Topic: Wild Geese proposal: the immediate geese

[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!