Topic: OP+ corrections thread (Read 64968 times)

NannerSlug · « **Reply #40 on:** May 16, 2003, 05:52:04 pm »

1) f-LTV Phaser arcs?

2) what are these things? CAH, CAM , BCP, BCS, CMC, MS, (there are a few more.. )

inquiring minds would love to know.. your probably uber busy anyhow.

Cleaven · « **Reply #41 on:** May 16, 2003, 07:13:40 pm »

Just a question, without implying that OP+ should have this change, but is there any plan to reduce the power requirements for cloak. This may make the BPV of the Romulan ships more appropriate in that the cloak they pay for can actually be used. I don't wish to predict how it will be used, just that it can be. Otherwise you could think about reducing the 10% cloak tax and leave the stats as they are.

FireSoul · « **Reply #42 on:** May 16, 2003, 07:31:51 pm »

No. I won't be doing any changes to cloak. That's similar to the changes to the fighters I had planned and is not wanted by a lot of people.

-- Luc

FireSoul · « **Reply #43 on:** May 16, 2003, 07:33:40 pm »

Quote:

1) f-LTV Phaser arcs?

2) what are these things? CAH, CAM , BCP, BCS, CMC, MS, (there are a few more.. )

inquiring minds would love to know.. your probably uber busy anyhow.

CAH? dunno.
CAM? dunno.
BCP: what race's?
BCS: Battle Control Ship. Normally a ship with about 6 fighters and 6 PFs on a BCH hull.
CMC: dunno.
MS: MineSweeper.

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #46 on:** May 17, 2003, 08:57:46 pm »

I don't have a master errata file. All the errors that I could find (by examining SSD's for uncounted hours) were fixed ship by ship over a long while in the 5.10 Shipwrights Shiplist. There are a few tweaks that cause the stats to vary from SFB (i.e. G-racks, Security, Aft Hull, Shuttlebay). I suppose one could do a Comparator.exe of the 5.10 SW specs with Taldren's 2.036. I've done that for the 5.01 SW specs here.

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #47 on:** May 17, 2003, 09:12:33 pm »

My Gorn heritage tempts me to remain quiet on these errors

My trusty G-CC has two Ph-3's that it really shouldn't have. The G-CC is the only CC in the galaxy that has the same firepower as its base CA! The CCF compounds this error by applying the "F-refit"(+2 Plas-F and +2 wing Ph-3's) to these Ph-3's. The CCF should really have 2 Ph3, not 4. The CCF is an excellent ship with all that phaser padding, but it is an error that warrants fixing.

The_Infiltrator · « **Reply #48 on:** May 17, 2003, 10:13:00 pm »

I guess my point is: If I were to use either of these lists for source data, it would have these problems corrected, right? I have most SSD's for Lyrans, Klingons, and Hydrans. Other races though I have limited data, so I'd want to be sure that everything was right.

IndyShark · « **Reply #49 on:** May 17, 2003, 10:34:45 pm »

Firesoul, I was playing on Techwars tonight and I noticed two ships that seemed to have too few marines. I ran into a F-DE that had 4 marines and a F-CVLT+ that had only 2. Strangely enough I drafted another F-DE and she had 8 marines.

I don't know if this is an error or just a game quirk.

FireSoul · « **Reply #50 on:** May 17, 2003, 10:36:36 pm »

Wouldn't doing changes like those HEAVY_CRUISER -> LIGHT_CRUISER adjustments change the feel of the game? ..
.. I don't think it's a good idea to do it jsut because it doesn't 'feel right'. I want to do it because it's a correction.

ie:
.. H-CHC, H-CHA were changed to their correct status.

On that note, ships that I added myself are my call, I guess. .. so those I am more willing to change if it's needed.
-- Luc

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #51 on:** May 18, 2003, 12:03:25 am »

Regarding ship classes:

Taldren had the F5 listed as a "Frigate" yet the F5B was listed as a "Destroyer". The D5 was listed as a "War Destroyer", which we know is BS. The KCR was amazingly listed as an ordinary "Heavy Cruiser" yet the weakling Firehawk-A was deemed a "Heavy Battlecruiser". I think it is safe to say that Taldren was not too concerned about things making sense with regards to this shiplist entry. Not surprisingly, "War Cruiser" isn't even an option.

I suggest you consider using movement costs to decide Ship Class (.33 = FF, .5 = DD, .67 or .75 = CL, 1 = CA, 1.25 to 1.5 = DN, 2 = BB). BCH status is pretty clear. DD vs DW can be a bit tricky though. NCA vs CA is pretty straight forward.

FireSoul · « **Reply #52 on:** May 18, 2003, 12:17:12 am »

Ok, so where does the I-CPF fall into?

.. btw, most of THOSE corrections I have already done in 2.1c

FireSoul · « **Reply #54 on:** May 18, 2003, 01:29:23 am »

After the whole 2/3rds fighters idea, I decided OP+ would not necessarily be 100% SFB accurate..
.. for that, I encourage a separate project be spawned.

-- Luc

Cleaven · « **Reply #55 on:** May 18, 2003, 02:49:57 am »

Probably the best way to handle the more contentious changes like fighters and cloaks.

(And I like the EAW Shipwrights list a lot too, but I'm stuck on OP now.)

jdmckinney · « **Reply #57 on:** May 18, 2003, 09:01:32 am »

The I-CPF is a CL hull. It only carries a couple phasers. It and the CPFW (adds Ph3s) should be classed as LIGHT_CRUISER. Nobody will ever buy this ship at even that pricing bracket, but it is better than NCA.

As for the D6/KR issue, the class changes only affect price and availability on the D2. Such changes would not alter the BPV matchups or effectiveness of the ships. The D6 is worse than a D5, yet it costs more if it is considered a CA. It may have more warp, but it has CL shields and weapons. Until D5s come out, the D6 class is the only CL the Klingons have. More warp + 1.0 move cost pretty much equal a ship with less warp and a .67 move cost. I think the D6-based ships are reasonable to consider CLs.

Concerning shiplist corrections, if I've read FS right in past posts, he has only fixed those ship errors that he has come across or had brought to his attention. It is entirely possible (even probable) that there are errors he has not identified yet. I've been working on a straight reworking of the default shiplist to SFB specs, but it takes me a long time to do because I'm checking every single ship against the SSDs. That's the difference between having a shiplist to play and having one that's still unreleased.

jdmckinney · « **Reply #59 on:** May 18, 2003, 01:58:43 pm »

Some very good points there. Note the D6 has LESS shielding than the D5, and a worse power curve. Actually, most players would take a D5 over a D7. The D5 is a war cruiser, so really the Klingons, as with other races, skip CLs altogether. They don't actually have ANY. Upon examination of your arguments, and looking at the Hydrans as a common foe with similar ship production, the D6s are like unrefitted DGs -- poor cruisers that are best used as hulls to build variants from. Still, for pricing and availability, I would rather see a D6 model in the CL class on the D2. That's certainly up to the admin running a campaign, so it need not be addressed in a common shiplist. However, D6s and KRs should be classed the same, whichever way is chosen.

This is exactly why I like these threads -- people can discuss things and find common ground or improvements without getting into a flamefest.

News:

Topic: OP+ corrections thread (Read 64968 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

NannerSlug

Cleaven

FireSoul

FireSoul

TarMinyatur

The_Infiltrator

TarMinyatur

TarMinyatur

The_Infiltrator

IndyShark

FireSoul

TarMinyatur

FireSoul

The_Infiltrator

FireSoul

Cleaven

jimmi7769

jdmckinney

The_Infiltrator

jdmckinney

Topic: OP+ corrections thread (Read 64968 times)