Zane_Marlowe

I'm updating the site. For security reasons, we'll setup the ISS members in the site via PM, but I need to have active fleet members PM me so I can set their accounts up and then email them back with the login info. The primary reason for this is because ISS and CIOPS particularly are going to have classified stuff to work on, and we're going to make it as hard to infiltrate us as possible.

Won one, lost one, long live the fighters!

I don't know who's going to show us they need to be in GALCOM academy, but I intend on takin' those insurgents to school! ...and yeah, it's gonna be a blast!

We need to hear from Cedric and Rip about this matter, but failing that, Nick should just post his vote/final decision, and we can wrap this one up and finish our website.

quote:Originally posted by pseudonem: I maybe Dim... So this means I bought the game thinking of the wonderful MP possibilities.. and Now I cannot play it online. ? If you have a private server up and dont mind a total n00b would ya Hook me up with a Server IP. Hey pseudonem. Just for reference, the official servers are available to the player fleets, but if you look at most other games, there are more MP servers hosted by private individuals than by the official company. SC's supporting a few servers, but remember that that support includes bandwidth costs (for 24-7 servers) that we normally don't have to pay since we're not having professional hosting. When I get another computer (I'm hoping before Christmas), I'll have a chance to put up a server occasionally, but until then, look around and see if you and/or your friends can put something together too. We private users don't have to pay for bandwidth the same way if we're broadband users (although I know the provders are watching bandwidth usage). That's why I said earlier, "who's got game?" Like any other community, we've got to be committed enough to put our own resources into it because we like playing.

Hey Dreada, It looks like ISS isn't put together enough for this to work yet, so if you don't get someone else in your third slot, maybe I'll fill in for you if you're still looking. It's well known that CIOPS and Wraith have a close working relationship.

Sounds like we're basically agreeing, so you guys post if you disagree, but otherwise I'm summarizing what we've said thus far. 1. Defense Wing (this is the American-English spelling for what it's worth) 2. CIOPS 3. 7th Orbital Marine Battalion 4. 52nd Elite Force Fighter Squadron (conveys both the size of squadron and the clarity of fighters over elite force marines, good enough?). and 5. weigh in on the iss logo thread if you haven't already, the website is waiting on this!

The new ISS site is is currently about 80% finished. You can visit it at http://iss.galcom.net We are configuring it still and putting content together, but the look is there and the features we need are correctly installed. There are also a few links available in the links section, but beyond that we're a little spare still.

Hey fellow ISS commanders, who's available for the MP matches Prime's running? Check the general fleet discussions for details, but we need at least three to represent our fleet, and I should be able to make it, so that brings the number to two, but it would be great if we could get four. Are Cedric, Jerold, and Rip MP enabled? Are our fleet commanders going to be able to make it work in this time zone?

Actually, the 52nd is our Fighter Squadron. I looked up the career choices and I see where there was some confusion over the "Elite Force" squadron thing earlier. We have Elite Force marines and Elite Force Pilots (which handle FC assets as opposed to planetary support pilots who use gunships generally and are planet-based instead of star-station based). So I think the 52nd Elite Force Squadron could stay as is, but it might be helpful if we modified it perhaps even more specifically to denote the squadron. Should we call it the 52nd Elite Force Fighter Wing or something like that?

RSS is an XML based news feed that you see on newstickers on sites like CNN (for instance). It can be used as a kind of news stream originating at one website and presented at another. I was thinking that I might be able to hook up something like that so Wraith's TacOps center could just stream CIOPS intel in. My short-term lower tech solution is to just have a few classified forums on ISS' page that we can restrict to verified members of Wraith/GALCOM/whatever.

Understood, will be in touch. For my own benefit while I'm putting this together, can you incorporate RSS feeds into your TAC OPS center?

I think Medievh might be available (I'll ask him) and I could, so there's three if Ben's onboard too. CedricB, Jerold Keenan, and our own Nick Jamont are around, so in the best of all possible worlds we could put up six, but I think three is going to be about accurate.

Understood, we are presently compiling the information you've asked for. Please select the degree of confidentiality you require for this information. 1. GALCOM Classified (all GALCOM personnel) 2. Codeword Classified (code word provides access on a need to know basis, codewords to be supplied to information requester, requesting Fleet Commanding Officer, and CIOPS personnel resoponsible for producing documents) 3. Eyes only (Eyes only makes document available only to its intended recipient)

What information would you like to access? CIOPS is currently working to make various kinds of information available to GALCOM, so official requests from other fleets would receive priority tasking in accordance with CIOPS' mandate from GALCOM to provide intelligence to GALCOM and its fleet commanders.

I think I saw elite force squadron and thought elite force marines, but it makes sense that squadron would be a fighter squadron. Does Orbital denote space force marines or just any kind of marine? Is there a point of reference for this? For what it's worth, shock troops are offensive in nature, and we're a defensive guardian fleet, so while I like the idea of calling our guys shock troops, it probably doesn't quite fit our tasking. (Shock troops would probably be Orion I'd think.) Anyways, whatever covers all classes of marine infrantry is what I'd vote for, if that Orbital Marine Battalion, then I'm for that.

I hadn't thought of groundpounders as an official designation, but I like it. Also, I remember that Cedric is a fighter pilot, should we establish some kind of Fighter Wing?

Welcome back sir. The news in short. 1. We need a fleet database update (you were part of this discussion before, but we haven't finished the changeover in the fleet db). 2. We're currently voting on different options for fleet and wing graphics in the Wing Logos thread. 3. I showed up and checked out Prime's suggested MP scenario framework meeting. Chavik, Dreada, and Prime fleet leaders participated, and the results of that meeting will shortly be available, but I can fill you in on details by PM if you want. 4. The website is waiting for (2.) to be finished, but is otherwise awaiting your review and is pretty well installed. When you have time, we should meet via XFire or some other Instant Messenger so I can show you how to login and administrate it. 5. CIOPS has been working on a self-paced cadet training course that begins with an MP assessment mission, continues with a few SP training missions requiring cadets to email screens to an instructor, and ends with an MP final exam. Medievh has been working on this under my direction per CIOPS information-handling/documentation mandate, and when I hear back from him regarding the outlined missions and their skill-objectives I can post those to give you a sense of what the curriculum would look like. 6. I've coordinated with a non-fleet member named TinJaw to try to produce a more printer-friendly version of the appendix, I'll be following up with him shortly, but it's laid out in Word and should be pretty helpful if it gets finished. 7. Medievh and I have been recruiting where possible when we see unaffiliated members on the servers, but it appears that this will shortly become moot since SC is about to suspend fleet applications. 8. You can see from the CIOPS Tasking and Recruiting thread in the general fleet discussions that some discussion has been had about possibly converting Prime's training academy into a general GALCOM academy. I'll let you carry that discussion forward if you choose to, but I'm preparing (5.) above for either interrim use until it becomes a reality or for normal use if it does not. So as you can see we've been hard at work, hope you like the results.

Well, in fairness to your second point, I'm not asking anyone to adopt it as it stands. RFC means Request For Comments, and toward that end you and I are having a productive discussion. Remo seems to feel that something's lost or threatened by involving people in his unfinished concept, and that's what my quoted comments referred to. He's since informed me that I've been added to his block list because he feels I've treated him with disregard. I mention this not because I'm trying to continue to debate some point with him, but because the whole point of this thread was to start discussion, not close it. In spite of the fact I could claim cause for the same sort of action, I've chosen to continue to talk to people who've cost me something important. Make no mistake, I've never been vindictive and I'm still not, but there's no virtue in picking up your bat and ball and going home. Regarding the second point, I posted the scenario idea in an unfinished and untested form because I need people to participate with me to accomplish the testing you suggest, so I'll do as you suggest and find someone interested in helping me test the basic outlines, but I didn't have to actually do what you suggest to know that the results you suggest about a cloaked carrier's impunity to detection and attack was true. Stopping cruisers from reaching Freeport is a test of command skill, but the advantage goes to the fleet that can respawn. Balancing the scenario requires balancing scoring to make it worthwhile to support attacking fleet cruisers that can't respawn instead of rushing alone to the station under cloak at the expense of one's teammates. Smart commanders will use the carrier's cloaking to destroy defending assets who engage the attacking cruisers. Because there is therefore more time spent cloaked in engagements rather than covering the distance from NZone to Castrin, it's not necessarily the case that the attacking fleet carrier commander is going to have enough iridium to make it to Freeport under cloak since he can't dock for resupply.

Marvin, I'm well aware of the capabilities of a cloaked ship and I don't have a hard time imagining conditions under which a carrier might succeed or fail that mission according to how it is used in coordination with other elements of the attacking fleet. I didn't need to test the scenario to know that in principle this would be the case. That said, the scenario is written such that if the carrier doesn't use its cloaking technology to the benefit of its non-cloaking brothers, then the fact that it may arrive alone at the station may not end up benefiting the attacking fleet all that much. The scenario is about teamwork, and the neutral station at the far end of space is selected for its remoteness from the objective. If the attacking team doesn't work together to bring more assets to the destination, it's a pyrrhic victory at best since they can't respawn and they'll have lost the opportunity to gain points from successfully achieving the fleet objective. Point being, I didn't think this up off the cuff, and because I requested comments, I'm glad you offered some. However, I do hope that others who want to design scenarios aren't going to be put off by the tone of your response to my post; not every scenario design requires such extensive testing as you suggest. Remo, per your request I've removed the links above. Prime Fleet's material is of course the domain of Prime Fleet, so I have removed it and my own references to it. I'd ask you to consider however that including fleets (leaders and interested personnel) in the process of putting anything together for use by all of them is just as important as the end result that you offer to them, and you began to do so by inviting the other fleet leaders and myself to participate with you. If you're concerned that it's not perfect or that you're going to want to revise it later, that's one thing, and version control is a simple matter. Alternately, I would hope that you're not essentially telling the rest of the fleet community that you're going to basically create this on your own and when it's done we can like it or hate it, but because Prime's got more members than anyone else, then it's just going to just be the de facto standard. I think better of you than the latter possibility, but if it is the former, then I'm afraid I don't understand your retracting your material so aggressively if it was refined enough to bring before the rest of Fleet Leadership. Because you mentioned it. What I created by going "off my own way" was something that I followed through on when I gained the interest of others in an ongoing discussion that had cheerleaders and critics both. I didn't try to get people to follow my idea if they weren't interested; in fact, four fleet leaders (and a number of ranking Prime members) signed up because it did interest them. I went as far with my project as was necessary to get it to a point where it could be used when the fleet community was organized enough to take advantage of it, and there it waits if they choose to use it. As a matter of fact, I actually noticed that you guys were accomplishing the next phase of the Fleet Action project for me (scenario design), and so I offered the Prime fleet scenario designers my hard work (at the last meeting) in an attempt to create the best possible solution. Again, because you mentioned it, let me begin by making the following crystal clear: I have no problem with you personally Remo, you give a lot of your time and energy to this game and those who play it, but when you use terms like "until you have a clue," and "go off...and see if you can..." I don't have a charitable way to read that. You're irritated? Fine, but when I've had such cause with you (and I have), I restrained myself not because of your title, but because it was the right thing to do. You want to email Nick Jamont? Feel free, I've done nothing that indicated ISS's position on any policy or decision without his express approval. And since you were irritated enough to mention it, if you think I would have been such a bad choice as a Fleet Leader, then take a second look at who else from GALCOM showed at the Fleet Meeting you invited four GALCOM fleets to. After SC's decision to promote me was made, you felt you had to say something about it in spite of the fact that 1) my appointment was to a Fleet you had no part of, 2) it had nothing to do with your fleet, and 3) the putative reason for his doing so was because he had become dissatisfied with the status quo and had solicited, deliberated on, and accepted applications for new leadership from the community. Your objections resulted in my subsequent demotion, we exchanged a civil PM. We've not said anything about it until you just brought it up now in front of an audience. Before this same audience you've mentioned that you want to "bend Jamont's ear" with similar remarks about me. The only reason I can imagine you've done both of these things in public is because you're trying to take me to task in public and/or intimidate me toward some end, else you would have just PM'd me and been done with it. If you have another reason for doing this, please don't post it here, just PM me and let's not waste more public forum space on this. I'm going to repeat, I've got nothing personal against you Remo, but you've already thrown me some fists. I've responded with respect for you out of my own sense of decorum and charity, so I hope you'll try harder than your last post suggests to do the same so I don't have to defend myself again in another dissertation-sized post. Now I hope that concludes the off-topic nature of this discussion. If there are no further objections, I will briefly summarize the scenario since the document I created is apparently no longer tenable. The scenario is for any two fleets, one is designated the attacking fleet, one the defending fleet. Scenario Special Rules: * The attacking fleet cannot respawn * The attacking fleet cannot dock at any other station but Freeport in Castrin (i.e., no resupply for iridium) * The attacking fleet has access to one carrier * The defending fleet cannot use carrier assets The scenario is simple. The attacking fleet must begin in the NZone, and successfully dock as many assets as possible in Freeport Station in Castrin. It's a long and well-defended trip and you have one shot at it since there are no respawns. The defending fleet can respawn, but doesn't have the element of surprise available to the attackers. The attacking fleet gains experience per ship for every ship that reaches Freeport station as well as for any kills they get from sweeping aside the defenders. The defenders gain experience per attacking ship they destroy and a bonus for preventing the carrier from reaching Freeport. Whew, that about does it for one evening. Hope this will shortly become a more useful thread. ZM out.

ROFLMAO Oh yeah, he's right about the sig part, read that thread and get things corrected. Also, consider joining a fleet before August 15th since that will get you access to MP servers that won't be available to you otherwise after that. ISS is always recruiting

Well, looks like we've got to come up with it. Who's got game? I may have something to contribute later this year, but until then...

I figured I'd hear from you on this matter, which is why I wrote above that the documents were still undergoing review and when they were modified, the links would be updated with the current versions. I did actually write down all the values in those documents directly from the scenario page you first wrote, so as rough estimates of what the final documents will look like, I've supposed (correctly or not) that these are approximations sufficient to give scenario designers a sense of what kinds of things to include in their designs. The additions I made (the "step in the right direction" as you say) were structural and still await comment, if you have formatting comments, this RFC thread is as good a place as any to discuss them since it's an open discussion for all fleets. If your response to this much is still that it is inaccurate enough that maintaining the links is actually misleading scenario designers, then I'll of course remove them, but since I wrote the documents based on your most recent publically posted scenario design, then it would come as a great surprise that these were so far off base. (The scores were cut and pasted verbatim, which is why it surprises me that you say they're inaccurate.) At any rate, I've modified the documents to correct those errors you did actually inform me about in the above post, and again, if these documents are actually misleading rather than merely imcomplete, please let me know and I'll remove the links as you've requested.

Hi friends. After looking at similar threads, I decided to create this thread because it is not a suggestion to SC for something he should code, but a "Request For Comments" from fellow fleet members who would use such scenarios in multiplayer games. Cheers friends, post your best MP ideas and let's get some good MP going! [Edit: per request from authors of some of the material previously made available in this post, I've removed the links and edited for clarity.] [ 08-12-2004, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Zane Marlowe ]

Hey, saw a couple clips today. I'm of mixed opinion. Too WWF? Too slow? I'm not going to critique before I've seen the final result, but I'm thinking that the hallmark of both of these films was the stealthy aspect that built tension until it was released in the action scenes of the movie. If this ends up basically being a slugfest, I think I'll feel that one of the primary components of what made both of these characters cool has been underused.