Zane_Marlowe

quote:AFAIK, we're not giving up anything, see my above post - its in the official regs. But suffice it to say MP, in comparison to RP, is the "big picture" right now. Yeah, I put the conditional "if" in there for that reason because it's not been clear to me whether we're considering dropping people's membership in a fleet because they aren't participating in any sense (which seems reasonable) or dropping members because they're not participating in MP games, which would be a little more severe. IF MP play is the only requisite for fleet membership, then is there a commitment to sustaining the RP side of fleet activity, from which the fleets were born?

I wanted to respond to Remo for just a moment because I think my former comments were unclear. The basic issue I'm trying to figure out is this: there are two rules under review for potential adoption (if this is actual, not potential, then I missed it). Rule 1: Fleet meets are going to increase in frequency. Rule 2: Members who miss two fleet meets are going to be penalized by their respective fleet, either by not giving them access to the match (I'm not thinking about the MP lobby software) or by perhaps dropping them from the fleet. Rules 1 and 2 separately might make sense (although we've talked about how some people contribute to the fleet materially in web support or other projects as are deemed valuable to the fleet by the Fleet Leader), but in conjunction seem to make it very difficult for someone to avoid getting booted from their fleeet because other people wanted to play MP games more frequently. Did I miss something in this analysis? I'm not trying to say what we should or shouldn't do, I'm trying to point out a consequence in case BOTH rules are adopted, and I'm asking you guys if that consequence makes sense. On a related note, I've been researching ISS, CIOPS, and posts dating back to the inception of the Fleets when people like DeSylva, Ristar, Rattler, Gudihl, and Chavik were the primary players in getting the fleets setup (prior to BCM even) and almost all those earliest posts are in the RP threads, with one explanation of the purpose of the fleets being RP primarily. Yes, there was no MP component back then, but given that original focus and SC's thinking that the BC/UC games are not focused around MP play (as the MMO title will be), then have we correctly determined that RP is no longer adequate as a focus of fleet activity? We seem to be giving up a very rich universe (including in-game stations bearing our fleet names) if we make the SP game (and associated RP) irrelevant to fleet membership and practice. This is a more philosophical discussion that probably deserves another thread, but since the values in that discussion bear on the policies in this one, I thought I would bring up the question here.

My main concern in bringing up the weekly schedule was that I was expressing some doubt about whether it was wise to implement both a penalty based on non-attendence at the same time as you're ramping up the frequency of the matches. Doing either of them individually might make sense independently on the merits of each idea, but both together would make it pretty tough IMO for people like me who want to be able to be involved, but for whom a bi-weekly schedule is optimal given RL constraints.

quote:Originally posted by DREADA: As I said before, I say players should play for the enemy's fleet if necessary just to keep the matches going BUT still have their kills counted towards their prestige. Why? Because, at the end of the day those players are obviously becoming highly skilled cmdrs, able to lead and advise, not to mention they're mp-committed. So they should get fleet promotions based on their in-field ability even though it was gained whilst aiding the enemy! This wouldn't be a permanent plan, just one used until fleets matches are more populated.Yeah, actually if you read the second paragraph of my last post, it kind of contradicts the first, but I didn't notice it until just now. The idea about playing on the other side to fill out the roster being sportsmanship rather than treason would apply (i.e., you would score individual points as a commander), but what do you think about not having fleet scores go up unless you can claim at least two (a majority) commanders on your team? That doesn't seem like it should be so hard since we nominally have 2 FL's for every fleet anyways, and if the difference for someone like Dreada is just one person, I have to believe that he can make a friend and bring him in .

I could see someone getting promoted for playing with a friendly alliance. ISS players might have kills counted if they were playing with Prime, but not with the Insurgents. Since Insurgent and TDH players are neutral with respect to one another, I could see awarding kills for players who were aligned in an ad hoc team that way. I imagine that it has some impact on the prestige of the fleet to see that its members are scoring well, and if they score under another banner for the sake of having a good game in a meet, I see that as sportsmanship, not treason, and the result promotes their fleet by showing off the prowess of one of its commanders. Now that doesn't mean I think fleet alignments are meaningless, far from it, but those alignments might be reinforced if you wouldn't get fleet points if you couldn't claim a majority of personnel from your own fleet (like the recent Dreada/Chavik/Shingen team in last week's match) on an MP team at a match.

Lucas has taught us with his prequels that he must earn his praise in small increments. Trailer: Good! Episode III: pending....

Marvin's making a fair point, on the other hand, one thing that concerns me is that we're considering this rule when there's also a proposition on the table to step up the schedule to weekly matches, and if both were to go through, then I'm not sure I could keep up a weekly schedule doing this through the holidays (at least if I want to stay married in RL ). With respect, I keep wondering if Remo's proposed solution is not going to make it more difficult since we're trying to get people into a game, but the penalty for their non-involvement is one that makes it harder for them to get involved. Something Ben Z. put together might work better, namely that prestige and ranking within the fleet is dependent on MP performance. Our security clearances to the higher levels of ISS are dependent on having attained some kills in MP and we currently have a standing incentive for any ISS commander who gets 4 kills that they will get promoted to Wing Leader of Defense Wing. Ultimately we have to interest people in what they can add to their membership because there's nothing we can materially take away but the thing we want our MP teams to have in order to get involved--access and information. My $.02

Yes...but does it cut grass? That is the stuff of a campy horror movie or campfire story. "Then kids, just when he thought it was safe, the wind came up and carried on it the gathering sound of a whirring...a whirring Joe had heard during his youth many times as he...mowed the lawn!"

Have a look at the main page, I added the motto and a screenshot I took of the HQ. Oh yeah, and ISS members...GET REGISTERED THERE!

Actually Remo, that was for a practice session we had yesterday.

I'm there now, anyone else going to be in? Also, is the TS server up yet?

Hey guys, I'm going to be filling out the site with an "ISS Fleet Reference" that will include profiles for individual commanders and their ships. ISS personnel need to work up some back story and send it to me along with the name of their ship and an action shot to go with the profile so I can put you on the site. Also, go get registered on the site per the above post.

Damier, I'm going to try to hit you tonight or Saturday night. I'm not sure when I might get freed up, but let's do this: if I can get time tonight, I'll meet you between 7 and 8 your time (9-10 mine), and I'll post here if I can make it. If not, we'll try the same tomorrow, and see how that goes. How's that sound? I want to try to get you in, but I've got a lot going on this weekend, so I'm kind of in flux. Let me know what you think.

I can probably make both of those, but I've not got a lot of time to spend at either of them (an hour I thinking) because I'm taking the GRE on Monday and that's like the SAT/ACT on crack, so I've got to get some serious study done between now and then. Of course after Monday I'm in better shape.

The heavy influence of religion as you call it is part of America's identity--no candidate has ever been elected who didn't appeal to that part of the American voting public, and people's voting trends indicate that the American public is overwhelmingly shaped by religious beliefs and attitudes. (People on both the left and the right make apppeals to religious ideas to argue for their particular views, so while Religion doesn't necessarily require a particular party alignment, to say that it doesn't belong in the discussion is pretty radical.) The boy's club mentality is about networking, not about men (I was working my way down this thread and thought Thatcher before I noticed someone had beat me to it). You don't like networking? Find your next job without knowing somebody or creating a good relationship with someone who does. The modern economy requires partnerships, and money doesn't care whether you pee sitting or standing. The objectification of women in general is a consequence of the politics of sexual liberation that has been a hallmark issue for the left. You want women to stop being sexualized objects? Drop pornography from the news stands (heck, even Maxim, Stuff, and FHM contribute to this frat-party view of women). That sound like a knee-jerk fundamentalist conservative thing to do? Well I don't hear conservative voices defending pornography as a 1st Amendment right. I'd rather there were virtuous people who wouldn't print that (I don't normally favor regulation for this kind of thing, but I'd consider it for this), but the point is that conservatives didn't create this landscape for women.

I'm going to try to meet with Damier online either Friday or Saturday evening (a little later in the evening since he's free after 7pm Arizona time) and wanted to see who else would be available during one of those times. Sound off guys, I need to hear from you so we can do this efficiently.

I think the thing we're figuring out is how to work with the system that exists, even with some of that prediction warping that's going on. There are a variety of factors that can still guarantee some success even if it's hard to target fast moving enemies. I won't begin to describe what that is (we've got to keep our edge after all ), but I will say that the thing I liked was that Ben's been doing some thinking about this and has got some excellent strategies for taking advantage of the strengths and weaknesses available in the ships and the environment. If I understand Shingen's problem, I'd agree that the prediction problem makes it darn near impossible to hit targets at close range (~5km I think) unless you're using PTA, but, that doesn't mean that you can't create strategies that take that into account because at least it's a consistent problem for everybody and there are factors which create that effect that you can minimize or work around. As far as NPC behavior goes, we weren't playing on an AG server, so I couldn't say anything about that change yet.

Couple points... First, I played through Battlefront on the XBox, and I have to say I had fun; it didn't suck. Second, the best game lucasarts ever made was (imho) not even star wars related. In just two words it described a whole new class of cool: Full Throttle. As you were gents

Site's back online, waiting for additional content. Forums are configured, so ISS personnel should get registered there. When you do so, the site will send you an email with an activation link (like the 3000ad boards do). Yahoo and AOL will consider the activation email to be spam, so check your spam mail folder if you don't see the email in your inbox. Clear skies,

Wow, no wonder Zwycky is mopping the floor in fleet matches. I learned volumes today. Guys, ISS is going to be training its members in advanced tactics, and I need U.S.-based players to PM me so I can setup times to conduct training maneuvers and start putting our MP team together. This is going to be excellent! Also, look for a post from Ben Z. soon on incentives to get into ISS and participate in our fleet matches!

Still haven't seen anyone, I'm going to stick around for about another 45min I think.

I'm getting on server 3 now, I'll wait here until 11:30 (gmt 5:30pm), and I'll post when I log back off, that way we can be a little more sure about our connections hopefully and not miss each other. Is there anyone else joining Ben and I today?

I should be able to make it then, so if we can get one more person from our fleet then we're in business. Medievh? Rip? Nick? Damier? You guys in?

I'll be on that either later tonight or tomorrow morning, so we'll have our ISS site back online shortly. Thanks again Remo and Rip for taking on the extra load on this stuff in your respective modes, we appreciate it.

Let's not forget Gary Oldman, who has done gibbering lunatics, supernatural horrors, and cultured mad scientists. Mike Myers for Dr. Evil (in a slightly less sinister turn for this list). Al Pacino did a turn as the Devil's Advocate, in which I found him to be rather chilling, and as a villainous mobster in the Godfather series. Robert DeNiro in Heat as a real tough customer, and in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein for being the vengeful conscience of that movie. David Carradine's bridekilling Bill (gets my vote for villain of the year). James Earl Jones' voice for Darth Vader qualifies him as a favorite villain. Though not everyone above is a regular villain, some of my favorite villains are those who normally play heroes.