El Capitan Posted September 11, 2008 Report Share Posted September 11, 2008 It is my belief that there is an issue with the whole fleet sighting/ROE/PAP check/Battle triggering sequence of events. It is my understanding that this sequence of events is not 100% computer moderated like it should be and as it is implied in the rules. It is my understanding that there is a lot of manual intervention on Pete's part during turn processing and if so, I think this explains a lot of the situations we see with missed sightings and especially with sightings that didn't trigger a battle as they should have. I also think this is one (of many) contributing factors to slow processing time. Look at how much faster we got our turns when hundreds and hundreds of fleet sightings "went missing". Back when this game first started, there was a lot of experimentation with battles between allies. This was done to gather information about space combat because at that time, we had very little info on how space combat was resolved. At that time, I don't think we even knew the strengths of the various weapons, other than the general category of poor, fair, adequate, good, etc. Players were sloppy with their PAP's and ROE's and Pete ended up spending a lot of time rerunning battles that didn't take place because the ROE/PAP settings didn't call for a battle but the allies wanted the battle to take place. Also, battles happened between allies that they did not intend to happen and Pete had to spend time to manually put ships/fleets back in place that had been destroyed. At some point, I suspect it was to Pete's advantage to disengage the automation of the battle triggering process and it became less time consuming to "trigger" battles and check PAP's manually than to have to spend time reconstructing fleets and rerunning battles. Pete did this to keep players happy. He would have upset a lot of players if he had put his foot down and stuck to the proper results that were generated by the players actual ROE/PAP settings. However, because the game has grown so much bigger over the years and the number of sightings/battles has grown significantly, relying on manual PAP checks and triggering of battles has become a daunting, inaccurate, and time consuming task. I think we are well past the point where we need to make this aspect of the game absolutely 100% computer moderated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krelnett_of_Kraan Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 We're not convinced it's still being moderated by hand, but if it is, we agree. It should be computer-controlled with Pete just spot-checking a few of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Capitan Posted September 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 We're not convinced it's still being moderated by hand.... Once the sighting occurs, and as long as the ROE/PAP settings call for a battle, there should be a battle. There are too many missed engagements for this aspect of the game to be 100% computer moderated. On Pete's end, once the computer says there should be a battle, I would think it would be much easier to just confirm at this point rather than having to check every sighting manually for battle potential. And again, if this is the case, it should speed up processing as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cestvel Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 We're not convinced it's still being moderated by hand.... Once the sighting occurs, and as long as the ROE/PAP settings call for a battle, there should be a battle. There are too many missed engagements for this aspect of the game to be 100% computer moderated. On Pete's end, once the computer says there should be a battle, I would think it would be much easier to just confirm at this point rather than having to check every sighting manually for battle potential. And again, if this is the case, it should speed up processing as well. I am pretty sure, that multi party space and ground battles are handmoderated. But why should each sighting with battle potential result in a battle? Esp. there should not be one if a fast ship whizzed past a slow street bump. Maybe its just a random chance build in ... Maybe you just see him, because you moved into a location where that other ship leaves in the same pulse. As Battles are only triggered when both parties remain in a pulse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Capitan Posted September 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 I am pretty sure, that multi party space and ground battles are handmoderated. But why should each sighting with battle potential result in a battle? Esp. there should not be one if a fast ship whizzed past a slow street bump. Maybe its just a random chance build in ... Maybe you just see him, because you moved into a location where that other ship leaves in the same pulse. As Battles are only triggered when both parties remain in a pulse. I'm aware of all of this. So how do you explain a missed battle between a ship with 20+ AP vs. a 2 AP picket from a dropped position. And how do you explain the fact that Pete is willing to go back and manually run a missed battle. If ALL conditions were met for the battle, and the only explanation for it being missed is due to a "built in random chance to miss", why is Pete willing to run the battle manually and correct each empires results? I would like to hear form Pete on this issue. After a fleet sighting, and assuming both fleets are still in the same location after the pulse, is the ROE/PAP check (to determine if a battle takes place) 100% computer moderated or is he still having to check these himself and then tell the computer to go on with the battle or not? I know for a fact that at the start of the game, Pete was doing a lot of these checks manually because players couldn't/wouldn't get their ROE's/PAP's in line. I would like to know if this is still going on or is it now 100% computer moderated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobknob Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 Still a bit of both as I understand things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.