New Virtual Fleet forming. - Page 7

Nexus7 · 02-23-06, 10:07 AM

As an enthusiastic participant of interfleet wars I am happy when new virtual fleets form, as it increases the chance to organize such fights :|\ witch are, in my 1.5 years experience, rare stuff...

The problem is probably generalized. If I compare DW with i.e. BF1942 or sooner Half Life, it is like comparing some village with a metropoli. IMO, there should be at least the double of players, say totally 1000, to grant the maximal gaming experience, especially now with a completely playable naval field (DW).

By the way, being so many virtual fleets around, is anyone interested in building some "supervisor" organization? like the ONU in RL or similar lol... An organization that works as "translator" between the virtual fleets, organizes wars, builds statistics, cares for advertising ecc ecc...

just an idea? :hmm:

Kapitan · 02-23-06, 10:52 AM

Darksythe nothing personal but your begining to sound like me please stop i think these guys have enough of me and dont need a mirror

on the serious note if you ask steve sheer i did hand my resignation in TWICE i might add.

as for jag i do not care sorry but after all the hubub i dont need that, and as for family matters well that is true im due back in court on the 6th.

Now back to subject:

I hope we can all sort this out one way or the other and get to gaming ASAP cause this bikering doesnt help us the players find games especialy since were at each others throats it means games are limited.

Bellman · 02-23-06, 10:56 AM

Kap - hold on to your horse there - a serious constructive discussion is taking place. We dont need Flak right now.

Raven434th · 02-23-06, 10:59 AM

Ok ,well lets get back to the topic at hand...In regards to this new Navy/Fleet whatever,how are you dealing with the torpedeo bug which (I believe)directly affects MP sessions???I mean if ya can't dectect a torp comming in cause the pinging is messed up..how do we play multiplayer?Are there some set of rules to deal with this problem?

Bellman · 02-23-06, 11:07 AM

Nexus7 has a good point about a 'Translator' organisation.

The initiative/s need to spring from the Fleets but they may wish to call on a pool of willing, experienced or
objectively neutral/independent people. Tasked with negotiating agreement on rules and arbitration principles for example.

But its early days as new Fleets like GNSF have large tasks in hand getting up and running. It would be
not be a welcome topic right now, understandably.

JamesT73J · 02-23-06, 11:17 AM

With regard to the torpedo bug, I don't know how serious it is - presumably you still have signal strength indication, which is far more useful.

If it's got to the point where the ping interval is decreasing, you're already on the wrong side of the odds for survival.

PaulB · 02-23-06, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raven434th

Ok ,well lets get back to the topic at hand...In regards to this new Navy/Fleet whatever,how are you dealing with the torpedeo bug which (I believe)directly affects MP sessions???I mean if ya can't dectect a torp comming in cause the pinging is messed up..how do we play multiplayer?Are there some set of rules to deal with this problem?

Right now we are just using 1.03 stock, with what flaws it has, and no particular rules to combat them. I believe the primarily flaw, apart from some funky handling/sub going up stern first, is with how preenabled torpedoes work - they seem to ping while they shouldn't. It's not that enabled torpedoes don't ping (not 100% sure on that but I haven't encountered it so far)- so, not a major problem. We hope SCS will provide a fix asap.

We may also be switching to the LwAmi realism mod for standard MP play if our membership wants it - not sure myself if that one ameliorates any of the big 1.03 flaws (like the torp issue), but it does have other enhancements which are quite interesting.

Bellman · 02-23-06, 11:30 AM

James - We still have the signal strength in the AISS.

With the 'spoofing problem' torps are not as big deal now, under 2 nm, regretably. Sure Ami will work his magic, though.

PaulB - the actives ping ok, but there is no increasing rate of ping in the terminal stages.

Kapitan · 02-23-06, 12:32 PM

To be honest ive dived in a few MP games as a submarine and it hasnt realy affected it but the thing is the sub coming up stern first is the major issue here.

but we can still fire and sink in our subs.

OneShot · 02-23-06, 03:41 PM

While I'm not in the USVN anymore (for a long time now) I remember having them a rule that allows players who are already part of another group to check out the USVN for two weeks after which they have to decide.

Another issue ... the rule about being part of two fleets only refers to fleets or similar vMilitary organizations. NCHQ (and similar leagues/groups) for example is exempt from that rule (to my knowledge) because even tho NCHQ has a few ranks they are only there to denote experience, but there is no real CoC at least in the usual term.

Anyway as far as USVN and DW goes it is a non-issue anyway as the USVN has no DW Department anymore.

Btw. Fair winds and following seas to the new Virtual Fleet.

Bellman · 02-23-06, 11:40 PM

OS - good point on NCHQ.

I second your best wishes to GNSF and all who sail in her. :|\

Kind Seas · 03-01-06, 10:25 AM

If you guys have any questions please point them to my or Darkstyle pm boxs, But if your looking for a fight you can get that from me, VMC members are to ack like a VMC on any comms that have to do with Games/Fleets etc.. VMC members are to act like gentle men at all times, VMC members are to show honor and not engage into meaning less fights,

If all the fleets start fighting then people that are looking for one will not join the fleets that are fighting, Most people want a good fleet that put more time into their gaming then fighting

as to the GNSF, I wish you good luck and so does the VMC and same goes to all the fleets our there

now on that point lets get back to what this post was for the new fleet.

Stern · 03-04-06, 11:48 PM

I would like to thank all for their well wishes for the GNSF, as it means a lot to us. We are moving along well and should be fully functional web wise very soon. Being that we have so many good talented people here I have had more time to read the forums and relax a bit lol (ok, truth is no one lets me do anything so they donâ€™t have to fix my mistakes lol).

Anyway, in regards to inter group wars, I think when you really look at it, it shouldnâ€™t be that hard. I know that in my 7 years with Seawolves we had problems finding OPFOR to battle against, and ended up creating our own OPFOR group. Now after reading this board it seem there are other groups that would welcome a chance to do battle, and Iâ€™m totally for it. Since we are all in some fashion modeled "military style" we should be able to set up common ROE to make all happy. I would be happy to talk to anyone who would be interested.

As for the "membership in more than one group" I can see the issue some have with holding staff spots in more than one place. I have thought about this a lot and basically I see no problem with being a member in more than one place. A person has to decide what he wants to do, and what to play. Now some say thatâ€™s fine but what about holding staff spots. Well, does it really matter if a player holds a staff spot in two places? If he does the required work in both spots then how is it hurting either group? Yes, I can see how some would see a possible problem when it comes to wars between the two groups in question, but if you think about it (from my Seawolves perspective) since all wars were with internal OPFOR anyway, what is the harm. A person would simply have to pick what side he played on that war.

Well anyway, We are trying our best here to make the structure FIT the players (not the other way around). I know you can never make everyone happy, but we try.

Again, thank you all for your kind words, and I really look forward to having the chance to play with all of you, and maybe get some great online War's going, as I know players love a good war (I do, even if I die fast lol)

Thank you all

FADM Stern GNSF

Molon Labe · 03-05-06, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stern

As for the "membership in more than one group" I can see the issue some have with holding staff spots in more than one place. I have thought about this a lot and basically I see no problem with being a member in more than one place. A person has to decide what he wants to do, and what to play. Now some say thatâ€™s fine but what about holding staff spots. Well, does it really matter if a player holds a staff spot in two places? If he does the required work in both spots then how is it hurting either group? Yes, I can see how some would see a possible problem when it comes to wars between the two groups in question, but if you think about it (from my Seawolves perspective) since all wars were with internal OPFOR anyway, what is the harm. A person would simply have to pick what side he played on that war.

FADM Stern GNSF

Yep, that's all it takes. The person on two fleets should inform his/her CoC about his membership in the other fleet, and should pick sides in any war and recuse him/herself from any participation and classified information from the other side. It's that simple.

sonar732 · 03-05-06, 09:06 AM

All it boils down to is a communication issue. I like how the CADC has a reputation section in their forums. The sad part is we have people who don't care about reputations, and only personal gain.

02-23-06, 10:52 AM	#2
Kapitan Sub Test Pilot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UK + Canada Posts: 7,132 Downloads: 77 Uploads: 7	Darksythe nothing personal but your begining to sound like me please stop i think these guys have enough of me and dont need a mirror on the serious note if you ask steve sheer i did hand my resignation in TWICE i might add. as for jag i do not care sorry but after all the hubub i dont need that, and as for family matters well that is true im due back in court on the 6th. Now back to subject: I hope we can all sort this out one way or the other and get to gaming ASAP cause this bikering doesnt help us the players find games especialy since were at each others throats it means games are limited. __________________ DONT FORGET if you like a post to nominate it by using the blue diamond Find out about Museum Ships here: https://www.museumships.us/ Flickr for all my pictures: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/ Navy general board articles: https://www.navygeneralboard.com/author/aegis/

02-23-06, 10:56 AM	#3
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	Kap - hold on to your horse there - a serious constructive discussion is taking place. We dont need Flak right now. __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

02-23-06, 10:59 AM	#4
Raven434th Watch Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 30 Downloads: 66 Uploads: 0	Ok ,well lets get back to the topic at hand...In regards to this new Navy/Fleet whatever,how are you dealing with the torpedeo bug which (I believe)directly affects MP sessions???I mean if ya can't dectect a torp comming in cause the pinging is messed up..how do we play multiplayer?Are there some set of rules to deal with this problem? __________________ "Line'em up and Bam!...right to the kisser!!"

02-23-06, 11:07 AM	#5
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	Nexus7 has a good point about a 'Translator' organisation. The initiative/s need to spring from the Fleets but they may wish to call on a pool of willing, experienced or objectively neutral/independent people. Tasked with negotiating agreement on rules and arbitration principles for example. But its early days as new Fleets like GNSF have large tasks in hand getting up and running. It would be not be a welcome topic right now, understandably. __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

02-23-06, 11:30 AM	#8
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	James - We still have the signal strength in the AISS. With the 'spoofing problem' torps are not as big deal now, under 2 nm, regretably. Sure Ami will work his magic, though. PaulB - the actives ping ok, but there is no increasing rate of ping in the terminal stages. __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

02-23-06, 10:07 AM	#1
Nexus7 Commander Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Switzerland Posts: 469 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	As an enthusiastic participant of interfleet wars I am happy when new virtual fleets form, as it increases the chance to organize such fights :\|\ witch are, in my 1.5 years experience, rare stuff... The problem is probably generalized. If I compare DW with i.e. BF1942 or sooner Half Life, it is like comparing some village with a metropoli. IMO, there should be at least the double of players, say totally 1000, to grant the maximal gaming experience, especially now with a completely playable naval field (DW). By the way, being so many virtual fleets around, is anyone interested in building some "supervisor" organization? like the ONU in RL or similar lol... An organization that works as "translator" between the virtual fleets, organizes wars, builds statistics, cares for advertising ecc ecc... just an idea? :hmm:

02-23-06, 11:17 AM	#6
JamesT73J Medic Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 167 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	With regard to the torpedo bug, I don't know how serious it is - presumably you still have signal strength indication, which is far more useful. If it's got to the point where the ping interval is decreasing, you're already on the wrong side of the odds for survival.

02-23-06, 12:32 PM	#9
Kapitan Sub Test Pilot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UK + Canada Posts: 7,132 Downloads: 77 Uploads: 7	To be honest ive dived in a few MP games as a submarine and it hasnt realy affected it but the thing is the sub coming up stern first is the major issue here. but we can still fire and sink in our subs. __________________ DONT FORGET if you like a post to nominate it by using the blue diamond Find out about Museum Ships here: https://www.museumships.us/ Flickr for all my pictures: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/ Navy general board articles: https://www.navygeneralboard.com/author/aegis/

02-23-06, 03:41 PM	#10
OneShot Grey Wolf Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 956 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	While I'm not in the USVN anymore (for a long time now) I remember having them a rule that allows players who are already part of another group to check out the USVN for two weeks after which they have to decide. Another issue ... the rule about being part of two fleets only refers to fleets or similar vMilitary organizations. NCHQ (and similar leagues/groups) for example is exempt from that rule (to my knowledge) because even tho NCHQ has a few ranks they are only there to denote experience, but there is no real CoC at least in the usual term. Anyway as far as USVN and DW goes it is a non-issue anyway as the USVN has no DW Department anymore. Btw. Fair winds and following seas to the new Virtual Fleet. __________________ All the things you always wanted to know about Dangerous Waters but never dared to ask!

02-23-06, 11:40 PM	#11
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	OS - good point on NCHQ. I second your best wishes to GNSF and all who sail in her. :\|\ __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

03-01-06, 10:25 AM	#12
Kind Seas Watch Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 22 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	If you guys have any questions please point them to my or Darkstyle pm boxs, But if your looking for a fight you can get that from me, VMC members are to ack like a VMC on any comms that have to do with Games/Fleets etc.. VMC members are to act like gentle men at all times, VMC members are to show honor and not engage into meaning less fights, If all the fleets start fighting then people that are looking for one will not join the fleets that are fighting, Most people want a good fleet that put more time into their gaming then fighting as to the GNSF, I wish you good luck and so does the VMC and same goes to all the fleets our there now on that point lets get back to what this post was for the new fleet. __________________ Kind Seas, VADM William Burgress Virtual Military Command

03-04-06, 11:48 PM	#13
Stern Swabbie Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 11 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I would like to thank all for their well wishes for the GNSF, as it means a lot to us. We are moving along well and should be fully functional web wise very soon. Being that we have so many good talented people here I have had more time to read the forums and relax a bit lol (ok, truth is no one lets me do anything so they donâ€™t have to fix my mistakes lol). Anyway, in regards to inter group wars, I think when you really look at it, it shouldnâ€™t be that hard. I know that in my 7 years with Seawolves we had problems finding OPFOR to battle against, and ended up creating our own OPFOR group. Now after reading this board it seem there are other groups that would welcome a chance to do battle, and Iâ€™m totally for it. Since we are all in some fashion modeled "military style" we should be able to set up common ROE to make all happy. I would be happy to talk to anyone who would be interested. As for the "membership in more than one group" I can see the issue some have with holding staff spots in more than one place. I have thought about this a lot and basically I see no problem with being a member in more than one place. A person has to decide what he wants to do, and what to play. Now some say thatâ€™s fine but what about holding staff spots. Well, does it really matter if a player holds a staff spot in two places? If he does the required work in both spots then how is it hurting either group? Yes, I can see how some would see a possible problem when it comes to wars between the two groups in question, but if you think about it (from my Seawolves perspective) since all wars were with internal OPFOR anyway, what is the harm. A person would simply have to pick what side he played on that war. Well anyway, We are trying our best here to make the structure FIT the players (not the other way around). I know you can never make everyone happy, but we try. Again, thank you all for your kind words, and I really look forward to having the chance to play with all of you, and maybe get some great online War's going, as I know players love a good war (I do, even if I die fast lol) Thank you all FADM Stern GNSF __________________ FADM Stern Fleet Admiral Global Naval Strike Force

03-05-06, 09:06 AM	#15
sonar732 The Old Man Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Central MO Posts: 1,562 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	All it boils down to is a communication issue. I like how the CADC has a reputation section in their forums. The sad part is we have people who don't care about reputations, and only personal gain.