|
Battle
Jul 4, 2007 20:50:02 GMT -5
Post by DeathFrog on Jul 4, 2007 20:50:02 GMT -5
actually I think your idea on having all battles open with a rotating staff in a 2 team campaign is great and feasible.
It is just funny Scott that when you were Reffing, you wanted battles open all the time if you could because it was "better for the game" and now that you are a player you "see" how others want it closed and you are torn between open and closed. I think this is a good thing. It will help bring about perhaps some changes that may or may not work the first time, but in the end it will only get better.
|
|
|
Battle
Jul 4, 2007 21:17:10 GMT -5
Post by Evil Spock on Jul 4, 2007 21:17:10 GMT -5
Dang it Dfly you argue for the opposite even when your for what I am suggesting !
You're the Devils Advocate,.. which is always good though.
Ya I see the game the game as changing in that we have a huge online crew now. I want to get each and every player more involved, well best I/we can. For example some will not play if not personally involved in fleet combat, ie they will not show up for recruitment. This will also force them to as the roster rotates.
I don't know, I just threw this out there to have folks chew on it and tell me why it may not be a good ideal.
I see a lot of bennies to it for the overall game and am waiting for a true negative example of why it is not good.
As always though I appreciate the input,.. thanks.
Sp
|
|
|
Battle
Jul 4, 2007 21:22:33 GMT -5
Post by DeathFrog on Jul 4, 2007 21:22:33 GMT -5
My wife tells me I argue for the other side even when I dont agree with it, must be my character flaw.
|
|
|
Battle
Jul 4, 2007 21:30:29 GMT -5
Post by Evil Spock on Jul 4, 2007 21:30:29 GMT -5
Every player should participate in the discussion here.
The Ref's are watching and reading and look to our feedback as a way to guide the future game.
Of course they make their own calls, but without your input, god help you! they may decide on Dfly and my conversation alone.
No changes are fine cause what we have works,.. but I do think that changes over time is what has morphed the rules and campaigns into what we have now. It has been a process testing, breaking, adding new stuff. Without adding the new the stagnates.
It is daring new rules that change the game,... and sometimes it is for the better, and possible for the much better ?
We now have the ability to take 12 brains and figure out what is best,.. so give us your thoughts,...
|
|
|
Battle
Jul 4, 2007 22:02:15 GMT -5
Post by LoCatus of Borg on Jul 4, 2007 22:02:15 GMT -5
Instead of having a rotation of players into open games maybe we could have 3 player teams. Less teams but more players on teams. That way you could avoid all the rotation chart etc. In every 3 ship engagement all 3 team members would be required to fly. The only hard part of that would be the original selection of teams. Just an alternative idea.....
|
|
|
Battle
Jul 4, 2007 22:12:04 GMT -5
Post by Evil Spock on Jul 4, 2007 22:12:04 GMT -5
The "requirement" part is tough for some of us.
Also the ideal of trying a teams game (only 2 teams) is to examine the dynamic of a different type of game. We did it once before AOW and it was a good time.
There is less troublesome stuff in a team game, and the nature of the dynamic of the game surprised us all. For many of the folks who took part it was something of interest. It was a different of game than the B5 or Pcamp. I for one am glad we are going back to explore it in more detail.
Hence Warp the drive for 2 teams vrs more than 2
|
|
|
Battle
Jul 5, 2007 7:18:20 GMT -5
Post by Maximus Plasma on Jul 5, 2007 7:18:20 GMT -5
We now have the ability to take 12 brains and figure out what is best,.. so give us your thoughts,... Yes i grant you that 12 minds are better than one or two..... I also would point out that "A cow is a racehorse designed by committee" sorry for the old joke there. I just wanted to keep it real. Everyone should be heard from .I totally agree on that!!!!!!What i suggest is after the ideas are put out there. We have a poll to decide which direction we head.
|
|
|
Battle
Jul 5, 2007 7:49:07 GMT -5
Post by Head Fur Shalafi on Jul 5, 2007 7:49:07 GMT -5
Anyone think we should bounce this conversation to the next campaign section instead?
|
|
|
Battle
Jul 5, 2007 8:26:10 GMT -5
Post by Lord Hellus, Council Chairman on Jul 5, 2007 8:26:10 GMT -5
Sounds logical
|
|
|
Battle
Jul 5, 2007 9:51:59 GMT -5
Post by Evil Spock on Jul 5, 2007 9:51:59 GMT -5
Can't you guys move a topic ? I have not logged in to do admin functions in a while.
Or we could just post a new topic there.
|
|
|
Battle
Jul 5, 2007 17:35:27 GMT -5
Post by Lord Hellus, Council Chairman on Jul 5, 2007 17:35:27 GMT -5
Since it looks like I will run the next campaign, I listen intently to the discussions on the boards. #1 BPV's would be equal for next campaign with each Commander having specific goals and rewards for accomplishing them. Team flying negates lesser or greater flyers. Tacticians become more important.
#2 I like the "rotation" idea as long as a "lesser" player doesn't keep missing his turn to allow better players to win battles. Suggestion to amend this? like I fly?( I like Asteroids).
#3 I have an idea for another campaign to run simultanious with the next. Same ship list so no changing back and forth. More of a cut-throat campaign that some may opt out of, but will give greater amount of battles and action. Also, if you are losing in one game, you can always do better in the other. I have never seen Warp back away from combat and his actions are frightening. This way if a player is eliminated, they still have gaming to do. What say you all?
|
|
|
Battle
Jul 5, 2007 20:09:25 GMT -5
Post by DeathFrog on Jul 5, 2007 20:09:25 GMT -5
Back to the subject at hand. Is the battle done? If not, has it been decided on when? I heard closed, is it/was it/will it be? Who won/will win?
|
|
|
Battle
Jul 5, 2007 21:19:38 GMT -5
Post by Lord Hellus, Council Chairman on Jul 5, 2007 21:19:38 GMT -5
Battle scheduled for friday. not sure if it is open or not. 6-7 est if you want to stop by
|
|
|
Battle
Jul 6, 2007 7:36:32 GMT -5
Post by Evil Spock on Jul 6, 2007 7:36:32 GMT -5
I will not play in two games at the same time, I also recommend you do not try to run two at the same time. Currently George your descriptions of what I saw took like 4 trys to get you to properly define what impulse, what hex, what hull type etc. Can you imagine if you had two games going at the same time ?
You will also find your wife less happy,.. and players likely lossing interest as stuff is spread too thin.
If you put that free time into making a single upcoming game a premium package I think you would find players much happier. Find a story for this war,.. insert a cloaked ship on a side. Come up with a unique twist for a fun plot.
Your current game is pretty bland but we all do understand it is your first run as a Ref. Rather than try to run two simulataneous games why not run one real nice one ?
If folks have two games going on and they do poorly in one they will loose interest in that one and then focus on the other. By doing this you cause some folks to do a virtual drop out of a game as they are not doing well in one,.. then heck enjoy the other. So then for the other folks the guy who is not doing well,.. he will likely be absent of discussion and such. Folks stay involved in a game currently that they are not doing well in because that is what our group is involved in. If you run a split campaign you will split the player pool.
For example if I were in Warps boat in our current game and another game was running,.. I would likely not be as involved in the pirate game after a devestation of his nation. Because nothing else is going on he is still trying to organize allies and defenses best he can. I doubt his effort would be as strong if he could shift his interest to another campaign.
Lastly as you try to do battle resolution you will find conflicts of folks who have battles in both games and cannot get them done in as timely a fashion. You may slow both games down.
In my opinion,.. I would have to say this is one of the worst ideals I have heard in a while. This is just my opinion though and I may be way off base on my fears of the results of doing this.
|
|
|
Battle
Jul 6, 2007 8:30:55 GMT -5
Post by Lord Hellus, Council Chairman on Jul 6, 2007 8:30:55 GMT -5
O.k. point taken. Battle tonight may be later 11-12 pm. The battle of Stone's HW will be done., if not tonight then monday. After the battle post turn looks, encounter rolls, spy checks, and finally turn 5
|
|