Remove ads

To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

Linked contents
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) Starfleet Ship Design Bureau, Refit ("To Boldly Go...")
Reader mode
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
Eh, the way I see it, you want 2 or 3 reserve ships per theatre at most. Now, those could be Rennies or Generalists, but the setup supports keeping your Explorers deployed to sectors and your low-D ships also deployed to sectors. So there's this in-between where you want ships with excellent D but that are smaller than explorers as your top cover, which actually makes a specially designed fast response ship make sense.

There's nothing wrong with filling it in with a few cruisers or generalists once we can spare them, but it's a niche that we could expand to in the future.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ok, I will concede that.

The issue is that we don't have any spare ships to garrison Theaters. We Don't. Theaters are an idea literally a decade ahead of it's time.

And that's not even touching the issues UberJJK and Night raised.

I would be willing to revisit the issue in 2330 when we have the ships to spare. But right now we simply don't have the ships to garrison Theaters in addition to everything else.

Unless Akuz & Onerios have a secret fleet of Excelsiors and Centaurs they've been hiding from us.
 
Last edited:
Violation of Rule 3: Please Don't Tell People You've Put them on Ignore
[puts two more people on Ignore]

I think this has potential to be very helpful when we aren't in "the cupboard is bare" crisis mode. It has potential to be only moderately helpful when we are in "the cupboard is only almost bare" semi-crisis mode.

Even having like ONE cruiser in each of the three theater fleets would eliminate a major category of obnoxious decision we're forced to make, namely the "okay, we just had a ship get accidentallied, who's going to replace it?"

A bit of discretion and flexibility on the part of the GMs about how the "these ships are in theater reserve" statement is interpreted, and on just what the penalty is for response rolls for theater fleet ships, is enough to counter most of the probable problems.
 
aledeth said:
I think it's against forum rules to say you're ignoring someone. If you are going to ignore another poster, just do it. Posting about it is just trying to get the last word in an argument that you, by definition, aren't willing or able to have anymore.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I still say that it makes zero sense that "This argument is over and I'm going to ignore you now" is somehow bannably worse than "This argument is over and I'm not going to bother to respond to anything you say". And that's even assuming that "I'm going to ignore you now" means you used the ignore function.

Hell, I'd say that it's more polite to tell someone you're ignoring them. That way they get a signal they can use to fix their behavior and they don't waste time raging into empty air, which I'd call far more disruptive to the thread than any attempt at last-word-ism.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, if we implement it and it turns out not to be useful or it sucks, we can get rid of it. This is why we are asking for feedback as it's rolled out going forward. It's not like we are married to the theatre system.

...

okay tbh I did actually marry it, but I got an inside with the Pope (I liked one of his tweets) and so I think I have one free annulment
 
Just keep in mind you aren't going to get anything out of the test until either Hayant or the GBZ is over.

My issue with the Theatre system as it stands is that it encourages us to make task forces out of only or mostly member ships. After all they can't be used for anything else. But while some task forces it makes sense to use members, in others it seems to have things backwards. Member fleets are the lower level garrison normally so encouraging us to use them exclusively for the high level problem solving is opposite to how it feels right to operate.
 
Vebyast said:
That way they get a signal they can use to fix their behavior and they don't waste time raging into empty air, which I'd call far more disruptive to the thread than any attempt at last-word-ism.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Except they don't? If you put someone on ignore you are saying that you've given up on them. They have no incentive because you're announcing you don't care to see them do anything, even improve, and don't believe they will anyways. Making a public statement to that effect is ad hominem in itself.

If you tell someone they're an incurable shitheel they will rightly ignore you because that's not really useful.
 
Last edited:
Night said:
Except they don't? If you put someone on ignore you are saying that you've given up on them. They have no incentive because you're announcing you don't care to see them do anything, even improve, and don't believe they will anyways. Making a public statement to that effect is ad hominem in itself.

If you tell someone they're an incurable shitheel they will rightly ignore you because that's not really useful.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're being awfully optimistic there. I've never seen someone correct their behavior absent a clear and long-term consequence. Taking away the ignore feature as a signal leaves you with effectively nothing.

Your analysis also assumes the entire forum has a population of two. These things don't happen in a vacuum. There is a huge incentive presented by a single ignore, and that's that there are a hundred other people in the thread or the forum that you don't want to be ignored by.
 
Vebyast said:
You're being awfully optimistic there. I've never seen someone correct their behavior absent a clear and long-term consequence. Taking away the ignore feature as a signal leaves you with effectively nothing.

Your analysis also assumes the entire forum has a population of two. These things don't happen in a vacuum. There is a huge incentive presented by a single ignore, and that's that there are a hundred other people in the thread or the forum that you don't want to be ignored by.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Your first paragraph directly contradicts your second, and also contradicts your initial assertion. A clear and long-term consequence is not what being ignored amounts to, because the forum, as you note, does not consist of two people. And ignores won't typically spread like wildfire when announced. The consequences are minor, because few people have any emotional investment in the issue of how others see them on the internet until it's gone a lot further than this, and this very thread and the reactions here provide good evidence that your analysis of how others on the forum react is more often incorrect. More people have questioned the decision so far than approved of it. (It also, of course, ignores the whole argumentation by threat of force aspect you're accidentally imbuing it with, which is never a good thing and far too easily abused, which is one of the reasons announcing is discouraged in the first place.)

It also falls apart in this specific case because of the nature of the statement; rather than the direct rebuke you envision, people are not actually named and the impact blunted.
 
Night said:
Except they don't? If you put someone on ignore you are saying that you've given up on them. They have no incentive because you're announcing you don't care to see them do anything, even improve, and don't believe they will anyways. Making a public statement to that effect is ad hominem in itself.

If you tell someone they're an incurable shitheel they will rightly ignore you because that's not really useful.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Of the... seven, I believe, people I have on "Ignore" at the moment, the majority were in no sense "incurable shitheels."

They're simply people whose posts contain a high enough proportion of salt, hostility, or unnecessary contentiousness that I don't want to be obliged to listen to them all the time. Switching "Show Ignored Content" to 'on' on a given page is literally the press of a single conveniently placed button, and when I'm in the mood to put up with a high salt level, I press that button.

Of the seven people I've Ignored... let's see.

One got banned from the only thread I follow, so moot point. One posts in threads I no longer follow for unrelated reasons. And four out of the other five? I happily watch them for signs that I can take them off 'ignore' once they come up with a low-sodium version of their posting style. Or, heck, once whatever argument I didn't want to cope with the salt from subsides.

I look forward to taking at least two of them off in the near future, with luck.
 
[X] [SQUAD] Plan Briefvoice 2320

[X] [FLEET] Briefvoice 8 points of ships (40 pp, call up one cargo ship)
- 2 Riala-A (4pts), 1 Orion Nelhiar Savings & Loans Enforcer (1pt), 1 Little Queenship (1pt), 2 Orion Molhane Patrol Escorts (1 pt), 2 Apinae Stingers (1pt) = All go to Anti-EE task Forces


[X] [TASK] Form Task Force: Aqua
Task Force Aqua – Expires when Eternal Empire threat ended
Mission: [Race the Empress to her Fleet]
Commander: Diego Zaardmani - +1S on Flagship, Re-roll first failed Science check each year
Attachments: Vulcan Science Academy Archaeology Team: 5 pp on purchase, 3pp per year. Effect: +1 to first roll involving archaeology a quarter; Onion Navy Aerocommando Orbital Drop Company: 5pp on Purchase, 10pp per year. Effect: Reroll first failed Away Team Combat roll per quarter. Does not fulfill a Peacekeeper requirement. Enables Raid Events (like Anoxa or Sdranach).
As of 2320.Q1 - 1 Excelsior-A [Endurance], 1 Centaur-A [Yukikaze (B)], 1 Oberth [T'Mir (V)], 1 Miranda-A [Agile (B)], 1 Constellation-A [Docana (B)]

[X] [TASK] Form Task Force: Burgundy (Larger version)
  • Task Force Burgundy – Expires when Eternal Empire threat ended
  • Mission: [Hunt Down Eternal Empire Forces]
  • Commander: Commodore Saavik - Re-roll the first Hard event failed each year
  • Attachments: Yoyodyne Research Team: 5pp on Purchase, 5pp per year. Enables reroll on first failed D-Test each quarter.; Starfleet Tactical Brass: 10pp on Purchase, 0pp per year. Enables coordination events with other powers.; Starfleet Intelligence Operations Team: 5pp on Purchase, 5pp per year. Effect: Enables Raid Events.; Amarki Gendarmes: 5pp on Purchase, 5pp per year. Effect: +1C for Away Team action, fulfills a Peacekeeper requirement attached to a Mission or event
  • As of 2320.Q1 – 2 Excelsior-A [Thirishar (B), Kumari (B)], 2 Riala-A [Amarki Explorer], 2 Renaissances [Justice, Enlightenment], 2 Centaur-A [Gale (B), Bull (B)], 1 Little Queenship [Apinae Cruiser], 2Stingers [Apinae Frigates]

[X] [TASK] Form Task Force: Jade
Task Force Jade - Expires when Eternal Empire threat ended
Mission: [Deny the Empress allies and secure your own]
Commander: Min-Jee Lee - +1 P on flagship
Attachments: FDS Diplomatic Team. Cost: 5pp on Purchase, 5pp per year. Effect: Reroll first failed Diplomatic Roll each quarter (COST ALREADY PAID THIS YEAR. FORMERLY IN AQUA)
As of 2320.Q1 – Spirit [Excelsior-A], 1 Orion Nelhiar Savings & Loans Enforcer [Orion cruiser], 2 Molhane Patrol Escorts [Orion frigates]

Edit: vote updated
 
Last edited:
Simon_Jester said:
They're simply people whose posts contain a high enough proportion of salt, hostility, or unnecessary contentiousness
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Look, only one person flew off the handle with a post accusing someone of claiming special access to the truth.

That was you.

Only one person then proceeded to recognize they had overreacted and then for some unfathomable reason left the previous fly-off-the-handle sarcasm and derision in their post and posted it anyways despite apparently knowing it contributed nothing.

That was also you.

If you want to talk about people being unreasonably contentious and salty, glass houses and stones. Opposition, no matter how blunt, is not automatically personal hostility. Having specific objections answered with vague wait-and-see generalities is unsatisfying to anyone and generally not a good answer.
 
[X] [TASK] Form Task Force: Burgundy (Larger version)
Task Force Burgundy – Expires when Eternal Empire threat ended
Mission: [Hunt Down Eternal Empire Forces]
Commander: Commodore Saavik - Re-roll the first Hard event failed each year
Attachments: Yoyodyne Research Team: 5pp on Purchase, 5pp per year. Enables reroll on first failed D-Test each quarter.; Starfleet Tactical Brass: 10pp on Purchase, 0pp per year. Enables coordination events with other powers.; Starfleet Intelligence Operations Team: 5pp on Purchase, 5pp per year. Effect: Enables Raid Events.; Amarki Gendarmes: 5pp on Purchase, 5pp per year. Effect: +1C for Away Team action, fulfills a Peacekeeper requirement attached to a Mission or event
As of 2320.Q1 – 2 Excelsior-A [Thirishar (B), Kumari (B)], 2 Riala-A [Amarki Explorer], 2 Renaissances [Justice, Enlightenment], 2 Centaur-A [Gale (B), Bull (B)], 1 Little Queenship [Apinae Cruiser], 2 Stingers [Apinae Frigates]

Reasoning:
I like Briefvoice's distribution but I prefer larger Burgundy instead of creating task force Defense. I think defensive strategy needs numbers to be effective and this means either weakening areas like GBZ (unacceptable) or disbanding Burgundy (defeats the purpose) or spending tons of pp on more member ships (not cost effective). Small task force with no attachments is meh...

Burgundy needs those ships in case they'll decide to engage the enemy.

___________________________

[X] [FLEET] Briefvoice 8 points of ships (40 pp, call up one cargo ship)
- 2 Riala-A (4pts), 1 Orion Nelhiar Savings & Loans Enforcer (1pt), 1 Little Queenship (1pt), 2 Orion Molhane Patrol Escorts (1 pt), 2 Apinae Stingers (1pt) = All go to Anti-EE task Forces

[X] [TASK] Form Task Force: Aqua
Task Force Aqua – Expires when Eternal Empire threat ended
Mission: [Race the Empress to her Fleet]
Commander: Diego Zaardmani - +1S on Flagship, Re-roll first failed Science check each year
Attachments: Vulcan Science Academy Archaeology Team: 5 pp on purchase, 3pp per year. Effect: +1 to first roll involving archaeology a quarter; Onion Navy Aerocommando Orbital Drop Company: 5pp on Purchase, 10pp per year. Effect: Reroll first failed Away Team Combat roll per quarter. Does not fulfill a Peacekeeper requirement. Enables Raid Events (like Anoxa or Sdranach).
As of 2320.Q1 - 1 Excelsior-A [Endurance], 1 Centaur-A [Yukikaze (B)], 1 Oberth [T'Mir (V)], 1 Miranda-A [Agile (B)], 1 Constellation-A [Docana (B)]

[X] [TASK] Form Task Force: Jade
Task Force Jade - Expires when Eternal Empire threat ended
Mission: [Deny the Empress allies and secure your own]
Commander: Min-Jee Lee - +1 P on flagship
Attachments: FDS Diplomatic Team. Cost: 5pp on Purchase, 5pp per year. Effect: Reroll first failed Diplomatic Roll each quarter (COST ALREADY PAID THIS YEAR. FORMERLY IN AQUA)
As of 2320.Q1 – Spirit [Excelsior-A], 1 Orion Nelhiar Savings & Loans Enforcer [Orion cruiser], 2 Molhane Patrol Escorts [Orion frigates]
 
Last edited:
OneirosTheWriter said:
OMFG HUMANS, SALT LESS.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
B-but...


In all seriousness however, if you don't like the new mechanics that's fine, if you do like the new mechanics that's fine, but there's no need to argue the point in thread, if you're going to argue and throw insults do it over PMs or something. If you have no feedback to give other than "I don't like it, take it away." or etc. then stop.
 
Last edited:
Ok. This'll be a bit of a disjointed phonepost made during my dinner break:

So I'd like EVERYONE to keep in mind that this system proposal (Fleet/Task Force/Squadron) that is currently being tested is:
1) Not set in stone in its current state. And is subject to change due to feedback.
And
2) May not even remain in place once testing has gone through. And is subject to /removal/ due to feedback.

For example, Is like you to keep in mind how many variations on crisis/war management that Oneiros has tried since the start of this quest. Even Deployment has changed in various ways.

And yes, this is a time when the cupboard is bare so the Theater Fleets/reserves (We will look into differentiating TF and TF. Maybe by making Theater Fleets into Numbered Fleets attached to theaters?) are small in number and scope. However. I/we considered that it would be a good time to roll this mechanics update out now because it answers the question of "Can Task Force ships be member fleet ships?", "Where do Task Force ships come from?", "Where the hell are our ships and can I use them for stuff without breaking a sector's safety over my knee?"

Essentially we/I wanted to have the long term mechanism for controlling the form, size, and makeup of Task Forces in place as we beta tested the Task Forces themselves. If it ends up a failure, then it ends up a failure and we move on sooner while there is less invested.

This is in many ways a solution looking for a problem. But Its a problem that we QMs have noticed lapping around our ankles and we want to have the solution's framework in place before it becomes a capital I Issue.

(I will also reiterate that Theater Fleets are, in a very real way, optional. They do not have D requirements. You can funnel everything into Sector Squadrons and Task Forces without penalty. Having The Theater Reserves in place is a major quality of life/efficiency change and, from the view from behind the screen, aren't really going to bite you in the ass as long as the Sector Squadrons are diligently staffed to recommended levels. Though the Theater fleets do have their own advantages in non CL event ways. Instantly available and formed up reinforcements in the event of another Cardie GBZ push; For instance)
 
Last edited:
Back earlier than I thought.

Ukrainian Ranger said:
Reasoning:
I like Briefvoice's distribution but I prefer larger Burgundy instead of creating task force Defense. I think defensive strategy needs numbers to be effective and this means either weakening areas like GBZ (unacceptable) or disbanding Burgundy (defeats the purpose) or spending tons of pp on more member ships (not cost effective). Small task force with no attachments is meh...

Burgundy needs those ships in case they'll decide to engage the enemy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

From a mechanical point of view, I think you're making a mistake. Task forces aren't a single fleet that all flies together to engage the enemy using the fleet battle mechanics. They respond to Events, basically a mobile sector. Having eleven ships to respond to Events is basically a waste. You're going to have a bunch of ships sitting around, doing nothing every quarter.

If instead you split them up into two task forces then you have twice the number of Events, each of which still has more than adequate number of ships assigned to them.

In short, do not treat Task Force Burgundy as if it is assembling a fleet of ships to go out and flight a fleet battle together. Ships will act independently, as per usual.
 
AKuz said:
And yes, this is a time when the cupboard is bare so the Theater Fleets/reserves are small in number and scope.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Personally, I don't feel that is ever going to change. As the quest has progressed Starfleet has only ever gotten more stretched thin despite the constant (and somewhat absurd compared to everyone else) expansion in construction.
 
Briefvoice said:
In short, do not treat Task Force Burgundy as if it is assembling a fleet of ships to go out and flight a fleet battle together. Ships will act independently, as per usual.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Burgundy...kind of is exactly that, though. Their assignment is to offensively seek and destroy Eternal Empire forces via coordinated fleet actions against the drones and ultimately the dreadnoughts themselves.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top