say 24 hrs in advance.   This would let all sides get prepared, or even request no switch is made, if they wanted.

Now I know a few players jumped back and forth on SGO6 constantly.  Dizzy being the most noticable.  I'm sure since he's a PvP whore that he was just trying to create the best "target rich" environment for himself  at any given moment.   Hey, he was a server admin so I didn't think much about it.    BUT, if lots of players started to do that it would be quite annoying IMHO.   The more players switch sides, the more secretive the operational planners will become.  Hell, I was a race RM as I was in SGO6 I would suggest that nothing more than day to day strategies be posted.   Even those could have a serious chance of being FUBARed by players switching sides at whim.

Structured Geese system ok, immediate Geese switching idea bad.

[Max Torps]

I wonder what the possibility is of utilising PHP/MySQL to allow/disallow sign ups for races based on recent activity?
Say we have a 4 race server for the sake of example.
F K R M
The Feds have a large sign up, last time I was here they stayed high. Then you get Klinks, then Rom Or Mirak in this example.
After a few days many Roms haven't signed on but the other races are fighting valiantly so the only options on the server for start characters are Rom...

Downsides are:
Player wishes. If you didn't like Rom you just wouldn't sign up if you felt that strongly. Leading to a potential lost player.
Cuckoos. Player signs up as a Rom hoping the balance will change later and feeds info to their preferred side. Apologies, no slur intended! Just an example.  Separate issue that can be resolved by limited comms.
Script writing to manipulate server setting and so on.

Leading me to the next train of thought...
What about allowing all race sign ups as normal but when the server activity of Roms has hit a low for a few days or whatever, the highest race has a limit on active players able to login?

Downside:
Severely p**sed off player who just wants to play his/her side.
Loyalty - see above. Separate issue that can be resolved by limited comms.

Upside:
Allows geese a server initiated prompt (disallowing login for majority race above a certain limit ) to switch sides that is more regulated to ebb and flow of normal traffic.

I can't remember how the gf file that looked after race logins was looked at by the server, whether updates were allowed realtime or on reboot. I suspect reboot would be needed.

Anyway, just rambling out some thoughts. 

[Lepton]

I don't think you guys understand the law of averages.  Given a certain number of geese and holding the average number of players on each side as relatively constant over time, on average the geese will be more likely to be flying for the side that is lower in numbers.  Will there be occasions in which geese will be flying for the side that has more numbers on average?  Yes, but this scheme is an alternative to the geese getting called out late.  I call it immediate geese not only because they switch relatively immediately but also because they are in effect immediately, i.e. not delayed in being called out until it is too late.

Take this past server.  Had this scheme been in effect, given enough geese, player numbers would have been much more balanced overall.

If I had the sufficient software, time, and a decent model, I could probably produce a simulation that would show you that this would work.  Right now as I see it there are effectively no geese.  With this scheme, I would think people would be more likely to volunteer for geese service as it gives them more freedom.

Be that as it may, I am suggesting an objective and transparent criteria for calling on the geese whereas now I think we have none and it shows.  If someone would like to posit a better alternative that is objective, I'd be glad to hear it.

[Lepton]

Balancing players numbers on an hour to hour basis is just silly, IMHO.

Why silly? What other games do you play that have a multiplayer component wherein you log onto a server that has sides?  What do you do?  Log onto the side that has more players on it so that the sides are further imbalanced?  I sure don't.  You make the sides as even as you can by your participation.  It happens all the time.  It's not silly.  In fact, I'd say that it is the rule rather than the exception.

[Lepton]

Switch times, say 3 days after server start, then every 5, 6, or 7 days after that.   Posts would be put on all necessary forums letting all sides know beforehand what is about to occur.  Say 24 hrs in advance.   This would let all sides get prepared, or even request no switch is made, if they wanted.

How are you going to know when to do these switches or even what the server numbers are per side?  Mere perceptions?  Those can always be argued about.  There is no objective critieria in what you suggest.  There is always an initial resistance to calling out the geese.  Someone with enough balls makes the suggestion, the other side whines and bitches and says  "No, no, not yet, it's only X days into the server", and the delay in calling the geese is put off until it is so obvious that the server numbers are imbalanced that the course of the server is already determined.  In what I suggest the criterion is completely measurable, objective, and transparent:  how many players are on the server per side.  I can count.  You can count.  It's that simple.  Anything else will be arguable unless someone can give statistics on player numbers per side per hour or per day, but that is not obtainable as far as I know.

[Hexx]

<shrug> I'd say there's far less need to create rules for geese to switch sides after every mission to keep things balanced as
it is to point out to players that this is only a game.
There's 2 or 3 players that I know of- and I really don't pay that much attention- who fly for both sides on many servers.
Yet some other players seem to be incensed by this. There were players that were pissed off with me (not that that's anything new)
when I switched sides during the GW series between servers.

I know you hear things like "Well they might know about our secret plan to take the planet at hex 19,19"
And it's true to a degree- but (imo) only if you're about the only player on.
Otherwise the news
"Feds attack 18,19"
"Feds attack 18.19"
"Feds attack 18,19"

tends to give things away.

Just let people switch if they want to.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

If someone would like to posit a better alternative that is objective, I'd be glad to hear it.

Not that I would support this system I'm about to mention, but I think it better to what you propossed and along an totally objective basis.

Here goes:

Players are assigned a value of 1-3.  1 is for any player who has not yet reached commodore, 2 is for those who have reached commodore, and 3 is for those who have reached admiral.  If pilots are allowed to fly multiple races the prestige must be added together to determine a players true score.

After the end of a given period the score for each side are tabulated and previously determined geese players are moved if necessary to balance the totals.

This system takes into account ebb and flow during the period, takes into account the rate at which each pilot is earning prestige which bears some relationship to mission times (although not exactly), and does nothing to directly penalize a side for having better strategy since it is not determined by VC conditions which reflect effectiveness but instead relies on factors that indicate time online and mission speed regardless if the missions were flown in the most important areas or not.

There is one drawback as opposed to your system, that being simplicity, my system requires the admin do the calculation.

Of course it still suffers from the strategic planning problem.

I'm not necessarily in favor of this approach myself, but it is more acceptable to me than the "immediate" system that you proposed.

[KBF-Crim]

No one has said it...so I will...

This is basiclly a penalty for having your act together...

I never really cared for the concept...no matter how noble the intention...

I mean really....can you see the allies invading normandy and thinking....."gee....where kicking these guys asses...we should send some troops over so it isnt a route"....you'd be shot...

How about we concentrate on:

A) getting the pilots that sign up to show up...(RL issues aside)

B) comming up with some other system to give the underdog a boost...( and I mean this with all seriousness)....like sliding the BPV's upwards or downwards for under/over populated empires to have the game do some balance for a change instead of having yet more rules, proceedures, and policies...

Over populated races would face stiffer AI in missions....under populated lighter AI opposition...

PvP wouldnt be affected with AI stripping...

Thoughts?

C)Keep the current

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

B) comming up with some other system to give the underdog a boost...( and I mean this with all seriousness)....like sliding the BPV's upwards or downwards for under/over populated empires to have the game do some balance for a change instead of having yet more rules, proceedures, and policies...

Over populated races would face stiffer AI in missions....under populated lighter AI opposition...

PvP wouldnt be affected with AI stripping...

Now that is a really good train of thought.  Not to sure about the specific idea you propose, have to give it some more thought, but the general line of thinking is one that I like.

[Lepton]

No one has said it...so I will...

This is basiclly a penalty for having your act together...

I never really cared for the concept...no matter how noble the intention...

I mean really....can you see the allies invading normandy and thinking....."gee....where kicking these guys asses...we should send some troops over so it isnt a route"....you'd be shot...

How about we concentrate on:

A) getting the pilots that sign up to show up...(RL issues aside)

B) comming up with some other system to give the underdog a boost...( and I mean this with all seriousness)....like sliding the BPV's upwards or downwards for under/over populated empires to have the game do some balance for a change instead of having yet more rules, proceedures, and policies...

Over populated races would face stiffer AI in missions....under populated lighter AI opposition...

PvP wouldnt be affected with AI stripping...

Thoughts?

C)Keep the current

A) Hasn't worked.  Never will.
B) Too complicated
C) Doesn't address the problem

Success should not be determined by turnout on a server.  This is not a political process.  Might as well just have people clicking an "I am here" button and count the number of clicks per side if turnout is going to determine the course of a server.  This "having your stuff together" old saw is merely a rationalization for wishing to exploit a superior turnout which has nothing to do with player skill or superior strategic thinking and then basking in the glow of victory as if one had done something miraculous.  Do you want an fair game or not?  Anything else is an illusion.

[KBF-Crim]

B) comming up with some other system to give the underdog a boost...( and I mean this with all seriousness)....like sliding the BPV's upwards or downwards for under/over populated empires to have the game do some balance for a change instead of having yet more rules, proceedures, and policies...

Over populated races would face stiffer AI in missions....under populated lighter AI opposition...

PvP wouldnt be affected with AI stripping...

Now that is a really good train of thought.  Not to sure about the specific idea you propose, have to give it some more thought, but the general line of thinking is one that I like.

Well...when the DV was propsed..there was to be another "modifier" in balancing empire populations....one of those "controls" was to be the shipyards and the bidding process...nutters and bidding honor curcumvented that...

Another proposal was to automate some type of "difficulty" modifier based on population ratios....

but such a system needs to be automatic so that a team that was over populated isnt penalised for half it's players going to bed and then still have to face stiffer AI...

Again...the setting of odds required to intitiate a BPV bump could be pretty simple.....not 2 to 1 but 3 to 1.....something along those lines...

Also...such a bump shouldnt be drastic...just a few points either way changes AI draws...

[Lepton]

Let me clarify.  I had never intended for the geese to be potentially switching sides after every mission.  That would be an odd imposition.  Something more like accessing the numbers every half hour or hour that the particular geese player is online.  As I said, it all evens out over time.

[Mutilator]

What if the side that is under manned be allowed to use extra heavy metal or specialty ships to assist in the defence of their space. (until numbers equal out more...)

Example if side A has a 10 on side B has 5 then side B would be permitted to bring on an extra DN BB until the numbers balance out...  not sure what the odds scale would have to be, be outnumbered by three, five, etc before extra defence forces could be called into play.

[KBF-Crim]

No one has said it...so I will...

This is basiclly a penalty for having your act together...

I never really cared for the concept...no matter how noble the intention...

I mean really....can you see the allies invading normandy and thinking....."gee....where kicking these guys asses...we should send some troops over so it isnt a route"....you'd be shot...

How about we concentrate on:

A) getting the pilots that sign up to show up...(RL issues aside)

B) comming up with some other system to give the underdog a boost...( and I mean this with all seriousness)....like sliding the BPV's upwards or downwards for under/over populated empires to have the game do some balance for a change instead of having yet more rules, proceedures, and policies...

Over populated races would face stiffer AI in missions....under populated lighter AI opposition...

PvP wouldnt be affected with AI stripping...

Thoughts?

C)Keep the current

A) Hasn't worked.  Never will.
B) Too complicated
C) Doesn't address the problem

Success should not be determined by turnout on a server.  This is not a political process.  Might as well just have people clicking an "I am here" button and count the number of clicks per side if turnout is going to determine the course of a server.  This "having your stuff together" old saw is merely a rationalization for wishing to exploit a superior turnout which has nothing to do with player skill or superior strategic thinking and then basking in the glow of victory as if one had done something miraculous.  Do you want an fair game or not?  Anything else is an illusion.

Uh...in case you havent noticed....our turn out hasnt been so hot as a late...the "wishing to exploit"  is unfounded...

Sure I want a fair game....lets start by flying only tourney ships...or better yet...frieghters...and only the nuetral part of the ship list....

This is a WAR game....if one side doesnt show...they loose....period....no matter how many people get goosed.....anything else is an illusion...

Might as well end up just doing away with such mental anchors as "alliance" and "coalition"..."team"...and "campaign"....just go for blind draw tourneys played on GSA....

The Geese aren't a solution...they're a bandaid for the underlying problem...snake oil....

Peeps dont show...problem for peeps not showing ignored....geese moved...

Happens over and over now...just switches sides...and servers.....

If my team dont show and we loose.....so be it...dont accuse me of seeking an advantage, where there surely is none to be had.

[Lepton]

What if the side that is under manned be allowed to use extra heavy metal or specialty ships to assist in the defence of their space. (until numbers equal out more...)

Example if side A has a 10 on side B has 5 then side B would be permitted to bring on an extra DN BB until the numbers balance out...  not sure what the odds scale would have to be, be outnumbered by three, five, etc before extra defence forces could be called into play.

It's not a bad suggestion, but how would so you determined when a side is undermanned or not?  It will be under dispute just as it is now when the consideration for calling the geese comes up.  If you make the determination based on the present server numbers when you are logged on, is a bigger ship or more bigger ships really going to help when the disparity is so large?  I don't think so.  It is an interesting proposal though.  I tend to think a numbers advantage wins servers.  Is the help of more metal going to make the difference in the long run if they only get fielded on rare occasions and for short amounts of time?  I don't think so.

[Lepton]

No one has said it...so I will...

This is basiclly a penalty for having your act together...

I never really cared for the concept...no matter how noble the intention...

I mean really....can you see the allies invading normandy and thinking....."gee....where kicking these guys asses...we should send some troops over so it isnt a route"....you'd be shot...

How about we concentrate on:

A) getting the pilots that sign up to show up...(RL issues aside)

B) comming up with some other system to give the underdog a boost...( and I mean this with all seriousness)....like sliding the BPV's upwards or downwards for under/over populated empires to have the game do some balance for a change instead of having yet more rules, proceedures, and policies...

Over populated races would face stiffer AI in missions....under populated lighter AI opposition...

PvP wouldnt be affected with AI stripping...

Thoughts?

C)Keep the current

A) Hasn't worked.  Never will.
B) Too complicated
C) Doesn't address the problem

Success should not be determined by turnout on a server.  This is not a political process.  Might as well just have people clicking an "I am here" button and count the number of clicks per side if turnout is going to determine the course of a server.  This "having your stuff together" old saw is merely a rationalization for wishing to exploit a superior turnout which has nothing to do with player skill or superior strategic thinking and then basking in the glow of victory as if one had done something miraculous.  Do you want an fair game or not?  Anything else is an illusion.

Uh...in case you havent noticed....our turn out hasnt been so hot as a late...the "wishing to exploit"  is unfounded...

Sure I want a fair game....lets start by flying only tourney ships...or better yet...frieghters...and only the nuetral part of the ship list....

This is a WAR game....if one side doesnt show...they loose....period....no matter how many people get goosed.....anything else is an illusion...

Might as well end up just doing away with such mental anchors as "alliance" and "coalition"..."team"...and "campaign"....just go for blind draw tourneys played on GSA....

The Geese aren't a solution...they're a bandaid for the underlying problem...snake oil....

Peeps dont show...problem for peeps not showing ignored....geese moved...

Happens over and over now...just switches sides...and servers.....

If my team dont show and we loose.....so be it...dont accuse me of seeking an advantage, where there surely is none to be had.

You misunderstand.  I accuse you of nothing at all.  Don't take it personal.  What I am saying is that when a side has a numbers advantage and thereby win a server, they pat themselves on the back when it has nothing to do with skill.  It's turnout.  That's not really very interesting.

People won't show if they don't show.  You gonna pay em to.  I don't think so.  I'm trying to balance things so we all can have a good time without one side getting discourage because people don't show.

And please don't give me that old "War Game" excuse.  It's a game and therefore should be fair and balanced.  Do we allow an NFL team to field more players just because they have a better marketing business and can afford to hire more?  No, we have salary caps and of course only so many players per side.  Things are not fair in war, but this is not war and any analogy demeans the horror of the actual thing.  Calling something a war game does not mean you can throw fairness out the window or that anything becomes acceptable.  Would you prefer I hunt you down and put a bullet in your head to get you off the server?  I think not.

It's a game.  Let's treat it as such.

[TraumaTech]

No one has said it...so I will...

This is basiclly a penalty for having your act together...

I never really cared for the concept...no matter how noble the intention...

I mean really....can you see the allies invading normandy and thinking....."gee....where kicking these guys asses...we should send some troops over so it isnt a route"....you'd be shot...

How about we concentrate on:

A) getting the pilots that sign up to show up...(RL issues aside)

B) comming up with some other system to give the underdog a boost...( and I mean this with all seriousness)....like sliding the BPV's upwards or downwards for under/over populated empires to have the game do some balance for a change instead of having yet more rules, proceedures, and policies...

Over populated races would face stiffer AI in missions....under populated lighter AI opposition...

PvP wouldnt be affected with AI stripping...

Thoughts?

C)Keep the current

A) Hasn't worked.  Never will.
B) Too complicated
C) Doesn't address the problem

Success should not be determined by turnout on a server.  This is not a political process.  Might as well just have people clicking an "I am here" button and count the number of clicks per side if turnout is going to determine the course of a server.  This "having your stuff together" old saw is merely a rationalization for wishing to exploit a superior turnout which has nothing to do with player skill or superior strategic thinking and then basking in the glow of victory as if one had done something miraculous.  Do you want an fair game or not?  Anything else is an illusion.

Uh...in case you havent noticed....our turn out hasnt been so hot as a late...the "wishing to exploit"  is unfounded...

Sure I want a fair game....lets start by flying only tourney ships...or better yet...frieghters...and only the nuetral part of the ship list....

This is a WAR game....if one side doesnt show...they loose....period....no matter how many people get goosed.....anything else is an illusion...

Might as well end up just doing away with such mental anchors as "alliance" and "coalition"..."team"...and "campaign"....just go for blind draw tourneys played on GSA....

The Geese aren't a solution...they're a bandaid for the underlying problem...snake oil....

Peeps dont show...problem for peeps not showing ignored....geese moved...

Happens over and over now...just switches sides...and servers.....

If my team dont show and we loose.....so be it...dont accuse me of seeking an advantage, where there surely is none to be had.

i think you are missing the point....that being   this is a game,and for a game to be fun for both sides  u need a chance to win and or lose...thus the idea of geese is a good one,that keeps the interest in the game.....runaway servers,are no fun for anyone.personally,i think the way geese have been used to date has been fine.i do not recall ever hearing on ts or vent from a geese that just came over,'this is the othersides plans",and as Hexx said 'feds attacking 10/19   feds attacking 10/19  feds attackintg 10/19" sorta gives it away.

keep the ideas coming but simplicity has to be paramount for it to truly work and right now  it is just right

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

One thing that can greatly help a side that is numbers disadvantaged but which is not unfair in the least is Secret VCs.  Each side would have a certain number of hidden VCs that only they knew about.  We have seen this on Storm Season I and it worked perfectly.  I remember one VC round on that server where the Lyrans, who had the fewest players on the server had earned the most VCs due to completing tasks that we didn't even realize existed.

Since the side with superior numbers doesn't know all of the other sides VCs it makes it harder to apply their numbers advantage in a way to prevent the other side from working towards them.  Some hidden VCs might become readily apparent after a while, such as taking a planet, but others might not be so obvious.  Things like maxing out DVs around a core world to suppress an internal rebellion, building a LOS to an ally at a specific point on the map, making an LOS to the home space of an enemy at three different points at least 5 hexes apart, etc.  These are tasks that progress could be made toward even when outnumbered, since the enemy wasn't exactly sure what you were trying to achieve.

Now this doesn't solve a problem with a longterm player numbers advantage, but it does help address a numbers advantage at any given time, and also gives a side with fewer numbers currently online tasks to do that might keep their interest up and keep them from logging off in frustration and thereby help their overall situation.  Like I said it isn't a solution to that but it may help some.

[Lepton]

I like that idea, especially if it worked in the past.

[FPF-DieHard]

B) comming up with some other system to give the underdog a boost...( and I mean this with all seriousness)....like sliding the BPV's upwards or downwards for under/over populated empires to have the game do some balance for a change instead of having yet more rules, proceedures, and policies...

Over populated races would face stiffer AI in missions....under populated lighter AI opposition...

PvP wouldnt be affected with AI stripping...

Now that is a really good train of thought.  Not to sure about the specific idea you propose, have to give it some more thought, but the general line of thinking is one that I like.

This is too cumbersome to work, this can't even be automated.

[FPF-DieHard]

Strategy in D2 is an illlusion, but it is the illusion of strategy that makes the game compelling to play.  Ironic ain't it?

Too bad we can't have "AI BOTs" 

[KBF-Crim]

You misunderstand.

No....I understand perfectly...I've been here the whole time.....since before time, in game terms....I'm well aware of the nobility of giving a team a hand up in the name of sportmanship...That is not an issue...nor is the honor of the geese....so lets set those issues aside shall we?...

  I accuse you of nothing at all.  Don't take it personal.

When you address me specificly and state:

"This "having your stuff together" old saw is merely a rationalization for wishing to exploit a superior turnout which has nothing to do with player skill or superior strategic thinking and then basking in the glow of victory as if one had done something miraculous.  Do you want an fair game or not?  Anything else is an illusion.

I am ussuming you are in fact addressing me...and you in fact intended to put that statement together and type it...and click post...

So yes...after going through all those steps...I will take such personally...

  What I am saying is that when a side has a numbers advantage and thereby win a server, they pat themselves on the back when it has nothing to do with skill.  It's turnout.  That's not really very interesting.

But I am saying...no matter what...this will not change....unless you are willing to force half your team to fight your own team..."alliance A vs  Alliance B"....

Floating the geese back and forth is an illusion...moral support....

People won't show if they don't show.

No arguement there....

  You gonna pay em to.  I don't think so.

Just as soon as I can figure out a way to make money playing SFC...we'll all be rich...

  I'm trying to balance things so we all can have a good time without one side getting discourage because people don't show.

Ok...here it is....that is a matter for that team to address.....not for an admin to artifically make up for, by replacing those discouraged people with people from the side who holds a current advantage...to stop a route possibly...but just to balance numbers by the hour or even by a twelve huor shift still wont make up for those missing players.....

Failure to address it will not solve the problem...

And please don't give me that old "War Game" excuse.

It's not an excuse....it's a war game...plain and simple...

  It's a game and therefore should be fair and balanced.

Fair and balanced does not mean stalemate....

If anything...it should be up to the RM to request help from the geese....or it isnt a game at all...it's a plaything for the admin....

  Do we allow an NFL team to field more players just because they have a better marketing business and can afford to hire more?
  No, we have salary caps and of course only so many players per side. 

The more correct curcumstance...using your anolgy, would be:

Do we allow NFL teams who are losing the season to take players from winning teams?

I would think you answer would be no...we dont...

Things are not fair in war,

Or war games.....many senarios are losing fights....the challenge is to last the longest in the face of those odds...to stalemate the unwinnable...

A war gamer will take the losing fight for the challenge...a plain old gamer wont...they want to win....not winning means no fun...

But to the wargame...the game is the fun....no game...no fun...

but this is not war and any analogy demeans the horror of the actual thing.

I'm sorry...I wasnt aware that we had perfected warp drive and ventured into the stars , only to run into the ruthless and dangerous klingon empire...

(yes I mock you with great pleasure and fart in your general direction for the attempt to guilt trip me)

  Calling something a war game does not mean you can throw fairness out the window or that anything becomes acceptable.

Nor did I say anything of the kind...in fact what I am saying....is that this ISNT fair to the team who may have the upper hand at anyone point in the server...the coalition usually musters forces twords the end of a server...no secret there....no if the geese had influence in keeping the empire in a strategic state of a draw ( the goal of "fairness")...and the coalition mounts a last mintue puch to a major VC to win a server.....how was that ever fair to the alliance?...who...if they hadnt have gotten the upper hand early....wouldnt have lost pilots when they needed them most?

Riddle me that...

  Would you prefer I hunt you down and put a bullet in your head to get you off the server?  I think not.

Would you like my address?

It's a game.  Let's treat it as such.

Ok...so if we play monoply...and I get low on cash.....can I grap some of yours?

If we are playing battle ship.....can I get do-overs on my battle ship loss?

Can I have extra miners in stratego?

Will you spot me a couple hundred armies for risk?

Can I get double dice in trouble? on tuesdays?

I play for fun...winning is a bonus...

Face it....the geese wont fix 6 pages of rule fatigue...

And really....it IS war.....we got voice coms, strategery, battle plans,commanders freaking out at ship losses....miraculaous victories against unseeming odds....all that...

As I said....I have no quarrel with the sentiment behind the geese....but I question the effect on a "fair" game.

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

 

[Lepton]

Crim,

Have the illusion of your victory.  I hope KBF turns out big for the next server.  It is child's play to refute all that you have said with one simple statement.  Numbers win servers, therefore any arguement you make based on the unfairness of transfering players from "winning" side to the "losing" side is specious and frankly a tautology.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Or war games.....many senarios are losing fights....the challenge is to last the longest in the face of those odds...to stalemate the unwinnable...

A war gamer will take the losing fight for the challenge...

BINGO!

+1 Crimmy for that comment.

Some of the most fun I've had has been when greatly outnumbered.  AOTK I was a blast!

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

B) comming up with some other system to give the underdog a boost...( and I mean this with all seriousness)....like sliding the BPV's upwards or downwards for under/over populated empires to have the game do some balance for a change instead of having yet more rules, proceedures, and policies...

Over populated races would face stiffer AI in missions....under populated lighter AI opposition...

PvP wouldnt be affected with AI stripping...

Now that is a really good train of thought.  Not to sure about the specific idea you propose, have to give it some more thought, but the general line of thinking is one that I like.

This is too cumbersome to work, this can't even be automated.

One thing that occured to me that might be able to aid a disadvantaged side in a very slight manner would be to move up the release dates on their line ships due out the next week of play by 1 year.  It wouldn't totally throw off the game balance for PvP but it would give them better ai help on occassion and make the opponent ai just a tiny bit harder. 

Might not be worth the work to set it up however, don't know if this could be done server side, or if it is simple or difficult.

[Alphageek]

"Islamofascism is nothing but an empty propaganda term. And wartime propaganda is usually, if not always, crafted to produce hysteria, the destruction of any sense of proportion. Such words, undefined and unmeasured, are used by people more interested in making us lose our heads than in keeping their own."

Promoting anti-semitic paleolibertarian anarchocapitalists? hehehe

I just love Leptons idea. Perfect for the PvP lovers... I hate being stuck on the side with more numbers. Means I have to wait for PvP or fight AI. Sign me up!

Don't worry, Dizzy.  I'll always be your living and loving punching bag.

[Father Ted]

I truly like the way Wild Geese were used in IDSL. At the beginning, there was a huge numbers imbalance, so the Geese were sent to one of the teams for a week. By the end of that time, the numbers stabilized, allowing them to return to their own race. Having them switch sides daily, or worse, hourly, is to me anyway, a bad idea. It's always a good idea to wait a week or so to find out if there truly is an imbalance before just sending the Geese all over the map, IMO. But going further, there are times during the day when the Alliance will outnumber the Coalition and vice-versa. Operations are planned to take advantage of that discrepancy in numbers. Throwing the Geese into the equation on an hourly basis will lead to a probable stalemate. How many people have made, much less play, wargames based on the Western Front in WWI?

[FPF-DieHard]

B) comming up with some other system to give the underdog a boost...( and I mean this with all seriousness)....like sliding the BPV's upwards or downwards for under/over populated empires to have the game do some balance for a change instead of having yet more rules, proceedures, and policies...

Over populated races would face stiffer AI in missions....under populated lighter AI opposition...

PvP wouldnt be affected with AI stripping...

Now that is a really good train of thought.  Not to sure about the specific idea you propose, have to give it some more thought, but the general line of thinking is one that I like.

This is too cumbersome to work, this can't even be automated.

One thing that occured to me that might be able to aid a disadvantaged side in a very slight manner would be to move up the release dates on their line ships due out the next week of play by 1 year.  It wouldn't totally throw off the game balance for PvP but it would give them better ai help on occassion and make the opponent ai just a tiny bit harder. 

Might not be worth the work to set it up however, don't know if this could be done server side, or if it is simple or difficult.

Aother collosal waist of time that accomplishes nothing

[GDA-Agave]

I truly like the way Wild Geese were used in IDSL. At the beginning, there was a huge numbers imbalance, so the Geese were sent to one of the teams for a week. By the end of that time, the numbers stabilized, allowing them to return to their own race. Having them switch sides daily, or worse, hourly, is to me anyway, a bad idea. It's always a good idea to wait a week or so to find out if there truly is an imbalance before just sending the Geese all over the map, IMO. But going further, there are times during the day when the Alliance will outnumber the Coalition and vice-versa. Operations are planned to take advantage of that discrepancy in numbers. Throwing the Geese into the equation on an hourly basis will lead to a probable stalemate.

This is the same idea I was talking about.

Lepton, I do think it is silly to "adjust" player numbers on an hourly basis.    Each server day has its ebbs and flows.   Why not allow one side to capitalize from those?   Let me be clear though.  I'm not talking about a week-long 3 to 1 or more advantage.    When that situation occurs I would suggest that a few players voluntarily switch sides to help support the server, and the efforts of the admins to put it together.   Hell, I was about a day away from switching sides on SGO6 myself and I was the Gorn RM.   But if I had switched I would mostly likely have stayed in the coalition camp the rest of the server.  I just don't think we need to focus on making sure the player count is fair and balanced hourly.

Now, saying all that, I know that certain PvP minded players like to switch sides when they see a target rich environment.   Say there is only 2 coalition and 10 alliance on currently in SGO6.   It was fairly easy to predict that Dizzy was going to switch sides and start hunting.   Hey, that's what he enjoys to do.   I was fine with that.   Annoyed by it at times    but ok that he did it.   If there are players who like to focus on PvP, I would support them switching sides if they think that is how they are going to have the most fun at that time.

Ok, let's say there is 1 coalition vs 5 alliance currently.  If that one coalition pilot would like a wing so that he could have more fun engaging in PvP matches, or whatever, I would completely support an alliance pilot switching sides to assist him.    Now, if players were told/asked to switch just so 3 players were on each side, THAT is what I would find silly.

Gamespy rooms are setup so that players can create fair and balanced scenarios, Dyanverse servers are all about imbalance, fighting against the odds, or steamrolling.   That's the natural of the beast.  Quite frankly, I've been on both sides of the numbers game and I'm ok with it either way.

[el-Karnak]

Strategy in D2 is an illlusion, but it is the illusion of strategy that makes the game compelling to play.  Ironic ain't it?

Too bad we can't have "AI BOTs" 

If we get SQL Dyna fully operational then you can do global DV sweeps and lower the DV of target hexes. You can use automated batch jobs to run the SQL scripts. That's your AI bot.

[FPF-DieHard]

Strategy in D2 is an illlusion, but it is the illusion of strategy that makes the game compelling to play.  Ironic ain't it?

Too bad we can't have "AI BOTs" 

If we get SQL Dyna fully operational then you can do global DV sweeps and lower the DV of target hexes. You can use automated batch jobs to run the SQL scripts. That's your AI bot.

i was thinking something like that where an RM could trade in "Ships" for DV points some other place.  Say we had a full OOB controlled by SQL and a web-yard so it didn't suck and I'm the Klink RM with 20 K-D5Ks that I know nobody will ever use.  Those ships could be "Spent" on attach DVs or defence DVs that could be applied direclty to the map.  Uses the attack/defense factors from F&E could work, "spending" a ship with a attack value of 10 could get you 10 DVs some place (we'd have to figure out the ratio . . .). 

This could kinda be like and autmoted F&E with the players playing on the map as a part of the war.  Granted, we need working SQL and a kick-ass DBA like Bonk to even consider it, but it is a nice thought   

[GDA-S'Cipio]

B) comming up with some other system to give the underdog a boost...( and I mean this with all seriousness)....like sliding the BPV's upwards or downwards for under/over populated empires to have the game do some balance for a change instead of having yet more rules, proceedures, and policies...

Over populated races would face stiffer AI in missions....under populated lighter AI opposition...

PvP wouldnt be affected with AI stripping...

Now that is a really good train of thought.  Not to sure about the specific idea you propose, have to give it some more thought, but the general line of thinking is one that I like.

This is too cumbersome to work, this can't even be automated.

It can't be automated, but it can be done in about 30 seconds.   Just open the shiplist in Excel, add "5" (or whatever) to all entries in the BPV column for one side or the other, then restart the server.

No need for downloads.  AI matching is performed by the shiplist on the server side.

-S'Cipio

[FPF-DieHard]

B) comming up with some other system to give the underdog a boost...( and I mean this with all seriousness)....like sliding the BPV's upwards or downwards for under/over populated empires to have the game do some balance for a change instead of having yet more rules, proceedures, and policies...

Over populated races would face stiffer AI in missions....under populated lighter AI opposition...

PvP wouldnt be affected with AI stripping...

Now that is a really good train of thought.  Not to sure about the specific idea you propose, have to give it some more thought, but the general line of thinking is one that I like.

This is too cumbersome to work, this can't even be automated.

It can't be automated, but it can be done in about 30 seconds.   Just open the shiplist in Excel, add "5" (or whatever) to all entries in the BPV column for one side or the other, then restart the server.

No need for downloads.  AI matching is performed by the shiplist on the server side.

-S'Cipio

True, but it accpoumplishes nothing so it is stiall waist of time.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

It can't be automated, but it can be done in about 30 seconds.   Just open the shiplist in Excel, add "5" (or whatever) to all entries in the BPV column for one side or the other, then restart the server.

No need for downloads.  AI matching is performed by the shiplist on the server side.

-S'Cipio

True, but it accpoumplishes nothing so it is stiall waist of time.

Hmmm.... I'll have to think about whether I think it would do any good.

In any of the servers where I've created a good portion of the shiplist (from SFB) I certainly heard loud complaints from those who thought the BPV matching was off kilter.   This was especially true in Four Powers War, where I had to nudge a few early Lyran BPV's downward to narrow some BPV gaps and keep the server running smoothly.  The players opposing the Lyrans really thought it made a difference.

But I understand that complaints are based upon perception as much as reality.  Changing the opposition of the missions for one side or the other may or may not have made a real change in the difficutly of the campaign for one side or the other.

-S'Cipio

[el-Karnak]

Strategy in D2 is an illlusion, but it is the illusion of strategy that makes the game compelling to play.  Ironic ain't it?

Too bad we can't have "AI BOTs" 

If we get SQL Dyna fully operational then you can do global DV sweeps and lower the DV of target hexes. You can use automated batch jobs to run the SQL scripts. That's your AI bot.

i was thinking something like that where an RM could trade in "Ships" for DV points some other place.  Say we had a full OOB controlled by SQL and a web-yard so it didn't suck and I'm the Klink RM with 20 K-D5Ks that I know nobody will ever use.  Those ships could be "Spent" on attach DVs or defence DVs that could be applied direclty to the map.  Uses the attack/defense factors from F&E could work, "spending" a ship with a attack value of 10 could get you 10 DVs some place (we'd have to figure out the ratio . . .). 

This could kinda be like and autmoted F&E with the players playing on the map as a part of the war.  Granted, we need working SQL and a kick-ass DBA like Bonk to even consider it, but it is a nice thought   

SQL programming is easier to learn than C++ or Java. So, finding people to do the DV updates won't be that difficult. I can teach many of the reg. Server Admins how to do it.

[Dizzy]

I read every post and there is no agreement here other than Wild Geese are a bandaid at best and not to use them is folly as they do provide some help and boost morale.

I do like the immediate geese idea, but it can be over used and upset the normal ebb and flow of a server. I'd suggest keeping immediate geese to no more than 2 or 3 players top.

The bottom line is that until we have a server where DV's are strictly edited based upon overall attrition and achieved objectives, we will be stuck in a quagmire of unbalanced player numbers where one side will lose because they cant run as many missions and flip as many hexes as their opponent. So we will just have to get used to having winners and losers on SGO servers. Hope we can all be nice about that.

[KBF-Crim]

Crim,

Have the illusion of your victory. 

Eh?

Clarify please...do you mean a campaign?....seeing as we lost the last won...wouldnt that be "have the illusion of your loss?"

 I hope KBF turns out big for the next server.

Hell...me too...there are still a few of us kicking around....but we're a pretty loose nit gang...there are no manditory requirements...no penalty for not being able to play...or even flying for the opposition...but there are allways a few of us around....

  It is child's play to refute all that you have said with one simple statement. 

More like confirm...

Numbers win servers,

*Goes back and re-reads what I crim posted*

Yep....pretty much what I said.....but what I also said....was the geese wont fix numbers....it's moral support....which is fine...and in those times pilots are allways welcome....

But it doesnt address the numbers problem...it masks it...

And as I pointed out...in certain circumstances, even has the actual ability to unduely affect the outcome of a server...in a rather "unfair" manner..

therefore any arguement you make based on the unfairness of transfering players from "winning" side to the "losing" side is specious and frankly a tautology.

Ofcorse...simply dismiss it out of hand without ever having addressed one statement I have made...

I have no quarrel with you...nor do I seek one...I simply disagree with the premis that the geese, in and of itself ,will address the underlying problem...

NUMBERS.

And with all due respect to my most honorable adversary in blue...I also disagree with the notion that going into the shiplist and manually adding 4 (or subtracting 4 or what ever) to/from the BPV's of a single race is more than 15 minutes work...I scoff at the "unworkable" and "cumbersome" counter arguements....

Automating it may have to wait for the future and bonks eye....but it has never been tried....we allways see the flight of wild geese...AKA...wild goose chase....

Try actually using the game mechanics to balance things out for once....until it has been tried...."it cannot be done" is no excuse...

My 2.5 cents...

[Dfly]

I was one of the first ever Wild geese in the experiments with them.  I had no problem with switching sides, and in every server since have seen no problems with any who actually did switch.  I agree that Wild Geese are not there to swing a server to a different outcome, but they do help fulfill the role of balancing out the teatertotter to a little closer to level.  Never should it balance out the other way.

Becoming RM for a couple servers, I have not given in my name as a Goose, but still think they are needed.  I know they are a bandaid, but to help stop a romp, a needed bandaid. 

Should they switch daily or more? NO

Should they switch after a minimum say 3 days?  If the numbers are clearly way off only.

Should they switch after 5 or more days? Sure, but only again if the numbers are clearly off.

The whole reasonning for having Wild Geese was to stop landslides, not change history.


As for trying to help out the losing side with extra metal, well, take that former example of 10 alliance vs 5 coalition.  With only 5 coalition on, they cannot really take on any extra heavy metal as they do not have enough wings to fly with the metal they can already put on the map, with only 5 guys.  Perhaps allowing some heavy metal to wing together under certain circumstances for a losing side would be better?   Consider it this way, in war, your side is losing, you have only 5 platoons left.  You still have 27 tanks, 4000 guns, 5 mortars, 17 planes, and other stuff.  You would put your best combination together in a desperate attempt to either even the odds, or do the most damage you can in a losing cause.
So why not allow the side with a definite disadvantage the luxury of using say 2 heavy metals together?  Of course we would need a couple rule conditions for this but I am confident it could be worked out.

[Dizzy]

So why not allow the side with a definite disadvantage the luxury of using say 2 heavy metals together?  Of course we would need a couple rule conditions for this but I am confident it could be worked out.

That's an interesting idea... How about a Heavy Iron Points rule addition where you are allowed to fleet with another capital ship, but doing so doubles the cost of the lesser ship? So lets say we use SGO6's model of 16 points ma and we have a BC at 4 and a DN with 6. Fleeting the DN is 6 plus the BC doubled now is 8 for a total of 14. Or 2 BC's fleeting is 12. 4+8.

[Dfly]

Something along that line could  work, just a matter of tossing out ideas till something sticks.  Only disadvantage to your idea Dizzy that I can think of right away is this:  Now you have just limited the smaller side to having even less big ships on at a time.

Perhaps look at it in this light instead:  The BCH is worth 3 when destroyed by the enemy.  The DN is worth 6(?).  Any 2 fleeting toghether gets a +3 to their value when destroyed.  So, a DN and BCH was 6+3, is now a 9+6.  The team does lose extra points if they are destroyed but not get limited to the total ships on the board.

[Dizzy]

Guess we will toss ideas, but we're hijacking this thread.

[Lepton]

Hijack away.  I'd rather see some discussion that would make the geese more viable than the current system than none at all.

[TraumaTech]

Hijack away.  I'd rather see some discussion that would make the geese more viable than the current system than none at all.

lol   ok    heya D'fly ???  have you ever noticed your Lyran emblem looks like a jockstrap???     

[KBF-Crim]

Hijack away.  I'd rather see some discussion that would make the geese more viable than the current system than none at all.

lol   ok    heya D'fly ???  have you ever noticed your Lyran emblem looks like a jockstrap???     

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

Hijack away.  I'd rather see some discussion that would make the geese more viable than the current system than none at all.

lol   ok    heya D'fly ???  have you ever noticed your Lyran emblem looks like a jockstrap???     

If that's a jock strap, I wonder how you would do with Rorschach ink blots?  

[Riskyllama]

Hijack away.  I'd rather see some discussion that would make the geese more viable than the current system than none at all.

lol   ok    heya D'fly ???  have you ever noticed your Lyran emblem looks like a jockstrap???     

If that's a jock strap, I wonder how you would do with Rorschach ink blots?   

a cookie, a bug, a wrestling mask, a microwave, a x, a cookie...maybe i should eat first....