Dynaverse.net
Taldrenites => Dynaverse II Experiences => Topic started by: Hexx on February 08, 2005, 12:05:57 pm
-
I have made, it seems, a grievous error.
While I went through and methodically checked the coalition fighters, and
found the killer Pirate fighter, I didn't pay enough attention to, or looked at the Federation
stuff.
A certain player, who shall remain nameless, is obviously such a die hard fanatic at having
to win a server that he will commit any perfidy, no matter how small, in his quest to win.
Yes ladies and gentlemen.. the UNRESTRICTED A10M
adds ten (10) dmg points over the stock A10
every other M variant adds 7
At 26 Dmg EACH, a BCH's 4-fully-charged- ESGs can NOT kill a SINGLE group of these fighters.
Possessing 2 Photons with 2 reloads each -which btw are ready to fire the second the fighters launch- drones are not-
Now I know some of you will say "Yes , but don't the Roms have a coalition fighter with 2 photons"?
Yes they do
And it is restricted.
Also was it ever mentioned that the
A10's didn't serve on CVDs? That they were mainly confined to CVA's?
For all of you who have lost ships to this Federation duplicity, I apologize
Obviously they can't even come close to matching us in PVP with rough parity in ships.
And this is their solution.
I would like to respectfully request that ALL Federation build ships and fighters
be immediately declared off-limits until a review of each and every one can be done on a case by case basis.
-
Speed 20? with a range 4 weapon . . .
Napolean might be right about some CnC rules being needed.
-
IObviously they can't even come close to matching us in PVP with rough parity in ships.
And this is their solution.
I surely hope yer bein' facetious :skeptic:
-
Hexx, didnt Dizzy warn you that SFB ftrs were deadlier then the SFC ftrs. ;D
-
Speed 20? with a range 4 weapon . . .
Wow.
You're right.
Obviuosly it's such a disadvatage t use them that I can't figure out why
anyone would use them.
Or could it be..
SPD 20 that takes 104 pts of damage to wipe one group out.
SPD 20 with enough firepwer *thats instantly* ready upon lauch
Should it really take 4ESG's AND 5Ph1's at PB range to wipe a group of commonly available fighters out?
Or should the Feds be forced to use a fighter that's a statistical match for the best the Klingons & Lyrans can use?
A fighter that I've only seen one pilot use? (well when he wasn't using those cheesy Hydran things)
A fighter that is what the Feds are supposed to be using?
-
Hexx, didnt Dizzy warn you that SFB ftrs were deadlier then the SFC ftrs.? ;D
Dizzy alos made up the CnC. Blaim him. ;D
-
Hexx, didnt Dizzy warn you that SFB ftrs were deadlier then the SFC ftrs.? ;D
Dizzy alos made up the CnC.? ?Blaim him.? ?;D
I would, but my neg karma goes up so much quicker when I say nasty things about you.
Sides evryone knows Dizzy won't make a move on this server without asking you.
-
Make a proposal that is reasonable and I might endorse it.
-
What, now I NEED your approval?
What about the community?
Aren't the communities desires more important than
ehh nevermimd I'm getting bored of typing
Limit the A10M's to 1/2 per carrier.
It should be one or no squads (and you know it) on CVD's
but the servers over for all intents and purposes anyway, so really not a problem
if you guys don't want to.
-
1- the G10m also has 26 hitpoints.
2- I was just following the rules of the server. .. but if you think these fighters should be restricted, then I certainly did my job *right*. I used the best tools available to me.
3- while they DO kill players that come too close, they aren't much in PvP otherwise. Speed 20 fighters can't chase someone. The ship itself can't go faster than 29.5... (with shields up, or without cheap.. tactics that we've came up with.) It's not impossible to kill them, just tough...
4- CVDs are probably too cheap at 1CP. Have you considered that too? Again, I used the best tool.
-
What, now I NEED your approval?
What about the community?
Aren't the communities desires more important than
ehh nevermimd I'm getting bored of typing
Limit the A10M's to 1/2 per carrier.
It should? be one or no squads (and you know it) on CVD's
but the servers over for all intents and purposes anyway, so really not a problem
if you guys don't want to.
No, but it is good to notice what approaches OTT whenever Mods are unleashed on the world. ?I am sitill not convinced that speed 20 fighters cannot be overcome with tactics.
Charge into a crowd of fighters, you die and blaim it on the fighters? ::)
A10s are virtually identical to Vulture IIs. ? They are slower and have fewer Drones, but 2 more hitpoints. ? The Mega-packs make them evil at range 4. But trying to say they are OTT compared to the masive drone-throw of the of the Speed 30 F18m, ZYCm, and TADSm is well, silly.
PS; the Romulan, Gorn, and ISC fighters never should have had any such restriction.
-
4- CVDs are probably too cheap at 1CP. Have you considered that too? Again, I used the best tool.
Yes, CVDs are too cheap at 1 CP.
-
Lessons learned.
Plasma ftrs shouldnt have CnC.
ISC have it and works ok.
Pirates need it.
Feds and hydrans need it and have it already and works ok... 1/2 A10m... nah, see below...
No ftr should ever have more than 24 hit points.
-
I'll throw a general rebuttla out here...
Firesoul- You're a great pilot and you've done alot for the game
But you are WAY to sensitive, and yo take this game way to seriously.
(Not that I mind as I love OP4)
Anyway..
You killed a DNh with fighters- great Job. If I'd have known what the fighters could do I'd have told J'inn to stay
outside of range 4 and Disrupter/phaser you down. I have no problem (well...really) with what you did, I don't blame J'inn either. I should have checked the stats on the A10m when I saw all of you using them and warned him about them.
The problem isn't (as i see it) fighters that can't chase someone down. It's fighters that can't be kiilled.
I hit a A10M group today with 4ESG's at range zero. I also had 4Ph1's fire at the group as I banked off
Now the phasers were firing through a shift- but the group survived.
I'm not sure any fighter group of 4 should survive that.
How do they stack up against the drone salvos of Zyms? Don't know.
Although I am switching into a CVD to try and find out. (or to get killed)
and again - if they're not OTT compared to the F18's/Zys/TADS than why are none of the Fed pilots encountered using the F18s?
Now are CVD's unbalancing? I don't really think so- given the fighters they're suppose to carry.
And yes I could have (imho) beaten Lyrs CVD today if I'd just sat back and dizzied his shield down from range.
Really I don't think they'd be a huge OTT thing if used in 2 squads, and they'd be fine (of course) in one squad.
It's just in 4 Squads they're a little much.
The post was never really meant as a complaint, (or as an apology either) just something that I think is a little to tough used the way they are.
And of course I'm kinda not liking the idea of a frickin BCH's ESG's with a few Phasers not being able to kill 4 fighters.
-
Really I don't think they'd be a huge OTT thing if used in 2 squads, and they'd be fine (of course) in one squad.
It's just in 4 Squads they're a little much.
As Federation RM, I have no objection to a 2 Squad max rule for A10m fighters.
-
I'll throw a general rebuttla out here...
Firesoul- You're a great pilot and you've done alot for the game
But you are WAY to sensitive, and yo take this game way to seriously.
(Not that I mind as I love OP4)
Anyway..
You killed a DNh with fighters- great Job. If I'd have known what the fighters could do I'd have told J'inn to stay
outside of range 4 and Disrupter/phaser you down. I have no problem (well...really) with what you did, I don't blame J'inn either. I should have checked the stats on the A10m when I saw all of you using them and warned him about them.
nah.. If I took the game that seriously, I wouldn't have mounted J'inn up like that. ;)
I was just stating facts.
-
Now are CVD's unbalancing? I don't really think so- given the fighters they're suppose to carry.
And yes I could have (imho) beaten Lyrs CVD today if I'd just sat back and dizzied his shield down from range.
Why have no Alliance or Coaltion Strike carriers been built since the CVDs have become available?
-
Now are CVD's unbalancing? I don't really think so- given the fighters they're suppose to carry.
And yes I could have (imho) beaten Lyrs CVD today if I'd just sat back and dizzied his shield down from range.
Why have no Alliance or Coaltion Strike carriers been built since the CVDs have become available?
Well the Lyran ones suck...
-
The klingon ones suck... :P
And actually, we have built 3 D6Us.
-
The klingon ones suck... :P
With these fighters? That is debatable.
-
Lessons learned.
Plasma ftrs shouldnt have CnC.
Feds and hydrans need it and have it already and works ok...
You're not thinking things through again Diz. Hydran fighters have gotten OWNED on this server by other fighters because of the CnC, which is stupid because the St-2 is better against ships anyway.
And unrestricting plasma fighters is the most retarded thing I have ever heard.
-
And unrestricting plasma fighters is the most retarded thing I have ever heard.
I was hoping it was a typo as the next sentence doesn't really fit with that. Any fighter with ship HW must be on a leash... period.
-
Sorry, t00l , gotta agree with the 50% helebore rule. ?Try 50% less Cutty Sark ? ;D
Plasma fighters is debatable, my point is there was no reason to put CnC limits on the "Plasma D" fighters. ? There is no precident for this in SFB and isn't needed for balance.
-
Plasma fighters is debatable, my point is there was no reason to put CnC limits on the "Plasma D" fighters. ? There is no precident for this in SFB and isn't needed for balance.
Ah, you are talking about the "photonF" fighters.
-S'Cipio
-
Sorry, t00l , gotta agree with the 50% helebore rule. ?Try 50% less Cutty Sark ? ;D
Plasma fighters is debatable, my point is there was no reason to put CnC limits on the "Plasma D" fighters. ? There is no precident for this in SFB and isn't needed for balance.
Try flying Hydran against a Klink or Lyran carrier then. Without rear-firing weapons you'll realize you might as well run off the map, since your fighters are practically useless against his.
You know how Mutt beat my ID? 16 ZY's vs 8 St-2 and 8 St-H. 12 ZY's survived.
In SFB this was balanced with CHAFF PACKS. They don't exist here, and if we're going to go with SFB fighters WE NEED SOMETHING ELSE.
/rant
-
Plasma fighters is debatable, my point is there was no reason to put CnC limits on the "Plasma D" fighters. ? There is no precident for this in SFB and isn't needed for balance.
Ah, you are talking about the "photonF" fighters.
-S'Cipio
yes, I don't feel they need CnC restrictions.
-
Try flying Hydran against a Klink or Lyran carrier then. Without rear-firing weapons you'll realize you might as well run off the map, since your fighters are practically useless against his.
In SFB this was balanced with CHAFF PACKS. They don't exist here, and if we're going to go with SFB fighters WE NEED SOMETHING ELSE.
/rant
I have some ideas which will see the light of day on New Cruiser Hell.
-
In SFB this was balanced with CHAFF PACKS. They don't exist here, and if we're going to go with SFB fighters WE NEED SOMETHING ELSE.
/rant
I've been saying this for a while. Just that this more SFBish fighter list makes it even more pronounced.
Remember the drone racks added to klink DN's to counter Fed & Kzinti DN's?
Never heard a word back from anyone about how this makes an imbalance between Hydran/Klink combat.
Anyways, DH, I hope your ideas come up with something.
-
And unrestricting plasma fighters is the most retarded thing I have ever heard.
I was hoping it was a typo as the next sentence doesn't really fit with that. Any fighter with ship HW must be on a leash... period.
Gotta agree with t00l and Corbo on this.
Sorry, t00l , gotta agree with the 50% helebore rule. ?Try 50% less Cutty Sark ? ;D
Plasma fighters is debatable, my point is there was no reason to put CnC limits on the "Plasma D" fighters. ? There is no precident for this in SFB and isn't needed for balance.
Actually, there is precedent. If you look at the ship descriptions for any carrier in SFB, it shows exactly what fighters each carrier deployed.
For example, the vast majority of Romulan carriers deployed 1/2 plasma-F and 1/2 plasma-D fighters. There was a reason for this, based off of the ship design itself. For example, on the Sparrowhawk-B (SPB), each of the two modules (all Hawk series ships were "modular") had four stasis boxes for type-F plasma torps (to be loaded on the fighters). Each module carried four torpedo and four superiority fighters.
Personally, since the addition of so many new ships to the shiplist, particularly carriers, and the usage of SFB-type fighters, I have been of the opinion that any fighter CnC should be based strickly off of SFB loadouts. For example, the Federation used F-18's on the vast majority of their carriers.
My $.02
-
Plasma fighters is debatable, my point is there was no reason to put CnC limits on the "Plasma D" fighters. ? There is no precident for this in SFB and isn't needed for balance.
Ah, you are talking about the "photonF" fighters.
-S'Cipio
yes, I don't feel they need CnC restrictions.
With the exception of the FDFm I agree.
-
Sorry, t00l , gotta agree with the 50% helebore rule. ?Try 50% less Cutty Sark ? ;D
Plasma fighters is debatable, my point is there was no reason to put CnC limits on the "Plasma D" fighters. ? There is no precident for this in SFB and isn't needed for balance.
50% Helbore fighter CnC sucks.
-
Sorry, t00l , gotta agree with the 50% helebore rule. ?Try 50% less Cutty Sark ? ;D
Plasma fighters is debatable, my point is there was no reason to put CnC limits on the "Plasma D" fighters. ? There is no precident for this in SFB and isn't needed for balance.
50% Helbore fighter CnC sucks.
Indeed it does, considering it ought to be 33%
-
Sorry, t00l , gotta agree with the 50% helebore rule. ?Try 50% less Cutty Sark ? ;D
Plasma fighters is debatable, my point is there was no reason to put CnC limits on the "Plasma D" fighters. ? There is no precident for this in SFB and isn't needed for balance.
50% Helbore fighter CnC sucks.
Indeed it does, considering it ought to be 33%
Indeed it should, if we had chaff packs, dogfighting and fighter EW.
-
Had a feeling I would garner some neg karma for that comment.
Funny though, 762, that before the advent of the rules you mentioned, there was still a 33% restriction on hellbore fighters.
-
Had a feeling I would garner some neg karma for that comment.
Funny though, 762, that before the advent of the rules you mentioned, there was still a 33% restriction on hellbore fighters.
Well having them under human control makes a slight difference too. ::)
-
Sorry, t00l , gotta agree with the 50% helebore rule. ?Try 50% less Cutty Sark ? ;D
Plasma fighters is debatable, my point is there was no reason to put CnC limits on the "Plasma D" fighters. ? There is no precident for this in SFB and isn't needed for balance.
50% Helbore fighter CnC sucks.
Indeed it does, considering it ought to be 33%
Why this is SFC not SFB is it not?
-
Why this is SFC not SFB is it not?
My thoughts exactly! This is SFC, not SFB, and it never will quite be same as SFB even with a completely balanced shiplist and fighterlist. You'd need to redesign the game mechanics and probably even more...
I have issues with ANY fighter that requires more than a single plasma F to kill! One S torp to take out a single fighter is to much. 3 standard drones to take out a single fighter is to much. Even 4 esgs used at radius three will only kill 1 of those fighters... In stock SFC I remember them taking out entire squads at a time.
SFC and it's ships were not designed with these types of fighters in mind, even with a SFB-like shiplist. All of these SFB things that I have no clue about that were mentioned that SFC doesn't have is an example of this.
For every SFB thing you add, something will be unbalanced elsewhere to some degree. Almost no ship, with the exception of Battleships, few droners, or a handful of plasma ships would be able to deal with 16 fighters that would require 416 points of damage to kill, particularly without getting in close to knife fight them. Especially since they can be recalled to repair as needed. Please keep in mind 416 points of damage is enough to kill just about any dreadnaught and even some battleships. 104 per fighter squad is more then most ships could hope to achieve, especially outside range 5. It would take 9 drones, or 8 plasma Fs, or 5 esgs set at overload range and a couple extra phasers to take out just one full squad.
You might as well give the Roms fighters that move 20 speed, that can also take 26 points of damage, that can fire an R torp apiece for all the balance I see right now. Or maybe some Hydran fighters with multiple phG2s? Or ISC fighters with PPD...
Fighters with souped up firepower are one thing, but fighters that require much more damage beyond the standard levels unbalance this game to much. Especially under human control on ships that carry more than 8 or 12 of them. Not everyone flys a X-ship or battleship or even a dreadnaught... If someone in a heavy cruiser or smaller can take on a CVD with 16 A10ms that is controlled by a SFC veteran, such as FireSoul, and manage to win it without spending 5 hours running around tossing plasma over their shoulder then I'd love to see the film.
-
Sorry, t00l , gotta agree with the 50% helebore rule. ?Try 50% less Cutty Sark ? ;D
Plasma fighters is debatable, my point is there was no reason to put CnC limits on the "Plasma D" fighters. ? There is no precident for this in SFB and isn't needed for balance.
50% Helbore fighter CnC sucks.
Indeed it does, considering it ought to be 33%
Why this is SFC not SFB is it not?
Ah, silly me, I forgot this was StarFleet Cheese.
Btw, Kougar makes an extremely good point about the damage needed to deal with fighters.
-
Agree with Kougar, excellent post BTW bro.
I like SFB, I love SFC, I dont like SFF/SSPF so much. I think there is too much emphasis on fighters and pfs once we get to late era with all these new 'toys". The origional game SFB was built around the line Heavy Cruiser, be nice to see more servers done the same way IMHO. There is room for ftrs and pfs of course, but better that they remained a side show rather than the feature entertainer.
-
agree w/Chuut here.
I swear all these rules were put in place to limit what people like to call "Cheese". OOB, CnC, etc.....
Now you have to spend hours going over rules (instead of playing)......what ship can I buy? What fighters can I use? What hex can I go into? All in the name of balance.. ROFL.
We're no more balanced then we were before all this and now we're stuffed full of rules and MORE CHEESE.
-
agree w/Chuut here.
I swear all these rules were put in place to limit what people like to call "Cheese". OOB, CnC, etc.....
Now you have to spend hours going over rules (instead of playing)......what ship can I buy? What fighters can I use? What hex can I go into? All in the name of balance.. ROFL.
We're no more balanced then we were before all this and now we're stuffed full of rules and MORE CHEESE.
:goodpost:
-
agree w/Chuut here.
I swear all these rules were put in place to limit what people like to call "Cheese". OOB, CnC, etc.....
Now you have to spend hours going over rules (instead of playing)......what ship can I buy? What fighters can I use? What hex can I go into? All in the name of balance.. ROFL.
We're no more balanced then we were before all this and now we're stuffed full of rules and MORE CHEESE.
Sorry, but using SGO4 as the standard for OOB and general rules complexity is a bad example. For the record it isn't in the name of balance, it is in the name of a more "realistic" simulation of warfare and truer implementation of SFBish game play, while attempting to maintain balance. Everyone flying around in DNs or BBs or X-ships can be balanced, just not fun for many.
-
agree w/Chuut here.
I swear all these rules were put in place to limit what people like to call "Cheese". OOB, CnC, etc.....
Now you have to spend hours going over rules (instead of playing)......what ship can I buy? What fighters can I use? What hex can I go into? All in the name of balance.. ROFL.
We're no more balanced then we were before all this and now we're stuffed full of rules and MORE CHEESE.
:goodpost:
Yep Good Post Jeff.
-
Good point Jeff...and that's something we've been talking about for years...
First....we accept that SFB is a simulation of fantasy ship combat, depicted in a TV show...
Second... that SFC is a simulation of SFB, which itself is a simluation as noted above.....
Therefore the game we are playing is actually two steps removed from the combat we seek to simulate...the combat we saw on TV and wish to recreate and experience...
Third....as most people know who gain any knowledge of SFB.....SFB is Federation centric....basicly the whole system revolves around the Federation....
Which is only natural considering that what SFB simulates is what was seen on TV...The show itself is Federation based ...."These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise" etc...
So everyone wanted to be captian Kirk...and fly the enterprise into battle...I did too....Kirk is still my favorite captian and I still note sublte charactor triats I missed before on this 40 some year old cheesy TV show....(even though I have seen most episodes multiple times....I still find something forgotten or missed....like a treasure hunt..)
These battles require enemies to battle against.....so the other empires are fleshed in....the Klinks, Rommies and Gorns are roughly based on wnat was shown or infered on TOS...etc...
Fourth...knowing SFB to be Fed centric , and understanding why, we except it and move on into gamming...
The next hurdle is balance.....a game is no fun if you never have a chance of winning....but balance must be defined and codified....Balance can be "equality"..... but equality is stale and boring with little room for Tactical variations in game play...
Equality isnt just flying tourney ships...equality is removing the racial variations entirely and just flying the same exact ship...
If everyone has the same exact units, there is little of the wargame flavor we sought in the first place...
It's better if we view balance as "parity" rather than equality....balance through Parity leaves room for what is called racial flavor amongst the various empires...it provides for more variations and combinations for more interesting game play...
But balance through parity has it's own risks ....these types of balance tweaks have resulted in technolgy bumps and rules changes/addemdums etc..for variious races....often resulting in short lived 'sweet spots' in production where certain races ships are superiour to others, until those same bumps and rules changes tip the scale back the other way for another short time...
It's only natural in such a system that the most populated player races would simply submit for stuff (ships , varients, rules changes)..more people play these races...so more ideas are submitted for consideration...complelety logical...
SFB itself is still unblanced....and it is still being tweaked to this very day...and it has been ongoing for over 20 years...but it is a cycle of mostly parity....
But in the end.....travel down the road to "better"...allways leads to "uber"...
Thing gots SO uber...they had to create a new tough ass race just to have something to battle against...the cycle goes on...
Now we have SFC.....based on an inherantly unbalanced system....and we've only have 5 years to play with it...
On top of that...some stuff was lost in translation...and some of the stuff lost where balance tweaks for all the races...
And we are trying to use this game to play F&E style campaigns when the DV simply cant simulate many of the required backround functions necessary for wargaming play...
I personally want it all ...carriers and tenders for all....commando ships...escorts....BB's and dreads....
But I want it all to make sence...and I want it to flow as a system of parity rather than equality...
and remember....
"One man's cheese is another man's only hope for survival" ;)
-
Good point Jeff...and that's something we've been talking about for years...
First....we accept that SFB is a simulation of fantasy ship combat, depicted in a TV show...
Second... that SFC is a simulation of SFB, which itself is a simluation as noted above.....
Therefore the game we are playing is actually two steps removed from the combat we seek to simulate...the combat we saw on TV and wish to recreate and experience...
Third....as most people know who gain any knowledge of SFB.....SFB is Federation centric....basicly the whole system revolves around the Federation....
Which is only natural considering that what SFB simulates is what was seen on TV...The show itself is Federation based ...."These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise" etc...
So everyone wanted to be captian Kirk...and fly the enterprise into battle...I did too....Kirk is still my favorite captian and I still note sublte charactor triats I missed before on this 40 some year old cheesy TV show....(even though I have seen most episodes multiple times....I still find something forgotten or missed....like a treasure hunt..)
These battles require enemies to battle against.....so the other empires are fleshed in....the Klinks, Rommies and Gorns are roughly based on wnat was shown or infered on TOS...etc...
Fourth...knowing SFB to be Fed centric , and understanding why, we except it and move on into gamming...
The next hurdle is balance.....a game is no fun if you never have a chance of winning....but balance must be defined and codified....Balance can be "equality"..... but equality is stale and boring with little room for Tactical variations in game play...
Equality isnt just flying tourney ships...equality is removing the racial variations entirely and just flying the same exact ship...
If everyone has the same exact units, there is little of the wargame flavor we sought in the first place...
It's better if we view balance as "parity" rather than equality....balance through Parity leaves room for what is called racial flavor amongst the various empires...it provides for more variations and combinations for more interesting game play...
But balance through parity has it's own risks ....these types of balance tweaks have resulted in technolgy bumps and rules changes/addemdums etc..for variious races....often resulting in short lived 'sweet spots' in production where certain races ships are superiour to others, until those same bumps and rules changes tip the scale back the other way for another short time...
It's only natural in such a system that the most populated player races would simply submit for stuff (ships , varients, rules changes)..more people play these races...so more ideas are submitted for consideration...complelety logical...
SFB itself is still unblanced....and it is still being tweaked to this very day...and it has been ongoing for over 20 years...but it is a cycle of mostly parity....
But in the end.....travel down the road to "better"...allways leads to "uber"...
Thing gots SO uber...they had to create a new tough ass race just to have something to battle against...the cycle goes on...
Now we have SFC.....based on an inherantly unbalanced system....and we've only have 5 years to play with it...
On top of that...some stuff was lost in translation...and some of the stuff lost where balance tweaks for all the races...
And we are trying to use this game to play F&E style campaigns when the DV simply cant simulate many of the required backround functions necessary for wargaming play...
I personally want it all [/i]...carriers and tenders for all....commando ships...escorts....BB's and dreads....
But I want it all to make sence...and I want it to flow as a system of parity rather than equality...
and remember....
"One man's cheese is another man's only hope for survival" ;)
:goodpost: