The geometry is much improved! Good job. You'd still probably benefit from one more "station" (cross-section) in the bows.

Also, you're welcome to make an out-of-period practice ship if you like. If you are planning to make a ship for the game however, I strongly suggest setting your ideas out on paper first. They don't have to be in as great detail as found on most period plans, but it's immensely helpful for everyone involved to have some idea of where you're going.

Key points to include:

* Length along the waterline
* Deck layout
* Gun/gunport layout
* Masts and yards positioning
* Salient decorative features -- e.g. roughly what the stern galleries (if present) would be like, any beakhead planned, things that are semi-structural in nature

If paper isn't your thing you can also sketch out your ideas roughly in 3D, just keep in mind your geometry won't be at all final in this case. The SC would need orthographic views of the side, front, back, and top of your 3D sketch with all the above clearly marked (though we only need a side view of the masts/yards, with the yards rotated to be in line with the keel -- what we call "sail plan view," as seen on most period plans).

I hope this helps both you in planning your project, and in understanding what the 3DSC needs in order to help you realise a ship for the game.

Since you found the right thread, I'll close this one.

Appeals turn-around will be within one week of the request for review -- probably sooner in most cases, but this allows time for the entire 2DSC and relevant FLS staff to discuss the submission in question.

Replies will be within the Appeals thread itself.

Closed, since a link to the appropriate thread has been provided.

It can be fine with a smaller number of players, but 200+ doesn't require players to organize correctly. They can start to do whatever they want and there will be enough players to pretty much keep the economy running and have healthy combat.

It depends on how the players distribute themselves amongst careers as well nations.

That's already in testing and on track for going out.

That, I believe, is what's going on, and why we keep whistling away wondering what you guys are going on about. Part of my spot checking is to also try and calibrate some of our assumptions about peak concurrency and what the rule of thumb needs to be to translate that into average concurrency (peak concurrency = easy data to store, average requires significant amount more work).

As for server transfers, let me get a definitive decision on its place in the scheme of things, and then we'll take about it and you can make up your mind. I doubt it will be before the next renewal, though.

I was looking at server pops tonight (yes, apparently i don't sleep), and I still stand by my assertion that population imbalances on robust servers aren't a problem, but on the ok servers they can make it much less competitive. That's not to say that the problem won't be fixed simply by new people coming in (if our trend continues) but I would rather have a better answer.

So, I was over talking witih Joe about server transfers for 1.3, and Brady overhead our conversation and called me over to show me more data. To my surprise, yes, we're adding lots of people every day, but our *average* concurrency was trending downwards. That's because when new people coming into a game, they play a lot. As they get comfortable, they play less until they hit a normal amount of play. The curve is much more exaggerated when a game is launched (everybody's new, and everybody's whoppingly excited). We've only just started overcoming that curve and started trending average concurrency up. My surprise is not that it happened (we'd anticipated this) I just hadn't realized that people would play so much at the very beginning. We had much lower numbers than what we actually got, and that broke our projections for concurrency trends.

This doesn't mean that the spot checking doesn't need to still be done, but the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fall into line.