Talk:Flight Sim Merger - Revision history

Fcsuper: /* Names */

2006-06-02T00:03:31Z

Names

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:03, 2 June 2006
Line 57:		Line 57:

	::[[User:ThePoet444\|Joshua Hawkins]] 11:37, 7 April 2006 (EDT)		::[[User:ThePoet444\|Joshua Hawkins]] 11:37, 7 April 2006 (EDT)

			Just for reference, this merged Flight Sim group is really the core of what Rebel Squadrons is. In my past RS life mindset, this group you are forming is the Rebel Squadrons, and the other non-flight sim fleets are associated with this thru affliation (in the HC). I originally came up with Republic Shield as the larger group, with the Rebel Squadrons as one organization within it. Of course, I was never able to implement this cuz of timing and how thangs ended up working out. (and then that idea was misapplied later on, ruining the chance the concept implementation then) But maybe we can look at something like this now. As the leader of the Commando Division, I've been thinking it does seem illogical to be calling us squadrons. :)

			Anyways, the origial names for our flight sim groups were:
			-Justice Fleet
			-Liberation Fleet (aka Internet Fleet)

			I like the ideas of using the current fleet names as the wing names. I don't like many of the new fleet names that have been suggested here so far. I think Storm Fleet might be cool cuz it harkens back to our past along a line of continous activity, but might end up being a confusing name when taken into context of our past. Valour Fleet is a pretty good name. The abbreviation could be V2F to make it distinct from Vanguard like we did with Retribution R2F and Renegade RgF. Just my thoughts.

			(:"
			::[[User:fcsuper\|Super]] 5:00pm, 1 June 2006 (PDT)

	== Merits ==		== Merits ==

ThePoet444 at 10:16, 9 April 2006

2006-04-09T10:16:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:16, 9 April 2006
Line 78:		Line 78:
	Considering the recruitment and retention rate of the flight sim games, I agree with Licah that 12 or so squadrons (2-6 squad wings or 4-3 squad) would be better. --[[User:Rekio\|Rekio]] 05:48, 26 February 2006 (EST)		Considering the recruitment and retention rate of the flight sim games, I agree with Licah that 12 or so squadrons (2-6 squad wings or 4-3 squad) would be better. --[[User:Rekio\|Rekio]] 05:48, 26 February 2006 (EST)

	: The squads were listed in 6 for cosmetic reasons. Realistically, when everyone decides on their primary ~~fleet~~, the squads ~~will~~ be 3 or 4 per wing. No more than 4 per wing. We can't narrow it down completely until we know where each member is going. I'de like to have full squads if possible, but as long as they have at least 7 or 8 members I'd like to think the squad would be around. Plus some people will retire and not like a merger idea, others being in more than one squad/fleet will move to where they are comfortable. It's a wait and see game with this part of the merger. [[User:ThePoet444\|Joshua Hawkins]] 08:49, 26 February 2006 (EST)		: The squads were listed in 6 for cosmetic reasons. Realistically, when everyone decides on their primary squad, the squads should be 3 or 4 per wing. No more than 4 per wing. We can't narrow it down completely until we know where each member is going. I'de like to have full squads if possible, but as long as they have at least 7 or 8 members I'd like to think the squad would be around. Plus some people will retire and not like a merger idea, others being in more than one squad/fleet will move to where they are comfortable. It's a wait and see game with this part of the merger. [[User:ThePoet444\|Joshua Hawkins]] 08:49, 26 February 2006 (EST)
	----		----
	First of all (before any other changes) I would recommend to create something like a Space Combat Command, with a high ranked officer in charge and with the fleets COs, so you will have 5 people who can coordinate restructuralization of the 4 fleets. That way we can get things running, and no changes to the fleets are currently needed. Of course 5 people would be the minimum. Space Combat Command would have more staff (i.e. IOs, Academy, auxiliary - ITOD creators, ...). And make it possible for pilots to choose the Space Combat Command as "primary fleet". Many pilots do XvT and XWA, so if they can get ranking in both games, they won't do only one (the more MP active) game.		First of all (before any other changes) I would recommend to create something like a Space Combat Command, with a high ranked officer in charge and with the fleets COs, so you will have 5 people who can coordinate restructuralization of the 4 fleets. That way we can get things running, and no changes to the fleets are currently needed. Of course 5 people would be the minimum. Space Combat Command would have more staff (i.e. IOs, Academy, auxiliary - ITOD creators, ...). And make it possible for pilots to choose the Space Combat Command as "primary fleet". Many pilots do XvT and XWA, so if they can get ranking in both games, they won't do only one (the more MP active) game.
Line 109:		Line 109:

	:::-[[User:David Vaughan\|David Vaughan]] 17:40, 9 Apr 2006 (GMT+10)		:::-[[User:David Vaughan\|David Vaughan]] 17:40, 9 Apr 2006 (GMT+10)

			:::Those are very good points and ideas, but you do limit yourself slightly. :) In one month, we can have an XW mission from the POV of a pirate clan attacking the RS, while the Tie mission of that month is defending the RS against the pirates. This can put XvT mission on either side, and the XWA Mission doing recon, or attacking the pirate base while the pirates attacking the RS. So how you plan on writing you're narratives, depends on which mission you're flying. So if you fly XW as a pirate, and fly the XWA mission attacking the pirate base, you get to be creative and have split personalities. :)

			:::[[User:ThePoet444\|Joshua Hawkins]] 06:16, 9 April 2006 (EDT)

	== Academy ==		== Academy ==
Line 193:		Line 197:

	::::TIE Fighter, X-wing vs. TIE Fighter and X-wing Alliance all use the same scoring system? I would have thought they'd all differ . . . -[[User:David Vaughan\|David Vaughan]] 17:47, 9 Apr 2006 (GMT+10)		::::TIE Fighter, X-wing vs. TIE Fighter and X-wing Alliance all use the same scoring system? I would have thought they'd all differ . . . -[[User:David Vaughan\|David Vaughan]] 17:47, 9 Apr 2006 (GMT+10)

			::::Each Game has it's own scoring system. XWing is the only one that needed a standard scoring table. If the fleet was to have a universal killboard for any reason, we'll all need to come up with a new standard scoring table for all 4 games. Which is alot of work for people to try and learn.

			::::[[User:ThePoet444\|Joshua Hawkins]] 06:16, 9 April 2006 (EDT)

David Vaughan: /* Scoring */

2006-04-09T07:49:37Z

Scoring

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:49, 9 April 2006
Line 188:		Line 188:


	::The only game that needs a standard scoring table (To the best of my knowledge) is Xwing. As there is a difference in scoring the XWDos version and the XW95 version. All other games use the in game scores.		:::The only game that needs a standard scoring table (To the best of my knowledge) is Xwing. As there is a difference in scoring the XWDos version and the XW95 version. All other games use the in game scores.

	::[[User:ThePoet444\|Joshua Hawkins]] 11:37, 7 April 2006 (EDT)		:::[[User:ThePoet444\|Joshua Hawkins]] 11:37, 7 April 2006 (EDT)

			::::TIE Fighter, X-wing vs. TIE Fighter and X-wing Alliance all use the same scoring system? I would have thought they'd all differ . . . -[[User:David Vaughan\|David Vaughan]] 17:47, 9 Apr 2006 (GMT+10)

David Vaughan: /* Storyline */

2006-04-09T07:47:56Z

Storyline

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:47, 9 April 2006
Line 160:		Line 160:

	::[[User:ThePoet444\|Joshua Hawkins]] 11:37, 7 April 2006 (EDT)		::[[User:ThePoet444\|Joshua Hawkins]] 11:37, 7 April 2006 (EDT)

			:::Very good points, except . . . TIE Fighters, Corvettes, Frigates, Star Destroyers, X-wings, Cal Cruisers are all referenced as being part of the New Republic fleet until very late in the EU timeline.

			:::As long as we focus on New Republic - Imperial Remnant conflict, as well as pirates and things, we shouldn't run into any problems (as long as we purposely steer clear of anything unusual like the Ssi Ruuk, the Vuzhan Vong (spelling?), or the Chiss . . . ).

			:::[[User:David Vaughan\|David Vaughan]] 17:45 9 April 2006 (GMT+10)

	== Scoring ==		== Scoring ==

David Vaughan: /* Structure */

2006-04-09T07:43:35Z

Structure

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:43, 9 April 2006
Line 99:		Line 99:

	::[[User:ThePoet444\|Joshua Hawkins]] 11:37, 7 April 2006 (EDT)		::[[User:ThePoet444\|Joshua Hawkins]] 11:37, 7 April 2006 (EDT)

			:::I'm afraid I have to disagree . . . as much as we try to deny it, there ''are'' four different platforms available. Now, while I don't feel that this means we need to set up containment zones and corden off areas to keep people separate, I would like to be able to right in 'bla bla bla, flew with Taskforce D in attacking the satellites near bla bla bla' rather than trying to pretend all four missions a month that I fly are in the same area at the same time.

			:::This might be an undesirable idea -- don't really care, I just want to get my voice heard before it's decided, as I'd prefer to hear 'no we don't like this idea and won't run with it' or 'sure, sounds great' rather than 'oh, why didn't you mention that earlier?'

			:::If Blabla Squadron is assigned to a taskforce led by the Cruiser ''Oompf'', I'd like some kind of in-universe reasoning for launching from the Star Destroyer ''Something'' once every four missions. I'd like to be able to say 'headed to the STD ''Something'' as part of Taskforce B's recon mission tot he moons of Wonko.

			:::Call that limited imagination on my part if you'd like (which I would disagree with), but it's similar to you not wanting to include a joke about one of your command staff sucking face with a mynock, because that hasn't happened for a few years yet (due to the time displacemnt of ABG). All of this is fiction, anyway, so it shouldn't really matter? But it doesn't mesh well in your head, so you don't do it. I'm not sure if I've made my point of not, but I just think it might be a good idea to keep some kind of continuity happening here by not completely ignoring the platforms flown.

			:::-[[User:David Vaughan\|David Vaughan]] 17:40, 9 Apr 2006 (GMT+10)

	== Academy ==		== Academy ==

ThePoet444 at 15:37, 7 April 2006

2006-04-07T15:37:20Z

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 :: -[[User:David Vaughan|David Vaughan]] 16:42 7 April 2006 (GMT+10)
 == Merits ==
@@ Line 88: / Line 94: @@
 -[[User:David Vaughan|David Vaughan]] 16:51, 7 Apr 2006 (GMT+10)
 == Academy ==
@@ Line 134: / Line 145: @@
 (Fixed spacing to make it easier to read . . . and removed embarassing gramattical error. :P -- Capt. Vaughan)
 == Scoring ==
@@ Line 153: / Line 168: @@
 :: -[[User:David Vaughan|David Vaughan]] 16:33, 7 Apr 2006 (GMT+10)

David Vaughan: /* Structure */

2006-04-07T06:55:04Z

Structure

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:55, 7 April 2006
Line 77:		Line 77:

	If you really want to merge fleets, I am not the person who could stop that. But as I am still confused of all the squadrons and wings in Redemption Fleet, I would suggest to have only one wing for each game, or to create something like task forces for each game. Also it would be REALLY nice if there could be the ships (the squadrons are assigned to) in the rosters of the 4 fleets. That would be good for orientation, and it would also intensify the role playing aspect of the RS. [[User:DaLe\|DaLe]] 06:23, 25 March 2006 (EST)		If you really want to merge fleets, I am not the person who could stop that. But as I am still confused of all the squadrons and wings in Redemption Fleet, I would suggest to have only one wing for each game, or to create something like task forces for each game. Also it would be REALLY nice if there could be the ships (the squadrons are assigned to) in the rosters of the 4 fleets. That would be good for orientation, and it would also intensify the role playing aspect of the RS. [[User:DaLe\|DaLe]] 06:23, 25 March 2006 (EST)

			:: I agree, and this is what the Order of Battle is supposed to be. However, we have not had a Logistics Officer for quite some time, so that has not been maintained correctly. But beyond that, I really like the idea of having the capital ships we're assigned to be part of the roster somehow, if that were possible. At the moment I'm working on the battle history for all of the craft involved in the ITODs, so that might come in handy in some way . . . anyway, I'll report back on that when I'm actually finished, but I thought I'd make a note that I like this idea, as it would really help those of us know are inclined in authoring narratives.
			----
			A bit of a question . . . would it be possible or feasible to have each platform release their mission in a different week of the month from the rest . . . so that every month one mission is released for all four platforms, but not all at the same time.

			I only ask because that could introduce a sense of chronology between the platforms, and have it make sense from a storyline perspective how each pilot can be in four different locations at once (please don't tell me I'm not using my imagination enough -- I just like to be logistical, and to aid the ease of suspension of disbelief, dammit!)

			People would still have the entire month to fly each mission, so it's not like we'd be forcing anyone to rush -- they can still fly them out of order if they really want, I just think it would be a nice idea. Now, whether it's feasible is another matter entirely . . . and it does hinge on the possibility of getting a new mission out every month without fail or delays, which might be pushing it a bit, with unforseen circumstances and all that.

			-[[User:David Vaughan\|David Vaughan]] 16:51, 7 Apr 2006 (GMT+10)

	== Academy ==		== Academy ==

David Vaughan: /* Names */

2006-04-07T06:46:28Z

Names

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:46, 7 April 2006
Line 42:		Line 42:
	: Squad names will remain the same, unless the current CO wishes to change the name to reflect the new fleet. Squadrons carry with them a history, some of the newer squads may wish to change their names, while others may wish to keep it the same. Wing names will be changed, I would like to change them to the fleets we are combining, if only out of respect. That is however up to the Fleet CS. [[User:ThePoet444\|Joshua Hawkins]] 08:49, 26 February 2006 (EST)		: Squad names will remain the same, unless the current CO wishes to change the name to reflect the new fleet. Squadrons carry with them a history, some of the newer squads may wish to change their names, while others may wish to keep it the same. Wing names will be changed, I would like to change them to the fleets we are combining, if only out of respect. That is however up to the Fleet CS. [[User:ThePoet444\|Joshua Hawkins]] 08:49, 26 February 2006 (EST)
	----		----
	In the new system, as far as I understand it, all fleets could condense into the one, so we're all based in one single story. In cases where most of the people in the squadron fly the same platform, then there will be some sense of squadron unity, as they're almost always flying missions together, in addition to the other platforms that some of them will do, too.		:: In the new system, as far as I understand it, all fleets could condense into the one, so we're all based in one single story. In cases where most of the people in the squadron fly the same platform, then there will be some sense of squadron unity, as they're almost always flying missions together, in addition to the other platforms that some of them will do, too.

	Would it be possible to have nicknames for each 'taskforce' that sets off to do missions . . . where each taskforce is the platform that is flown for it. So that while I might be in Wraith Squadron, which is part of (say) Retribution Wing, and I'll usually fly in (standin-name-for-TIE-missions) taskforce, when I head off to fly other platform missions, I would be participating in other taskforces, too.		:: Would it be possible to have nicknames for each 'taskforce' that sets off to do missions . . . where each taskforce is the platform that is flown for it. So that while I might be in Wraith Squadron, which is part of (say) Retribution Wing, and I'll usually fly in (standin-name-for-TIE-missions) taskforce, when I head off to fly other platform missions, I would be participating in other taskforces, too.

	Just something to not be completely in denial of the fact that many of us will be flying different platforms in addition to whatever one we have in common with the rest of the squadron.		:: Just something to not be completely in denial of the fact that many of us will be flying different platforms in addition to whatever one we have in common with the rest of the squadron.

	This idea might not be liked very much, not sure . . . just thought I'd voice it. Because I'd like to be able to fly with my squadron in whatever our main taskforce is, as well as 'head off to help out with taskforce ''x'' with members of other squadrons.		:: This idea might not be liked very much, not sure . . . just thought I'd voice it. Because I'd like to be able to fly with my squadron in whatever our main taskforce is, as well as 'head off to help out with taskforce ''x'' with members of other squadrons.

	-[[User:David Vaughan\|David Vaughan]] 16:42 7 April 2006 (GMT+10)		:: -[[User:David Vaughan\|David Vaughan]] 16:42 7 April 2006 (GMT+10)

	== Merits ==		== Merits ==

David Vaughan: /* Names */

2006-04-07T06:45:41Z

Names

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:45, 7 April 2006
Line 41:		Line 41:

	: Squad names will remain the same, unless the current CO wishes to change the name to reflect the new fleet. Squadrons carry with them a history, some of the newer squads may wish to change their names, while others may wish to keep it the same. Wing names will be changed, I would like to change them to the fleets we are combining, if only out of respect. That is however up to the Fleet CS. [[User:ThePoet444\|Joshua Hawkins]] 08:49, 26 February 2006 (EST)		: Squad names will remain the same, unless the current CO wishes to change the name to reflect the new fleet. Squadrons carry with them a history, some of the newer squads may wish to change their names, while others may wish to keep it the same. Wing names will be changed, I would like to change them to the fleets we are combining, if only out of respect. That is however up to the Fleet CS. [[User:ThePoet444\|Joshua Hawkins]] 08:49, 26 February 2006 (EST)
			----
			In the new system, as far as I understand it, all fleets could condense into the one, so we're all based in one single story. In cases where most of the people in the squadron fly the same platform, then there will be some sense of squadron unity, as they're almost always flying missions together, in addition to the other platforms that some of them will do, too.

			Would it be possible to have nicknames for each 'taskforce' that sets off to do missions . . . where each taskforce is the platform that is flown for it. So that while I might be in Wraith Squadron, which is part of (say) Retribution Wing, and I'll usually fly in (standin-name-for-TIE-missions) taskforce, when I head off to fly other platform missions, I would be participating in other taskforces, too.

			Just something to not be completely in denial of the fact that many of us will be flying different platforms in addition to whatever one we have in common with the rest of the squadron.

			This idea might not be liked very much, not sure . . . just thought I'd voice it. Because I'd like to be able to fly with my squadron in whatever our main taskforce is, as well as 'head off to help out with taskforce ''x'' with members of other squadrons.

			-[[User:David Vaughan\|David Vaughan]] 16:42 7 April 2006 (GMT+10)

	== Merits ==		== Merits ==

David Vaughan: /* Scoring */

2006-04-07T06:37:51Z

Scoring

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:37, 7 April 2006
Line 128:		Line 128:

	: ~ [[Joshua Hawkins]]		: ~ [[Joshua Hawkins]]

			:: Would it be possible to devise a standardised scoring system for all four platforms? I might be demonstrating my ignorance by asking, but if it were possible, then a more accurate and homogenous scoreboard would exist. That was there would be no bias for or against any particular platform. For example, Patriot Battle Fleet uses a converter for all scores now, because the DOS and CD versions of the game use different scoring systems, and this does not seem to be any major hamper on reporting, as the person handling the reports just includes the adjusted score as the official one.

			:: -[[User:David Vaughan\|David Vaughan]] 16:33, 7 Apr 2006 (GMT+10)