Topic: Wild Geese proposal: the immediate geese

[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???