Dynaverse.net

Taldrenites => Dynaverse II Experiences => Topic started by: Gook on July 19, 2004, 02:01:24 pm

Title: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Gook on July 19, 2004, 02:01:24 pm: Having had a flurry of activity on future Dynaverses recently and several polls, I think it is time to put up some proposals for discussion.

Firstly the Polls.

Type of Dyna. 39.1 % wanted KISS. The largest vote. 26.1% Rules and Mods (R&M), 26.1% combinations of alternate servers R&M and KISS.

The Stock mission vote was a surprise in some ways and is no way a reflection on the people who have worked hard to produce new scenarios. People got what they asked for, its just many seem to have changed their minds. Last time I looked it was 51.6% for stock, 48.4% for moded scenarios.

BCH poll was interesting as the least played races had the most popular BCHs with ISC, Rommie and Lyran in top places. I was a little surprised about the Gorn as that was least popular as it was my 2nd choice.

There has also been a flurry of old timers popping in and I even saw Mu playing.

There have been some excellent suggestions for maps like Toten?s shippling lanes and linked star systems.

In LB5 destructable bases have been great and just about everybody thinks that is a good idea.

The biggest problem we have is people or lack of them. Without something to help we will like the Ooozalum bird eventually disappear up our own sphincters, as we go round in ever decreasing circles.

So, what to do?

Firstly I think there ought to be a background server which is up all the time. Big map, traditiional alliances, based on Triangle, or Rooks or even AF itself . It should be very big, with lots of neutral stars and possibly incorporate the shipping lanes/connected planets. It should be totally stock. The neutral hexes be set around 10 with outer reaches of empires being weaker and getting harder as you move into them. Destructable bases also. It should be set for one year equals one week IRL, and start around 2250. That way it will be up for a year before the turn of the game millennium. It is stock so new players and returnees can get back into the game without masses of DLs and might get a few people hooked enough to play other campaigns. Regular players can hang out there in between campaigns so there is somewhere to go, and can experiment with other races. There should be no restrictions at all. Like walll paper it just stays in the back ground with possibly some VCs but more likely a straight land grab.

The time limited ?serious? servers need to provide what people want, so as many play as possible, and admins need to take this into account, especially as we have a more accurate idea of what people say they want, rather than just a few opinions.

I will not include detailed explanations of my reasoning in this post, no doubt these will come out in the course of discussions.

In the theme if KISS I?d propose the following.

1. OP+ ship and fighter list, with many parts restricted out, but that can be done server side

2. An agreed mission pack to be 65%-70% stock missions with the remainder ED/EEK, such missions to be agreed.

3. Map size depends on Admin and campaign in question

4. Destructable bases as standard

5. Shipping lanes and planet linkage at Admins discretion

6. Public and secret VCs

7. All parties encouraged to politik and use ruse guerre and anything else to make the peripherals and game build up fun.

8. Spying probably out but is a Rommie trait

9. Rather than make droner missions harder, drop BPVs (which only affect AI battles) for Plasma races by 10% to help their mission times as there is a perception if not a reality they are slower. This would encourage more people to play the under played races and speed up the game as all players would be able to approach droner flip times. This would obviously have to be put into OP+ list to be downloaded. I am suggesting it as there have been many attempts to slow down the droners, but none have worked, and frankly I for one am tired of being experimented on. Lets make eveybody flip equally fast and speed the game process up as whole.

10. Deepstrikes no reason that these should not be permitted anywhere. A combination of missions makes them more difficult and NOT having a secure flank and rear adds piquancy.

11. Disengagement rule in place

12. No Alt/F4 out to save ship

13. Ship prices to be discussed but all ships to be achievable by Rear Admiral status

12. Fleets allowed, no restrictions. If it becomes a real problem look at it again, but large CV fleets will be implausible at the current prices for all but a few and if they get gangbanged they will soon be bankrupt and they are slower to flip. The most hated fleet the 3 PFT fleet is in the least played races so it should not be a problem and again costs will have their part to play.

That?s about it really, fewer rules, more chances to exploit the map and less chance of having a secure back door. Also you have the chance to meet something other than a single ship. I have kept out much reasoning in the interest of brevity as I know how reading can tax some J

This is a discussion paper and does propose changes as there does seem to be an appetite for them and the ?new? Dyanas are clearly not to everybody?s taste and so lets try some change and see how it goes, without nerfing anyone and making them LESS likely to play. Nerfing always PO's someone and the object is to keep players and get new ones, not drive off existing ones.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 19, 2004, 02:17:06 pm: 15. D2 admins will do whatever the heck they what and are accountable to nobody :lol:

16. Players can vote with their feet, look at the total player numbers of a server to see if it is a hit or not.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Laflin on July 19, 2004, 02:19:35 pm: If fleets are perceived as a problem, assign them the same type of VC kill points that pilots of BC/DN have - for that matter include specialty ships (such as solo escorts) in the point list, too, perhaps at a reduced kill value.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Gook on July 19, 2004, 04:10:01 pm: Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 19, 2004, 02:17:06 pm
15. D2 admins will do whatever the heck they what and are accountable to nobody :lol:

16. Players can vote with their feet, look at the total player numbers of a server to see if it is a hit or not.

Fine, nice and constructive.

Yes peeps will vote with their feet as they have been.

<sighs>
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 19, 2004, 04:19:14 pm: Quote from: Gook on July 19, 2004, 04:10:01 pm
Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 19, 2004, 02:17:06 pm
15. D2 admins will do whatever the heck they what and are accountable to nobody :lol:

16. Players can vote with their feet, look at the total player numbers of a server to see if it is a hit or not.

Fine, nice and constructive.

Yes peeps will vote with their feet as they have been.

<sighs>

Just being honest. This has been disussed add nauseum and no further debate is going to get this community to all agree, no matter how much BS is used to paint it.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Cleaven on July 19, 2004, 06:11:34 pm: Single biggest issue to improving things. How to make the campaign fair. Total player hours for each side is a factor, but there is no way to control this. Total missions run for each side can now be counted, and then it won't matter if missions are fast or slow. Total up missions run for each side to get a balancing factor. At least it will look fair and not like mob rule.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on July 19, 2004, 09:46:40 pm: My thoughts:

I agree with most of your concepts. The ones that I would like to see changed are:

9. To take a line I threw at Die Hard back in the LB5 testing, a fully-loaded with fast drones & state of the art fighters Mirak CVS is alone worth 2 line F-BCFs in SFB. In SFC, you're lucky if you've paying much more than 1 CB's worth of PP for it, and still facing "only" 1 BCH per mission. The Mirak (the consumate consumable-reliant race) have long enjoyed the fact that Taldren didn't count all consumables among a ship's BPV in both mission matching and PP costs. Your typical 2xB 2xC rack Mirak boat is supposed to be "normal" BPV as quoted from the shiplist in early, +10 BPV with medium drones, +20 BPV with fast drones, +xx for the various refits. The Z-DF+ (6 drone rack supreme hex-flipper) is supposed to naturally progress from 80 BPV to 98 BPV to 116 BPV as the drones advance in speed. Tell me you're paying I-DDLZ (exactly 116 SFC BPV of plasma-DD), G-HDD+ (117), or R-KR (115) prices to buy the Z-DF+ with fast drones, or consistently facing what us plasma-users would face in "equal" BPV missions while in that (nominally FF-priced) ship. Figuring out a way to make this happen might be better done in it's own thread.
I also disagree with the concept of making "plasma" race mission times = drone boat mission times. It is becoming common knowledge that fast hex-flipping boats are not optimized for PvP, and that each race plays it's part. Once the disengagement rules / PvP kill systems are tweaked enough to make both styles of combat (hex flip & PvP) equally important, "big plasma" will be in a position to make a comeback, if the plasma players are willing to return.
I will agree on one point. A flat 10%, or 15% decrease in plasma BPV will have a "beneficial" effect. Slightly cheaper plasma ships, and plasma drawing smaller and therefore easier to destroy AI. However, the side effect is that all non-adjusted ships will draw proportionally larger plasma boats, whether they are consumable-laden Mirak, Drone boats, carriers, or line Fed / Klink / Lyran / Hydran boats with little to no consumables. Also, while plasma now gets Mirak-esque hex-flip times against DF races, how does this adjustment help the Mirak in PvP against the Plasma ship, typically a position of weakness in the Mirak fleet?
Ultimately, a program needs to be put into place. Whether it's adjusting things in a SFB-oriented manner (adding BPV to ships as a reflection of it's consumables loadout, does not have to be SFB values though) or dropping BPV in appropriate places to reflect the "inherent BPV gains" enjoyed by the drone users but currently not reflected in SFC. DIP/LB5 has gone with the first option, adding BPV for SFB-oriented things, such as drone racks, fighters / PFs, etc. Granted, we're using arbritrary SFC-oriented numbers instead of SFB-oriented numbers, yet I feel it is a step in the right direction. If the DIP / LB5 system is further explored, there will be further adjustments made to help line things up better.

10. There should be some restrictions to deepstrikes, whether they are stuck behind a long line of mandatory missions, or there are limits to the range that enemy ships can travel to strike. While unsecured flanks should be kept to add to the strategy, there also needs to be some way to secure areas against all but the most determined and skilled strikers.

13. Not all players can make Rear Admiral, Most "casual" players on short-term servers are capable of making Commodore. I'd use either Commodore or just semi-arbritrary prices that do take into account limited casual-player ship loss. I've been just about effectively priced out of the 40k "Carriers" on LB5 because I lost 3 20k BCHs, and still need 18k to make Commodore. If I do make Commodore, I might be able to finally (with the bonus and some shipyard tricks) get into a CCZ. I fully don't expect to be able to fly any of the bigger ships or try more than an X-FF. Non-stock missions with their higher payouts may change this viewpoint some, but to be inclusive we have to plan for the casual player's availability while limiting the nutters from running the map / making it ineffective for the casual player.

14. Not all fleets are created equal. Once again, the advantage goes to consumable-laden fleets. You cite the 3x Carrier / tender fleets, and the costs inherent with operating 3xDDs / CWs / CAs limiting them. I'll cite 3x 80-SFC BPV Z-DF+ fleets with fast drones (348-ish SFB BPV) as a counter.
Both fleets are operating from the same strength. The maneuvers of the main ships are of little concern, since the combat is mainly handled by masses of AI-operated consumables. The DF fleet probably costs as much PP as just the PFs. The loss of 1 medium tender makes the PF pilot spend more PP to replace his losses than the DF pilot needs to in order to replace his fleet. Stock prices used. That same cheap-o DF fleet can just as easily take down a much more expensive line-ship fleet. Fleets also require fleets to counter, whether ad-hoc draft fleets that are hoping and praying for a good draft or other nutters building their own personal fleets in order to counter them. Soon, we're back into the situation of fleets are mandated by the arms race, and therefore people who cannot afford a Carrier / Tender fleet are out of the server at that point. Goodbye casual plasma yet again...

For the record, I'm not out to nerf anyone either. However, for a game that is "strongly based on SFB", what I consider a significant portion of the SFB rules as to strength (BPV), especially in reguards to consumables, are not included in the game. Whether we add BPV as recommended by SFB, with special consideration given to the differences in the 2 mediums, or we subtract BPV from everyone else that doesn't get BPV additions is not my concern. I'd rather adjust the limited selection of ships that would need to go up per "SFB recommendations" than knock down all starships that don't.
Fleets are a different concern. Consumable-using fleets are much more effective than non-consumable fleets. Often times you need 2x or even 3x the BPV of the consumable-using fleet to maintain a credible threat to the consumable-user due to AI stupidity, or your fleet needs to be laden with masses of automated anti-consumable (AMD / Pl-D) weaponry. Balancing those fleets without a major CnC rule, or adjusting costs / BPVs of ships to reflect their fleet-uses (which obviously skews their single-ship use value) is a lot tougher than I think. So tough, IMO, that the current system of "1 player / 1 ship" is much more acceptable than the other choice...
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 19, 2004, 11:17:37 pm: Holy p00p, I agree with everything Julin said!
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Lepton on July 20, 2004, 02:04:25 am: I had a diatribe worked up but I will squelch it and say something simple, Gook. I wish you had separated your own ideas of what makes a good D2 server from what you perceive the votes have revealed that people want. It makes me think you are trying to advance an agenda by piggybacking it on popular demand.

There are so many issues that you have conflated or misstated here that I do not know where to begin, but for one I will not crap on the countless hours scripters have put in to create these great missions by suggesting that they be relegated to only 30% of the server's compliment. It's 100% non-stock or nothing for me.

I wholeheartedly support people putting up whatever kind of server they want, but I don't like the idea of creating some sort of norm that we all need to follow in formulating a D2 server which I feel this proposal is an example of, as you make a specific point of referring to what you consider the norm, the "new" dynas, and seem to suggest as you have elsewhere that it is this type of server that has driven folks away.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: SkyFlyer on July 20, 2004, 02:36:45 am: Quote
It's 100% non-stock or nothing for me.

Please think of the 56kers... there are many more here than me.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Gook on July 20, 2004, 04:11:37 am: Julin.

9. This game is not SFB, it cannot ever be SFB, it is a seperate game with roots in SFB and that's it. So far as Kzin are concerned everybody forgets we have to pay in PP for the those consumables, only droners have to do this no one else, there is no maintenance cost for their complex ships, and as has been noted elsewhere photons don't have to their "coffins". The penalties come in PvP.

I have to say I am not sure I understand the rest of you point on #9

I think you have to grasp the concept that AI battles are just a mechanism for adjusting what I have called the "currency" of conflict in SFC, that is DV. They bear no resemblence to any "reality" (see answers to Toten in another thread). It is not credible that any pilot will kill several hundred ship in the course of any campaign, but it is the only mechanism we have to hand other than PvP which occurs increasinly rarely to actually affect the campaign map. Just saying Kzin get free reloads is a meaningless as me saying Rommie boats don't have maintenace elements. It just isn't a part of the game. Now If I had only to kill real pilots there maybe an arguement, but we do not just kill piloted ships, we kill mostly AI. Consider any modern Ship or aircraft and how much time is spent on maintenace etc to keep them battleworthy, now extrapolate that to a complex starship allegedly fighting hundreds of ships.

One good thing about this game is there are no boats that will do everything well, and good PvP boats tend to be less efficient flippers. You just have to be prepared to swap boats around a bit, thie Kzin do it all the time. When PvP required then bigger boats come, when flipping required, smaller faster boats, quite simple.

So far as the BPV drop for plasma boats and everyone elses AI is concerned, drone boats will not notice the difference, I can't see Hydrans being affected, that leaves the Lyrans who are pretty god AI hunters anyhow.

10. Deep strikes, I still see no "raison d'etre" for the restrictions, again I 'd direct you to the discussions with Toten in another thread. I will also rehash the big space arguement. I am shamelessly cribbing a JPL example of big space.

Imagine the earth is a grain of sand in LA, the sun at the same scale is a large light bulb 40' away. Pluto is 1/4 of a mile away. The next nearest star is in Chicago 2000 miles away, the next in New York, then London etc. That is just in a 2d horizontal plane, add in 3d space and you start to get some idea how BIG we are talking. TACintel on SFB and SFC is around 100 hexes each of 10K Kilometers so around a million kliks, say a scout has 10 times the tacintel rang, thats 10m kliks, say a base has 100 times the scout range or 1 Billion kliks that still doesn't get you to Jupiter, let alone Pluto or Chicago. Then there is all the space debris etc in the way and radiation of differing sorts all tending to "jam" sensors with distance. Now a hex in SFC I don't recall having a size given, but judging that Stars like Rigel and Antares are in the Federation, means a scale in the region of parsecs rather than Lightyears. So hiding a ship in such a panorama should not be too difficult.

As for seizing terrirtory even that is transient once defenders turn up, it is the lack of defenders in a given area which allows the deepstriker, when defenders are moved in they reimpose their authority. Destructable bases means they are unlikely to be dropped behind lines without significant backup (they are sitting ducks) and taking a planet with one ship for a droner is impractical and for a none droner big boat will give plenty of warning in News, with webmaps now available as well DSers can be buttoned quite easily and are not as effective as may be thought. A pain in the butt yes, but that's the whole point.

13. This was just an example for discussion, perfectly open to views on the subject.

14. I disagree with the analysis that the advantage lies with the consumable fleet. Firstly if you load up with fast drones and great fighters all the time you will soon be bankrupt AND the on board stocks are finite. Secondly if you rely on free reloads you have an even more finite supply of heavy wepons making you more vulnerable. AI CVs always launch their fighters immediately and if you switch between vessels the one you just left launches its fighters and starts making weasels! The advantage if there is any is with the patient non consumable armed pilot and his fleet, plasma jocks are definately NOT disadvanteged.

Se comments above about SFB.

This is a discussion document, but we have tried lots of different things, this is another view.

The other obvious answer is alternate servers, but if a group of players from either of the polarised camps say they will not play on X server, then we lose even more numbers of players on that server which means those playing have a les enjoyable experience.

Cleaven,

yep play times are a big factor, but frankly I have no answers to that connundrum.

DH Admins do have the final say, but if they want lots of people to play and make the server a succes, they would do well to heed the players views, after all a server with few or no players is worthless. I wouldn't have bothered with any of these posts if there had benn overwhelming support for the status quo, the fact is there is in most cases less than 50% support for the status quo (no not the band either :) ) I may have made the error of judgement that we would deal in the issues that face us democratically, and not in a dictatorial way, if the latter is the case well, no arguement will help. Perhaps we could hear from the admins what they want to?
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Mog on July 20, 2004, 05:23:55 am: Gook, you know very well that by the time fast drones and the top fighters come around, the drone race players have banked tremendous amounts of prestige to pay for running those fleets. After all, slow drones are free (and against ai, slow drones suffice even through to late era).

Re adjusting BPVs, I actually think the DIP shiplist is on the right track, It needs some tweaking (I'm still not happy with the smaller DNs being freely available, for example), but overall I think the matchups (with the stock missions at least), have been ok, apart from the Asteroid base Assault mission, which, for some reason, has the tendency to throw my war destroyer against a Battleship lol.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 20, 2004, 07:43:13 am: Gook, you are sorely mistaken if you beleive your views represent anything besides your own aggenda.

I woulld read all of your new post, but I'm allergic to bullsh*t :lol:
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Gook on July 20, 2004, 07:44:21 am: Quote from: Mog on July 20, 2004, 05:23:55 am
Gook, you know very well that by the time fast drones and the top fighters come around, the drone race players have banked tremendous amounts of prestige to pay for running those fleets. After all, slow drones are free (and against ai, slow drones suffice even through to late era).

Re adjusting BPVs, I actually think the DIP shiplist is on the right track, It needs some tweaking (I'm still not happy with the smaller DNs being freely available, for example), but overall I think the matchups (with the stock missions at least), have been ok, apart from the Asteroid base Assault mission, which, for some reason, has the tendency to throw my war destroyer against a Battleship lol.

Well I know this that even using minimal drone reloads and only having lost one DWD my PP is around 120K but earned PP is around 155K. If I were reloading every time there would be a significant deficeit. If I were using a fleet I'd be on the way to bankruptcy. I have done that before, and ended up using slow drones on the AI fleet ships and mediums on my boat.

The DIP list for Kzin, well I will comment on thta in a different thread, just trying to find common ground here and most would not disagree with the OP+ list (I think).

I get the BBV on asteroid assault too and I'm only in a DWD :) so much for stock ;)
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Gook on July 20, 2004, 07:50:39 am: Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 20, 2004, 07:43:13 am
Gook, you are sorely mistaken if you beleive your views represent anything besides your own aggenda.

I woulld read all of your new post, but I'm allergic to bullsh*t :lol:

Isn't there a proverb about taking the plank out of your own eye?

You may think what you like I am just addressing views given in the polls and what has been said here and to me personally. I believe (I may be wrong) that even if I have an "agenda" you too may be guilty of the same offence. My agenda is to get a game more people want to play not less, if that contradicts your view of how the game should be played, then so be it. As for BS well I think you have me trumped there, all hot air and no substance.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Cleaven on July 20, 2004, 08:37:21 am: Quote from: Gook on July 20, 2004, 04:11:37 am

Cleaven,

yep play times are a big factor, but frankly I have no answers to that connundrum.

Well wouldn't it be a good idea to try harder to solve a major issue instead of making excuses for drone fleets?
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 20, 2004, 08:50:27 am: Start investing in canned-food and shotguns people, the end is near. Cleaven and I are in agreement :rofl:
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on July 20, 2004, 09:04:18 am: Here goes:

Let it be known that my using SFB, just like Taldren has done, is strictly for reference. My rules binder is not leather bound, I don't have strings marking off important sections, and there is no "Holy Bible" printed anywhere on it.
I've also been around for a very long time. With the exception of the I-CCZ, every ship that has been flamed on these SFC fora have one thing in common. They are affected by at least 1 SFB rule that is not implemented in SFC.

Now, for the purposes of this discussion, let's start with one SFB rule that is not implemented in SFC. The rule I'm talking about is the one that says "consumables", whether drones, fighters, PFs, or marines on a commando boat (taking only the SFC-applicable materials), are to have their cost added directly to the base BPV of the ship before that ship is to be compared to other ships for balance.

As long as SFC does not do that, Taldren's intent to balance all ships using SFB's base as a starting point, is a failure. Therefore, IMO, any ship that uses drones, fighters, PFs, or is a marine-laden commando boat is obviously not correctly represented in this game and unbalanced. Of course, the imbalance is in the consumable-users favor right now, but I didn't omit that section of code...

Tell me that I am completly wrong. Tell me that I have completely misread the source material, and that I am barking up the wrong tree in this case. Cite me rule numbers if necessary. Please.

Operating under the assumption that I am, however unfortunately, right, where do we go from there? Do we jack up the "consumable reliant" ships, or do we jack down the non-reliant ships?

Since the source material decided that it's easier to jack ships up in BPV for consumables, instead of dropping ship prices that are not-consumable laden, I feel it's easier to go in the direction that the game, source and all, seems geared to go. Consumable-laden ships should go up, it's easier than dropping the rest of the fleet.

I am sorry that the Mirak, which is the only fleet in SFC to rely heavily on consumables, ie, 100% of their ships have lots of them, are the hardest hit. Don't forget that other races, Feds, Klinks & Hydrans have 80-90% of their fleet under the microscope too, but their lesser reliance on consumables has meant that many adjustments are a lot smaller than the Mirak hit. And every race has had at least 1, more often a small handful or 2, of ships affected.

SFB guidelines advise a fixed rate of BPV additions to drone ships. Each 4-space rack (A,C,F,G) with medium drones are supposed to go up 2 BPV per rack, and 4 BPV with fast drones. Each B-rack with it's 6 drone spaces is worth 3 BPV with medium drones, and 6 with fast drones. All additions are to be added directly to the ship's BPV value before it's taken on the field.

Currently, the DIP has implemented a lesser rate of addition. DIP ignores the first 2 drone racks, and adds a fixed 5 BPV per additional drone rack. The Typical Mirak ship (2xB 2xC rack) gets 10 more BPV where SFB advises up to 20 BPV for fast drones. 6 B-rack Drone Bombardment ships like the DF only get +20 BPV, where recommendations advise up to 36 BPV with fast drones. Same with fighters and PFs. There is a BPV cost added to the ships as per the recommendation, but it is smaller than the actual addition would be per SFB. We understand that SFC consumables aren't worth exactly what SFB mandates, and are keeping that in mind when we do our work.

Now that consumable ships are closer to SFB-mandated balance, there are obviously other conerns to address. Keeping the Mirak, ultimate consumable users that they are, in mind, but remembering that what we do needs to be applied to all affected ships, it's time to address SFC and D2 only concerns.

The first thing I want to change, is the entire "stock" PP system. While Mirak/droners pay for constant reloads, exactly how much are you paying? Staying strictly in the DF+ range, I'd estimate you're paying approx. 2000 PP for the DF itself. Each full load of fast drones runs approx. 200 PP. My I-DDLZ runs approx. 5000 PP. For you to pay, in PP, what I paid in PP for "116 SFB-BPV of combat ability", you need to resupply 15 times, picking up a full load of fast drones each resupply. If you lose that Z-DF+ before you've invested 15 reloads into it, you've fought with 116-ish BPV for less than I need to pay for it. Once you go over 15 reloads, then your DF+ has waylaid you more PP than my ship.
We've changed the base price, we also need to change the rest. I understand that. Ultimately, I would love to see my entire concept applied. We've started with the BPV. You're paying closer to what I'm paying for the proper combat ability. You're facing somewhat tougher AI, like I have all my SFC career. Now, we need to make drone upgrade prices cheaper, or if possible non-existant. We need to give more drones out as "free reloads" to compensate for SFC's doubled internals. We would need to make carrying extra drones above and beyond the "stock reload" rate a proper price per drone, reflecting the "commander's option" portion of SFB.

Way back when, I advocated an increase, using SFB recommendations, to all drone ships. Added directly to the shiplist, so it's reflecting the SFB-BPV as ADB advises in the shipyard and mission matching. I also advocated a new reload system. To be brief, I think that the "SFB-rack" drones are meant to punch down shields, and the "SFB-reload" drones are meant to cause internals. Since SFC has doubled internals, I'd advocate the following rates of "free drones" be handed out:
For any ship that has 0 SFB-reloads, it only gets the base rack drones (4-6 per rack)
For any ship that has 1 SFB-reload, it gets the base rack drones (4-6) and 2 full reloads to counter the doubled internals (12-18 drones total per rack, including initial load)
For any ship that has 2 SFB-reloads, which effectively includes all 2275 and later ships, it's base rack + 4 full reloads (we're talking 20-30 free drones per rack)
Free drones are restored every mission. If you are paying 5000 PP (or whatever I-DDLZs, G-HDD+s are paying in PP) for a Z-DF+ w/fast drones, then you need to maintain 116 SFB-BPV operations like a plasma boat. I think having your overall drone count on that Z-DF+ pushed up to 180 total drones after each mission, for free, will let you stay in the field longer without resupply.

And I've even given the implementation of the above some thought. IIRC, drone prices are affected by 2 numbers in the gf files. The first is a multiplier for each drone speed, and the second is a multiplier for each extra drone above the free reloads. Is it possible to make the drone speed multipliers the same for all 3 speeds (effectively allowing a drone-ship to switch drone speeds freely), but make the per-drone multiplier a large number so buying more than the free reloads costs more PP than normal?

This is what I'm advocating for, as the situation presents itself. If there was only 1 thing I could change in the source code, it would be to add the SFB-balancing rules that Taldren omitted. All of them. Starting with the above rule, and adding in limits for the "U" or "L" ships, ie, those that have strict build limits, like 1 BB or 3 F-BCFs, limits or cost increases on all conjectural ships, shock damage, proper fleet construction to include mandatory escorts for carriers, no solo escorts in the field, DNs / BBs working with line ships, mandatory carrier & tender loadouts, PFs and fighters for all, a working ISC 1/2 strength fighter heavy weapon, offensive Dro-D to go with the Defensive Pl-D, etc.

Since I don't have the source code, all we can do is take what we have and try to implement the missed rules. Somehow. I try to look past my ISC heritage, and by extension plasma heritage, in these discussions. Hopefully I am doing a good job in that...

Discussion on the other gripes being withheld till later...
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Mog on July 20, 2004, 10:05:37 am: Quote from: Gook on July 20, 2004, 07:44:21 am
Quote from: Mog on July 20, 2004, 05:23:55 am
Gook, you know very well that by the time fast drones and the top fighters come around, the drone race players have banked tremendous amounts of prestige to pay for running those fleets. After all, slow drones are free (and against ai, slow drones suffice even through to late era).

Re adjusting BPVs, I actually think the DIP shiplist is on the right track, It needs some tweaking (I'm still not happy with the smaller DNs being freely available, for example), but overall I think the matchups (with the stock missions at least), have been ok, apart from the Asteroid base Assault mission, which, for some reason, has the tendency to throw my war destroyer against a Battleship lol.

Well I know this that even using minimal drone reloads and only having lost one DWD my PP is around 120K but earned PP is around 155K. If I were reloading every time there would be a significant deficeit. If I were using a fleet I'd be on the way to bankruptcy. I have done that before, and ended up using slow drones on the AI fleet ships and mediums on my boat.

The DIP list for Kzin, well I will comment on thta in a different thread, just trying to find common ground here and most would not disagree with the OP+ list (I think).

I get the BBV on asteroid assault too and I'm only in a DWD :) so much for stock ;)

*blinks* So, in 2 weeks, you have a nett 120k prestige, and you don't consider that enough to run a fleet. I mean, do you think you would need a fleet from the get-go? Again, I stress, slow drones (which are compulsory in early era) are free, thus costing you zero prestige, allowing you to build up a good reserve for if/when you feel you need to pop in your fleet.

Do you go to medium speed drones as soon as they are available, even if you're just facing ai? Bear in mind that you get 2 reloads free per ship per mission, so, if you're flying 3 ships, surely you have enough drones to complete a mission by being more patient and flying more cleverly?

The DIP list IS an OP+ list, just an older one, from SS2, which contains beneficial changes to some Kzinti ships for pvp purposes (MCC+, BCH to name 2). I say this because I see a veiled insinuation from you that the Kzin have been screwed by BPV adjustments. Whilst you're examing the dyna setups in such detail, don't forget to look at it from the point of view of all races, and not just your favoured one.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Lepton on July 20, 2004, 11:39:02 am: Gook, the problem with your search for "common ground" is that you have remarcated it exactly on the piece of ground you are standing on. Here's how the system has worked from my perspective. People put up whatever type of servers they want. You seem to be under the impression that this trend in D2 servers is somehow imposed on people. It's been a collaborative relationship between the community and the admins that resulted in these type of D2 servers that are in themselves solutions to long-perceived problems in the D2. This has never prevented anyone from putting up just exactly the type of server you'd like to see. So put one up and people will vote with their feet.

That said, I'd like to advocate for an SFB view of SFC for a moment. While the two are certainly not the same, you certainly would not have one without the other. If it weren't for SFB, you wouldn't have an SFC to decry that it isn't SFB. So, I give all deference to SFB as the standard, as the reference, and as the source. In a similar vein, the type of fleet and production restrictions encompassed in an OoB that is the standard in ADB's Starfleet Universe, to me, forms the proper basis of any campaign, be it D2- or GSA- based. Frankly, we would have none of this without the ground that ADB laid out for us and I believe there is alot to be said for acknowledging that legacy and seeing that it is well-trodden and well-tested as opposed to all our willy-nilly new ideas. And, there is no game that I can think of that is closer to SFB than SFC. If people don't want the SFB world in their space combat game or acknowledge its primacy in this game, you might as well go play Bridge Commmander or some other game.

The basis for the D2 is F&E itself, therefore it has been a natural trend that people have drifted it or been attracted to it as a basis for D2 campaigns. To me, this trend has been a great advance in adding complexity and depth of meaning into what occurs on the D2. People who have gone in this direction have been trying to add what they think was lacking from the D2 from the very start. It seems to me that you take the D2 at its face value and say this is the best we can do. Others do not agree. The whole intent of the SQL project and that there even should be an SQL-based server pack suggests that not only the community but also Taldren realize that there are severe restrictions to the D2 engine that could be overcome by an SQL interface. The potential there is enormous and looks well beyond taking the D2's flaws as its inherent and proper state of affairs as you would do. There would be absolutely no drive to an SQL solution if people did not want meaningful ship production and restrictions, a meaningful economic system, and a meaningful set of victory condition and campaign design options.

To me, the trend has been to turn away from a hex flipping paradigm and to add a layer of meaning and interest to D2 campaigns. Scripts have been written to add complexity and challenge into AI missions. PvP VCs have been added to an additional element of meaning to D2 play. You say that DVs are the currency of our D2 system and that AI missions are inherently unrealistic and meaningless. This is precisely what server development has addressed. Complex VCs are a far cry from a mere conquest server. Server development has gone towards making AI missions less meaningless by adding complexity to mission scripts. The currency of the D2 may be DVs in one sense, but it is also VCs and it is precisely the trend that flipping hexes is deployed in a manner to make it more meaningful rather than less. Let me ask you something. If I were to offer you two jobs for the same money, one that is burger-flipping and one that is a complex, engaging management task, which one would you choose?? It seems you would choose the meaningless burger-flipping job. I'd rather spend my time doing something difficult than something easy and repetitive. That is more rewarding. I'd rather spend a half an hour or an hour in PvP play struggling over a single DV increment than use that time running 5 to 10 or more meaningless AI missions. Your solution is to turn a blind eye to the meaninglessness of the system of exchange of the currency of the D2 system (AI missions). The community's solution thus far has been to make playing a campaign and what is done in a campaign more meaningful, not less.

There is no common ground in these two views. The only solution is to have different types of campaigns and let people vote with their feet.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Gook on July 20, 2004, 11:58:10 am: Julin,

The increased drone prices consumables have ben tried many times before, startng with CW3.

As I have said many times before, if the droners cause such a problem, just delete the Kzin, and remove drone racks from klink and fed boats. I'll play Rommie or something.

As for source material for this game you simply can't use SFB, it is a different game, and none of the nuances of SFB are possible, if you want to start using it what about ESGs not affecting friendlies, that is HUGE, but no account is taken of it. What about the infamous G Rack, what about double internals, lack of specialist drones, etc etc etc. You have to use what is in this game not another. In SFB you play only PvP, the AI is none existant, the scenarios are "balanced" for that particular game not this one. New rules are made mainly so ADB can shift product and stay in business, not for the benefit of players who already have a weighty Tome to lug around and learn.

The Kzin are always hit when this debate comes up, let's just TRY a different approach. As I said before I am fed up of being experimented on, try it on some other race for a change.

We have also digressed somewhat. Your specific objections are to the plasma races being boosted and using the OP+ list which has general acceptance? Anything else?

Mog

120K will buy a fleet but will not run it for long.

Medium dromnes are used straight away for quicker missions

So far as your last para is concerned that is exactly the angle I am looking at it from and why I suggest using a an accepted ship list with BPV reductions for plasma boats rather than the "Combat effectiveness" approach of the DIPers, which ever way you look at is just dressing for nerf drones. I have previously posted my concerns and having now used the DIPlist in anger, yes I am still concerned.

Now apart from the above and your well known aversion to fleets of any kind, what other objections do you have to the suggestions made. I am just trying to narrow down issues. If we can all agree several principals, we can debate the ones we least agree with.

I assure everybody (again) that I would not be wasting my time discussing all of this if there was a clear cut majority for the status quo, but there is not. You can accept that or reject it, but that is my agenda, when we get to specifics of shiplists I'll adopt a much more partisan approach. Currently there have only been one or two comments on one or two areas of the discussion document, am I to take it that the rest is agreed?

Lets get the issues narrowed down.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: GDA-S'Cipio on July 20, 2004, 12:40:44 pm: Wow, doesn't this thread topic look familiar? ;D

I think there have been lots of good points on all sides so far. I'll weigh in on just one or two.

Consumables: (drones/fighters/PFs)

These should absolutely be included -- at full value -- in the BPV of every ship purchased in the yards. I've always thought this, and I think it worked rather well in the campaign I tried it in. It evens out the AI opposition, it evens out how many PP each player is "betting" in a combat, and it evens out the racial combat balance. It doesn't fully solve mission time issues, but that's OK.

That being said, of course, prices in the resupply screen would have to be lowered. No fair charging someone with equal firepower equal price, and then bilking him at resupply. Resupply prices would need to be down around repair prices.

Fleets:

Fleets are a tricky subject. Some ships simply are better at fleet control than others.
*I hate using fighters in fleets, for example, because the idiot AI launches too soon and all the fighters dive straight into the oncoming AMD. That's OK, though, because carriers shouldn't operate in groups.
*I loathe using photons and plasma ships in fleets, because they need to get good alignment on the enemy in oder to even fire, let alone land, their heavy weapons on the enemy.
*Disruptor ships aren't as bad, because they fire so much more often. But then, it is hard to get all those pin-pricks to land on the same shield.
*I love using bombardment cruisers in fleets, because I don't have to worry about which way they are facing or even so much about exactly how close they are. The weapons fire in any direction and have a long life without degradation of warhead.

Fleets can thus be problematical and unbalancing. On the other hand, they can be fun from time to time. Perhaps a few "fleet slots" could be passed around the way DN slots are these days. This would give players the chance to fly the famous Klink frigate squads or Rom WE squadrons, while still ensureing most of their opponents were still in single ships. (Not meaning to exclude any other race, those were just the two most famous cases that leapt immediately into my mind.)

CnC

I love it. For ships, fighters, and PFs.

Anyway, that's it for now.

-S'Cipio
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 20, 2004, 01:15:27 pm: Quote from: Scipio_66 on July 20, 2004, 12:40:44 pm
Wow, doesn't this thread topic look familiar? ;D

I think there have been lots of good points on all sides so far. I'll weigh in on just one or two.

Consumables: (drones/fighters/PFs)

These should absolutely be included -- at full value -- in the BPV of every ship purchased in the yards. I've always thought this, and I think it worked rather well in the campaign I tried it in. It evens out the AI opposition, it evens out how many PP each player is "betting" in a combat, and it evens out the racial combat balance. It doesn't fully solve mission time issues, but that's OK.

That being said, of course, prices in the resupply screen would have to be lowered. No fair charging someone with equal firepower equal price, and then bilking him at resupply. Resupply prices would need to be down around repair prices.

-S'Cipio

Define "full value." Drones IMHO are overpriced in GSA for their actual worth. SFB full value is more resonable.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Dizzy on July 20, 2004, 01:22:31 pm: Hey Gook, you sure do type a lot, but you dont say much.

Can you sum up everything your typing in 20 words or less for me? Since a new server is about to launch, I'd like to consider what you have to add b4 I make any final changes. So... 20 words or less bro, if you can. ;)
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Lepton on July 20, 2004, 01:42:18 pm: Let me say that the community may have voted for KISS, but they voted for it in name not form. Trying to co-opt that desire to advance a specific iteration of it as if it were exactly what they have called for is disingenous. At best, people have called for less restrictions and less downloads. That's about it and almost none of what is being discussed here or what Gook is proposing. There is no consensus here, although Gook supposes so. Hell, this topic has only 5 or 6 respondents. That is certainly not representative and it certainly is no mandate.

If there were a simple way of executing an OoB/CnC, which is actually not hard at all in the first instance, people would likely be all for it. I'm all for opening things up if that is what people want, but there is a substantial contingent of people who like the "status quo" and I am sure when they have a taste of the "old school" D2, they will think it is interesting but not better. The GW series has been one of the most popular series of servers in recent memory and it bears no resemblance to anything "old school".

Your presumption that there is a status quo is the first mistake. There is none. You are free to create whatever server you want, but don't couch it as if you are addressing community needs as the community has been free the entire time to make any choices they wanted and they have done just that.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: GDA-S'Cipio on July 20, 2004, 03:38:25 pm: Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 20, 2004, 01:15:27 pm
Define "full value." Drones IMHO are overpriced in GSA for their actual worth. SFB full value is more resonable.

By all means, brother Die Hard. Whenever you hear me speak of "full" or "fair" or "faithful", I am referring to SFB.

-S'Cipio
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: KBF-Crim on July 20, 2004, 03:39:30 pm: posted by lepton:
Quote
Let me say that the community may have voted for KISS, but they voted for it in name not form.

Well.. heck...let me say that you dont speak for the "community" and unless you poll every person who voted...you have no idication of WHY they voted for any of the choices...

Let me squash a misnomer here...

For quite some time...there has been only ONE serious POPULATED server up at anyone time...this is a common courtesy extended by server admins to other server admins so as not to split the player base that still plays online...

But this also means there is no choice for peeps who want to play online against other players (in the DV)....

You either play what is up....or sit out...

And since every major server now runs OP+ as a baseline....you either like it..or dont play anymore...

and since almost every major server now runs custom missions.....you either like them...or dont play...

Lepton make the point that the DV hardly resembles the days of old...

I make the counter point....neither does the player base...

Every major revision has driven off a few more casual players who dont want to be bothered anymore...it becomes to much hassle to just simply play....

The effort to counter the effects of nutters have left casual players in the dust...so they dont play anymore...

The answer is right in front of your faces and you simply refuse to address it...

An inverse CNC restriction.....the higher you go in rank...the more restrictions you face...

Explanation....

Casual players by definition...dont play much per day....or might only play one or two nights a week for a few hours...

THIS IS THE BULK OF THE PLAYER BASE!!!!!

Nutters by definiton play almost every day, usually for multiple hours at a sitting...(these are the guys who are allways on no matter what time of day you log in...or which day.....even *cough* ..on fathers day)....

Traditionally....DV CnC attempts have centered on ease of restrictions upon gaining rank...(IE...multiple ships...BCH's...etc etc...)

The effect?

The very person who needs to be restricted (the nutter)....gains PP AND rank faster than the casual players.....so they face less restrictions SOONER...so they can bank even more PP or fly classes that casual players simply cannot afford...nor compete with...

The result?

Casual players pack it in and head off to greener pastures....

Solution?

I propose JUST ONE TIME....FOR ONE FREAKIN SERVER....we turn the CNC restrictions on their head...

Allow people to fly multiple ships until they gain such rank that they are putting in serious hours (gaining rank)...then phase in restrictions based on rank...

This controls the very people who can sway a server by the sheer amount of time they spend playing...and eases restrictions on people who dont effect the server as much because they dont play as much...

I mean ...really....is someone wants to fly a mini fleet of FF's or DD's...for a few hours a week....who the hell cares?

Also....we got working Tenders and carriers for the off races....PUT THEM IN ALREADY!!!!!! >:(....restrict high rankers from using them and you'll have no worries of nutters running around with invincible fleets...

Price em high enough that by the time you can afford one...you wont play it long becuase you'll rank your self OUT of one...

If the current trend doesnt change....only nutters will be playing....and what fun will that be?

No..I dont have a system worked out...

But use the concept of turning the CNC on its head....

By the time someone can afford the big guns...they should be high enough rank to face restrictions...

At least kick it around for a few eh?
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 20, 2004, 03:49:32 pm: Crim, want to try your idea? I'll provide the hardware if you're willing to do the admining work.

As far as PF tenders for the fighters races, GW3 is coming up in a few weeks . . . (Stay tuned)
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: KBF-Crim on July 20, 2004, 04:10:46 pm: That's a generous offer DH....but I know absolutely nothing about running a server....I'd prefer to leave that to more experienced hands...or even Fluf...heh heh ;D

I didnt mean to yell....I'm just frustrated at what I view to be a paradoxical paradigm....

As the "wargame" has gotten better...the player base has gotten smaller....

When the game becomes perfect...no one will play....LOL

I know that is an oversimplification of the player drop off...but it must be at least a factor...

It's high time to throw the casual players a bone...*woof woof*

And I'm looking forword to trying out a real tender on a real server under real pressure...if they become a problem...they can be tweaked...
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 20, 2004, 04:25:38 pm: Quote from: KBF-Crim on July 20, 2004, 04:10:46 pm
And I'm looking forword to trying out a real tender on a real server under real pressure...if they become a problem...they can be tweaked...

Trust me, they ain't going to be that hot. The tenders will be introduced on an experimental basis and it is only going to be the crappy "vannila" CL PFTs with basic PFs. No battle controls ships, no casual tenders, no ubber-PFs, and hopefully no balance issues.

This means K-D5P, not K-C7S. BIG difference in the cheddar-factor.

We admins will need to make clear that we reserve the right to use the letter "R" if I am wrong before the server goes live.

Baby steps . . .
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Gook on July 20, 2004, 04:26:28 pm: OK basic Math 101 (jeez I hate Math :) )

Heavy fast drones cost 5 PP on LB5

80 slots on a DWD

free reloads taken into account means load out costs 264 (thats what the ship yard tells me).

Average Mission payout 300 PP

average Droner mission requiring full loadout nets 36 PP or 10% a none droner total for the same mission. That's paying for it.

Use a fleet and you are rapidly running out of cash, (792 per mission if full load out)

Use a none stock mission and you use more drones so more likely to need full load out.

That's the basic math on current server settings and you want to tweak it more! Jeesh.

Who else pays for their primary weapon, and has that weapon have so many countermeasures, and has a finite supply of ammo?
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: KAT J'inn on July 20, 2004, 04:32:12 pm: Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 20, 2004, 03:49:32 pm
GW3 is coming up in a few weeks

MOMMY!!!

<shudder>

Note to Self: Order more scotch, Prozac, and Ronco Tushy Hugger Hemmroid Friendly Seat Cushions (as seen on T.V.).
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Mog on July 20, 2004, 05:10:00 pm: Quote from: Gook on July 20, 2004, 04:26:28 pm
OK basic Math 101 (jeez I hate Math :) )

Heavy fast drones cost 5 PP on LB5

80 slots on a DWD

free reloads taken into account means load out costs 264 (thats what the ship yard tells me).

Average Mission payout 300 PP

average Droner mission requiring full loadout nets 36 PP or 10% a none droner total for the same mission. That's paying for it.

Use a fleet and you are rapidly running out of cash, (792 per mission if full load out)

Use a none stock mission and you use more drones so more likely to need full load out.

That's the basic math on current server settings and you want to tweak it more! Jeesh.

Who else pays for their primary weapon, and has that weapon have so many countermeasures, and has a finite supply of ammo?

For starters, I've seen 2 people mention LOWERING the cost of supplies, one of whom is a server admin, because oif the increased prices of the ships. I heartily agree with this.

Second, if you are using 80 heavy drones in a stock mission, you're doing something wrong (unless it's a planet assault). It's plausible to use those 80 in a custom mission, however, the payouts are generally higher in those.

My aversion to unrestricted fleet use comes from the fact that they multiply imbalances in the game heavily. I, however, have no objections to DH's suggestion of using the SG3 setup of 2 ships, one of which has to be "vanilla". That still gives an advanatge to the Kzin, because your vanilla ships tend to have 4 drone racks on them anyway.

Crimmy, that's an unusual idea and it would be interesting to see its effect.

Lepton, your last 2 posts have been very well written in tone and substance. Much better than your usual abrasive style ;) I recommend you keep that up, they provoke a far more favourable reaction (in my case at least, if that means anything).
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: KBF-Crim on July 20, 2004, 05:40:25 pm: Posted by Moggy:
Quote
Crimmy, that's an unusual idea and it would be interesting to see its effect.

Thank you....been floatin it for a while...but it allways get trampled in the flurry of posts... ::)

An unusual Idea needs and unsual server theme.....I wouldnt be so bold as to upset the apple cart of a current set up or series of servers.....maybe this could be tried for "Mirror Mirror"...or even "Mirror Mirror 2" ;D

If it proves worthy of further attention, that would be cool... 8)
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Lepton on July 20, 2004, 07:08:28 pm: I have supported a reverse CnC for some time but mostly as a joke, i.e. making nutters fly smaller and smaller ships, but this is the most workable suggestion I have seen on this idea. I think it is a good idea.

As for me not speaking for the community, I am at least attempting to articulate my view of what the community has been working toward. We do have a shrinking player base, but I guarantee you that if a Gook style server were worked into the regular server schedule people would certainly be there for it, but I am not sure they would like it better. So, I think there is no danger of splitting up or fragmenting or running off a portion of the player base.

I don't agree with the contention that revisions have driven off the player base. In fact, I am not even sure what Crim is referring to here. I'd say what has lost players for this games is merely the growth in the gaming industry i.e. more choices, and the age of the game, in addition to the rabid in-fighting that has occured in the community.

The innovations in this game and the D2 have been what have kept people here, not what has driven them away. I mean, can we imagine playing a server now without OP+ as a base, which has infused more SFB content into this game than Taldren put in in terms of ships, or without the new missions? Do we really want to go back to stock servers?? That sounds like a step backwards instead of forwards. For crying out loud, we have people developing installers now that makes it so simple to get the content needed to play on servers especially when you consider that all that was ever needed usually was to swap out shiplists and fighter lists. Need I remind people that in the D3 community there are hosts of multiple megabyte mods that people are required to download to even get on any server. Here in the D2, the worst thing you'll need to do is download a custom shiplist and fighter list and some mission packs. Nowhere near the size of D3 mods.

If there is really a sentiment against "complicated" server, I just don't see why we can't mix in "simpler" ones and go from there, although I don't find recent servers to be complicated, nor Gook's idea of a server to be simple but merely slanted towards hex-flippers and nutters.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: alfman on July 20, 2004, 07:40:50 pm: Lepton, that was a well thought out post. I agree about the reasons for player loss.
I left, but I came back. I encourage all old players to try D2 now.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: GDA-S'Cipio on July 20, 2004, 09:04:47 pm: Quote from: KBF-Crim on July 20, 2004, 03:39:30 pm

Solution?

I propose JUST ONE TIME....FOR ONE FREAKIN SERVER....we turn the CNC restrictions on their head...

That's........ brilliant!

-S'Cipio
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on July 20, 2004, 09:53:40 pm: Quote from: Gook on July 20, 2004, 11:58:10 am
Julin,

The increased drone prices consumables have ben tried many times before, startng with CW3.

As I have said many times before, if the droners cause such a problem, just delete the Kzin, and remove drone racks from klink and fed boats. I'll play Rommie or something.

No. Droners aren't a problem at all. Drones, in their full glory and proper balance add a dimention to this game. Let's discuss balance for them.

Quote
As for source material for this game you simply can't use SFB, it is a different game, and none of the nuances of SFB are possible, if you want to start using it what about ESGs not affecting friendlies, that is HUGE, but no account is taken of it. What about the infamous G Rack, what about double internals, lack of specialist drones, etc etc etc. You have to use what is in this game not another. In SFB you play only PvP, the AI is none existant, the scenarios are "balanced" for that particular game not this one. New rules are made mainly so ADB can shift product and stay in business, not for the benefit of players who already have a weighty Tome to lug around and learn.
And I've always thought that for a game strongly based off of SFB, you should be able to at least look to SFB's treatment of things to make ships work. To reiterate my stance:
After watching ships get flamed for 4 years, I've noticed one trend. Outside of the I-CCZ, every flamed ship has at least 1 limit in SFB that is not reflected in SFC.
You've been around here almost that long yourself there Gook. Am I right? What other ship outside the CCZ has been flamed that is not "SFB limited"?
I admit this. SFC is not SFB, and therefore we shouldn't jump right into the SFB rulebooks and say "since this is how SVC said it shall happen, we must do it this way." We should say "SFB knew these affected/limited ships would give us grief, and SFB does __________ to correct that. How much of _________ do we need to correct this in SFC?"

Quote
The Kzin are always hit when this debate comes up, let's just TRY a different approach. As I said before I am fed up of being experimented on, try it on some other race for a change.
It's hard to discuss wholesale revamps of the consumables issue without it whacking the masters of the consumable. Just like it was hard to discuss changes to plasma without the ISC being dragged into it. Remember the "rise and fall of the plasma torpedo"? One thing in there was buff up plasma for Rommies / Gorns but not the ISC...
Quote
We have also digressed somewhat. Your specific objections are to the plasma races being boosted and using the OP+ list which has general acceptance? Anything else?
A am not against a drop off in BPV. If we are going to weaken Plasma in a response to the speed / power of consumable users (including Fed / Klink drone boats), we need to apply the same benefit to all non-consumable using ships.

Meanwhile, I am also against your proposed deepstrike changes.
Consider this: If human captains are individually blowing up hundreds or thousands of ships, exactly how big are the navies of Starfleet Command? We know that SFB's navy sizes aren't applicable, each person probably blows up a race's OOB within the first week on a server, nutters can take it out in a day. Millions of ships per race is a good starting point. What are these millions of ships doing when people aren't blowing them up? Maybe off patrolling / garrisoning space, doing duties that us live players, who can readily be considered the elite captains of these million ship navies, aren't going to do while we're off killing a thousand ships...

Fleets: As I said before, until someone finds a way to properly represent the force multiplication certain fleets enjoy over other fleets, without screwing up the single-ship balance, then I'd agree to re-allow fleets. Until then, 1 player / 1 ship is the best alternative we have. And, having flown line plasma fleets with the EEK missions, the fleet-control AI does not grant me the control that I need to ensure that on the second or third pass my fleet is exactly where I want them to be so that all my weapons are right in arc for a massive 3-ship alpha strike. When I've gotten it to happen, then it's beautiful. Otherwise, I'm struggling uphill... Consumable fleets, to include your 3xDF fleets, Gorn PF Tender fleets, or even an ISC carrier fleet doesn't worry much about lining up weapon arcs in a certain order, we just hit "target ________ ship", "deploy consumables", watch target wither and die in seconds...
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: KBF-Crim on July 20, 2004, 11:44:38 pm: Quote from: Lepton on July 20, 2004, 07:08:28 pm
I have supported a reverse CnC for some time but mostly as a joke, i.e. making nutters fly smaller and smaller ships, but this is the most workable suggestion I have seen on this idea. I think it is a good idea.

I'm sorry...guess you misunderstood what I meant...

I dont favor forcing anyone into any ship...much less smaller ones...thats just too authoritarian...

What I am proposing is raising the point where CnC rules kick in by rank...rather that giving rank LESS restrictions....the higher in rank...the more restrictions....

Low ranks should be able to fly mini fleets based on common sence rules as before....one command...one specialty..and one vanilla... max....by the time they gain enough PP to buy more dangerous (cruisers and such) ships....the rank restrictions should kick in.....

Quote
As for me not speaking for the community, I am at least attempting to articulate my view of what the community has been working toward.

I understand.....but you use absolute terms....instead of "I think"...or "my view"...

Quote
We do have a shrinking player base, but I guarantee you that if a Gook style server were worked into the regular server schedule people would certainly be there for it, but I am not sure they would like it better.

Well..as long as players are wiling to play a server they "MIGHT" not care for so much....maybe other players would stick out an OOB server...

Some players dont like OOB so much either...

Quote
So, I think there is no danger of splitting up or fragmenting or running off a portion of the player base.

Thats why I'd like to see ALL types of servers in a rotation...as soon as a standard is set....we'll lose a couple more players...no matter what that standard may be...

Quote
I don't agree with the contention that revisions have driven off the player base.

Ofcorse not...your allways pushing for more revisions...to admit that revisions might have driven anyone off is to admit that those same revisions should be done with extreme care...

Quote
In fact, I am not even sure what Crim is referring to here.

?...thats funny...your line above is a direct disagreement with what I refered to...

Quote
I'd say what has lost players for this games is merely the growth in the gaming industry i.e. more choices, and the age of the game,

Heh...well.. I KNOW people who have quit playing because of the constant rule revisions to hamper this race or that race..or this weapon or that weapon...or these ships...but not those ships...

Quote
in addition to the rabid in-fighting that has occured in the community.

You mean how some peeps allways slam the DV style of play...or DV players? ::)

Quote
The innovations in this game and the D2 have been what have kept people here, not what has driven them away.

*looks around*...so where the hell is everyone?

Quote
I mean, can we imagine playing a server now without OP+ as a base, which has infused more SFB content into this game than Taldren put in in terms of ships, or without the new missions?

Thus the "standard"...and suppose just for one second...that some people might not like fighting three escorts EVERY mission....suppose that some people LIKE AI help when fighting a human player who's ship is 3 classes up...

Quote
Do we really want to go back to stock servers??

Wasnt that the whole point of Gooks poll!?!....and why asume that all servers MUST be the same...or based on OP+?...or have custom missions?

Quote
That sounds like a step backwards instead of forwards.

In my book...that smacks of "elitism"...why not include the want of ALL people...rather than just yours...variety is the spice of life...

Quote
For crying out loud, we have people developing installers now that makes it so simple to get the content needed to play on servers especially when you consider that all that was ever needed usually was to swap out shiplists and fighter lists.

Yeah...and thats cool....but how many servers have required a second or third DL to fix stuff?...

Quote
Need I remind people that in the D3 community there are hosts of multiple megabyte mods that people are required to download to even get on any server.

One need only look at the amount of posting done in ALL D3 forums to see what this has done to the SFC3 community...it is fragmented and dropping off faster than we are at this point....to many mods...to few players...hard feelings amongst modders....no thanks...I'll pass...

Quote
Here in the D2, the worst thing you'll need to do is download a custom shiplist and fighter list and some mission packs. Nowhere near the size of D3 mods.

Thats because people like firesoul have been kind anough to figure out "no models" versions of these mods...otherwise...they WOULD be mega MB mods...and the player base would be even smaller than it is now...

Quote
If there is really a sentiment against "complicated" server, I just don't see why we can't mix in "simpler" ones and go from there,

Isnt that the whole point? :banghead:....sheesh!...V A R I E T Y ...

Quote
although I don't find recent servers to be complicated,

Try and wade through the rules....better yet...wade through Maxes rule set....how complicated will a F&E style server be?

Quote
nor Gook's idea of a server to be simple but merely slanted towards hex-flippers and nutters.

Ya know...this game takes ALL types to survive...and thank you for comming full circle to my original point...

The constant effort to put a leash on flippers and nutters have drivin off casual players who dont want to be botherd , who could care less about flippers or nutters, and just want to play...and can see with their own eyes that nothing done so far has curbed hex flipping or nutting...BECAUSE ITS PART OF THE FREAKIN GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The ONLY thing you can do to counter the effect of nutters is to give casual players MORE tools to work with...such as the disengagment rule...

If things dont change a bit....the ONLY people left playing will be flippers and nutters...and lepton...
Quote
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Lepton on July 21, 2004, 12:00:18 am: Julin, I totally agree. "Fire and forget" races like the Kzin don't need to line up arcs for anything. They just need to press that button to launch the other fleet members' drones. That is the other huge problem with fleets. Imagine three DF+s vs an ISC or Rom equivalent fleet. Scratch 2 AI plamsa ships in that situation and perhaps one human plasma race ship if we are talking about fast drones. This is the real problem with fleeting. It's amazing how people don't seem to see these issues and bandy about adding fleets back into the D2 without seeing the implications of doing so.

I'd be willing to wager that it was exactly these type of issues that brought about the single ship server. It seems there is a great deal of forgetting going on here in this discussion. Hasn't the reason that things have headed the way that they have in the D2 been to address problems with D2 servers? I mean, things just haven't developed willy nilly. There has been a reason for all of it. Going back to previous incarnations of the D2 is just going to crop up the same set of problems. Seems like a step backward to me.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Lepton on July 21, 2004, 12:47:00 am: Crim, I think you have missed my point. I am all for people putting up whatever servers they want. We can agree to disagree on the particulars of what keeps people in this game or what has driven them off. I believe what has kept the D2 going is what people have added to it, not anything that is inherent to it such as hex-flipping, etc. We can also disagree as to what the D2 is about. For me, it's about what we have added to it, not how it came out of the box.

I honestly don't know how people could be driven away by rules or downloads. That just seems silly to me. If it's just about playing the game, then they should do what 90% of us seem to be able to do without any assistance, understand the rules and get the downloads, and then just play the game. It seems to me those who leave are just as guilty of belly-aching as those they would decry as belly-achers for trying to achieve some balance in the D2 excpet that those who left are merely showing that they don't know how to operate a computer. What I suspect is the real case for those who leave is as the D2 developed they saw their style of play, their easy living on servers diminishing and they felt squeezed out, so they got angry at something else like downloads and left. That seems like a bit of sour grapes to me.

And what are these rules I keep hearing about? I glanced over the rules for LB5 and said to myself, these aren't really my concern as they are mostly concerned with VCs and such. So, I just go on the server and fly. What's hard about that?? Or if there is an OoB on a server, I just find out what it is I can and can't fly which is usually made abundantly clear to everyone and I just fly what I want from what is available to me. I don't crap myself over not being able to fly a DN. There are plenty of other ships.

I think this "rules" issue boils down to ship restrictions. If people want unrestricted servers, let's put some up and see what happens, but I think the ensuing arms race will make it more difficult for people rather than less. I think your reverse system is a great idea and I did indeed understand it the first time around. However, I think we all need to understand that there will be people who are actually looking to balance out things in the D2 and that that is a good thing not a bad thing. Part of the source of balance has been laid at the doorstep of SFB and F&E and I think that is rightly so. These rules that people have developed are meant to help the game not hinder it and they only hinder one if one allows one's self to be hindered. I mean, these "rules" didn't come out of thin air. They were created to address issues, not to merely inconvenience people. If these "rules" are so complicated, how is it that servers seem to go off without a hitch where rules are concerned?

Anyway, I think this "rules" issue is merely a proxy for ship restrictions. If that is the true issue, your solution is one of many that may be tried.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Lepton on July 21, 2004, 12:58:35 am: Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! I just looked at this poll that Gook is claiming is the word down from on high that proclaims what people want in the D2. There were only 30 people who even responded to this poll, and 11 people voted for KISS. Just 11 people!!!! HAHAAHAAHAHA!!! And it was a poll posted by Leroy. Who is going to respond to that seriously? That is certainly no mandate considering that there are more like 200 people in the D2 community. Put up a serious poll and I will take the results seriously. This is a non-issue now as far as I am concerned until I see some real numbers.

And, and, and, and, DH's poll about stock missions has only 32 respondents and is currently tied. Neither of these is any mandate to take any substantial course of action.

What a tempest in a teapot this has all been. Back to your regularly scheduled program.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: KBF-Crim on July 21, 2004, 01:22:31 am: Quote from: Lepton on July 21, 2004, 12:58:35 am
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! I just looked at this poll that Gook is claiming is the word down from on high that proclaims what people want in the D2. There were only 30 people who even responded to this poll, and 11 people voted for KISS. Just 11 people!!!! HAHAAHAAHAHA!!! And it was a poll posted by Leroy. Who is going to respond to that seriously? That is certainly no mandate considering that there are more like 200 people in the D2 community. Put up a serious poll and I will take the results seriously. This is a non-issue now as far as I am concerned until I see some real numbers.

And, and, and, and, DH's poll about stock missions has only 32 respondents and is currently tied. Neither of these is any mandate to take any substantial course of action.

What a tempest in a teapot this has all been. Back to your regularly scheduled program.

I just noticed your sig.....My bad...I'll stop trying to have a logical disccusion with you...you allready KNOW it all... ::)

BTW...I wouldnt brag about 200 peeps still here...we had over 600 signed up for the open beta alone... :banghead:
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on July 21, 2004, 02:08:17 am: Lepton:

If I were nutter enough to afford it, I have a fleet that's easier to use than the Z-DF fleet.
I-BCV, I-CVZ, I-CVDZ. By pressing the "launch all fighers" button on my keyboard, I am sending 9 4-packs of Caveat III fighters, carrying 108 gatling phasers, into the belly of the beast. K-B11Ks and Z-DF or Z-DWD fleets would wither in seconds under the sheer firepower of that many gatlings. Then toss the Cav's 36 phaser 2's into the action, and I wouldn't expect any ships, or fleets, to make it to strike range of my force, so I might not even need to go to red alert.

For the totally lazy, I could just let the computer do it for me. 7 packs of Cav IIIs are launched from the CVZ and CVDZ by the AI. That's still enough fighters to wipe out many a lesser fleet.

At least the Mirak have to hit the fire button for each wave of drones... ;D

Quote from: Gook on July 20, 2004, 04:26:28 pm
OK basic Math 101 (jeez I hate Math :) )

Heavy fast drones cost 5 PP on LB5

80 slots on a DWD

free reloads taken into account means load out costs 264 (thats what the ship yard tells me).

Average Mission payout 300 PP

average Droner mission requiring full loadout nets 36 PP or 10% a none droner total for the same mission. That's paying for it.

Use a fleet and you are rapidly running out of cash, (792 per mission if full load out)

Use a none stock mission and you use more drones so more likely to need full load out.

That's the basic math on current server settings and you want to tweak it more! Jeesh.

Who else pays for their primary weapon, and has that weapon have so many countermeasures, and has a finite supply of ammo?

Okay. 792-300=492. Say -500 PP per mission lost with your fleet.
Set aside 20k of your 120k bank account for ship replacement.
That leaves you with enough cash to fully resupply your fleet 200 times.

Question: How does the Z-DWD get 80 drone slots? 4xB 2xC racks = 32 "rack drones", reloads should be in multiples of 32 (64 with 2 reloads, 96 with 3 reloads, and 128 with 4 reloads).

I'll work with what I know. Z-DWD has 128 drones. 64 get replaced for free each mission. You need to burn 64 drones to completely use up your purchased reloads and force resupply at the maximum PP payout rate.
Every 30 seconds you can launch 6 drones. At that rate, you burn through your 64 bought drones in 5 minutes 20 seconds.
Taking and adding 2 minutes to each mission for travel time, you need to spend 7:20 in each mission just to burn all your bought drones.
200 missions @ 7:20 each = 24:26:40 of time spent "in mission" to burn 100k PP supplying your fleet. That's a full day's worth of being in mission. After adding the time spent to travel to base, resupply, travel to front, find mission, accept mission, wait through briefing, and all the other waits that goes with SFC, and you're looking at closer to 36 hours of playing to burn through 100k of your PP stock.
Playing 12 hour days, that's still 3 days of playing. Playing 8 hour days, that gives you 4 days of playing. You could just about finish off LB5 at this point in a fleet and still not go bankrupt.
And this time frame assumes that you're needing to fly 5:20 in combat every mission, and burn through 64 drones per ship each time. While I've never flown a DWD fleet, I don't think you're consistently spending this much time and drones each mission. So, the bank account will stretch longer, from cheaper resupply. Putting into practice drone conservation, like only resupplying to full load every 2 missions (turning loss per resupply from 500 to 200 PP each trip), or even banking money by running a few missions with only your free reloads (assuming conditions are allowing you to use less than 64 drones per ship per mission, and you aren't at high risk of being hit with a 2-ship PvP), can suddenly stretch a 100k bank account into a fund able to supply a 3 ship fleet for a week or 2 of "average" 12 hour nutter-like days.

Bankrupcy takes quite a while to kick in for a nutter. Perhaps longer than you thought. Too long, in my opinion, to be the crux of an argument that PP will limit the time a fleet remains active.

Thank you for the reminder I've desperately needed. We've been focusing on Drall's old master plan without considering all the facets of what we're doing here. Once we have at least the drone ships onto a Plasma-type buy schedule, then we need to argue that the drone ships should be able to operate on a plasma-type operations style, to include large amounts of free reloads for their ships. If possible, I'd like to see carriers and tenders get the same treatment, perhaps with a mandatable CnC, sadly I don't think that's possible.

:soap:
Being a soapbox here, if you're tired of being picked on whenever people discuss consumables, and their effect on the premier consumable-user race, why don't you shift over to a non-consumable race and let those who are willing to experiment play Mirak for a while? At least you can judge the effect of the tests and we don't have to delete Mirak in a knee-jerk reaction...
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on July 21, 2004, 02:16:54 am: Quote from: Lepton on July 21, 2004, 12:58:35 am
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! I just looked at this poll that Gook is claiming is the word down from on high that proclaims what people want in the D2. There were only 30 people who even responded to this poll, and 11 people voted for KISS. Just 11 people!!!! HAHAAHAAHAHA!!! And it was a poll posted by Leroy. Who is going to respond to that seriously? That is certainly no mandate considering that there are more like 200 people in the D2 community. Put up a serious poll and I will take the results seriously. This is a non-issue now as far as I am concerned until I see some real numbers.

And, and, and, and, DH's poll about stock missions has only 32 respondents and is currently tied. Neither of these is any mandate to take any substantial course of action.

What a tempest in a teapot this has all been. Back to your regularly scheduled program.

Hmmm. 1/10th of the community has bothered to even voice an opinion. And I don't expect a 200 vote poll at any time in the future.
So, while this isn't a mandate that will determine the direction of all future servers, discussions generated in these debates will influence future servers.

For a cheesy 30 response poll to open a debate like this, there's obviously something wrong that needs to be looked at. The question is how shall we address the problem?

Obviously, if you don't want to consider things and even agree or disagree, you are free to consider the issue closed. Just understand that many dances the D2 has danced over the years are repeat performances, and we're still trying to find the right answer...
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: GDA-S'Cipio on July 21, 2004, 03:22:04 am: Quote from: Gook on July 20, 2004, 04:26:28 pm
OK basic Math 101 (jeez I hate Math :) )

Heavy fast drones cost 5 PP on LB5

5 points is a bit high for my scheme. I think I'd only charge two points for a fast drone that wasn't already included in the ships BPV.

If it was included in the ships BPV, I suspect I'd give the ship enough free reloads to account for it.

-S'Cipio
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Gook on July 21, 2004, 03:22:43 am: As for DWD drone racks I said that was what the computer charged me for a full reload, how it worked it out I do not know. It has 4 B racks and 2 C racks. Heavy drones are double space, hence 80 drone loadout.

As for for missions generally, no I don't use a full load, but then have to make the concious decison to fly my ship without a full load of ammo on board, not knowing what the next mission will be, PvP or AI. So I have to chose, PvP in the bank or full weapons load. Ohter ships always fly to their max potential and have infinite ammo.

With a fleet the problems are multiplied.

Anyhow enough of that. Issues seem to be therefore:

1. Fleets

2. Deepstrikes

3. Shiplist

Any others to add to the list?
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: GDA-S'Cipio on July 21, 2004, 03:41:55 am: Quote from: Gook on July 21, 2004, 03:22:43 am
As for DWD drone racks I said that was what the computer charged me for a full reload, how it worked it out I do not know. It has 4 B racks and 2 C racks. Heavy drones are double space, hence 80 drone loadout.

I'm not doubting your math. I'm saying, under my scheme, I'd charge you less in the resupply screen than the computer is currently charging you.

Or maybe I'd just make all drones free, and increase your base BPV accordingly.

I'm just thinking out loud.

Quote
Anyhow enough of that. Issues seem to be therefore:

1. Fleets

2. Deepstrikes

3. Shiplist

Any others to add to the list?

4. Price of consumables

5. Missions pack (lots of fleet action? lots of one-on-one? lots of variety?)

6. Grateful donations sent to S'Cippy, because he's just so darn pretty.

-S'Cipio

Quote
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: FPF-Jem on July 21, 2004, 06:58:37 am: hmm... well I think I'll stick this here because it's related to the discussion at hand.... sorta....

From playing on LB5 I've noticed the dipshiplist still needs a fair amount of tweaking (just from what I can see from a Fed perspective) though I'm sure that additional tweaking was expected, I just want to bring out some observations I've had.

For one, the pirates don't seem to have had any adjustment so they're quite easy to blow up currently and secondly The BPV's of some ships just don't seem right, ex. compare the 175 F-CVL to the 170 F-NVS.
The CVL has only has half the fighter complement, a weaker phaser suite and poorer power curve but its 5 BPV higher. Just seemed kind of amusing when I saw it.

On a side note about destructable bases and custom missions, what is the average time to do a base assault on LB5 withits stock missions? I've done three and other than the first one (which was a fluke 20 minute mission) they've been over an hour with a human wing in a DN. If the stock mission typically has a Starbase and runs around an hour even with a wing, do we need a custom base assault?
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 21, 2004, 07:35:52 am: Quote from: FPF-Jem on July 21, 2004, 06:58:37 am

On a side note about destructable bases and custom missions, what is the average time to do a base assault on LB5 withits stock missions? I've done three and other than the first one (which was a fluke 20 minute mission) they've been over an hour with a human wing in a DN. If the stock mission typically has a Starbase and runs around an hour even with a wing, do we need a custom base assault?

You are correct, stock missions and destructable bases are silly.

This DIP list is going through MAJOR revisions before it sees the server so i really wouldn't worry about this incarnation too much.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: SSCF-LeRoy on July 21, 2004, 09:00:03 am: Quote from: Lepton on July 21, 2004, 12:58:35 am
And it was a poll posted by Leroy. Who is going to respond to that seriously?

:skeptic:
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: GDA-S'Cipio on July 21, 2004, 10:52:33 am: Quote from: SSCF-LeRoy on July 21, 2004, 09:00:03 am
Quote from: Lepton on July 21, 2004, 12:58:35 am
And it was a poll posted by Leroy. Who is going to respond to that seriously?

:skeptic:

I take polls from you very seriously, LeRoy. For when you ask a question, I think it is safe to assume that you actually want to hear the answers.

And I just love talking.

-S'Cipio the prattler
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: SSCF-LeRoy on July 21, 2004, 11:32:28 am: Quote from: Scipio_66 on July 21, 2004, 10:52:33 am
Quote from: SSCF-LeRoy on July 21, 2004, 09:00:03 am
Quote from: Lepton on July 21, 2004, 12:58:35 am
And it was a poll posted by Leroy. Who is going to respond to that seriously?

:skeptic:

I take polls from you very seriously, LeRoy. For when you ask a question, I think it is safe to assume that you actually want to hear the answers.

And I just love talking.

-S'Cipio the prattler

Actually I was somewhat amused by that particular statement 'cuz to me that means I must must be doin' somethin' right :lol:

I just had to give Leppy the eye (:skeptic:) just fer kicks and giggles ;D

I was really tempted to say "Well, nobody takes you seriously so I guess that makes us even.", but I decided to keep a civil tongue in my head ;)

Thanks fer the sentiment.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: Lepton on July 21, 2004, 11:42:00 am: My meaning is that people would have been much more likely to vote if the poll were posted by an server admin or someone with enough cache in the community to actually be able to do something about the results. They would have also been much more like to vote if the poll were presented as a serious vote with actual consequences and presentations arguing for each of the positions found in the poll. No slight of Leroy intended.
Title: Re: Discussion document Dyna development
Post by: SSCF-LeRoy on July 21, 2004, 11:52:57 am: The whole aim of my poll was simply to put an issue out there for other people to chew on, and it worked. Others with more cache as you say (specifically Gook) are now referring to the opinions espressed there. I kinda figured other people harbored similar questions to what was posed by my poll, so I decided to go ahead and put it out in the forefront to let the more credible motivators in the community mull over it. Every now and again I like to pose questions to make people think about certain things in the community (just look at what has come about just because I posted a link to Mu's rant page ;D). No slight taken. I've always considered myself to be a peon around here :D