Post by: FPF_TraceyG on March 27, 2003, 03:29:45 am
Firstly, the poll.
Comments and suggestions are welcome.
Secondly, I'd like this process to be as democratic as we can. So please place nominations for who should be the 'Secretary General', for overseeing the process and why.
Once candidates are nominated and seconded, I'll place an election thread where you can cast your vote in another poll.
Post by: Dizzy on March 27, 2003, 03:45:55 am
Post by: KOTH-Steel Claw on March 27, 2003, 07:19:25 am
Post by: NuclearWessels on March 27, 2003, 08:21:22 am
dave
Post by: jdmckinney on March 27, 2003, 08:48:27 am
Post by: Kroma_BaSyl on March 27, 2003, 09:00:30 am
Post by: Karnak on March 27, 2003, 09:36:39 am
IHHO, the server co-ordinator should be someone who is long-standing member that genuinely cares about the community as a whole and does not have a stake in one particular server going before the other. Someone who goes the extra mile to start up constructive projects without prodding. Jinn started the idea to schedule the servers behind-the-scenes about a month ago. He also is very good at calming people like RMs and server admins down when they are flipping out over all sorts of stuff.
For these reasons, I nominate Jinn. Who can be trusted to get the job done.
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on March 27, 2003, 09:53:07 am
Kroma's suggestion has merit. Perhaps if we create a "Board of Directors", with someone then being nominated as ChairPerson with respect to the above role. The Board can consist of members from each of the server admin teams, and we could meet, say, once or twice a month, on GameSpy perhaps, or MSN. In fact, as I type this, I'm liking that idea more and more. It would give us all a chance to exchange info and help each other out with server problems, in addition to coordinating servers.
Post by: Kroma_BaSyl on March 27, 2003, 10:01:50 am
Post by: CaptStumpy on March 27, 2003, 10:10:33 am
There have always been competing servers, with of course the SFC2.net/EAW ones being the big boys in most cases, certainly recently. I'm still a little puzzled at the concern over the SFCX OP servers. I think Castrin has pointed out the server philosophy of the ToW campaign, Badlands etc. Badlands, I believe used to run consistently, at the same time as the biggest of the EAW servers without noticebly effecting it's numbers. I expect that the primary users of Badlands have always been OP fans and a home for Castrin's Fleet Members. There have always been servers like this on both EAW and OP.
When the SFCX members began discussing the idea of ToW, we envisioned the idea of introducing the mini-campaign, campaigns that run on small maps for days, at most two weeks. This idea was proposed with the coordination of the SFC2.net servers in mind from the start and at least in my case was a reaction to the perpetual delay of proposed servers, and kicked back launch dates. The idea was to insert these mini-campaigns between the larger servers run periods. All this would require is a bit more flexibility in scheduling and with proper communication between the admins can easily be done. As long as we generate an atmosphere of cooperation and mutual respect.
If I'm off base here, any SFCX member please pipe in but our future campaigns were designed to coordinate with SFC2.net, NOT and I repeat NOT compete with them. Regardless of how many people in the D2 community claim that our intention was to divide the community, I can only assure you this was not the case. I, and I believe the other SFCX members have a clear conscience on this issue and I think our track record proves it. Want some examples? Shutting down RT3 completely to stress test the new SFC2.net server comes to mind. (BTW in that case the SFC2.net server went live before the end of RT3, even in the face of objections from us, not that it matters anymore). And frankly, to me it seems that some people have made up their minds before we've put up anything but a test server.
To be blunt, this seems to me an attempt to herd cats, and in one case, an attempt to discredit SFCX on the basis of a stupid personal grudge. SFCX always was, and will remain commited to cooperation with ALL MEMBERS within the D2 Community and looks forward to working with the other admins to provide the best D2 playing experience possible. I think our track record shows it and I think if you put aside some of these concerns for the time being, and allow us to prove it, you will find that this is true.
My advise is for everyone to chill out and see how this plays out before jumping to conclusions about what will happen BEFORE it has happened.
Sincerely,
CaptStumpy
SFCX Founding Member
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on March 27, 2003, 10:24:39 am
Post by: CaptStumpy on March 27, 2003, 10:40:28 am
Adding a few days to a scheduled launch isn't going to kill a server that is planning a 4 week run-time will it? I don't think so.
If scheduling becomes a problem this is an option...right now I think it can be done with simple common sense, goodwill and compromise.
Post by: Karnak on March 27, 2003, 10:58:25 am
Quote:
What I am questioning here is the need for formalising anything, when coordination hasn't proved to be a problem yet. SFCX hasn't declared it's inflexibility to scheduling as long as we have an opportunity to have a server. I think we've clearly stated our intentions to run small campaigns between scheduled "long-run" servers. All that is needed here is to coordinate running these between the big boys and everyone will be happy.
Adding a few days to a scheduled launch isn't going to kill a server that is planning a 4 week run-time will it? I don't think so.
If scheduling becomes a problem this is an option...right now I think it can be done with simple common sense, goodwill and compromise.
Well, this is not gonna work if any of the parties are unhappy about the idea. So, I guess we should wait on it and see how it goes.
But, I do think it would be a good idea to have server co-ordinator who would post the server schedule that the admin work out. That's why I nominated Jinn. We already have a defacto committee of server admins. Obviously, the entrance requirement to the committee is that you are a server admin, mission scripter, etc. People critical to the production of a dyna. I don't think we need a vetting process for the committee. You can't just say that: yeah, you are a server admin and all but....
As for defacto committee meetings, they are already happening whether people like it or not. No one is gonna tell an admin how and when to meet with other admins, etc. They just happen on their own like SFCX said.
I think all we really need is a strong neutral party to put on a nice front cover to what the server admins work out for a server schedule and someone you can bounce off your issues with to make sure you are not being irrational.
Post by: ZTempest on March 27, 2003, 11:07:51 am
But isn't he a member of the inner circle of SFC2.net? Just like I would not nominate any inner-circle member of SFCX, I do not think that a member of SFC2.net should be running the campaign scheduling either. Too much possibility for conflict of interest on both sides.
If this thing is to take place, we need people who are not associated with either group. I am well aware that this may not be possible, but am throwing it out for consideration anyway.
Post by: Karnak on March 27, 2003, 11:28:20 am
I was thinking more of specific job qualifications for which Jinn is perfectly suited for. I have never seen him show a bias for SFC2.net. In fact, back during AOTK he actually asked about my server ideas and was receptive to them. A subject no one else would bother to give me the time of day over, at the time. So, I would be willing to vouch for him there.
But, if we cannot do that then I would recommend K'Rolling. She always is trying to do the right thing with PR in the D2 community. I can also think of some people in the GFL but that may not work if Jinn won't qualify. Maybe one of the forum moderators?
Post by: ZTempest on March 27, 2003, 11:35:58 am
I don't think that this indicates bias -- he is a very smart guy (I believe he is a Lawyer in real life) and he drinks good beer -- or is it Scotch. Can't remember that particular thread, but in any case perhaps we do need someone who is not only neutral, but who plays both games.
Post by: Karnak on March 27, 2003, 11:41:57 am
I hope some one can supply some new names that fit the above skill set.
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on March 27, 2003, 11:52:54 am
Quote:
What I am questioning here is the need for formalising anything, when coordination hasn't proved to be a problem yet. SFCX hasn't declared it's inflexibility to scheduling as long as we have an opportunity to have a server. I think we've clearly stated our intentions to run small campaigns between scheduled "long-run" servers. All that is needed here is to coordinate running these between the big boys and everyone will be happy.
Adding a few days to a scheduled launch isn't going to kill a server that is planning a 4 week run-time will it? I don't think so.
If scheduling becomes a problem this is an option...right now I think it can be done with simple common sense, goodwill and compromise.
I would argue that there is a need for formal communication, and good quality communication at that, in order to achieve just exactly what you have described. When the server schedule went up, I did my best to contact everyone that I knew who had a campaign planned. I was criticised by SFCX for not contacting them, to which I apologise. Hence, the need for formal communication. Who else might spring up out of the woodwork and decide they want to host a campaign? If our aim is to be fair to everyone, then everyone must have their say and be heard, and everyone must be aware of what is going on. Formalising that communication is the most efficient means by which that process can be conducted in a democratic and fair system. The initial server schedule was put together in the fashion you describe above, and it became a flame war. Obviously then, that approach is not sufficient. Without some kind of formalisation to the process, it simply isnt solid enough to stand up. I'm sorry if I sound pesimistic here, but without some kind of order here, I can't see this working at all, and chaos will once again reign throughout D2 server land. This is an opportunity to prevent that from hapenning, and holds server admins accountable for their actions. The choice always belongs to the community, however, so by all means, lets continue this debate. For the record, currently, they 'yes' vote is winning, 13 to 5.
Post by: KOTH-Steel Claw on March 27, 2003, 11:53:21 am
I am sure we could get someone from each of the fleets to poll their folks and post the results.
Then again........................
Post by: Dizzy on March 27, 2003, 12:23:30 pm
Quote:
I know this is probably absurd, but how about someone who doesn't design campaigns or work with a major campaign team? It might be nice if a respected community member (or members) who likes to play all sorts of campaigns on the various versions could mediate any admin scheduling conflicts. The decisions on their schedules would come down to the admins, but an independent voice of reason to try to find the path of least resistance and keep tempers in check would sure be nice. Then again, what sort of nutcase would volunteer to get in the middle...?
Then in a show of solidarity, we see CaptStumpy in the quote below assert jdmckineys above statement.
Quote:
If I'm off base here, any SFCX member please pipe in but our future campaigns were designed to coordinate with SFC2.net, NOT and I repeat NOT compete with them. Regardless of how many people in the D2 community claim that our intention was to divide the community, I can only assure you this was not the case.
.
To be blunt, this seems to me... an attempt to discredit SFCX on the basis of a stupid personal grudge. SFCX always was, and will remain commited to cooperation with ALL MEMBERS within the D2 Community and looks forward to working with the other admins to provide the best D2 playing experience possible. I think our track record shows it and I think if you put aside some of these concerns for the time being, and allow us to prove it, you will find that this is true.
.
My advise is for everyone to chill out and see how this plays out before jumping to conclusions about what will happen BEFORE it has happened.
Sincerely,
CaptStumpy
SFCX Founding Member
Fortunately I happen to KNOW the SFCX members in a rather personal way. And from personal experience I dont need to 'chill out'. That is why this thread exists. It is to secure a non compete agreement. It is painfully apparent that you guys are FoS and I personally will not take you seriously until ALL SFCX members FULLY support Traceys request. Otherwise, anything you have to say, I take with a grain of salt. My reason for this is jdmckinneys ideology on 'anywhere, anytime, dont care who's feet I step on':
Quote:
So, would I push to roll out a campaign during SG's run (or any other campaign, EAW or OP)? Yes, because we have been waiting for a usable OP D2 for a year, and we've waited long enough.
All this is going to take is a coordinated effort and a bit of solidarity from the divided SFCX members to step up and tell the community in one voice that you support a non compete agreement and will abide by the commitment to insure a maximum playerbase for these planned campaigns. Pretty simple if you ask me. Do the right thing, and support the playerbase, not split it with simultaneous servers.
It is obvious from the post made below by ZTempest that you do not trust us. Well, my friend, the same goes to you and for good reaon.
Quote:
Jinn is a nice guy... But isn't he a member of the inner circle of SFC2.net? Just like I would not nominate any inner-circle member of SFCX, I do not think that a member of SFC2.net should be running the campaign scheduling either. Too much possibility for conflict of interest on both sides. If this thing is to take place, we need people who are not associated with either group.
Continuing to mask your real intentions will fail, I'll make sure to piont out in EVERY post you all make that SFCX's middle name is glass UNTIL ALL of you In UNISON declare your commitment in preventing simultaneous server runs.
There are currently 3 servers ALLREADY planned. 1st is SG3 which has a tentative start date in 3-4weeks, which is right after DOE server concludes, then is followed by Karnaks ISC Invasion server, and finally by RDSL.
I would suggest you cut the crap and simply start negotiating your insertion into this schedule that works for everyone. The last post by jdmkinney pretty much sums up why this post is here:
Quote:
Seriously, I don't read EAW campaign threads, and haven't for some time. I don't play EAW campaigns (not enough time), so I don't read threads about them. I really don't know anything about it, and don't really care. I also have not even glanced at this supposed "schedule" that seems to exist (I didn't know about it until I read this thread).
Not knowing or not caring sinks SFCX's boat and your credibility.
Post by: CaptStumpy on March 27, 2003, 12:44:32 pm
Quote:Quote:
What I am questioning here is the need for formalising anything, when coordination hasn't proved to be a problem yet. SFCX hasn't declared it's inflexibility to scheduling as long as we have an opportunity to have a server. I think we've clearly stated our intentions to run small campaigns between scheduled "long-run" servers. All that is needed here is to coordinate running these between the big boys and everyone will be happy.
Adding a few days to a scheduled launch isn't going to kill a server that is planning a 4 week run-time will it? I don't think so.
If scheduling becomes a problem this is an option...right now I think it can be done with simple common sense, goodwill and compromise.
I would argue that there is a need for formal communication, and good quality communication at that, in order to achieve just exactly what you have described. When the server schedule went up, I did my best to contact everyone that I knew who had a campaign planned. I was criticised by SFCX for not contacting them, to which I apologise. Hence, the need for formal communication. Who else might spring up out of the woodwork and decide they want to host a campaign? If our aim is to be fair to everyone, then everyone must have their say and be heard, and everyone must be aware of what is going on. Formalising that communication is the most efficient means by which that process can be conducted in a democratic and fair system. The initial server schedule was put together in the fashion you describe above, and it became a flame war. Obviously then, that approach is not sufficient. Without some kind of formalisation to the process, it simply isnt solid enough to stand up. I'm sorry if I sound pesimistic here, but without some kind of order here, I can't see this working at all, and chaos will once again reign throughout D2 server land. This is an opportunity to prevent that from hapenning, and holds server admins accountable for their actions. The choice always belongs to the community, however, so by all means, lets continue this debate. For the record, currently, they 'yes' vote is winning, 13 to 5.
Tracey, I understand your POV here, but I am also concerned about the objectiveness of anyone put in that position. There is some merit in democracy, but in this case the server admins deserve a little more weight in my opinion due to the fact that they put their own time, money and effort into their servers and deserve the ability to make choices about when and where to run those servers. The players are always free to choose. But seriously why would any sane admin choose to run their server during a major campaign. This knife cuts both ways. Not only would you be doing a diservice to the other guy but you would be hamstringing your own servers popularity at the same time.
I'm all for putting a schedule out with proposed server start dates. But when you get down to choosing who runs and who doesn't by what methodology will this be done? In the past, server start dates were frequently overly optimistic, and often wrong. Screwing up planned campaigns and drawing players away from current ones. I admit I have not followed the EAW campaign schedule enough to know if this is still a problem. But what if a planned major campaign date is missed? Does that push the others back? Does another fill the slot? Does the missed slot put the offender at the end of the line? Who decides this, SFC2.net? If we consider all D2 campaigns, OP and EAW as competing, what happens to the OP players when an EAW only campaign runs? Are you going to axe all existing EAW campaigns when a OP only starts? Since the dominating majority of players are EAW will it mean that EAW servers have precedent over OP ones? These are questions I still haven't seen answered.
I've been around the community for along time, and to my knowledge there never has been a flame war about server schedules. There has been some grousing and grumbling at times about it but in the end the admins have been pretty darn good about cooperating and not stepping on people's toes. If you are referring to the recent flame war in the OP Campaign Poll thread, there was only one flamer there and he has his own agenda that has more to do with a petty personal vendetta than a "real" scheduling conflict. Any conflict was pretty much imagined by the perpetrator of that one-sided flaming and Castrin clearly stated that we would certainly not conflict with his server schedule and even SFCX members even offered OP assistance. I would hope that such respect would be returned.
If you have a problem it won't be from SFCX.
Post by: jdmckinney on March 27, 2003, 12:46:59 pm
Before I go further, I would like to point out the obvious, if unintended, bias toward large campaign design/hosting groups. GFL was barely mentioned above. SFC2.net and SFCX are getting a lot of press, but they aren't, and shouldn't be, the only places to look for campaigns. Frankly, I think there are many issues at play, some of them old biases for or against EAW or OP, or biases for or against certain individuals or groups. If possible, we should shove those all aside before they become flame bait in a well-intentioned discussion.
First, no one "official" schedule needs to be created, though posted schedules would certainly help the players and admins as a frame of reference. There also is no need for a committee. All we really need is a line of open communication for any campaign hosts/admins to coordinate with each other. An forum may or may not serve that purpose, since they tend to lend themselves to flamefests.
I am not a part of the SFC admin mailing list, but I understand a lot of good information sharing has taken place there over the years (it's been THAT long??!!). Perhaps that list, or a scheduling mailing list, would serve the purpose of keeping lines of communication open. The way to subscribe to it should be easily accessible so any new admins or old ones who want to start coordinating plans can join the conversation.
The key is NOT championing the creation of time-block schedule that essentially dictates when admins can run campaigns, or how long they have to wait for a chance. For one thing, the fewer simultaneous campaigns available, the less inviting the game is for new or returning players. Old hands have their favorites, but even they like a change of pace now and then, sometimes on a whim.
Perhaps what we need are MORE campaigns, but less overlap for the kinds that are very similar in scope, size, and rules/goals. So, if an admin decides they'd like to run a small-map, short-run campaign with specific VCs and a custom shiplist, they won't feel like they have no opportunity while a big-map, long-term campaign with long-running team planning and role-play is rolling along. Do people get my general point here? By overdoing the scheduling, we are effectively killing variety and player choices, which also diminishes creativity in design. Even if Campaign X gets 15 players at prime-time vs. Campaign Y's 30 and Campaign Z's 5, they can all still be fun and offer players a range of options.
So, how about trying to let the communication happen, let the schedule be free-flowing, allowing late entries and overlap when campaigns aren't very similar in design? I think the admin groups and individuals could benefit from being kept up on each other's plans so they don't step on toes. I know the players would benefit if they didn't have to choose between one "serious" campaign and one or more "fun" campaigns (still a poor term, I must say). I'd rather have the tough choice of spending my hours on 2-3 campaigns I like than having no place to play if I don't like the setup of the current offering(s).
Post by: Kroma_BaSyl on March 27, 2003, 01:00:08 pm
Post by: jdmckinney on March 27, 2003, 01:07:02 pm
It was just too easy spending a couple days trading ideas on how to implement Andros and such. I'm glad we're back to the old flaming and character smears.
Truthfully, I'm sorry I was harsh about my views on delaying a SFCX project while something else ran. That was said in frustration with your flames, not a desire to actively go out and try to squeeze admins out of time slots and deprive them of players. As I posted above, I feel what really would be beneficial would be MORE campaigns, but not having campaigns with a lot of similarities overlapping.
I really don't think the players dwindled because they had too many choices -- many probably wish they had more servers to choose from. Maybe I'm wrong. Either way, a rigid schedule and system that discourages people from running servers at all is not conducive to a better feeling among the community.
If you set aside your personal feelings toward me or anyone else at SFCX (which, by the way, is not just the RT3 team), can you see any merit in what I propose?
Maybe we just have a philosophical difference on what is and isn't good for the community. Either way, the flames don't help anyone.
Post by: KOTH-Steel Claw on March 27, 2003, 01:11:43 pm
Quote:
Damn, where is warlock with those marshmellows?
::Tosses a bag of Campfire's best to Kroma::
Personally, I think there needs to be a little consideration for the players. I like both EAW and OP. I feel like I get left out of something cool half the time.
I do realize that the admins pay for this stuff as well.
Some happy medium somewhere?
Post by: Goose on March 27, 2003, 01:19:15 pm
Some servers are not campaign servers.
These servers exist as a testing/training grounds for fleets. To tell them when they can or cannot run is unfair as they do not take away from the majors.
Having an admin work hard on their campaign only to be told, "You can't run now." is also unfair. There may not be the time available down the road for said admin to run the campaign at another time.
Updates.
What some Admins learn may be passed to another. But this cannot take place if you are scheduled to go "Now."
What I suggest is this:
No committee.
Takes too long to set up meetings and such, process is drawn out way too long.
No formality.
No rules on when a server can run. This will help promote choice (some people will object to being forced to play on any particular server). And not degrade the "small" servers.
One central point of reference.
A "database" if you will. That people can request info from and maybe pick up tips and advice from other admins.
This "Single Point Of Contact" (SPOC, catchy huh?) would have to adhere to certain qualifications to avoid bias and be mutually acceptable to everyone. Things like (these were mentioned already):
No Admin associations.
No RM duties.
Equal (maybe, say, able to partake in all 3 - EAW, OP and D3) representative.
Would this satisfy our needs?
Post by: ZTempest on March 27, 2003, 01:24:54 pm
One thing that just occurred to me -- why not just let the Admins sort things out on their own, rather than dictating to them when and how long they need to run their servers? This way they remain empowered to be flexible and bring their campaigns to the table for the entire community. If there is a conflict, then they can quietly handle it themselves, between each other.
Just a thought. I am not so sure that a formal "outside" group of players or admins are needed to make the decisions that the admins might be able to sort out on their own behind the scenes.
Just throwing it out as an idea.
Post by: CaptStumpy on March 27, 2003, 01:27:55 pm
Quote:
Here we see jdmckenneys post on this thread:Quote:
I know this is probably absurd, but how about someone who doesn't design campaigns or work with a major campaign team? It might be nice if a respected community member (or members) who likes to play all sorts of campaigns on the various versions could mediate any admin scheduling conflicts. The decisions on their schedules would come down to the admins, but an independent voice of reason to try to find the path of least resistance and keep tempers in check would sure be nice. Then again, what sort of nutcase would volunteer to get in the middle...?
Then in a show of solidarity, we see CaptStumpy in the quote below assert jdmckineys above statement.Quote:
If I'm off base here, any SFCX member please pipe in but our future campaigns were designed to coordinate with SFC2.net, NOT and I repeat NOT compete with them. Regardless of how many people in the D2 community claim that our intention was to divide the community, I can only assure you this was not the case.
.
To be blunt, this seems to me... an attempt to discredit SFCX on the basis of a stupid personal grudge. SFCX always was, and will remain commited to cooperation with ALL MEMBERS within the D2 Community and looks forward to working with the other admins to provide the best D2 playing experience possible. I think our track record shows it and I think if you put aside some of these concerns for the time being, and allow us to prove it, you will find that this is true.
.
My advise is for everyone to chill out and see how this plays out before jumping to conclusions about what will happen BEFORE it has happened.
Sincerely,
CaptStumpy
SFCX Founding Member
Fortunately I happen to KNOW the SFCX members in a rather personal way. And from personal experience I dont need to 'chill out'. That is why this thread exists. It is to secure a non compete agreement. It is painfully apparent that you guys are FoS and I personally will not take you seriously until ALL SFCX members FULLY support Traceys request. Otherwise, anything you have to say, I take with a grain of salt. My reason for this is jdmckinneys ideology on 'anywhere, anytime, dont care who's feet I step on':
Quote:
So, would I push to roll out a campaign during SG's run (or any other campaign, EAW or OP)? Yes, because we have been waiting for a usable OP D2 for a year, and we've waited long enough.
All this is going to take is a coordinated effort and a bit of solidarity from the divided SFCX members to step up and tell the community in one voice that you support a non compete agreement and will abide by the commitment to insure a maximum playerbase for these planned campaigns. Pretty simple if you ask me. Do the right thing, and support the playerbase, not split it with simultaneous servers.
It is obvious from the post made below by ZTempest that you do not trust us. Well, my friend, the same goes to you and for good reaon.Quote:
Jinn is a nice guy... But isn't he a member of the inner circle of SFC2.net? Just like I would not nominate any inner-circle member of SFCX, I do not think that a member of SFC2.net should be running the campaign scheduling either. Too much possibility for conflict of interest on both sides. If this thing is to take place, we need people who are not associated with either group.
Continuing to mask your real intentions will fail, I'll make sure to piont out in EVERY post you all make that SFCX's middle name is glass UNTIL ALL of you In UNISON declare your commitment in preventing simultaneous server runs.
There are currently 3 servers ALLREADY planned. 1st is SG3 which has a tentative start date in 3-4weeks, which is right after DOE server concludes, then is followed by Karnaks ISC Invasion server, and finally by RDSL.
I would suggest you cut the crap and simply start negotiating your insertion into this schedule that works for everyone. The last post by jdmkinney pretty much sums up why this post is here:Quote:
Seriously, I don't read EAW campaign threads, and haven't for some time. I don't play EAW campaigns (not enough time), so I don't read threads about them. I really don't know anything about it, and don't really care. I also have not even glanced at this supposed "schedule" that seems to exist (I didn't know about it until I read this thread).
Not knowing or not caring sinks SFCX's boat and your credibility.
Dizzy, why don't you tell everyone here what SFCXs "real" intentions are? Love to hear them myself. This conflict is entirely in your mind and fabricated by you. This is the same stuff that got you in hot water over...and over...and over... until even your supporters end up your detractors. I know you don't believe it, but do you realize when we talk about starting a campaign the word Dizzy isn't mentioned?
That being said no amount of dictating by you, or personal attacks on us is likely to motivate anyone to change their minds. Still, even after you spit your vitriol we will still continue to try to work with you and the rest of the admins to schedule our campaigns. Or if you chose not to work with us, fine, we will still do our best to schedule around you and any other admin.
Of course this might take compromise and mutual cooperation, words not in the Dizzy vocabulary. Unfortunately the usual Dizzy-way or the Highway litany continues to run out of your mouth prohibiting any sort of rational discourse. Even in the face of your abuse, many SFCXers have continued to support, defend and assist you. Still you continue to think some Dizzy hate-club exists. Must gall you to no end to announce your intention to put up the post-patch OP server, a move that was probably intended to hurt someone and be greeted with cheers of "good luck" from Castrin and good natured assistance by other members.
Credibility? You lost yours with me years ago. And your recent behavior is exactly the reason why. Something you continue to fail to understand.
-CaptStumpy
Post by: CptCastrin on March 27, 2003, 01:35:22 pm
Quote:
Quote:
Damn, where is warlock with those marshmellows?
::Tosses a bag of Campfire's best to Kroma::
Personally, I think there needs to be a little consideration for the players. I like both EAW and OP. I feel like I get left out of something cool half the time.
I do realize that the admins pay for this stuff as well.
Some happy medium somewhere?
Hey can I have some too? The marshmellows that is.
Oh and I agree, all sides need to be considered - SFC2, SFCOP, SFC3, players and admins alike.
Beyond that I have nothing to say so please can I have a few of those ...
Post by: Kroma_BaSyl on March 27, 2003, 01:41:17 pm
Quote:
Oh and I agree, all sides need to be considered - .......SFC3, players......
Ok now you are just talking crazy
Post by: CaptStumpy on March 27, 2003, 01:43:27 pm
Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Damn, where is warlock with those marshmellows?
::Tosses a bag of Campfire's best to Kroma::
Personally, I think there needs to be a little consideration for the players. I like both EAW and OP. I feel like I get left out of something cool half the time.
I do realize that the admins pay for this stuff as well.
Some happy medium somewhere?
Hey can I have some too? The marshmellows that is.
Oh and I agree, all sides need to be considered - SFC2, SFCOP, SFC3, players and admins alike.
Beyond that I have nothing to say so please can I have a few of those ...
I hate marshmallows but I'll take a hit of that whiskey (takes swig) passes it to Tracey...
Post by: Gumby on March 27, 2003, 01:51:49 pm
(Keeping the peace the Romulan way........)
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on March 27, 2003, 01:55:29 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Damn, where is warlock with those marshmellows?
::Tosses a bag of Campfire's best to Kroma::
Personally, I think there needs to be a little consideration for the players. I like both EAW and OP. I feel like I get left out of something cool half the time.
I do realize that the admins pay for this stuff as well.
Some happy medium somewhere?
Hey can I have some too? The marshmellows that is.
Oh and I agree, all sides need to be considered - SFC2, SFCOP, SFC3, players and admins alike.
Beyond that I have nothing to say so please can I have a few of those ...
I hate marshmallows but I'll take a hit of that whiskey (takes swig) passes it to Tracey...
Why thankyou. Passes the hip flask back to Capt. Stumpy after taking a swig or two. Stumpy looks in the flask.
"Errrr... it's empty..."
"Ummm, sorry, I was thirsty and it was a little flask"...
Post by: ZTempest on March 27, 2003, 02:01:44 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Damn, where is warlock with those marshmellows?
::Tosses a bag of Campfire's best to Kroma::
Personally, I think there needs to be a little consideration for the players. I like both EAW and OP. I feel like I get left out of something cool half the time.
I do realize that the admins pay for this stuff as well.
Some happy medium somewhere?
Hey can I have some too? The marshmellows that is.
Oh and I agree, all sides need to be considered - SFC2, SFCOP, SFC3, players and admins alike.
Beyond that I have nothing to say so please can I have a few of those ...
I hate marshmallows but I'll take a hit of that whiskey (takes swig) passes it to Tracey...
Why thankyou. Passes the hip flask back to Capt. Stumpy after taking a swig or two. Stumpy looks in the flask.
"Errrr... it's empty..."
"Ummm, sorry, I was thirsty and it was a little flask"...
Brings in graham crackers, hershey bars, and an extra bag of marshmellows....
"S'mores anyone?"
Cracks open a pony keg, dips in a battered tin cup full to the brim with Brandy, and passes it to the left.
Can we sing campfire songs now and get maudlin?
Post by: CptCastrin on March 27, 2003, 02:02:51 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Damn, where is warlock with those marshmellows?
::Tosses a bag of Campfire's best to Kroma::
Personally, I think there needs to be a little consideration for the players. I like both EAW and OP. I feel like I get left out of something cool half the time.
I do realize that the admins pay for this stuff as well.
Some happy medium somewhere?
Hey can I have some too? The marshmellows that is.
Oh and I agree, all sides need to be considered - SFC2, SFCOP, SFC3, players and admins alike.
Beyond that I have nothing to say so please can I have a few of those ...
I hate marshmallows but I'll take a hit of that whiskey (takes swig) passes it to Tracey...
Why thankyou. Passes the hip flask back to Capt. Stumpy after taking a swig or two. Stumpy looks in the flask.
"Errrr... it's empty..."
"Ummm, sorry, I was thirsty and it was a little flask"...
heh heh heheh
Stumpy she said you have a little flask ...
heh heheh heh
Post by: CaptStumpy on March 27, 2003, 02:04:23 pm
"Its going to be a long negotiation"
Post by: ZTempest on March 27, 2003, 02:06:30 pm
Quote:
"It's a good thing I come prepared" (walks into darkness loud thumping and rumbling sound then rolls in keg of 12 year old scotch)
"Its going to be a long negotiation"
Heh. I could come to like this negotiation stuff
Post by: CaptStumpy on March 27, 2003, 02:06:51 pm
uhh...ok maybe it is about size...
PS: Oh and before anyone says it, it doesn't have anything to do with my name!
Post by: Karnak on March 27, 2003, 02:11:17 pm
Quote:
Before I go further, I would like to point out the obvious, if unintended, bias toward large campaign design/hosting groups. GFL was barely mentioned above. SFC2.net and SFCX are getting a lot of press, but they aren't, and shouldn't be, the only places to look for campaigns.
This is why I want a strong neutral party publicist to publicize the server schedule that the admins agree on; whenever that happens.
. SFC2.net already has a smothering presence in D2. I don't know much about SFCX but I can gather already that it's another SFC2.net-like group that can smother another part of the dyna community. End result, is an oligrachic structure that un-intentionally drive other servers admin. away. In the end, we are all equals cuz we all basically do the same job but the PR has to take a multi-lateral approach for the good of the community in order to foster a vigorous and free environment where server admins. from any source can expect to get their proper PR due so their server gets a "fair shake" by the playerbase. Someone mentioned that the playerbase get a say in the server scheduling. I would think that the admins. are in the best position to estimate when they are ready to go and will endeavour to launch at the best time for the playerbase. I think the playerbase concerns are already factored in by defacto. In the end, if the playerbase is not happy with the way a server was launched the players will walk so I would not worry about playerbase concerns being ignored.
SPOC is a good idea but it does not have to be that complicated. I think all we really need is for the neutral party Server Scheduling publicist to make a sticky thread at the top of this forum and maintain the thread. Editing the scheduling as the admins PM in updates. The Sticky thread approach is an easy and simple way to reference to all D2 players to see what servers are in "on-tap", "distant thunder" and "might be a good idea, I dunno" status. We could even just have one of the forum moderators do it.
Post by: CaptStumpy on March 27, 2003, 02:25:22 pm
Quote:Quote:
Oh and I agree, all sides need to be considered - .......SFC3, players......
Ok now you are just talking crazy
(takes another swig of scotch takes long look at Kroma...)
(takes another swig...another look...)
(looks curiously at scotch glass...looks at Kroma)
"Is this stuff working for anyone?"
Post by: J'inn on March 27, 2003, 02:36:43 pm
I am pissed. Rabid. Eruptive! I will no longer be quiet in light of this B.S. This is pathetic.
I am absolutely tired of these lies. Dirty filthy lies. I . . . I . . I?m so mad I can?t type. I am actually on the verge of physical violence here.
I don?t need to read this crapola all day long. The unmitigated gall of it all!!
For the absolute last time.
I AM NOT A NICE GUY!!
I have a reputation to uphold. Do you weasels have any idea what would happen to me in real life if it was rumored that I was a nice guy?? DO YOU? NO YOU DON?T!! I?d be ruined.
I am a vicious unreasonable nasty SOB that should be feared and loathed. I?ll sue the pants off of anyone who says different.
Don?t you people give a damn that I just may have bills to pay and a living to make. Nice lawyers starve!! I don?t even have my *()*$*($&*0 Ferrari yet and you people are trying to put me on the unemployment line! You people are absolutely heartless.
Also, I do note that my name was first put on this thread of lies and deceit by Evil Dave Wessels. Notes have been made and a Process Server has been contacted. Kiss yer wallet goodbye Dave.
NICE!! Hmmph. I?ll show ya.
Now someone pass me some smores before I get real testy.
Post by: ZTempest on March 27, 2003, 02:54:06 pm
Quote:
HOW DARE YOU!!!
I am pissed. Rabid. Eruptive! I will no longer be quiet in light of this B.S. This is pathetic.
I am absolutely tired of these lies. Dirty filthy lies. I . . . I . . I?m so mad I can?t type. I am actually on the verge of physical violence here.
I don?t need to read this crapola all day long. The unmitigated gall of it all!!
For the absolute last time.
I AM NOT A NICE GUY!!
I have a reputation to uphold. Do you weasels have any idea what would happen to me in real life if it was rumored that I was a nice guy?? DO YOU? NO YOU DON?T!! I?d be ruined.
I am a vicious unreasonable nasty SOB that should be feared and loathed. I?ll sue the pants off of anyone who says different.
Don?t you people give a damn that I just may have bills to pay and a living to make. Nice lawyers starve!! I don?t even have my *()*$*($&*0 Ferrari yet and you people are trying to put me on the unemployment line! You people are absolutely heartless.
Also, I do note that my name was first put on this thread of lies and deceit by Evil Dave Wessels. Notes have been made and a Process Server has been contacted. Kiss yer wallet goodbye Dave.
NICE!! Hmmph. I?ll show ya.
Now someone pass me some smores before I get real testy.
ROFL!!!!!
J'inn...I have sincerely missed you my friend.
I am going to be a bit more active I think. I am going to have to dust off EAW and see if I can fly on your wing once again soon.
So...to set the record straight --
J'inn has no heart -- instead there is a big lump of gold there that he dips into every once in a while to keep the Riverboat Casino going....
And he does not have a Ferrarri yet...because he likes Mirak Drone Cruisers instead
And ummm.....if Mrs. Tempest, Redfur, and the rest of WANKER don't mind....can we throw a bash at the Casino soon?
Makes me want to paint my Kzinti MCC Pink.....
Regards,
Tempest
Post by: Goose on March 27, 2003, 02:56:11 pm
Quote:
SPOC is a good idea but it does not have to be that complicated. I think all we really need is for the neutral party Server Scheduling publicist to make a sticky thread at the top of this forum and maintain the thread. Editing the scheduling as the admins PM in updates. The Sticky thread approach is an easy and simple way to reference to all D2 players to see what servers are in "on-tap", "distant thunder" and "might be a good idea, I dunno" status. We could even just have one of the forum moderators do it.
A sticky thread would be the best way to "SPOC". A single point of reference for everyone. It doesn't have to be a person. Although someone will need to "keep control" over it as it could very easily degrade into a war of competing servers.
Stumpy, nope not for me either.
Post by: Kroma_BaSyl on March 27, 2003, 03:01:55 pm
Post by: Fluf on March 27, 2003, 03:14:07 pm
As far as assigning one person to schedule, or a committee, I dont think this is needed. Simple communication through the admin email group should be able to work any scheduling problems out between each other. Once these scheduling problems are worked out there, they can be posted in a sticky thread here.
Any admin that is not part of the Yahoo Admin Group, you should be in there!
Post by: Kroma_BaSyl on March 27, 2003, 03:28:14 pm
Quote:
What I would like to see is all the admins work through the Dyna Admin mail group and announce the intended date of start of the their respective campaigns. And this does include SFC3. Any problems can be worked out there. Schedules can be posted and adjusted in a sticky thread from there. I personally run campaigns in all 3 games and am now working on another LItterbox for SFC3 and also want to put up a OP campaing soon. Im sure we will get some overlap sometimes. Although this can hurt certain major campaigns, we must give the players from all 3 games the ability to play and have a server up for them. Although the Litterbox was geared more to the EAW/OP crowd for SFC3, I had scheduled it to come down just before DOE started. LB3 will probably not start until most of the D2 coming campaigns have finished. I do think we need a OP campaign up and running now, for testing and to give the OP players something to do.
As far as assigning one person to schedule, or a committee, I dont think this is needed. Simple communication through the admin email group should be able to work any scheduling problems out between each other. Once these scheduling problems are worked out there, they can be posted in a sticky thread here.
Any admin that is not part of the Yahoo Admin Group, you should be in there!
Dammit, there is no place in this thread for a voice of reason. Quit trying to piss on my fire.
Post by: CaptStumpy on March 27, 2003, 03:37:17 pm
Quote:
Dammit, there is no place in this thread for a voice of reason. Quit trying to piss on my fire.
ooopshh...shorry about that...(staggers off into woods)
Post by: kosh2000 on March 27, 2003, 03:38:53 pm
Post by: skyline on March 27, 2003, 03:43:35 pm
Exactly how many concurrent online D2 players are we concerned about here ?
Do we really need central D2 command to handle the D2 hordes ?
We have done our best over the last 2 years to collectively "shoot ourselves in the foot". Do we really need to take a step further ?
Please .. let a bit of the old common sense prevail !
Just $0.02
Mr Skyline
Post by: CaptStumpy on March 27, 2003, 03:55:40 pm
Quote:
Why should some who dose not have eaw and only op have to wait for a eaw campaign to finish ? Or vice versa there where many players on the triangle who did not have eaw .
I pointed this out earlier. And therein lies the dreaded curse of the OP standalone strategy. It should have been an expansion. If it had been we would all be playing the same game and elements of OP could be picked and chosen. Fixing resourses could have been concentrated on one game instead of two.
There is no easy solution to this and is unfair to expect those with only EAW to wait around for an OP campaign to finish just as much as it is for OP to have been neglected for EAW. Until the patch it wasn't much of a concern, post patch it is. I think it is unreasonable to expect a tit for tat specific arrangement for this. I also recognise that more players play EAW, does that mean that we should give OP campaigns only limited playtime?
The best that we can hope for is that the most popular campaigns will try hard to not run simultaneously. However if someone chooses to run back to back continuous EAW campaigns for example, I don't think it can be avoided.
There is some good feedback in this thread, some good people (except for nasty J'inn of course)
and I think we can all successfully play together, the admins must cooperate on their own good faith, no system will be completely equitable to all concerned, admins and players alike.CaptStumpy
I now return you to your regular drunken party
(passes plate of mealworms to Kroma)
Post by: Mog on March 27, 2003, 06:12:42 pm
Post by: FatherTed on March 27, 2003, 07:29:55 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Damn, where is warlock with those marshmellows?
::Tosses a bag of Campfire's best to Kroma::
Personally, I think there needs to be a little consideration for the players. I like both EAW and OP. I feel like I get left out of something cool half the time.
I do realize that the admins pay for this stuff as well.
Some happy medium somewhere?
Hey can I have some too? The marshmellows that is.
Oh and I agree, all sides need to be considered - SFC2, SFCOP, SFC3, players and admins alike.
Beyond that I have nothing to say so please can I have a few of those ...
I hate marshmallows but I'll take a hit of that whiskey (takes swig) passes it to Tracey...
Why thankyou. Passes the hip flask back to Capt. Stumpy after taking a swig or two. Stumpy looks in the flask.
"Errrr... it's empty..."
"Ummm, sorry, I was thirsty and it was a little flask"...
Brings in graham crackers, hershey bars, and an extra bag of marshmellows....
"S'mores anyone?"
Cracks open a pony keg, dips in a battered tin cup full to the brim with Brandy, and passes it to the left.
Can we sing campfire songs now and get maudlin?
Kumbaya. Now pass that cup over here.
Post by: Cleaven on March 27, 2003, 07:38:41 pm
There is enough trouble getting servers to start on time, and stay up, without trying to regulate who can and can't. As long as things are announced and people are kept as informed as possible then it should be okay as is, without any extra incumbencies on volunteers who provide a service for their own gratification as well as their users.
As for resistance to an OP server because the EAW servers are running, well that doesn't wash. OP must be tested, and some sort of semi-serious OP server is the only way to achieve this. There are enough people who will take OP over EAW, given the choice between two functioning D2's, to make it worthwhile. We just need to see how functional OP is and a co-ordinator won't achieve that.
Post by: gornrule on March 27, 2003, 08:01:30 pm
First things first : <tosses marshmallows, chocodiles, and tequila to Kroma>
< Krispy Kremes for the kitties>
<small manila envelope for J'inn>
I applaud anyone who takes the time,energy, and effort to create and run a server. I wouldn't even if I could. But I think that, much like a server, the more 'rules' you put into play, even with the best intentions, will only further splinter a somewhat fragile community. Common sense and courtesy have avoided much of the server overlap. I think that, in lieu of a 'committee', just announce your campaign when its ready. If ya want people to play it, you won't do that in the middle of another one. I like choices. If 10 people want to run simultaneous servers, I say go for it. It will only help our community grow, and give people choices, as opposed to telling them that they have to play on a certain server. Freedom of choice, what a concept.
And I second/second J'inns nomination.
Flame away, I can take the heat.
Gwarlock
Post by: 3dot14 on March 27, 2003, 08:05:27 pm
1. avoids an empty server that the admin worked so hard on. (or a period with NO server)
2. allows players to "devote" themselves.
3. Better coordination by RM's
CON of scheduling:
1. competition for spots. "who died and made you boss"? (bless the Simpsons)
2. limited choice for players
3. imposes restrictions on Admins.
Personally, as a SPARODIC D2 player. (I once vowed to start playing D2 when I had free time months ago, but the school work have once again and I barely have enough time to flip though the forums)
I think the question that REALLY needs to be asked is:
Are (and How many) concurrent campaign servers viable? Will there be enough people to go around?
and the only way to find out is a a free-for-all...
Should a day come that there are not enough numbers to statisfactorilly support two concurrent servers. Then it's time to bring this up. But probably not before...
AND WHY IS EAW and OP CONTINUED to be mentioend together? OP is a separate game (pity) but IT IS. So let OP server do their own thing. Considering the populations do not completely overlap. (as ztempest points out)
Post by: Green on March 27, 2003, 08:09:42 pm
But I don't see why EAW, OP, and 3 campaigns can't run concurrently. I own all 3 games, and have enjoyed them all (to some degree). But there are plenty of players who prefer to just play one or two of the three or who don't own all 3 games. I'd prefer if the admins, who do all the work, would be allowed to put their servers up when they think it is best. The EAW admins seem to have come to an agreement to allow their servers to get the maximum participation of the EAW crowd. Good on them, I think they are right.
But I'm not in favor of having all SFC title admins coordinate their schedules. Shoot, unless someone has mastered the 200 person server setting (shades of CW6) half of the players couldn't get on anyway. And getting to play EAW for 4-6 weeks and then wait another 2-4 months before another good EAW campaign comes up doesn't sound too good.
The thread has listed a cadre of good people who could do the job very well (even the ambulance chaser). But I contend that there doesn't need to be a position because it shouldn't be done. Let the 3 games continue at the same time - deconflict between campaigns of EAW if the admins desire. But don't expand this schedule out to all 3 games.
But, democracy aside, in the end it needs to be the admins (the ones who do the actual work) who will be the ones that determine what is finally done. And I won't complain about what these people - who give me something for free - decide to do. Thanks for asking for input Tracy, it is appreciated.
Post by: jdmckinney on March 27, 2003, 08:21:36 pm
Buster, you have some nerve poking your furry head in here ...
... WITHOUT BRINGING THE CATNIP!!!
Get out until you can contribute something useful!
Post by: Cocomoe on March 27, 2003, 08:23:54 pm
If you want to try to work this out face to face, you can pick a time and we can do it on ours.
I personally like the thought of scheduling ther D2's, as our base of players is alot smaller that it once was.
Reason why I like a schedule: (More than a few will dubplicate from earlier this thread)
1. And alot can be learned from one dyna that can be applied to another.
2. Players can sleep on one dynaverse.
3. Possible chance from all the current dyna admins to colaberate on a super campaign.
Reason not to like:
1. Who's the boss.
2. No everyone may like what's going on fat the current campaign.
3. Do you schedule around SFC3 and SFC:OP
4. Perception or an actuall one person or group trying to take over everything.
(I recall some of you saying that about the GFL at one time.)
Post by: CptCastrin on March 27, 2003, 08:39:03 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Damn, where is warlock with those marshmellows?
::Tosses a bag of Campfire's best to Kroma::
Personally, I think there needs to be a little consideration for the players. I like both EAW and OP. I feel like I get left out of something cool half the time.
I do realize that the admins pay for this stuff as well.
Some happy medium somewhere?
Hey can I have some too? The marshmellows that is.
Oh and I agree, all sides need to be considered - SFC2, SFCOP, SFC3, players and admins alike.
Beyond that I have nothing to say so please can I have a few of those ...
I hate marshmallows but I'll take a hit of that whiskey (takes swig) passes it to Tracey...
Why thankyou. Passes the hip flask back to Capt. Stumpy after taking a swig or two. Stumpy looks in the flask.
"Errrr... it's empty..."
"Ummm, sorry, I was thirsty and it was a little flask"...
Brings in graham crackers, hershey bars, and an extra bag of marshmellows....
"S'mores anyone?"
Cracks open a pony keg, dips in a battered tin cup full to the brim with Brandy, and passes it to the left.
Can we sing campfire songs now and get maudlin?
Kumbaya. Now pass that cup over here.
Pass that 'round this way Father.
Post by: Kroma_BaSyl on March 27, 2003, 08:42:39 pm
Quote:
I will surround myself with a committee of dedicated 'yes men'
Might I suggest Skolean flight school dropout instead. What with the recent influx of flight school applicants do to the inclusion of Gorn fighters on DOE they are a dime a dozen, plus they are simply delectable.
Post by: CptCastrin on March 27, 2003, 08:50:12 pm
Quote:
AND WHY IS EAW and OP CONTINUED to be mentioend together? OP is a separate game (pity) but IT IS. So let OP server do their own thing. Considering the populations do not completely overlap. (as ztempest points out)
Because though they don't overlap completely they DO overlap. To not consider the shared player base is to invite disagreements that are not helpful to anyone.
At the least in the case EaW and OP consideration between campaign runs should be taken into account. Only in this repect are they considered togeather, because of the players.
Post by: 3dot14 on March 27, 2003, 09:44:03 pm
Quote:
At the least in the case EaW and OP consideration between campaign runs should be taken into account. Only in this repect are they considered togeather, because of the players.
Who am I to argue? But I remember there was a poll on which SFC is best (in General forum I think) that most players, favor one SFC2 OVER the other when it comes down to a single choice... And why should there be disagreement when each play is playing his/her favorite game instead playing the cousin to the favorite game?
Post by: Dizzy on March 27, 2003, 10:45:48 pm
Basically it amounts to this... Players play the server thats up. If there are more than one server playing, then those players that would have been on only one server now divy up between the two and there would be a noticeable drop in player numbers.
Edit: I also understand the preference of a particular player wanting a particular campaign. If we end up with 4x servers running to accomodate 4x different groups of players, then thats fine, but in doing so, you surely eliminate the BIG ONE. Large servers would be doomed to die in this enviornment with a reduced playerbase like the one we have here and this is my argument.
The next 3x servers, SG3, ISC Inv., and RDSL are all BIG servers.
So, how to solve this dilema...
Post by: **DONOTDELETE** on March 28, 2003, 12:30:00 am
That not everyone plays every server....
There are people who own OP that dont have EAW...and vice versa....
Limited playing options and excessive downloads put people off who would otherwise play.....
We need all the players we can get....
Post by: Capt Jeff on March 28, 2003, 06:40:00 am
Just some thoughts here in no specific order so excuse me if it doesn't make perfect sense...
Plain and simple fact.....Fans of OP have a new patch and are excited, why not let them put something up right now?
Sounds like people are concerned with player numbers and such if a OP and EAW campaign were to run at the same time.....why? As some have already said, some players have only one or the other games. Making said players wait for a campaign is silly. The way to keep a good player base is to keep them happy and interested. Making a OP player wait a month or more until a EAW campaign is finished is no way to keep that person interested, and they will wander off, maybe to never return. Can we afford this? 60ish player limits on a server because of stability problems is another. Remember the complaints some had about SFC2.NET when in the evening they could not log in becuase the server was full? Not fun. How about the crashes or other problems when a server gets close to max players. Why go through that? A good campaign running on EAW and OP at the same time would seem to solve those problems. Also, the fact that not every server meets everyone's needs. I may not like the setup of the EAW campaign, so I go to the OP one.
So to sum this whole paragraph up.....One good campaign running each game at the same time doesn't seem to be a problem as far as I'm concerned. It offers better stability for each server. A chance for the admins to try wild ideas knowing players can have fun somewhere else if they choose. A CHOICE for a lot of people who may not like certain set ups. And most importantly. A place to go for all players to play something meaningful so they stay interested in SFC.
And beyond all that...No one has mentioned the fact that 2 different admin teams could get together and have a joint campaign with a server from OP and EAW where players on both servers have to work together for victory. Sounds fun to me
Post by: LongTooth on March 28, 2003, 07:02:46 am
But I will say that once the d2 for OP is fixed I will spend most of my time there for me its the better game
Post by: Cleaven on March 28, 2003, 07:18:52 am
Quote:
And beyond all that...No one has mentioned the fact that 2 different admin teams could get together and have a joint campaign with a server from OP and EAW where players on both servers have to work together for victory. Sounds fun to me
In times past this idea has been mentioned often and frequently even. Not least by me, but I first heard it from Drall and Remiak.
Post by: Capt Jeff on March 28, 2003, 07:26:09 am
Quote:Quote:
And beyond all that...No one has mentioned the fact that 2 different admin teams could get together and have a joint campaign with a server from OP and EAW where players on both servers have to work together for victory. Sounds fun to me
In times past this idea has been mentioned often and frequently even. Not least by me, but I first heard it from Drall and Remiak.
Very true, and I didn't mean to take credit for this idea, just point out that no one has mentioned it here in this thread as a way of solving this supposed dilema. It seems to me to be a very good idea.
Post by: Dizzy on March 28, 2003, 07:32:46 am
Quote:
Making a OP player wait a month or more until a EAW campaign is finished is no way to keep that person interested, and they will wander off, maybe to never return. Can we afford this?
You are so FoS Jeff!!!
The OP D2 ISNT patched!!!
And the OP players have waited for a YEAR to get it fixed. You think waiting a little bit more is gonna hurt? LOLOLOL!!!
ROFLMFAO!!! OMG!!! LOL ::slaps knee::
Look... I'm not opposed to having a small 2-3 week campaign on OP run as long as it doesnt start DURING another campaign. Having it overlap the end or the beginning is cool.
What I object to is having two BIG campaigns running at the same time. There are NOT enough players to support 2x BIG campaigns running at the same time.
Seriously tho Jeff, I see what you and JD are saying, and I agree onlly with the fact that an OP server should be there, although it should NOT start and end in the middle of another server. Thats disrespectful to the BIG campaigns server admins and designers.
Face it... This player base for D2 is pretty damn SMALL. What we have... maybe 100 total players in the WORLD? I think maybe 50 hardcore D2 players exist. There just arnt enough players to go splitting between 2x big campaigns.
I'm hoping the OP players see the logic in that argument and respect the other platforms.
If it comes down to it, I'll hold off SG3 until OP runs their 'OMG I CANT WAIT TO HOST THE BIG ONE' server.
A big OP server would kill SG3. SG3 is designed for AOTK player numbers. So do you want a campaign wasted and all the hopes of the server admins crushed along with the players who hoped for a good campaign dissappointed as well?
I mean, wtf? Doesnt anything I have posted make sense to you?
Post by: jdmckinney on March 28, 2003, 07:52:24 am
Have you tested the new OP kit to see if the D2 will work? It seems you are certain it won't, but it sounds like your opinion is based on old facts, not new ones. Maybe OP D2 won't work for SG3, but SOMEONE needs to try a campaign there to find out.
Post by: Dizzy on March 28, 2003, 08:12:18 am
Question: Are you going to host a BIG server on OP before all the bugs are worked out? That would kinda ruin the campaign dont you think?
I'm not going to. I've already talkied with my team and made a decision on finding out the problem with the DV hexes. So here's the dea:
IF and thats a big if, the DV hexes are made to be workable, that means going up and down, in neutral Pirate space, then SG3 will go OP.
Tracey has been testing missions on the new server kit. So far its not working.
Now JD, heres my problem... Imagine you take over an enemy hex. If you cant reinforce that DV hex, then its gonna stay at 'flipped' status (whatever DV the server is set to change to when a hex flips) unless you log off, log on as a Pirate (assuming that the Pirate owns that hex) and then reinforce it that way. Of course this is silly, so on the past SG server, we had a NO HEX SNIPE rule. That rule meant that if you see a player work down a hex, you cant jump into the hex when its neutral and flip it ahead of the player that spent hours taking it down. The hex snipe issue was important because only due to a flip is a hex gonna get a good DV value.
so for those who dont know, basically, you go thru enemy space, work down a DV to 0 and then once its flippid, it jumps up to whatever % of its original value. But if someone of the other team flips it 1st, then you spent all your time running missions to take it down only to have the other team spend one mission to undo everything you have done.
RT3 had a hex snipe rule if I am not mistaken.
This simply isnt the way to run a server. The hex snipe issue is just too ridiculous to deal with. EAW works just fine. And OP should work like EAW. In EAW, you work a hex down to 0 and have to run missions to reinforce it up. OP you run ONE mission and it goes all the way up. Not fair imo.
Now like I have always been saying all along, if this DV issue is cleared up in OP, then thats where SG3 will be. That means all missions must work in neutral Pirate space to make the DV go up and down like it should.
If Tracey cant get it fixed, then SG3 will stay EAW side and you and your SFCX group can try to work it out.
Honestly, JD, I really hope OP DV gets fixed. OP has a lot that would work better for it if it did. But right now, that DV problem kills it. We will see. Till then, go ahead and run Badlands. Its a fun server. See what missions will work on it. I support that 100%. And maybe you can come up with a solution Tracey misses. If so, lets do SG3 on OP. Otherwise, please dont run a big server over top mine if that DV doesnt work... Just host them fun servers and keep tinkering with the missions and neutral pirate space till either you just cant fix it until the OP D2 patch comes out, or you have a reasonable number of missions that make it workable.
I can hold off dev onb SG3 for about another week. Then I have to make a decision on choosing one or the other. So we will see...
Post by: jdmckinney on March 28, 2003, 08:20:43 am
I encourage anyone with OP 2.5.3.8, FireSoul's OP Plus Shiplist, and the latest Evil Dave OP missions to spend some time there helping to find out what OP D2 can handle. Spread the word to your friends. If we find out what's broken, the testers scan report back to Dave Farrell in hopes of getting fixes in a future patch. If we find out what works, we can determine what sorts of campaigns OP can handle under the current version.
Post by: jdmckinney on March 28, 2003, 08:27:20 am
To anyone testing DV boosting and mission results in general on OP, TRY AS MANY DIFFERENT MISSIONS AS POSSIBLE. Try as many different hex ownership variables, player vs. AI and player vs. player ally/enemy combinations, and even forfeits and self-destructions as possible to get a good read on what happens in a variety of circumstances.
In other words, a patrol against non-cartel neutral Orion AIs may have one effect (or none), but that may be a totally different result than a patrol against an enemy empire player, or a shipyard assault/defense, or a data recovery, etc. Finding two missions that don't work doesn't mean the whole thing is bad -- it just means admins have to use missions that work. If we don't have enough that work, then it's back to the drawing board.
Post by: Dizzy on March 28, 2003, 09:06:31 am
All we really need to do is get a reasonable number of missions that boost a DV anywhere on the map. Say 75% or 3 out of 4 missions. If that many work, I can live with that...
Oh, and are thew Pirate layers gonna be all neutral hexes? Seems that that would make it wasier to test, as we know you have to otherwise have pirate cartel ownership...
Lets see what we can do.
Oh, and I'd like to put Firesoul's tugs in SG3. OK with you and firesoul? I think a big server like SG3 would be a good place to start introducing them...
Post by: jdmckinney on March 28, 2003, 09:19:45 am
I've asked Castrin to post a Badlands invitation for fun and testing open to all, and to keep Badlands up throughout the weekend. Hopefully he'll be able to accomodate us.
SFCX's OP downloads page
FireSoul and Dave W. can provide alternate links if these don't work for some reason. I'll doublecheck with Castrin that the downloads page includes the latest ED missions.
Post by: CaptStumpy on March 28, 2003, 09:21:24 am
Ow, that makes my head hurt...remind me never to mix S'mores and Scotch...yuk
Seriously, Dizzy, there is no large scale, big campaign server from us in the works right now (unless someone has their own super secret project) and Reclamation is looking like it is going to be a small map, short run, limited VC, non-conquest oriented server. Just a guess, but SG3 should be way over before we could get up anything more serious than that. Unless you were way delayed I doubt any conflict exists.
Post by: jdmckinney on March 28, 2003, 09:31:12 am
OP Plus Shiplist: http://klingon.stasis.ca/OP_plusrefit/op_plusrefit_shiplist-20030320.zip
Evil Dave OP Mission Pack: http://www.sfcx.org/downloads/mirrors/NuclearWessels/OPMissions.zip
I think these would be the absolute latest, just in case SFCX links are behind (though I think they are current).
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on March 28, 2003, 10:34:27 am
Quote:
And beyond all that...No one has mentioned the fact that 2 different admin teams could get together and have a joint campaign with a server from OP and EAW where players on both servers have to work together for victory. Sounds fun to me
This sounds like an excellant idea...
Post by: jdmckinney on March 28, 2003, 10:39:32 am
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on March 28, 2003, 11:34:40 am
Server overlap has only been a minor problem in the past. The extent to which it was a problem was due in part to an already decent level of dialogue between the various server admins as well as the wishes of each admin to not put their hard work up for play at the same time everyone is already engaged elsewhere.
Working on building a campaign "queue" is fine. That works...IF you're talking about either OP or EAW servers. You can't talk about both when there's a long list of proposed campaigns and a significant number of people who only own OP or EAW, but not both. In addition, there are, of course, those that own both but prefer one or the other and won't cross over.
It hardly seems far to me that those that want to play in or run a serious OP campaign have to wait weeks and weeks just because there's an EAW campaign going. If they do wish to, then that's up to them. It shouldn't be forced on them by any sort of schedule.
SFC2 has a significantly degraded player base and I think OPs reamining player base is even smaller than that of EAW. It seems fairly likely that two major campaigns cannot really exist at the same time, even if one if on OP and one is on EAW, though this situation is preferable to having two major OP or two major EAW campaigns going at the same time. However, I believe we should let the players vote on which server they want at a given time with their actual playing time. If a server sucks, people won't play on it. By the same token, maybe they shouldn't be limited to playing on a server just because it's the only game in town. I like the idea of having at least one decent OP and EAW server going most of the time.
Again...I see the wisdom and workability of queing up OP servers in one que and EAW servers in another, especially if all the server admin parties agree to do so. We've already seen that work on the EAW side. I just don't think you can mix the games in the list because you're going to be leaving one group out in the cold. Whether we like it or not, OP and EAW are seperate game, for most intents and purposes.
Post by: Rob Cole on March 28, 2003, 12:28:13 pm
I agree 100%
Post by: Hondo_8 on March 28, 2003, 01:33:53 pm
Post by: Karnak on March 28, 2003, 01:48:03 pm
I think we need to get to the nitty-gritty of what makes dynas tick and keeps the SFC game alive while most other games of SFC2 age are dead, dead. Basically, it is the quality of mission script development and the continual production of new missions to keep player interest alive. As someone who is going through the development process of missions scripts I can easily attest it can take quite a lot of time. I think that the less work placed on the admin shoulders about organizing server schedules the better. It took Tracey, Dizzy and I about 2 days of discussion just to get the current EAW arrangement going. I think all 3 of us did about 4 to 5 hours of chatting, PMing, etc. before we came to an agreement. Quite frankly this time could have been better spent working on mission scripts the better. It should not be forgotton that all this mission scripting time is done during liesure time so it is imperative to me, at least, to make that time as efficient as possible. Right now, the community has less active mission scripters than fingers you can count on your hand and that includes those that work on SFC3 scripts. That puts an immense amount of pressure of this "certifiable" band
to keep things going all year around. As we saw with AOTK, the loss of one mission scripter can have a very big impact on the implementation of a dyna. So, if I can have someone I can tell when I want to put a dyna up and what my bottom-line needs are; and, then have that person go spend the next 4 to 5 hours work things out with the other server admins that will help a lot. Cuz I rather be coding than chatting all night long with other admins about server launches which will definitely include some flame fests that I really don't enjoy after a while.I am sure you will agree that everyone's affiliations with fleets and their respective RM/Admiral/Executive Poohbah status won't mean much if there are no good dynas around to play on with some decent missions.
And, I haven't even gotten into the contribution the model and shiplist modders make so races like the Tholians, Jem hadar, Cardies come alive in Dyna play. And, of course, the campaign designers and server admins. I am sure they don't want to be tied up in server scheduling chats forever either.
Post by: Dizzy on March 28, 2003, 02:32:34 pm
Quote:
It took Tracey, Dizzy and I about 2 days of discussion just to get the current EAW arrangement going. I think all 3 of us did about 4 to 5 hours of chatting, PMing, etc. before we came to an agreement.
As we saw with AOTK, the loss of one mission scripter can have a very big impact on the implementation of a dyna. So, if I can have someone I can tell when I want to put a dyna up and what my bottom-line needs are; and, then have that person go spend the next 4 to 5 hours work things out with the other server admins that will help a lot. Cuz I rather be coding than chatting all night long with other admins about server launches which will definitely include some flame fests that I really don't enjoy after a while.
I am sure you will agree that everyone's affiliations with fleets and their respective RM/Admiral/Executive Poohbah status won't mean much if there are no good dynas around to play on with some decent missions.
And, I haven't even gotten into the contribution the model and shiplist modders make so races like the Tholians, Jem hadar, Cardies come alive in Dyna play. And, of course, the campaign designers and server admins. I am sure they don't want to be tied up in server scheduling chats forever either.
Hehe... dont forget the 2 hours of mud wrestling, Karnak... allthough that was kinda fun doing it with tracey... hehe.
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on March 28, 2003, 05:28:54 pm
Regardless of the answers to these questions, I just don't think you need any one person or persons "in charge of" campaign scheduling. The various admins can handle that on their own by using common sense and doing what they please.
If the sum total of the dyna admins feel this is necessary, then I guess they can put the thing together. As the consumer/player, I'm not sure I'd like it very much, especially if I was in the OP-only or EAW-only camp.
This just kinda reminds me of that absurd "Judges" council CW/SFC2.NET put in place last year during 6.0 (Storm Season). I though that was completely wack...heheh...
Post by: Cocomoe on March 28, 2003, 05:36:58 pm
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on March 28, 2003, 06:12:33 pm
For example, lets suppose Admin Teams A,B,C and D are all working on server campiagns.
Admin Team A posts their server is going up on such and such a date. Admin Team B sees this and says, ok, will go after them. Admin Team B posts in a seperate thread that their server will go at such and such a date. Admin Team C (who didnt see either post), puts up a post saying their server will be during both A's and B's campaign, again, in another thread. Admin Team A contacts team C and respectfully asks them to change their server dates, because they are overlapping. Team C shifts their campaign to follow Team A's and makes a post. Team B then contacts Team C, as their server's now overlap. Team C is getting a little annoyed, but respectfully pushes back their server date.
Team D comes along and announces their campaign dates, they havent seen the other threads. What do you think is going to happen? Well, Teams A,B and C are all eventually going to have a dispute with Team D, who realising its going to be six months before running a campaign, decide to hell with it and put their server up anyway.As for the players, most of them are now confused as to what server is running is when.
This is just a hypothetical example of course, but is obviously, a logical possibility given the current structure. Now, to leave things up to random chance and hope that all the cards should fall in order on the table, is somewhat optimistic in my view. These things simply don't order themselves, let alone in a fair and efficient way. In the above example, why should Team A go first? because they posted first? Team A could have been the last to start work on their server. Team A could post a year in advance of planning a server. What is wrong with the above picture? Is it the responsibility of every server admin team to go around contacting everyone else they know in order to get their 'approval' before putting up a campaign? What happens when Team E comes along and wants to put up a server? Do players have to scout and search through several websites, a dozen forums, and who knows how many posts trying to find a server schedule? How is a poor newbie player supposed to make sense of all this, who has no idea of even where to look?
It has been suggested that this style of self-management is all that is required. Perhaps this is so, and has worked in the past with a larger playerbase. It is not a democratic system, however, and is mediocre at best, imho. Let's give it another week and see what the poll results are then.
Post by: jdmckinney on March 28, 2003, 07:48:24 pm
Post by: Can-able on March 28, 2003, 09:06:54 pm
Quote:
Currently the poll stands at 22 to 11 in favor of an organised server schedule, however, after reading all of the interesting posts in this thread, to which I thank everyone, most thoughts on the matter appear to be somewhat to the contrary in one respect or another, which is a little confusing.
For example, lets suppose Admin Teams A,B,C and D are all working on server campiagns.
Admin Team A posts their server is going up on such and such a date. Admin Team B sees this and says, ok, will go after them. Admin Team B posts in a seperate thread that their server will go at such and such a date. Admin Team C (who didnt see either post), puts up a post saying their server will be during both A's and B's campaign, again, in another thread. Admin Team A contacts team C and respectfully asks them to change their server dates, because they are overlapping. Team C shifts their campaign to follow Team A's and makes a post. Team B then contacts Team C, as their server's now overlap. Team C is getting a little annoyed, but respectfully pushes back their server date.
Team D comes along and announces their campaign dates, they havent seen the other threads. What do you think is going to happen? Well, Teams A,B and C are all eventually going to have a dispute with Team D, who realising its going to be six months before running a campaign, decide to hell with it and put their server up anyway.As for the players, most of them are now confused as to what server is running is when.
This is just a hypothetical example of course, but is obviously, a logical possibility given the current structure. Now, to leave things up to random chance and hope that all the cards should fall in order on the table, is somewhat optimistic in my view. These things simply don't order themselves, let alone in a fair and efficient way. In the above example, why should Team A go first? because they posted first? Team A could have been the last to start work on their server. Team A could post a year in advance of planning a server. What is wrong with the above picture? Is it the responsibility of every server admin team to go around contacting everyone else they know in order to get their 'approval' before putting up a campaign? What happens when Team E comes along and wants to put up a server? Do players have to scout and search through several websites, a dozen forums, and who knows how many posts trying to find a server schedule? How is a poor newbie player supposed to make sense of all this, who has no idea of even where to look?
It has been suggested that this style of self-management is all that is required. Perhaps this is so, and has worked in the past with a larger playerbase. It is not a democratic system, however, and is mediocre at best, imho. Let's give it another week and see what the poll results are then.
LOL
Just read you post Tracy and well i...I got a little confused
HeheheheheNeed to stop smokeing
Post by: Karnak on March 28, 2003, 10:04:07 pm
Quote:
Regardless of the answers to these questions, I just don't think you need any one person or persons "in charge of" campaign scheduling. The various admins can handle that on their own by using common sense and doing what they please.
I agree that the server co-ordinator should have no oversight power over the admins and definitely would never decide on which server would go first. Really, what I am looking for is a neutral party to maintain a sticky thread at the top of this forum that gives the following info in the order server admins agreed upon in a gentle-beings agreement. I guess, being a Frog, I should enjoy more mud wrestling with Tracey, Dizzy and the Miller lite kat-fight team
, ahem...1) Server Title and Launch date in YYYYMM[early | mid | late ]
2) Server Description provided by admin. Keep it about 10 lines max.
3) Server status (ie. Almost there, In beta test, pre-production, Don't ask too many serious questions yet, it's in pieces, it's in my head, what's a Dyna server kit?, etc.)
I would say participation in this thread is strictly voluntary. The main idea is that the whole community gets an idea of what servers are upcoming and anyone, not involved in the schedule, thinking of running a campaign can make a well-informed decision about when to launch.
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on March 28, 2003, 11:29:27 pm
Post by: Kroma_BaSyl on March 29, 2003, 09:04:51 am
Quote:
They are not, and I state it again, a 'boss' who tells people what to do. I don't know where people seem to have gotten that impression.
I know! It's those leftist anti-war peaceniks that just can't stand seeing the US take charge and...........ummmm.....is this the OT forum?