Topic: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?

[FireSoul]

I've been planning the next version of the OP+ shiplist.. but some of the changes needs to be discussed with players.. I probably won't be working on the next shiplist until I'm done playing on Reclamation.. Unless an SFCx admins requests it of me because they'd want it for a soon-to-be upcoming campaign.

EDIT: Oh! .. and any ship with errors, or ships that need corrections, let me know and I will review it. I can't review the entire shiplist for errors so I do it on request.


Here are my raw notes, so far:

Quote:

Z-HDWG is really the Z-HDWE. The Z-HDWG is missing.
F-FFT (Priority Transport Frigate) should be "R"
F-DWT (Priority Transport War Destroyer) should be "R" and should be properly placed.
Add "R-KRCSF"


Review: check for Carriers that don't follow the 2/3rds rule.
  - compare 2/3rds of deckcrews with number of fighters      
    - round down, always.
  - adjust BPVs

Review: Split double-mount (or more) weapons on ships..
  - if 4 photons: photons in pairs
  - Plasmas single per mount
  - if 4 disruptors, disruptors in pairs
  - if 4 HBs, Hellbores in pairs  
  - if 4 fusions, fusions in pairs
- idea taken from TarMinyatur's own work.. but not stolen.
  - need to ask opinion, and give credit.
- ONLY if possible, if there are enough mounts on the ship.

Review: All ships with LWX or RWX mounts should be set to use LS/RS
instead, to avoid the buggy arc LWX. (would lose only 20 degrees of arc)
  - which ships have these arcs should be written to a file for when/if
the arc is fixed in a future patch
  - Some hydrans who are supposed to have LWX/RWX arcs were given RX arcs. Need to adjust.

Review: 3 years was too much for YLA refit overlap. Bring it down to 2.
  - I found that 3 years was too long while playing on Reclamation.

As you can see, some of these items could easily be accepted, while others.. .. well.... they would be contested. I would like to discuss the controversial items:

1- adjusting the # of fighters on ships based on # of deckcrews. (# of deckcrews to be verified, of course)
    - this would be for ALL fighter carriers in the game
    - PFs are based on # of mechlinks.
2- Hydran rear arcs changes/fixes.
3- YLA changes: from 3 years overlap to 2.


I want your opinions.. I want your input.
-- Luc
 

[FireSoul]

perhaps I wasn't clear..

details:
1- 223 fighter-carrying ships would have the number of fighters reduced. 67 ships would gain more fighters.
2- LS/RS is quite different than RAR/RAL or RX arcs.

 

[3dot14]

Why must the fighter number be tied to Deckcrew?

(in SFC2,) Deckcrews are the "relaods" for fighters, right? (2 crew = 1 replacement?) I don't see why the number of reloads should affect the max number of deployment.

I can have a carrier that can only deploy 2 at a time, but holds 12 in reserve going against a carrier that deploys 4 at a time but hold only 6 in reserve. Different battle philosophy for either side... and that's a bit more interesting.

If I misunderstood the deckcrew concept, let me know.




EDIT: Just realized something. The Reload concept is for SFC2EAW. WAS IT EVER PORTED OVER TO OP?

[jimmi7769]

Here are a couple of other things to think about in the next list.

K-DWC has wrong center warp value should be 8 not 6.

K-F5 and K-E4 should have A-Rack not F-Rack.

I don't quite understand the Deck Crews = fighters thing or why you've decided to reduce(or increase) the number of fighters to match the number of deck crews rather than the number of deck crews being adjusted.  Do the deck crews actually do anything other than add to the number of total crew units???

 

[FireSoul]

In SFB, the number of deckcrews are because of fighters. If the ship has 12 fighters, then the ship will also have 12 fighterbays for these fighters.. and 12 deckcrews. The number of deckcrews are directly related to the number of fighters..


.. now in SFC, the number of fighters are "generally" 2/3rds of the number of fighters in SFB. I say generally because that's what the majority of the carriers obey for their limits. .. The minimum notced is 2 fighters. The maximum is 4 * 6 fighters. (H-IC)

 But there are inconsistencies all over the place. Often it's a change by 1 fighter (an error I entered, usually) that is required, sometimes it's a lot more. .. but the number of deckcrews have been usually correct, if they weren't ommited at all (in some cases).

An example:
The Hydran Ranger, H-RN, has 9 fighters in SFB. In SFC, it has been ported over with 8 fighters but still has 9 deckcrews. It really should have 6 fighters, and recieve a BPV recalculation (based on the SFB SSD).



I propose a review of all carriers in SFC, and correcting the number of fighters to match the number of deckcrews * 2/3 ,which are usually correct. This change needs to be discussed and debated. It is an issue of balance, also.


-- Luc


 

[FireSoul]

Quote:

K-DWC has wrong center warp value should be 8 not 6.
K-F5 and K-E4 should have A-Rack not F-Rack.

I will investigate and adjust accordingly, then.

[jdmckinney]

He's saying deck crews per SFB are 1 to 1 ratio with fighters. Taking 2/3 of the deck crew (same as number of fighters) gives the Taldrenized 2/3 fighter loads. It's just easier to verify deck crews from the master ship charts than to find the fighter numbers. Of course, escorts have deck crews and no fighters, though they can't actually use them like in SFB.

Personally, I round to nearest whole number, so if it's 6 and 2/3, then I give 7. If it's 6 and 1/3, I'd give 6 -- but that's just me.

Also, it does get a little fuzzy with "casual" carriers. In some cases, you can have a casual/DW carrier with as many fighters as some larger ones if you don't subject the casuals to the 2/3 rule. It's particularly messy with Hydrans.

I also feel some of the BPVs are low on carriers in the list (partially due to 1 BPV per fighter adjustment on Hydrans?), but I haven't scrutinized it. All fighter races but Hydrans have 2 BPV stock fighters. Hydran Killerbee.I is an equal fighter to the others, but somehow got assigned 1 BPV in the stock ftrlist. I'd raise that to 2 and make the adjustment the same across the board.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
He's saying deck crews per SFB are 1 to 1 ratio with fighters. Taking 2/3 of the deck crew (same as number of fighters) gives the Taldrenized 2/3 fighter loads. It's just easier to verify deck crews from the master ship charts than to find the fighter numbers. Of course, escorts have deck crews and no fighters, though they can't actually use them like in SFB.

Personally, I round to nearest whole number, so if it's 6 and 2/3, then I give 7. If it's 6 and 1/3, I'd give 6 -- but that's just me.

I always rounded down based on observations involving PFs. 5 mechlinks = 3 PFs. Not 4.

Quote:

Also, it does get a little fuzzy with "casual" carriers. In some cases, you can have a casual/DW carrier with as many fighters as some larger ones if you don't subject the casuals to the 2/3 rule. It's particularly messy with Hydrans.

Adjustment is needed there, desparately.

Quote:

I also feel some of the BPVs are low on carriers in the list (partially due to 1 BPV per fighter adjustment on Hydrans?), but I haven't scrutinized it. All fighter races but Hydrans have 2 BPV stock fighters. Hydran Killerbee.I is an equal fighter to the others, but somehow got assigned 1 BPV in the stock ftrlist. I'd raise that to 2 and make the adjustment the same across the board.  

.. .. no. I disagree. I won't be doing that change because hydrans DEPEND on their fighters. I believe the Hydrans have an ok 1-BPV cost for the base fighters.

-- Luc

[jdmckinney]

Heh, several replies popped up before mine.

Anyway, the real contentious issue is casual carriers. In the past, Taldren stock list has treated casual carriers as if they get their full SFB fighter load, though not in all cases. Lowering them to 2/3 would espcially affect Hydrans, the RN being chief among those since it has a fairly high number of fighters without being called a true carrier.

As for YLA overlap, I'd go with no overlap, just to keep the best available and shipyard clutter down. Especially when you get to Y175, when a LOT of ships are upgraded. If you keep 1 or 2 old versions in of a given ship, that's a lot of extra ships for the yards to choose from. I could see more overlap on the non-sweeping refits, like + and B refits, but Y175 is a big one.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Heh, several replies popped up before mine.

Anyway, the real contentious issue is casual carriers. In the past, Taldren stock list has treated casual carriers as if they get their full SFB fighter load, though not in all cases. Lowering them to 2/3 would espcially affect Hydrans, the RN being chief among those since it has a fairly high number of fighters without being called a true carrier.

Right.. hence why I want to discuss it first.

Quote:

As for YLA overlap, I'd go with no overlap, just to keep the best available and shipyard clutter down. Especially when you get to Y175, when a LOT of ships are upgraded. If you keep 1 or 2 old versions in of a given ship, that's a lot of extra ships for the yards to choose from. I could see more overlap on the non-sweeping refits, like + and B refits, but Y175 is a big one.  

I do NOT agree. It doesn't make sense that on January 1st 2275, a whole bunch of ships would just change. I wanted some overlap, and all that on purpose. .. I used 3 years instead of 5.. and I after playing for a while I find that 3 is too much still! (imagine how it'd be with 5).

.. 1 year, I feel, is not enough for a general refit. .. so I want to do 2 years. ..
.. oh.. and this change would be scripted and automated... that's why Y175 refits would be recieving 2 years too. .. and there are also some cases where Y175 refits coincide with another refit (ie: K refit)... so if this was to be different, the ships would have to be split into 3 entries:
- with Y175, no K.
- without Y175, with K
- with both.

....... Bleeach. I don't want to go through that right now.
-- Luc

[jdmckinney]

I still have to disagree with that 1 BPV Hydran fighter approach. So what if they depend on their fighters? They get more of them, they get very GOOD fighters, and -- guess what? -- they have to pay MORE for upgrades in prestige if they start at 1 BPV rather than 2. If they buy a 4 BPV fighter to replace a 1 BPV fighter, that's 3 BPV x cost modifier difference. A Kzinti buying a 4 BPV fighter as an upgrade has to pay 2 BPV x cost modifier. Also, considering almost nobody (players) flies with stock fighters, carrier pilots already get off very easy with BPV matchups. Their actual load is not considered in BPV matching. Worst-case scenario for a Hydran would be what? A 24- or 32-fighter carrier getting an extra 24-32 BPV added to their basic BPV? For a carrier that big, 24-32 BPV is not going to make their lives miserable. A small one adding 6 BPV is also not going to drastically worsen their matchups. It's just simpler to have one standard across the board.

Now, throwing all that out the window, I think campaigns should strive for giving all carriers the best fighters of their availability era with appropriate BPV adjustment. Then they would not get some of the excessively soft matchups they enjoy now. It's too bad fighters and carriers were not dealt with in a more balanced way for D2. It's even more obvious when compared to GSA, where carriers (and droners, and anything that buys supplies) actually DO get their BPV calculated based on current loadout. It's also a shame we don't have a fighters/PFs-for-all system, either. Granted, there are mods to address that, but they are not perfect.

End mini-rant.

Bottom line: I can only argue the points I see. Whichever way FS decides to go, his shiplist will still rock.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
I still have to disagree with that 1 BPV Hydran fighter approach. So what if they depend on their fighters? They get more of them, they get very GOOD fighters, and -- guess what? -- they have to pay MORE for upgrades in prestige if they start at 1 BPV rather than 2. If they buy a 4 BPV fighter to replace a 1 BPV fighter, that's 3 BPV x cost modifier difference. A Kzinti buying a 4 BPV fighter as an upgrade has to pay 2 BPV x cost modifier. Also, considering almost nobody (players) flies with stock fighters, carrier pilots already get off very easy with BPV matchups. Their actual load is not considered in BPV matching. Worst-case scenario for a Hydran would be what? A 24- or 32-fighter carrier getting an extra 24-32 BPV added to their basic BPV? For a carrier that big, 24-32 BPV is not going to make their lives miserable. A small one adding 6 BPV is also not going to drastically worsen their matchups. It's just simpler to have one standard across the board.

Now, throwing all that out the window, I think campaigns should strive for giving all carriers the best fighters of their availability era with appropriate BPV adjustment. Then they would not get some of the excessively soft matchups they enjoy now. It's too bad fighters and carriers were not dealt with in a more balanced way for D2. It's even more obvious when compared to GSA, where carriers (and droners, and anything that buys supplies) actually DO get their BPV calculated based on current loadout. It's also a shame we don't have a fighters/PFs-for-all system, either. Granted, there are mods to address that, but they are not perfect.

End mini-rant.

Bottom line: I can only argue the points I see. Whichever way FS decides to go, his shiplist will still rock.  

I have to go back to a quote for counter that one.

Quote:

"Let's add what's missing from SFB. .. but let's do it as if we were Taldren so that we can preserve the good feel of the game. Its style must match Taldren's, as if it was an extension and continuation of their work."

Ok.. next item..

Quote:

Now, throwing all that out the window, I think campaigns should strive for giving all carriers the best fighters of their availability era with appropriate BPV adjustment. Then they would not get some of the excessively soft matchups they enjoy now. It's too bad fighters and carriers were not dealt with in a more balanced way for D2. It's even more obvious when compared to GSA, where carriers (and droners, and anything that buys supplies) actually DO get their BPV calculated based on current loadout. It's also a shame we don't have a fighters/PFs-for-all system, either. Granted, there are mods to address that, but they are not perfect.

This shiplist is not a D2 shiplist. This shiplist is a general-use OP shiplist which started off for use on Local LAN parties, and later on on GSA. The latest adjustments have almost all been D2 adjustments, but doing this change is a nono.

Instead! An Alternative:
Change the OP missions to use its unique "mSetFighters" function. Use MagnumMan's API to help select the fighters. This works well and I have used this extensively in coopace.

[FireSoul]

Quote:

"Let's add what's missing from SFB. .. but let's do it as if we were Taldren so that we can preserve the good feel of the game. Its style must match Taldren's, as if it was an extension and continuation of their work."

Of course, by my own "motto" I should leave the fighters alone. Comments?

[jdmckinney]

Personally, I do all my adjustments by hand, so it's just a matter of time and effort to specialize the overlaps rather than using one guideline that I don't feel fits all cases. Then again, I've not released a fully edited list because it takes so long. As far as the Y175 refit goes, anything being NEWLY PRODUCED from a shipyard would have the refit installed -- even on day 1. That's because they start building in the refits before the ship is finished in anticipation of the new standard. In D2 terms, you can't upgrade ships like in SFC1, so you have to buy new ships. Again, it's a shame D2 doesn't have the refit option.

The trouble comes in where you see AIs being created for missions. Certainly not all ships in the field would have time to get back to dock for refits the first day of a refit year. Then again, they'd certainly have some dock time at some point during the year (argument for 1 year overlap). However, isn't one of the D2 problems that AI can be very weak? Why not give them the better ships and avoid having them get out-of-date versions? Any player ships in the field would reflect captains who had not gotten back for refits yet, since your D7B doesn't just turn into a D7K overnight (visions of Cinderella).

Again, this is all subjective. These are arguments from one side, and I'm sure there are at least as many from the other sides.

Keep up the good work.

PS: I'm still a little confused on that 2/3 rounding down you mentioned. In the case of a ship with 5 fighters or 5 mech links, 2/3 is 3 and 1/3, or rounded to 3. But, a ship with 10 fighters (hypothetical) would get 6 and 2/3, or round up to 7 rather than down to 6. What you're saying is that latter example would result in a 6? Just trying to understand your approach.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
PS: I'm still a little confused on that 2/3 rounding down you mentioned. In the case of a ship with 5 fighters or 5 mech links, 2/3 is 3 and 1/3, or rounded to 3. But, a ship with 10 fighters (hypothetical) would get 6 and 2/3, or round up to 7 rather than down to 6. What you're saying is that latter example would result in a 6? Just trying to understand your approach.  

10 * 2/3 = 20 / 3 = 6.66 = 6 fighters
5 * 2/3 = 10 / 3 = 3.33 = 3.

.. In this case, it's not too late to adjust to round to nearest whole number throughout the shiplist. Let's see...
Heh! .. Rounding to closest integer:
162 ships would have less fighters
102 ships would have more.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Personally, I do all my adjustments by hand, so it's just a matter of time and effort to specialize the overlaps rather than using one guideline that I don't feel fits all cases.

My sanity's at stake.
If someone else wants to do a review, I'd be happy to double check the differences.

-- Luc

[jdmckinney]

Following Taldren's example is all well and good. However, they did include errors in their lists. Is it not possible the 1 BPV Hydran fighters are an error? Even if it's not an error, one must always be careful not to be mindless in following the leader (not that you are). Certainly I'd hate to see the real errors that have been identified in the list being left in just because Taldren put them there. For me, this starts to get close to the slippery slope of Nannerism, where every error or imbalance can be rationalized based on the stock game, and modders are essentially all blasphemers. (Yes, this is an intended sensationalist interpretation to make a point. No specific offense is meant to Nanner -- I just like how his name reads as a term for this phenomenon.)

As for the missions, well that only affects people who use the custom missions, and I'm still not clear on whether the scripts really do have the ability to calculate BPVs based on current loadout. Assigning fighters by era (is that what happens?) works OK for AIs, but do player ships get assigned fighters by era and then have their BPV for matching adjusted appropriately? If not, the matching problem remains. What about droners, commando ships, etc.? Do they also get assigned BPVs based on loadout, or is this not an available option? I'd love to have it work so that everyone gets the BPV they should based on what they have in their hand.

[jdmckinney]

Oh, and point taken about the list being for general use. There are always going to be problems in determining what to do because of the different ways in which the solo campaign/D2 and skirmish/GSA work. Again, I think it's a shame they are so different in the matching approach. At some point, you just have to pick one method and stick with it, knowing you can't please everyone.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Following Taldren's example is all well and good. However, they did include errors in their lists. Is it not possible the 1 BPV Hydran fighters are an error? Even if it's not an error, one must always be careful not to be mindless in following the leader (not that you are). Certainly I'd hate to see the real errors that have been identified in the list being left in just because Taldren put them there. For me, this starts to get close to the slippery slope of Nannerism, where every error or imbalance can be rationalized based on the stock game, and modders are essentially all blasphemers. (Yes, this is an intended sensationalist interpretation to make a point. No specific offense is meant to Nanner -- I just like how his name reads as a term for this phenomenon.)

I've played against killerbee-1s and I find them easy kills..

Quote:

As for the missions, well that only affects people who use the custom missions, and I'm still not clear on whether the scripts really do have the ability to calculate BPVs based on current loadout. Assigning fighters by era (is that what happens?) works OK for AIs, but do player ships get assigned fighters by era and then have their BPV for matching adjusted appropriately? If not, the matching problem remains. What about droners, commando ships, etc.? Do they also get assigned BPVs based on loadout, or is this not an available option? I'd love to have it work so that everyone gets the BPV they should based on what they have in their hand.  

Well...
- through scripting, it's not possible to evaluate the fighters on a player ship. There is no mGetFighters or mGetShuttles for that matter.
- It *IS* possible to find out the drone loadout of a ship, but the mSetDrones is broken. The mSetFighters function does not work when assigning new fighters to a player ship. I tried that one. However, it is possible to calculate the BPV of the changed fighters based on: new_fighter_cost - stock_fighter_cost * # of fighters.
- detection and setting the number of marines, tbombs and spare parts works.. but it's difficult for the script to guess the value of each item.


.. anyways.. it is wrong to include improved fighters within ships... There's more to SFC life than the D2.
Can we get back to the topics I asked about? We can discuss other issues for future revisions of the shiplist.

-- Luc

[TarMinyatur]

As others have stated, the 2/3rds rule seems to apply only to most true carriers. I suggest permitting casual carriers to carry 100% of SFB levels unless they have more than 8 which would be capped at 8 (only the RN comes to mind). It's an admittedly arbitrary cut-off which naturally creates exceptions to the 2/3rds rule. However, reducing a casual carrier's load to 2/3rds would be a substantial penalty since fighter effectiveness is not linearly proportional to quantity.

I also wonder what the OP+ shiplist does to address the lack of fighter boxes in SFC. The IC is missing some 40 internals (actually 80 with SFC's doubled internals). SFC's "fighter bays" cannot absorb damage.