Print Page - Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 28, 2003, 02:14:02 pm

Quote:

Sorry to hear that Castrin, as the Miraks are the 3rd largest populated fleets in SFC, with the KOTHs and KATS supporting over 60 members. Firesoul's compromise gives us our CCX in 2300, when the rest of the X ships come out. I dont see the problem with this. KLAW will discuss this issue and vote accordingly on which servers we will play on as they come up.

Hey, it's a free universe. However, I have not seen even ONE Mirak/Kzinti player on Reclamation. What would Castrin risk losing with his stance? Fluf, as you pointed out above, the Z-CCX seriously damaged the player base for RT3 because of the inequities. Surely there can be some middle ground where the Mirak/Kzinti Xes are balanced against other races' Xes. While it certainly would be nice to have more drone types available, there are other races who also suffer from this lack of variety. If the need is there for a CA-level X-drone cruiser, maybe one should be created. The CCXes are all general ships, not bombardment cruisers. So, why not have a Z-CCX that fits that mold, and supplement that with a bombardment X-alternative?

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 28, 2003, 02:16:07 pm

By the way, if I'm reading FS right on the Xes, he does not retain the original Taldren CCXes for any race. Why should he break his rules for one race, regardless of population? If the Z-CCX is in as an alternate, then probably the other original Taldren CCXes should be there, as well.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: CptCastrin on April 28, 2003, 03:08:38 pm

Quote:

Quote:

So if not having the "Z-CCX2" prevents you from playing on a OP+ server I'm sorry to hear that but them's the breaks. I'd rather have a server full of Klinks, Lyrans (you guys are nuts), Feds, and what not then sacrifice them just so I can get some Mirak to play. Sorry, the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few (now where did I hear that? ).

Fine, Castrin, if that is what you want. You have just alienated the Mirak. We are not exactly a small race and we have always tried to be supportive and fly with honor. We will abstain.

When you can port all the nuances of SFB into SFC, like our variable drones, the chance of mutiny in Klingons ships, their special weapon, the rom cloak, and all the rest it will make a lot more sense.

As stated by Nomad I've not seen one Mirak on (till today) so please stop with the threats.

Suffice it to say that if the others in SFCx decide that I'm in the wrong then I will abide by that. However it seems strange to me that the KAT/KOTH wish to impose their will on a shiplist (and the servers that use it) that they have stated that they don't even use because the Z-CCX has been ballanced acording to SFB stats.

I've always had the highest regards for all Mirak players but the issue is (in my case) campaign ballance, as much as is possible and the Z-CCX is (by even Fluf's addmission) a OTT ship as is from Talrden's shiplist. I'm sorry if you (or any Mirak) feel alienated by my stance but I have to look at the big picture and ALL the races. The Z-CCX a la Taldren chews up and spits out any other race's CCX (or equvalent) x1 ship because it had the MIRV added.

Does that mean that I say the Z-CCX2 (Firesoul's "return" of the Taldren version Z-CCX) should not be in the list? No. See that's where you (general "you" meaning whoever bent Firesouls ear about the CCX in the first place) and I differ. If Firesoul puts it in it's his call not mine. Then you can play it to your hearts content on GSA. But in the interest of fairness, and unless the others in SFCx deam it otherwise, it will not be found in D2 on a campaign (read serious campaign) server hosted by SFCx.

As for fixing all the holes in SFC2/OP ... god I wish I could. But that's still no reason to penalize all the other races.

One last thing, considering the CCX2 will come out in 2300 a full 7 years after all the other races have thier x1 ships and are getting their x2 ships I guess the point is fairly moot. The CCX is, though good, not a match for most x2 ships. My only concern is that the Mirak do not get an unballancing ship at the dawn of x1 thus ruining the campaign for all other race players. After x2 comes out the issue is not really a major one.

So with the above I conradict myself, it's possible that you will see the CCX2 on a SFCx server. When and if it's of any value is a different matter.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: CptCastrin on April 28, 2003, 03:12:06 pm

Quote:

Sorry to hear that Castrin, as the Miraks are the 3rd largest populated fleets in SFC, with the KOTHs and KATS supporting over 60 members. Firesoul's compromise gives us our CCX in 2300, when the rest of the X ships come out. I dont see the problem with this. KLAW will discuss this issue and vote accordingly on which servers we will play on as they come up.

As you have been mostly sticking to EaW and dislike the OP+ shiplist in general (at least it seems that way) I expect you will remain in EaW.

I thank you for considering playing in OP and hope you continue with the great feed back.

EDIT: and just to be clear, the above was not a sarcastic slam of any kind, I truely do appriciate Fluf's (and other's) feed back and help in the community. It's mearly my possition that where one plays is entirely up to them and as KOTH/KAT have been mostly found in EaW I don't see that changing. If they were, however, to play in OP it would make my heart glad. Not that it would cange my mind on the CCX issue ... much.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Green on April 28, 2003, 03:54:23 pm

This may, in the end, be much ado about nothing. At least I hope so.

I have jumped on Reclamation recently (2 days ago) after reading Dog's comments on giving OP a chance. So I reloaded, repatched, and D/L'd the Reclamation files and got on for a little bit. It felt great and was fun. I spread the word and hoped to see some game time on OP and EAW.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the CCX is too much too early. And FireSoul's concept of letting it live ... but later as an X2 ... seemed to be a pretty good idea. And if, as an X2 ship, it isn't the cat's meow ... then it should be okay (based on what you wrote ... may be misinterpreting things).

On a side note, FireSoul, I am having a blast flying your shiplist on LB3 (EAW). The variety is fantastic and many of the ships require a very different way of playing (i.e. the Z-BF [fly fast, and I mean fast] and the Z-MTT-CAV [fly slow, but launch many things at the enemy])

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Kortez on April 28, 2003, 03:58:24 pm

Quote:

So if not having the "Z-CCX2" prevents you from playing on a OP+ server I'm sorry to hear that but them's the breaks. I'd rather have a server full of Klinks, Lyrans (you guys are nuts), Feds, and what not then sacrifice them just so I can get some Mirak to play. Sorry, the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few (now where did I hear that? ).

Fine, Castrin, if that is what you want. You have just alienated the Mirak. We are not exactly a small race and we have always tried to be supportive and fly with honor. We will abstain.

When you can port all the nuances of SFB into SFC, like our variable drones, the chance of mutiny in Klingons ships, their special weapon, the rom cloak, and all the rest it will make a lot more sense.

Quote:

As stated by Nomad I've not seen one Mirak on (till today) so please stop with the threats.

I expected more than this from you, Castrin. I had always respected you in the past. To give such a flippant answer is not in keeping with prior contacts. Also, I do not represent KAT. I am the Patriarch of KOTH and not KAT. KAT is free to do as they please, and there would be no hard feelings for our brothers.

If you want to know, we have been playing LB3 and the last 4 times I've tried Reclamation it has been down.

I do not make threats. As I see it you are against giving the Mirak any edge whatsoever, but the reverse is not true. Game balance is ok if the Mirak are handicapped. That is not fair. Your comments about x2 ships and 2300 is a case in point. I see no advocating for us to help us balance, just to make sure our best ship is not a factor. IOW, we can be hurt for game balance. That is fine, but adding something of real value, not an underpowered heavy cruiser with G racks that should not be there is quite ok. How sad ...

Quote:

Suffice it to say that if the others in SFCx decide that I'm in the wrong then I will abide by that. However it seems strange to me that the KAT/KOTH wish to impose their will on a shiplist (and the servers that use it) that they have stated that they don't even use because the Z-CCX has been ballanced acording to SFB stats.

I've always had the highest regards for all Mirak players but the issue is (in my case) campaign ballance, as much as is possible and the Z-CCX is (by even Fluf's addmission) a OTT ship as is from Talrden's shiplist. I'm sorry if you (or any Mirak) feel alienated by my stance but I have to look at the big picture and ALL the races. The Z-CCX a la Taldren chews up and spits out any other race's CCX (or equvalent) x1 ship because it had the MIRV added.

Does that mean that I say the Z-CCX2 (Firesoul's "return" of the Taldren version Z-CCX) should not be in the list? No. See that's where you (general "you" meaning whoever bent Firesouls ear about the CCX in the first place) and I differ. If Firesoul puts it in it's his call not mine. Then you can play it to your hearts content on GSA. But in the interest of fairness, and unless the others in SFCx deam it otherwise, it will not be found in D2 on a campaign (read serious campaign) server hosted by SFCx.

Oh, make no mistake, we argued for the inclusion of the Z-CCX as it is. That is our only great ship, and with the CnC rules we cannot fly the Kzinti ships in the packs they are intended to be flown until we hit high rank.

Quote:

As for fixing all the holes in SFC2/OP ... god I wish I could. But that's still no reason to penalize all the other races.

One last thing, considering the CCX2 will come out in 2300 a full 7 years after all the other races have thier x1 ships and are getting their x2 ships I guess the point is fairly moot. The CCX is, though good, not a match for most x2 ships. My only concern is that the Mirak do not get an unballancing ship at the dawn of x1 thus ruining the campaign for all other race players. After x2 comes out the issue is not really a major one.

We it doesn't seem to bother you that we would get a ship out of time when it is no longer a true factor. I see that and it just makes me positive I have been right all along. You seem smug about it. That is how I shall remember this discussion.

Quote:

So with the above I conradict myself, it's possible that you will see the CCX2 on a SFCx server. When and if it's of any value is a different matter.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Fluf on April 28, 2003, 04:02:55 pm

Castrin,

The KOTH Fleet has nothing against Firesoul's OP+ shiplist. I actually love the list and am hoping to work with him on some corrections to the Mirak list that I think it needs. And yes we have been on EAW for the last 2 weeks as the LItterbox is a KOTH server, and we are testing many new missions and shiplist just as you are. If you remember a previous post of mine in the D2 forums, the Litterbox was going to be an OP server. However, TraceyG requested that I help get a campaign together for EAW so we could test the new missions and shiplists before SG3 started. KOTH has always preferred OP over EAW, as it was a GFL Mirak fleet when OP came out, and was in the beta testing of patches for OP. I have actually tried to log onto Reclamation a few times, but it has been down the times I have tried. KOTH will always support OP and our next server will probably be an OP server.

All this arguement over one ship is getting a little ridiculous. The bottom line is, we want to have our stock CCX available and agree it is to strong for a GenX1 ship. However we do want it available in 2300 as a GenX2 ship, as it is basically, the only ship we will fly, other than the X-DD and the X-DG. The other heavy cruisers will not be flown as they are too underpowered to be effective. I think this is a good compromise and it should be addressed this way. I in no way want to see any campaign unbalanced, and agree the stock CCX is too much for a 1stGen ship. But I do think it makes a good 2nd Gen ship, and should be treated as such.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 28, 2003, 04:16:19 pm

I'm sorry I'm not understanding things too well, so please someone explain:

First, what CnC rules are in question affecting how anyone flies anything on OP? Up until recently, there were no campaigns, and Reclamation is the first semi-serious attempt at one. There are no CnC rules on Reclamation. The only limitation is a 2-ship ownership limit setting in the .gf files.

Second, if nobody's played an OP campaign with this shiplist so that they've actually gotten to X-ship releases, isn't all this guff about getting neutered unfounded? Have you tried the X1 ships in the OP+ list vs. other X1 ships? Remember, they were ALL redone according to FS. Another important point is that FS does not use PhG on his X1 ships, so the non-Mirak/Kzinti X1 ships do not have anywhere near the ability to deal with MIRVs that Taldren X1s do.

Third, where is this history of Mirak/Kzinti oppression that seems to be a point of contention? Again, we are almost starting over with OP campaigns, so what balance or rules do or don't get used is up for debate until we've actual had some campaigns.

I'm trying to see both sides of this, and it seems to me what the Mirak/Kzinti need is a MDC-type X-drone cruiser, which would have B racks and ADD12s. I personally don't agree with FS's G-rack use in this case because the upper limit of drones one can buy with a G is much lower than with a B. While the more reloads translation may work OK for the AI, it does hurt the player-flown ships.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 28, 2003, 04:21:49 pm

Fluf, my above post was written before I saw your latest one. I have a question: is one of the key problems you see with the Xes that the X2 Mirak/Kzinti CAs suffer from being underpowered? So, the CCX is then the best heavy cruiser counter to, say, a K-XCA? If so, then I think the question of release date has been solved by FS putting it in at 2300 with the X2s. Does this solve the problem from your (and other players') standpoint? Are the Z-Xes still too weak as a group?

I'm especially interested in getting play-test feedback on the X1s. Frankly, I doubt too many campaigns will ever reach X2, so the X1 ship balance is much more of a concern to me personally.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 28, 2003, 04:35:41 pm

Quote:

By the way, if I'm reading FS right on the Xes, he does not retain the original Taldren CCXes for any race. Why should he break his rules for one race, regardless of population? If the Z-CCX is in as an alternate, then probably the other original Taldren CCXes should be there, as well.

Yeah.. maybe..
.. but some such Xes' only difference were phGs. I need opinions.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Fluf on April 28, 2003, 04:42:26 pm

I agree Nomad, the G Rack conversion does hurt. Hence my suggestion for the E rack. We used the E rack on AOTK and it seems it would be a natural addition to a 1stGen X ship. It would seem that the Kzin would have increased loadouts and the ability to fire faster as new technology. I would hope that this would be considered as a alternative. The E rack has a firing rate of a C Rack, but carry's 10 more drones per rack, thus allowing us to use it in fire support against PF's and fighters.

And what Kortez is talking about is the Kzin feeling that we have had ever since the introduction of this game. Every patch has screwed us in some way. Even the last patch for EAW and the G Rack debate gave us more BPV on some of our ships. Our BCH is just useless now, and it was always one of the worst BCH's in the game. Our CCH can barely come even with a F-CLC. Hence, most Mirak cannot compete in PvP 1 on 1 vs comparable ships and pilots. After all the drone debates and cheese debates that have gone on for years, we are a little gunshy in that respect.

Then our best ship that we have ever had, gets taken out of the shiplist and gutted, albeit it should be for balance. You can see where we might get a little angry at this.

If anything, the Kzin would like to become less dependant on drones, not more. We would rather have more power and energy weapons, so that we could stay in a fight on and even basis. Ah, but then we become to Klingon like.

Which they dont like.

What the Kzin want is a ship capable of standing up to a D5, C7 or CLC or BCF in a 1 on 1 fight, without having to bring out the cheese.

As it stands now the Mirak only fly 10 ships no matter what list you make.

DF DD and CC in early
MDC,MDC+, MCC and CVA in mid
CVA through late

Thats it. And we only fly the MCC if its in a custom shiplist with the Dizzy points split. We basically have no medium or heavy command cruiser that can compete on and equal basis. Hence the backlash on the CCX.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 28, 2003, 04:42:43 pm

Quote:

Fine, Castrin, if that is what you want. You have just alienated the Mirak. We are not exactly a small race and we have always tried to be supportive and fly with honor. We will abstain.

I would like to request dropping anything like that from this thread. Castrin and KOTH are allowed their decision to do and say as they wish, but not in a way that hurts the community.
.. So.. to BOTH sides:
.. play together.. and settle it on the Battlefield. There aren't enough players as is.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Kortez on April 28, 2003, 04:53:49 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Fine, Castrin, if that is what you want. You have just alienated the Mirak. We are not exactly a small race and we have always tried to be supportive and fly with honor. We will abstain.

I would like to request dropping anything like that from this thread. Castrin and KOTH are allowed their decision to do and say as they wish, but not in a way that hurts the community.
.. So.. to BOTH sides:
.. play together.. and settle it on the Battlefield. There aren't enough players as is.

-- Luc

This is not about hurting the community. It's about the hurt the Mirak have suffered, throughout the time of SFC2, starting especially after RT3 and moving on since. Fluf says it well. However he undersells it. Because we are coordinated and can flip hexes and take planets and bases, we have had to sacrifice so that we are at a serious disadvantage in many if not most PvP matchups. That's why I usually abstain. I can fight with the best of them, but it is an exercise in frustration.

The one ship we have that is really a great ship is the Z-CCX. I know it is better than the others, but you know, when you get only ONE ship like this one you cling to it. If people want to really solve the problem the CCX is not the real answer. However, we don't want more B racks. Everyone gets B racks! How does the drone race stand differentiated from the Klingons and the Feds? We don't have the energy, we don't have the energy weapons. B racks won't do it. That we cannot get the drones which are in SFB only makes it that much more unbalanced. Ah, I am not happy about this all right now.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: CptCastrin on April 28, 2003, 04:54:47 pm

Quote:

Quote:

As stated by Nomad I've not seen one Mirak on (till today) so please stop with the threats.

I expected more than this from you, Castrin. I had always respected you in the past. To give such a flippant answer is not in keeping with prior contacts. Also, I do not represent KAT. I am the Patriarch of KOTH and not KAT. KAT is free to do as they please, and there would be no hard feelings for our brothers.

If you want to know, we have been playing LB3 and the last 4 times I've tried Reclamation it has been down.

I do not make threats. As I see it you are against giving the Mirak any edge whatsoever, but the reverse is not true. Game balance is ok if the Mirak are handicapped. That is not fair. Your comments about x2 ships and 2300 is a case in point. I see no advocating for us to help us balance, just to make sure our best ship is not a factor. IOW, we can be hurt for game balance. That is fine, but adding something of real value, not an underpowered heavy cruiser with G racks that should not be there is quite ok. How sad ...

Quote:

Suffice it to say that if the others in SFCx decide that I'm in the wrong then I will abide by that. However it seems strange to me that the KAT/KOTH wish to impose their will on a shiplist (and the servers that use it) that they have stated that they don't even use because the Z-CCX has been ballanced acording to SFB stats.

I've always had the highest regards for all Mirak players but the issue is (in my case) campaign ballance, as much as is possible and the Z-CCX is (by even Fluf's addmission) a OTT ship as is from Talrden's shiplist. I'm sorry if you (or any Mirak) feel alienated by my stance but I have to look at the big picture and ALL the races. The Z-CCX a la Taldren chews up and spits out any other race's CCX (or equvalent) x1 ship because it had the MIRV added.

Does that mean that I say the Z-CCX2 (Firesoul's "return" of the Taldren version Z-CCX) should not be in the list? No. See that's where you (general "you" meaning whoever bent Firesouls ear about the CCX in the first place) and I differ. If Firesoul puts it in it's his call not mine. Then you can play it to your hearts content on GSA. But in the interest of fairness, and unless the others in SFCx deam it otherwise, it will not be found in D2 on a campaign (read serious campaign) server hosted by SFCx.

Oh, make no mistake, we argued for the inclusion of the Z-CCX as it is. That is our only great ship, and with the CnC rules we cannot fly the Kzinti ships in the packs they are intended to be flown until we hit high rank.

Quote:

As for fixing all the holes in SFC2/OP ... god I wish I could. But that's still no reason to penalize all the other races.

One last thing, considering the CCX2 will come out in 2300 a full 7 years after all the other races have thier x1 ships and are getting their x2 ships I guess the point is fairly moot. The CCX is, though good, not a match for most x2 ships. My only concern is that the Mirak do not get an unballancing ship at the dawn of x1 thus ruining the campaign for all other race players. After x2 comes out the issue is not really a major one.

We it doesn't seem to bother you that we would get a ship out of time when it is no longer a true factor. I see that and it just makes me positive I have been right all along. You seem smug about it. That is how I shall remember this discussion.

Quote:

So with the above I conradict myself, it's possible that you will see the CCX2 on a SFCx server. When and if it's of any value is a different matter.

Appologies for getting KOTH and KAT confused.

I'll just cover the above in general instead of breaking it up:

If Firesoul adds the CCX(2) back in bully for you.
If KOTH plays on OP or not it's their choice either way.
If you think I'm out to get the Mirak ... wrong ... but your entitled to your opinion as all are.
Was I flipant? Maybe, but not without cause. Accusations of "alienating" and causing people to "abstain" don't bring out the best in me, neither does implying that no Mirak will play OP because of my "actions".
There are no CnC rules on Reclamation (save that you can't have more than 2 ships).
I have never petitioned, cajoled, or requested a ship to be included or removed on the OP+ shiplist.

In the end I'm sorry to hear that you now think of me as some anti-Mirak, smug, and evil person and have now influanced KOTH to not play (at least in OP). Wasn't my intention when I spoke up but then this is why a only rarely do. I always believed in open dialog but when people say to me that ... ah never mind.

As stated, if the rest of SFCx feel otherwise (which we will not discuss here for obvious reasons) I'm sure we will include the CCX2 (or whatever it's called) in whatever capacity it is listed. But that doesn't change my opinion,and that is simply: the CCX (original) if introduced at the early stages of X-tech, unbalances campaigns, causing others to leave, and should not be allowed.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: CptCastrin on April 28, 2003, 05:13:49 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Fine, Castrin, if that is what you want. You have just alienated the Mirak. We are not exactly a small race and we have always tried to be supportive and fly with honor. We will abstain.

I would like to request dropping anything like that from this thread. Castrin and KOTH are allowed their decision to do and say as they wish, but not in a way that hurts the community.
.. So.. to BOTH sides:
.. play together.. and settle it on the Battlefield. There aren't enough players as is.

-- Luc

This is not about hurting the community. It's about the hurt the Mirak have suffered, throughout the time of SFC2, starting especially after RT3 and moving on since. Fluf says it well. However he undersells it. Because we are coordinated and can flip hexes and take planets and bases, we have had to sacrifice so that we are at a serious disadvantage in many if not most PvP matchups. That's why I usually abstain. I can fight with the best of them, but it is an exercise in frustration.

The one ship we have that is really a great ship is the Z-CCX. I know it is better than the others, but you know, when you get only ONE ship like this one you cling to it. If people want to really solve the problem the CCX is not the real answer. However, we don't want more B racks. Everyone gets B racks! How does the drone race stand differentiated from the Klingons and the Feds? We don't have the energy, we don't have the energy weapons. B racks won't do it. That we cannot get the drones which are in SFB only makes it that much more unbalanced. Ah, I am not happy about this all right now.

I just want to go on record here and say that the general hobbling of the Miraks is one reason that I've never been quick to pursue instituting major "CnC" rules on SFCx campaigns.

I've also noticed that in general these rules are only there to limit races that have a fundamental edge in one way or another. Where I can see reasoning in trying to limit escorts (common sense really) other rules I've found to be rather unfriendly to the Mirak and in some cases the Klingons.

It should be up to the admin to create viable shortages in ships. It should not have to come to the fact that you say "no, you can't play that ship because it's a bombardment / commando / cheese ship". The key IMHO is to balance the availability of ships so that there is always a counter to it. Thus my take on the CCX, in early x1 there is no counter to it, it's a god. It's unfortunet that the CCX is the focus but I could name you other ships that are far worse (or just as bad) but the point is balance is possible, if people are willing to acknowledge that all sides need to be taken into account.

I understand why you feel the way you do Kortez. It doesn't change my take on the CCX issue but I do understand.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Kortez on April 28, 2003, 05:26:22 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Fine, Castrin, if that is what you want. You have just alienated the Mirak. We are not exactly a small race and we have always tried to be supportive and fly with honor. We will abstain.

I would like to request dropping anything like that from this thread. Castrin and KOTH are allowed their decision to do and say as they wish, but not in a way that hurts the community.
.. So.. to BOTH sides:
.. play together.. and settle it on the Battlefield. There aren't enough players as is.

-- Luc

This is not about hurting the community. It's about the hurt the Mirak have suffered, throughout the time of SFC2, starting especially after RT3 and moving on since. Fluf says it well. However he undersells it. Because we are coordinated and can flip hexes and take planets and bases, we have had to sacrifice so that we are at a serious disadvantage in many if not most PvP matchups. That's why I usually abstain. I can fight with the best of them, but it is an exercise in frustration.

The one ship we have that is really a great ship is the Z-CCX. I know it is better than the others, but you know, when you get only ONE ship like this one you cling to it. If people want to really solve the problem the CCX is not the real answer. However, we don't want more B racks. Everyone gets B racks! How does the drone race stand differentiated from the Klingons and the Feds? We don't have the energy, we don't have the energy weapons. B racks won't do it. That we cannot get the drones which are in SFB only makes it that much more unbalanced. Ah, I am not happy about this all right now.

I just want to go on record here and say that the general hobbling of the Miraks is one reason that I've never been quick to pursue instituting major "CnC" rules on SFCx campaigns.

I've also noticed that in general these rules are only there to limit races that have a fundamental edge in one way or another. Where I can see reasoning in trying to limit escorts (common sense really) other rules I've found to be rather unfriendly to the Mirak and in some cases the Klingons.

It should be up to the admin to create viable shortages in ships. It should not have to come to the fact that you say "no, you can't play that ship because it's a bombardment / commando / cheese ship". The key IMHO is to balance the availability of ships so that there is always a counter to it. Thus my take on the CCX, in early x1 there is no counter to it, it's a god. It's unfortunet that the CCX is the focus but I could name you other ships that are far worse (or just as bad) but the point is balance is possible, if people are willing to acknowledge that all sides need to be taken into account.

I understand why you feel the way you do Kortez. It doesn't change my take on the CCX issue but I do understand.

Castrin, I KNOW I overreacted to your statement. I apologize. I'll tell you why, it's because of the longstanding hobbling of the Mirak (and to a lesser degree, the Klingons). It is driving me up the wall, so when our only uber ship is hit, too, it just seems like, great, I will NOT fly a BCH (or substitute something else). They all suck!

Our second generation x heavy cruisers are ridiculous. You can fly about 18 and charge. THAT is an x2-ship? Man, the XCA is a death trap, if the opponent has any savvy. I could go through the list. I KNOW the Z-CCX is god. I know it is unfair. I know that when I feel happy I am god, just for a moment, it's wrong, but after all the diminutions it feels like justice to me. I know that is wrong too, even bad, and I am not seeking to be caustic; I am just telling you how I and many Mirak feel.

Actually, your point about the CCX in 2300 is VERY WELL TAKEN. the Z-CCX cannot face a G-XCA, an F-XCA, etc. So, you know, I was just wrong to not notice that before. It is just a continuation of the same problem we've had all along.

I gotta find me a good brick wall to run into, because I am unsure how to proceed from here. Maybe the pain will take my mind off of it.

Peace to you Piece to me ...

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: CptCastrin on April 28, 2003, 05:29:45 pm

Quote:

All this arguement over one ship is getting a little ridiculous. The bottom line is, we want to have our stock CCX available and agree it is to strong for a GenX1 ship. However we do want it available in 2300 as a GenX2 ship, as it is basically, the only ship we will fly, other than the X-DD and the X-DG. The other heavy cruisers will not be flown as they are too underpowered to be effective. I think this is a good compromise and it should be addressed this way. I in no way want to see any campaign unbalanced, and agree the stock CCX is too much for a 1stGen ship. But I do think it makes a good 2nd Gen ship, and should be treated as such.

I agree, maybe a bit ridiculous but it has brought things forward that I think we now have the chance to correct.

Many feel that the Taldren CCX is a god ship and this causes many to flee the camapign when it comes out. This is not right.

On the other hand the Mirak are being hobbled, either by CnC rules or thier own ships. This isn't right either.

We need to figure out what can be done ship wise to make the Mirak competative. Fixing things gamewise is out of the question so what needs to be done to the ships. How will the SFB ships help? And how can issues like the CCX be ballanced so everyone is happy (or at least equally unhappy

).

I don't have the answers but I'm willing to help find them.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Green on April 28, 2003, 05:33:15 pm

Quote:

This may, in the end, be much ado about nothing. At least I hope so.

Original thought still remains.

FireSoul. We've gotten the rundown on the Z-CCX and some of the ideas on how to tweak it (make a CCX1 and a CCX2) and they sound good.

Castrin. Good post. I do think OP+ will run great and will be a lot of fun. The discussions over a single ship are important (at least to Kzin flyers) but can be worked through. As long as we keep talking about it.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 28, 2003, 05:49:16 pm

Quote:

The one ship we have that is really a great ship is the Z-CCX. I know it is better than the others, but you know, when you get only ONE ship like this one you cling to it. If people want to really solve the problem the CCX is not the real answer. However, we don't want more B racks. Everyone gets B racks! How does the drone race stand differentiated from the Klingons and the Feds? We don't have the energy, we don't have the energy weapons. B racks won't do it. That we cannot get the drones which are in SFB only makes it that much more unbalanced. Ah, I am not happy about this all right now.

I don't understand the thing about the B racks.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Kortez on April 28, 2003, 06:09:06 pm

Quote:

Quote:

The one ship we have that is really a great ship is the Z-CCX. I know it is better than the others, but you know, when you get only ONE ship like this one you cling to it. If people want to really solve the problem the CCX is not the real answer. However, we don't want more B racks. Everyone gets B racks! How does the drone race stand differentiated from the Klingons and the Feds? We don't have the energy, we don't have the energy weapons. B racks won't do it. That we cannot get the drones which are in SFB only makes it that much more unbalanced. Ah, I am not happy about this all right now.

I don't understand the thing about the B racks.

The B rack is ok, but it's nothing special. If THE Drone Race is to be helped the B rack really doesn't do much. It's better than an A rack, but they shouldn't be on late era ships and on anyway. The C rack is good, but it's really limited in how many drones it can carry. The E racks, however are the size of a B rack with the firing capabilities of a C rack. Having E racks on later era Mirak ships helps somewhat. It doesn't answer the underpowering of the ships or the real nature of the lack of PvP competitiveness, but it helps incrementally.

E is better than B.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 28, 2003, 06:15:18 pm

I would like to hear the player opinions on FS's X1 still. Heck, maybe it's time for a mini-campaign JUST using Xes and late era ships to see where the balance issues are. Since it would be more of a balancing testbed, it could be up while bigger, more in-depth campaigns (like SG3) are going on. This might help FS find any issues with Xes without relying totally on GSA tests.

I think I'll post a D2 forum poll about that. Look for it and vote.

Now, about the rest of the Mirak/Kzinti fleet: I used to love flying the CM+ and CCH against the Hydrans on RT2.5 -- the last ROOK-run campaign. I remember monumental battles with Dizzy in his Hydran skin. I would buy a couple cheap escort frigates (read: attrition units) to help against the fighters, and it was all a blast. I was not very good at PvP against Lyrans in those days, but RT2.5 had the kitties as friends. Why do players now spit on the CM+ and CCH? What am I missing?

About the D5XD (that's the right designation now that I have it in front of me) and the Kzinti ship it copied, Captain's Log 16 mentions a CMDX:

Quote:

(R3.206) Klingon D5XD: The Klingons built the first of these powerful scout/drone ships for independent bombardment missions (copying the Kzinti CMDX), but ended up using the handful that were built as fleet scouts in direct combat (as the Kzintis did), where they were powerful anti-drone platforms ... Year in Service 183 ... explosion strength 17 ... etc.

The D5XD has 8 drone racks: 4 GX and 4 BX. It has 4 sensors. It hs 4 Ph1 (2 FX, 1 LLR, 1 RRR) -- these would be PhX in OP. It has cargo instead of APR. And so on. One might guess the CMDX it copied also had sensors and 8 drone racks. I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to have a CMDX added based on the more readily available CMX using much the same design differences the D5XD exhibits from the D5X.

There's also a Federation DGX in that CL issue, which has 4 GX drones, 2 photons, and 6 Ph1 (PhX 3xFH, 3xRS, 3xLS).

As for other Kzinti SFB ships, the recent Module J2 has some more cruiser-sized carriers for Kzinti (along with similar ships for the other empires): the CVD interdiction carrier, which has no disruptors, 2 B and 2 C drones, 4 Ph1, 8 Ph3 and 24 fighters (16 in SFC); the CVP patrol carrier, with the 4 drones, just 4 Ph1, and 18 fighters (12 in SFC); the DDE destroyer escort (an oddly absent ship until now); and the CLE light escort cruiser (another previously missing ship).

CL 24 has the FKE escort frigate (improving the choice over the lame FFE) and the EBC/ABC escort battlecruiser (which was never actually produced because of the demand for BC hulls for other uses).

I'm pretty sure FS has already added the BF and HDW, which are both decent ships. Similarly there are the DNL, DND, and BBV.

Do any of these seem appealing? Is there a design that's missing? Will the hardpoint splits help specific ships (medium cruisers)?

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: CptCastrin on April 28, 2003, 06:16:02 pm

Quote:

Castrin, I KNOW I overreacted to your statement. I apologize. I'll tell you why, it's because of the longstanding hobbling of the Mirak (and to a lesser degree, the Klingons). It is driving me up the wall, so when our only uber ship is hit, too, it just seems like, great, I will NOT fly a BCH (or substitute something else). They all suck!

Our second generation x heavy cruisers are ridiculous. You can fly about 18 and charge. THAT is an x2-ship? Man, the XCA is a death trap, if the opponent has any savvy. I could go through the list. I KNOW the Z-CCX is god. I know it is unfair. I know that when I feel happy I am god, just for a moment, it's wrong, but after all the diminutions it feels like justice to me. I know that is wrong too, even bad, and I am not seeking to be caustic; I am just telling you how I and many Mirak feel.

Actually, your point about the CCX in 2300 is VERY WELL TAKEN. the Z-CCX cannot face a G-XCA, an F-XCA, etc. So, you know, I was just wrong to not notice that before. It is just a continuation of the same problem we've had all along.

I gotta find me a good brick wall to run into, because I am unsure how to proceed from here. Maybe the pain will take my mind off of it.

Peace to you Piece to me ...

No problem Kortez, totally understandable.

I'm not sure what can be done. Maybe a "true" SFB shiplist (SFCx was working on one but we haven't worked on it since the OP+ one was so popular) where all the Taldren created ships are tossed? Or just a closer look at what we have (Fluf says he's helping Firesoul with some isues) currently. Not sure. There are so many possibilities and so many ships.

I think the important issue here is not so much just the CCX but how do we reverse the "we only fly 10 ships" situation. That alone will not only help the Mirak but the other races as well as they will have more people to face in D2. But in all things the spirit of overall ballance must be maintained.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 28, 2003, 06:22:05 pm

Minor correction: though we did stop working on the SFB-based shiplist we intended (and still intend) to use for ToW, I have picked it up again and have been making progress over the past couple months. It's slow work and I do it generally only when I stay overnight on business trips (which is weekly now). However, aside from a few ships and some differences in approach, it is not a whole lot different from the OP+ list as far as ship choices, since we are both using SFB as source material.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 28, 2003, 06:39:08 pm

Quote:

I would like to hear the player opinions on FS's X1 still. Heck, maybe it's time for a mini-campaign JUST using Xes and late era ships to see where the balance issues are. Since it would be more of a balancing testbed, it could be up while bigger, more in-depth campaigns (like SG3) are going on. This might help FS find any issues with Xes without relying totally on GSA tests.

I think I'll post a D2 forum poll about that. Look for it and vote.

Now, about the rest of the Mirak/Kzinti fleet: I used to love flying the CM+ and CCH against the Hydrans on RT2.5 -- the last ROOK-run campaign. I remember monumental battles with Dizzy in his Hydran skin. I would buy a couple cheap escort frigates (read: attrition units) to help against the fighters, and it was all a blast. I was not very good at PvP against Lyrans in those days, but RT2.5 had the kitties as friends. Why do players now spit on the CM+ and CCH? What am I missing?

About the D5XD (that's the right designation now that I have it in front of me) and the Kzinti ship it copied, Captain's Log 16 mentions a CMDX:

Quote:

(R3.206) Klingon D5XD: The Klingons built the first of these powerful scout/drone ships for independent bombardment missions (copying the Kzinti CMDX), but ended up using the handful that were built as fleet scouts in direct combat (as the Kzintis did), where they were powerful anti-drone platforms ... Year in Service 183 ... explosion strength 17 ... etc.

The D5XD has 8 drone racks: 4 GX and 4 BX. It has 4 sensors. It hs 4 Ph1 (2 FX, 1 LLR, 1 RRR) -- these would be PhX in OP. It has cargo instead of APR. And so on. One might guess the CMDX it copied also had sensors and 8 drone racks. I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to have a CMDX added based on the more readily available CMX using much the same design differences the D5XD exhibits from the D5X.

There's also a Federation DGX in that CL issue, which has 4 GX drones, 2 photons, and 6 Ph1 (PhX 3xFH, 3xRS, 3xLS).

As for other Kzinti SFB ships, the recent Module J2 has some more cruiser-sized carriers for Kzinti (along with similar ships for the other empires): the CVD interdiction carrier, which has no disruptors, 2 B and 2 C drones, 4 Ph1, 8 Ph3 and 24 fighters (16 in SFC); the CVP patrol carrier, with the 4 drones, just 4 Ph1, and 18 fighters (12 in SFC); the DDE destroyer escort (an oddly absent ship until now); and the CLE light escort cruiser (another previously missing ship).

CL 24 has the FKE escort frigate (improving the choice over the lame FFE) and the EBC/ABC escort battlecruiser (which was never actually produced because of the demand for BC hulls for other uses).

I'm pretty sure FS has already added the BF and HDW, which are both decent ships. Similarly there are the DNL, DND, and BBV.

Do any of these seem appealing? Is there a design that's missing? Will the hardpoint splits help specific ships (medium cruisers)?

I don't own J2.
.. and I resist it a bit.. what about balance to the PF-using races in SFC? .. what do they get in addition?
-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 28, 2003, 06:48:37 pm

I'm just saying there are a few other SFB Kzinti ships out there. I agree the fighter races have it better than the PF ones. Even without adding J2 ships, that will be the case. The best fix I can think of is to try some of the mods for having PFs and fighters for all races, which is definitely not a general-use shiplist issue.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Fluf on April 28, 2003, 06:55:53 pm

What Kortez is trying to say here, is that the E rack which we tested in AOTK was originally a SFB rack designed for fast firing vs fighters and PFs. The Mirak/Kzin are the drone races. However, the Klingon D5D and the Federation NCD+ can outfly any Mirak equalivant drone cruiser such as the MDC+ any day of the week. The Feds and Klingons are both drone races too. The only distinct Mirak trait vs the other drone races is, that we are underpowered, have larger turning rates, and fewer good arcs and energy weapons. The Mirak must count on overwhelming their enemy with drones in order to succeed. Against the AI, this is usually fairly easy. Vs a live human player, it is almost impossible. The drone is the most easily defensable weapon in the game. With a limit of 12 drone control, and the addition of new SFB ships such as the LDR and such, it is even harder to hit a ship with a drone. In player vs player, the Kzin is forced to try to make the other player make a mistake, and get a lucky shot in, or run out of drones, and either die or run in defeat. Just ask Moggy or Dogmatix when the last time I hit them with a drone was!

Hence the move to carriers and being able to overwhelm your opponent with drones with the fighters. Ah but alas, we all now what SFC and all the fighter bugs have done. And with the cost of replacing fighters and fast drones in late, they become cost prohibitive very quickly.

What do the Mirak want?

More drones? Hell no. We dont want another drone bombardment cruiser like the MDCX.

We want a medium command cruiser and a heavy command cruiser that is equal to its Federation, Klingon and other race counterparts which is not dependant on drones, or give us our drones and our Mirvs so we can overwhelm the opponent and have a chance in PvP.

Recommendations to Firesoull

Check all Mirak ships with more than 2 Dizzies on a hardpoint, such as the CM CM+, MCC, MCV, MTT-CVA, CVA and split the dizzies and also take a look at expanding their arcs. Also take a look at the SCS and tell me why a Mirak would purchase that ship. Make it the Space Control ship it should be. It should be one of the most feared ships in the game along with the Fed SCS.

Look at how to make the MCC, CCH and BCH more competive ships vs other races counterparts.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Green on April 28, 2003, 07:08:39 pm

As a mirak who flys, in order, the DD, MCC, CC (yes, I actually use it), NCA, CCH, and BCH I agree with Flufster. I fly the mirak non-droners for the most part because I don't like fighters ... well, okay, because I can't use them right to save my life (but am trying to learn ... still). The ships have something to desire (i.e. power). But the DoE tweak to the MCC (split the dizzies) made a big difference. At least my fellow kzin stopped laughing at me for flying them.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 28, 2003, 07:22:34 pm

Quote:

I'm just saying there are a few other SFB Kzinti ships out there. I agree the fighter races have it better than the PF ones. Even without adding J2 ships, that will be the case. The best fix I can think of is to try some of the mods for having PFs and fighters for all races, which is definitely not a general-use shiplist issue.

Bingo. That's why there are no J2 ships yet.. other than the fact I didn't buy the module.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 28, 2003, 07:24:56 pm

Idea. Not for this version of shiplist. Needs to be discussed:

.. would raising the drone control of scout-channel equipped ships by 6, at a small BPV cost, be good?

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Fluf on April 28, 2003, 07:42:18 pm

Quote:

Idea. Not for this version of shiplist. Needs to be discussed:

.. would raising the drone control of scout-channel equipped ships by 6, at a small BPV cost, be good?

-- Luc

Possibly. As it stands now, the Mirak have only 2 ships in early era with 12 drone control. The DF and the CC until the MDC comes out in 2270. And I still dont understand why the Mirak Z-CD is a drone bombardment ship with only 6 drone control, and yet the Klingons get the D6D and the D6DB with 12 drone control. Just doesnt seem right that the "Drone Race" is out done in early era by the Klingons. Guess its just all them 30 year old ships the Kzin used for killing each other prior to 2263 were left over hehe. Even the CD+ refit still only has 6 drone control. Just another useless ship in the shipyard.

Oh and Nomad, I too used to love the CCH. It was one of my favorite ships to fly in SL. But it is sadly outclassed in most D2 enviorments. IMHO, the CCH and BCH only need 2 more points of power, and they might be competive. We tried this in a recent AOTK shiplist, making the BCH+ and the ship was almost flyable.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: IndyShark on April 28, 2003, 07:57:27 pm

Firesoul, I thought only scouts had this feature and I don't know any scouts that need the extra drone control.

Can you give an example where this would be of help?

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 28, 2003, 08:37:16 pm

Some ships are designated scouts.. but.. other non-scouts ships have been known to have sensor channels.
ie:
F-GSC has 4. It's a survey vessel.
Most PFTs have sensor channels.
Some Drone Bombardment ships have sensor channels...
etc.

.. a concrete example..
The Z-CD has a normal drone control of 6. It does have, however, 2 sensor channels.

Quote:

(G24.24) Controlling Seeking Weapons: Scouts can use one of their sensors to control up to 6 seeking weapons, in addition to (and irrespective of) whatever weapons the scout can normally control (F3.2). No more than 1 sensor channel per scout can be used for this purpose in a given turn. (.... snip)

Beginning of rule G24.0:

Quote:

Within these rules, any unit that has special sensor boxes (and thereby scout function channels) is considered to be a "scout", although for the purpose of (G21.01) only shpis designated as scouts are considered scouts. Note that (G21.0) does not apply to PF or shuttle crews (K1.326).

G21.0 is about crew quality.. so .. that part is not applicable here.

.. cleared up?

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Holocat on April 28, 2003, 11:30:19 pm

Quote:

A ship with 2, or 4 Mechlinks would have 2 PFs, following Taldren's style of doing things. A ship with 6 Mechlinks would have 4 PFs. Sometimes that should would even be called a "Casual PFT" because it just happened to become that way.
All Lyran "T" refits are as such.

.. as for balancing casual carriers with normal fighters..
.. Why the heck should the Mobile Carriers with 6 fighters be dropped down to 4 while Random J Casual Carrier would keep its 6? The balance is I want to apply the 2/3rds rule everywhere. No exceptions. .. That's why I want to talk about it first, because this could very well turn out that if too many people say "No!" I won't do it.

Fortunately, a lot of people have said instead "It's just 1 or 2 fighters? .. BPV adjustments? .. It's fair. Unfortunate for those who use those ships but fair."

-- Luc

Moble carriers that had six now with four? I'm so confused.

They'll be BVP adjustments? It's not the hit i'm worried about, it's the difference between a carrier-that-isn't-a-carrier, a casual carrier, and whatever-else-have-you carriers being too small to tatically see; Kinda makes some ship types redundant. Merge the HDW's and HDWC's then? *shrug*

And... uh... what's an HPT?

Oh, and... uh... why the sudden explosion concerning the Z-CCX? Funny, I thought no one liked *any* of the X-Ships here...

That would be three fighters in one squadron, rather than two and one fighter squadrons, right?

I didn't even know the Mirak were nerfed.

I'm still not clear on why the HDWE costs more than the HDW2; Do cargo boxes really cost that much?

Like I said, i'm no authority on how fighters should be balanced, I just think that the minimum difference in a ship carrying fighters needs to be no less than 2 for it to perform differently than another ship with a different number of fighters. Give a HDW no fighters and three for an HDWC? *shrug* I just want the HDW, their casual carriers, their mobile carriers, etc. to, well, be *different*.

Balance (bal*ance) n.

1. A weighing device, especially one consisting of a rigid beam horizontally suspended by a low-friction support at its center, with identical weighing pans hung at either end, one of which holds an unknown weight while the effective weight in the other is increased by known amounts until the beam is level and motionless,
2. A state of equilibrium or parity characterized by cancellation of all forces by equal opposing forces,
3. The power or means to decide,
4. The bloody and vicious trench warfare associated with online game modifications.

Holocat.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 29, 2003, 07:18:49 am

LOL, love that last line.

We got pretty far off-topic with some of the balance discussions, but I do think we've learned some things here.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Cleaven on April 29, 2003, 07:41:27 am

Regarding X-ships, do as you will, since it has been adequately demonstrated that the appearance of the MIRV at it's original OP time ends servers. Hence FS should seek to ensure that his list meets GSA style requirements while having playable ships for all empires. Then let server admins choose when they want their servers to end with their own individual shiplist adjustments. What I would like to see is, after a little bit of tweaking, that OP+ becomes the default (stock) list that all admins will start with (but not have to stick to). GSA requirements will mean that all the current X2-ships will have to stay in essentally as they are though, for those great 400 advanced games.

To achieve an X-ship balanced server which includes Taldren X-ships as they are now is a nightmare I would wish on no one because you may get applause for trying but very little satisfaction for the majority. Still, it will be an excuse to get online to play it so that it can be criticised.

As for Kzinti ship balance (and Rom for that matter) I don't like it when people say they have to have more power (or PD) to be able to play the game, when what they mean is that need more of factor x to survive a battle with empire y from the other side of the Alpha Quadrant. It is not simply a case of Kzinti were not meant to fight plasma (which is what the extra power is needed for) but that most of the empires were meant to fight certain other empires in certain timeframes. Add this to the fact that while there is balance built into GSA matches and SFB scenarios, nothing is built into D2, except bugs. I also think the ISC have more to complain about regarding fleet restrictions, but then I also think the ISC prior to late era is an abomination anyway.

Some Kzinti problems could be addressed by a few rules though (or actually lack of). Fleet limits for example, if Kzin need fleets of small ships to compete in PvP, then allow it for Kzinti players, but don't design a server where fleets of drone ships run amok, taking territory at a parsec a minute. And make the small ships expensive enough so that when the solo enemy CC knocks out one of the little droners then it is worthwhile, and not just one more mission to replace it. I don't see a problem with empire specific rules as long as a player only needs to know about half a page (to print out and keep handy if they need to).

Anyway the latter two paragraphs are about server design, which should come after this shiplist project which is the issue at hand. Once you have the default shiplist, design the server then go and make mods to the shiplist if you want to, so as to achieve the objective of the server.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 29, 2003, 08:53:19 am

Quote:

Moble carriers that had six now with four? I'm so confused.

If you want... I will publish the proposed changes generated by my script. Sec.
Please note, before reading this, that the number of deckcrews will have to be checked.

http://pet.dhs.org/~firesoul/sfc2/shiplist/fighters_balance_adjustment.txt

Quote:

They'll be BVP adjustments? It's not the hit i'm worried about, it's the difference between a carrier-that-isn't-a-carrier, a casual carrier, and whatever-else-have-you carriers being too small to tatically see; Kinda makes some ship types redundant. Merge the HDW's and HDWC's then? *shrug*

Actually.. I think the HDWs and HDWCs are already correct.

Quote:

And... uh... what's an HPT?

HPT? Where?

Quote:

Oh, and... uh... why the sudden explosion concerning the Z-CCX? Funny, I thought no one liked *any* of the X-Ships here...
That would be three fighters in one squadron, rather than two and one fighter squadrons, right?
I didn't even know the Mirak were nerfed.
I'm still not clear on why the HDWE costs more than the HDW2; Do cargo boxes really cost that much?

I don't know.
I'll decide the fighter squadrons as I move along.
I didn't know either.
The HDWE is properly configured, on the inside, to be able to call it an Escort. It has the "E" special role. This might come in handy in future scripting. It is a valid variant.

Like I said, i'm no authority on how fighters should be balanced, I just think that the minimum difference in a ship carrying fighters needs to be no less than 2 for it to perform differently than another ship with a different number of fighters. Give a HDW no fighters and three for an HDWC? *shrug* I just want the HDW, their casual carriers, their mobile carriers, etc. to, well, be *different*. The APRs were changed to Shuttlebays, btw.

Quote:

Balance (bal*ance) n.

1. A weighing device, especially one consisting of a rigid beam horizontally suspended by a low-friction support at its center, with identical weighing pans hung at either end, one of which holds an unknown weight while the effective weight in the other is increased by known amounts until the beam is level and motionless,
2. A state of equilibrium or parity characterized by cancellation of all forces by equal opposing forces,
3. The power or means to decide,
4. The bloody and vicious trench warfare associated with online game modifications.

Is it always like that?
-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: TarMinyatur on April 29, 2003, 10:56:18 am

Quote:

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

The F5 and E4 can fire one drone every other turn until they get the B refit. The F rack is appropriate.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 29, 2003, 11:22:43 am

Quote:

Quote:

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

The F5 and E4 can fire one drone every other turn until they get the B refit. The F rack is appropriate.

.. can you guide me to the rule?

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 29, 2003, 11:28:39 am

Quote:

http://www.mninter.net/~phdship/klndwc.gif

Holy cow, that sucker's a bit stronger than Taldren's DWC.

+2 Center Warp
+1 Ph1 on each wing
Ph1 -> Ph2 on waist
+1 B-rack
all for 9 less BPV! (163 vs 154)

And thus clearly should be added immediately. As should the K-DWV...but I'd add 2xDroB and at least an AMD12 (bumping up the BPV accordingly)

BTW, this is meant half tongue-in-cheek, and half "I really wouldn't mind it much."

Taldren's D5W and DWC really aren't that much fun to fly for us Klingons. The power curve sucks due to the increased move cost and phaser charging requirements. The marginal addtion of firepower (a couple of Ph1s in the case of the DWC, and the added Ph2s) just isn't worth having to slow down so much to charge these weapons. We'll almost without fail opt for a D5L. Basically, there isn't much the D5W/DWC can do that a D5L can't, so there's no reason to fly them.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 29, 2003, 11:30:34 am

Quote:

can you help me find the part that mentions 2272-2273 for the K refit in the SFB material?

..as for the Casual Carriers..... that change *IS* for them. I would not leave them alone. They need fixing. That's the issue, here... a balance overhaul for carriers, casual or not.

-- Luc

EDIT: All master ship charts show Y175..

No..because my SFB material is stuffed away in offsite storage. Going by Taldren's FYAs, that's when the K-refits come out. That was my actual point of reference.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: TarMinyatur on April 29, 2003, 11:33:32 am

Hmm, I'm looking for it now...and can't find it.

The F5 and E4 had Jump Racks installed right? As I look at the stats for Jump Racks they are the same as A-racks in rate of fire. I don't know why I thought that the F5 and E4 had 1 drone/2 turn firing restrictions. Wasn't there a description in R3 about early Klink drone firing rates? I can't find my Doomsday Basic rulebook and the F5/E4 SSDs.

Here's some ancient and probably useless info:
Commanders FD4.21: Klink ships can fire 1/2 of their drone racks (round up) per turn. That would give the F5/E4 essentially A-racks.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Kortez on April 29, 2003, 11:37:02 am

Quote:

Quote:

can you help me find the part that mentions 2272-2273 for the K refit in the SFB material?

..as for the Casual Carriers..... that change *IS* for them. I would not leave them alone. They need fixing. That's the issue, here... a balance overhaul for carriers, casual or not.

-- Luc

EDIT: All master ship charts show Y175..

No..because my SFB material is stuffed away in offsite storage. Going by Taldren's FYAs, that's when the K-refits come out. That was my actual point of reference.

I had all the SSDs as of 4/2002, but my wife threw EVERYTHING away, by accident. I could cry. Anyone know of a good place to order from to regain my status?

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 29, 2003, 11:39:11 am

Quote:

Quote:

[. .. I would however not follow that rule for PFs. It's going to be 2 PFs for a non PFT ship, and 4 for a Full PFT ship. It still kinda approximate to 2/3rds of SFb, but differently interpreted.

I hope this helps.
-- Luc

Just keep in mind that some ships are considered Full PFT's but in Taldrens list they have only 2 PF's attached to them and should have a full load of 4. Namely a few Lyrans, Lion DN, Wildcat BC, Hellcat BCH, etc. These are listed in the SFB R section as being full PF tenders and not casual carriers(due to the repair boxes I guess)

On the 1st Gen X-Ships, you kept the Mirak 1X did you keep all of the other wonder boats like the F-CCX and the K-DX or did you replace them with your subpar versions????

I'm kidding!!! Everyone knows who had the worst 1X ships in the game.

Yeah...the pirates. As a Syndicate Pirate on RT3, I quit playing when the advanced era hit. We couldn't compete really well in PvP before advanced era. When the advanced era hit, it was from really bad to laughable. Pirate X-ships were a joke. You couldn't even go speed 31 in them charging weapons or with them charged.

As far as the empire races go, yeah...I know what you're getting at...heheh...though I have defeated F-CCXs fairly often in the D7X, it's an uphill fight and darned near impossible if certain things occur.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 29, 2003, 11:39:24 am

In my experience, the module ship descriptions and/or SSDs themselves in Captain's Edition will specifically state rate of fire on the Klingon drone racks if they are limited in any way. While I do have some of the Klingon source material with me this week, it's in the luggage out in the car. Who knew I would need it at work?

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 29, 2003, 11:47:34 am

Kortez, that's a HUGE chunk of change you're talking about. I'd be doing much worse than crying. Think rubber room ...

I've bought almost all of my SFB stockpile in the past year (have some old Commander's Edition books and boxes stashed away). Aside from one trip to a local shop that was woefully understocked, I got it all from ADB's site (http://www.starfleetgames.com/). You can order directly from them by check or credit card, and I've never had a problem with getting everything in a timely manner. You have to pay for the shipping, but if you know what you want and don't need to flip through the books, it's definitely the easiest way to go. The only thing I wish they had was the old Module G1 Master Annex File in a new, revised edition including all the latest ships in the master ship chart. That I had to find in the store.

Good luck.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 29, 2003, 11:58:45 am

Hmmm ...

After re-reading the above, I noticed two things. First, I meant I found the old G1 module in a store, not that a newer one was available.

Second, I just gave away the location of about 1/4 of my SFB stash to someone who is looking to rebuild their collection, not to mention the rest of the yahoos on this forum.

Thankfully I should be in the hotel with my modules safely in hand before anyone can track down what city and office building I'm in.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 29, 2003, 12:11:51 pm

Quote:

I agree Nomad, the G Rack conversion does hurt. Hence my suggestion for the E rack. We used the E rack on AOTK and it seems it would be a natural addition to a 1stGen X ship. It would seem that the Kzin would have increased loadouts and the ability to fire faster as new technology. I would hope that this would be considered as a alternative. The E rack has a firing rate of a C Rack, but carry's 10 more drones per rack, thus allowing us to use it in fire support against PF's and fighters.

And what Kortez is talking about is the Kzin feeling that we have had ever since the introduction of this game. Every patch has screwed us in some way. Even the last patch for EAW and the G Rack debate gave us more BPV on some of our ships. Our BCH is just useless now, and it was always one of the worst BCH's in the game. Our CCH can barely come even with a F-CLC. Hence, most Mirak cannot compete in PvP 1 on 1 vs comparable ships and pilots. After all the drone debates and cheese debates that have gone on for years, we are a little gunshy in that respect.

Then our best ship that we have ever had, gets taken out of the shiplist and gutted, albeit it should be for balance. You can see where we might get a little angry at this.

If anything, the Kzin would like to become less dependant on drones, not more. We would rather have more power and energy weapons, so that we could stay in a fight on and even basis. Ah, but then we become to Klingon like. Which they dont like.

What the Kzin want is a ship capable of standing up to a D5, C7 or CLC or BCF in a 1 on 1 fight, without having to bring out the cheese.

As it stands now the Mirak only fly 10 ships no matter what list you make.

DF DD and CC in early
MDC,MDC+, MCC and CVA in mid
CVA through late

Thats it. And we only fly the MCC if its in a custom shiplist with the Dizzy points split. We basically have no medium or heavy command cruiser that can compete on and equal basis. Hence the backlash on the CCX.

I always though the Z-DWL was a pretty nice ship, eh?

I agree that dizzy hard points on several Mirak ships need to be split. In terms of playability and power problems, the massed hardpoints seem to be a major problem.

I agree E-racks make sense as a 1st generation x weapon mount. As you know, I wholly diagree with seeing them mounted on ships prior to that. To me, it's not needed and just ain't right.

When it comes to the viabilty of ships in today's dyna, I'm sure I can come up with a similarly small list of Klingon ships that are worthwhile. I mean..there's only seven or eight that I consider worth flying and most of those a late-middle to late era boats. We do have a larger shiplist to choose from, though...there's no doubt about it.

We discussed the ability to "compete" in the CL/NCA category when we hashed out the AOTK shiplist. i'm not sure we want to go through that again, but we can if anyone wishes. Did any of you guys even fly those new competitive ships? I never saw anyone in them....think the one's I'm speaking of are the MCC and the NCC..both of which, at least initially, had everything the better D5s have, came out earlier and sport more drone racks. I think we kiboshed the expanded dizzy arcs and left the 4 drones racks intact...but it's hard for me to remember for sure...that was a while ago, I guess...heheh.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 29, 2003, 12:20:26 pm

Quote:

Hmmm ...

After re-reading the above, I noticed two things. First, I meant I found the old G1 module in a store, not that a newer one was available.

Second, I just gave away the location of about 1/4 of my SFB stash to someone who is looking to rebuild their collection, not to mention the rest of the yahoos on this forum.

Thankfully I should be in the hotel with my modules safely in hand before anyone can track down what city and office building I'm in.

Next time you're in Ottawa, bring me a gift: J2 would be nice.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Rod O'neal on April 29, 2003, 12:30:35 pm

About the years for the Klink refits;
(R3.R1)Fleet "B" refits: Klingon ships built before the war started receiving the B refits in Y165. Nearly all of them had received them by Y168. The drone racks, previously limited to firing 1 drone per pair of racks per turn (FD4.3), were improved to allow each rack to fire each turn.
(R3.R2)"K" refits:Some ships received their K-refits as early as Y169 (prior to the dates on the master ship chart), and by Y175 all command ships (C9, C8, D7C, D5C, F5C) had received it, as perhaps 1/2 of the "direct combat" ships (standard warships carriers etc.) Virtually all direct combat ships had it by Y180. Some varients (minesweepers, scouts, drone ships, exploration ships, cargo transports, commando ships, PF tenders, and Penal ships) never received it.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 29, 2003, 12:37:57 pm

Luc, I've never been to Ottawa, and I seriously doubt a first visit anytime soon.

While I'd love to buy you a copy as a community reward for your hard work, I just dropped a few dimes on 5 Captain's Logs, so it will be a while before I order anything new (though Y1 is tempting me).

Most of J2 is on the heavy fighters (and their carriers) now available for most of the races. However, there are a few standard-fighter ships and escorts in there. There are also Andromedan "mobile weapon platforms" which are considered roughly equal to heavy fighters. When I'm back home this weekend, I may just have to send you a complete rundown of the contents.

Other fun SFB stuff:

For those who've checked out the cadet ships that come with EAW/OP in the SFB PDF, I just happened upon a site with more cadet ships plus the SSDs for the original group. The main page is directly linked as a cadet ship source from ADB's Star Fleet Rangers page. Check these out:

Cadet Cruisers
Alternate Cadet Cruisers

EDIT: Another useful SFB link is ADB's Product Update List, which tells you whether a product was revised at some point since it's first publication.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 29, 2003, 12:50:18 pm

Quote:

<snip>

What do the Mirak want?

More drones? Hell no. We dont want another drone bombardment cruiser like the MDCX.

We want a medium command cruiser and a heavy command cruiser that is equal to its Federation, Klingon and other race counterparts which is not dependant on drones, or give us our drones and our Mirvs so we can overwhelm the opponent and have a chance in PvP.

<snip>

Are you sure? heheh...

It shouldn't take much to make a Mirak command cruiser (CC) that can compete with that of the Klingons. Ours aren't especially good.

i'm in favor of providing such to the Mirak in so far as it doesn't already exists (read..minor tweaks to the Z-CC/+). We don't have a CCH. I wouldn't mind having a D8 or D10, though.

MCC is a pretty good ship. It just needs those dizzy hard points split so you can offline a bank of dizzys like we Klingons often have to do.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 29, 2003, 12:56:24 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

can you help me find the part that mentions 2272-2273 for the K refit in the SFB material?

..as for the Casual Carriers..... that change *IS* for them. I would not leave them alone. They need fixing. That's the issue, here... a balance overhaul for carriers, casual or not.

-- Luc

EDIT: All master ship charts show Y175..

No..because my SFB material is stuffed away in offsite storage. Going by Taldren's FYAs, that's when the K-refits come out. That was my actual point of reference.

I had all the SSDs as of 4/2002, but my wife threw EVERYTHING away, by accident. I could cry. Anyone know of a good place to order from to regain my status?

My wife only stuffed them away where I will likely never get to them. Same diff, but somehow not quite as bad, I guess.

I've been considering buying new stuff, so opposed am I to mucking around in the dusty, hot offsite storage.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Fluf on April 29, 2003, 02:09:03 pm

I agree Dogmatix, the CC is a fine ship.. Although if you notice, its not supposed to be that way. SFB I believe had it carrying 2 A racks and the CC+ was the refit to C and B racks. As it stands now, there is no difference in the CC and the CC+ in the stock shiplist. My personal opinion is the CC+ should get a 2AMD6 for its refit. Our CC is a good boat until 2270, then it becomes pretty much useless with the new fighters and other ships coming out between 2270 and 2273.

And yes the AOTK MCC was a great help, although we did kill the expanded Dizzy Arcs and took a Phaser off of it I think. It was still no match for a D5 series boat. Also the NCC that was added to the AOTK was used alot. I know Cougar, Green, Jinn and Hades used that boat alot and it was a fine addition to the fleet. It actually gave us a boat that could compete.

And I know you dont like the E rack and I agree with you, it should'nt be on any other ships, other then a 1st Gen X, but I do think it would be the logical progression that the Kzin would follow in their designing of a 1st Gen X ship.

For those of you who didnt see the NCC, it was basically modeled to a Fed NCC. This ship was prefered over the CCH in most cases.

Designation: Z-NCC
BPV: 161
Crew: 49
Marines: 18
Shield 1: 34
Shield 2 & 6: 30
Shield 3 & 5: 26
Shield 4: 26
Total Shields: 172

Movement Cost: 1
Turn Mode: C
Total Warp Power: 32
Impulse Power: 4
Aux Power: 3
Total Engine Power: 36
Battery: 5

Transporters: 5
Tractors: 3
Mech Tractors:
Shuttles: 3
Fighters:

4x Disruptor 3
2x Missle Rack B
2x Missle Rack E
8x Phaser 1
4x Phaser 3
2xADD12

This was the MCC in AOTK:

Designation: Z-MCC
BPV: 127
Crew: 43
Marines: 14
Shield 1: 36
Shield 2 & 6: 30
Shield 3 & 5: 24
Shield 4: 24
Total Shields: 168

Movement Cost: 0.67
Turn Mode: B
Total Warp Power: 24
Impulse Power: 4
Aux Power: 5
Total Engine Power: 28
Battery: 3

Transporters: 3
Tractors: 2
Mech Tractors:
Shuttles: 2
Fighters:

4x Disruptor 3 (split into 2 Hardpoints FA arc - we wanted FAR/FAL to counter the D5L's FHR, FHL)
2x Missle Rack B
2x Missle Rack E
6x Phaser 1
2xAMD6

The refit for the CC+ in AOTK was taking one of the Dizzy Hardpoints and making it and FX arc, expanding shuttles to 4 and adding the E rack to replace the C rack. It was never flown simply because flying a heavy cruiser in mid era with no AMD is a death blow.

Also notice the BCH+

Designation: Z-BCH+
BPV: 195
Crew: 64
Marines: 20
Shield 1: 36
Shield 2 & 6: 30
Shield 3 & 5: 24
Shield 4: 24
Total Shields: 168

Movement Cost: 1
Turn Mode: E
Total Warp Power: 30
Impulse Power: 6
Aux Power: 6
Total Engine Power: 36
Battery: 7

Transporters: 5
Tractors: 3
Mech Tractors:
Shuttles: 4
Fighters:

4x Disruptor 4
3x Missle Rack B
2x Missle Rack E
9x Phaser 1
7x Phaser 3
2xADD12

2 more power. Throw the G rack off. Mirak hate G Racks! E Rack added for more reloads to replace the C rack. This thing could almost fight a C7. And I said almost!

It still lost most of the time. Year released 2284.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Kortez on April 29, 2003, 02:21:00 pm

Quote:

Kortez, that's a HUGE chunk of change you're talking about. I'd be doing much worse than crying. Think rubber room ...

I've bought almost all of my SFB stockpile in the past year (have some old Commander's Edition books and boxes stashed away). Aside from one trip to a local shop that was woefully understocked, I got it all from ADB's site (http://www.starfleetgames.com/). You can order directly from them by check or credit card, and I've never had a problem with getting everything in a timely manner. You have to pay for the shipping, but if you know what you want and don't need to flip through the books, it's definitely the easiest way to go. The only thing I wish they had was the old Module G1 Master Annex File in a new, revised edition including all the latest ships in the master ship chart. That I had to find in the store.

Good luck.

What's the sense of getting angry? It won't bring back the materials, and it was an accident. I am not happy, but you know, what else can I do?

I will check out that site. Thanks, man.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Kortez on April 29, 2003, 02:31:05 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

can you help me find the part that mentions 2272-2273 for the K refit in the SFB material?

..as for the Casual Carriers..... that change *IS* for them. I would not leave them alone. They need fixing. That's the issue, here... a balance overhaul for carriers, casual or not.

-- Luc

EDIT: All master ship charts show Y175..

No..because my SFB material is stuffed away in offsite storage. Going by Taldren's FYAs, that's when the K-refits come out. That was my actual point of reference.

I had all the SSDs as of 4/2002, but my wife threw EVERYTHING away, by accident. I could cry. Anyone know of a good place to order from to regain my status?

My wife only stuffed them away where I will likely never get to them. Same diff, but somehow not quite as bad, I guess.

I've been considering buying new stuff, so opposed am I to mucking around in the dusty, hot offsite storage.

No, I would retrieve them if I could.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 29, 2003, 02:36:58 pm

Weighing in on the F-rack question (had a chance to peek at R3 while checking in at the hotel just now):

The SSDs of the affected ships (D6S for example) all seem to specify they could fire one drone per turn, or one drone per rack per turn with the B refit. Ships that came out before the B refit and have just one drone rack are not limited because only pairs of racks were affected by this rule. So, F-racks generally go on ships pre-B with 2 drone racks. The Taldren F-rack is, like many things, a close approximation of pre-B A-racks, but they fire half as quickly instead of the normal A-rack speed with a limitation on pairs. So, Klingons with F-racks get a slight disadvantage in that if they lose one F-rack, the other still fires at half speed rather than the full speed it would be able to achieve without a second rack competing for time.

About E-racks, I noticed the E3D has 2 of these. If I recall correctly, they use type-VI drones which aren't available for ship use in SFC, but only for fighters. The C-rack substitution seems like a fair translation in this instance, unless someone knows how to get fighter drones to work on a ship of the line. Heck, I wasn't aware there was an E-rack available in SFC until this discussion.

Can someone refresh my memory on X-ship drone racks (don't have that module with me)? Is there such a thing as CX racks? If so, wouldn't they be essentially like the E-racks people have described here?

On the Mirak X2s, has anyone tried testing a Mirak X with 1 heavy disruptor in place of 2 normal ones? I know the HDisr is a Klingon-only weapon in the stock Taldren list, but I wonder if it would help at all with the desire for more energy weapon crunch while also relieving some of the power drain? I'm just toying with an idea here, not being all that familiar with the HDisr stats after a long vacation from Xes.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 29, 2003, 02:42:57 pm

Kortez, I didn't mean to imply you should yell at the wife or anything, but rather that I'd be inclined toward drooling and banging my head against a wall like the stereotypical movie nuthouse resident. Think restraints and heavy medication. Of course, I'm just joking anyway.

I don't envy you this particular misfortune.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Kortez on April 29, 2003, 02:48:24 pm

Quote:

Kortez, I didn't mean to imply you should yell at the wife or anything, but rather that I'd be inclined toward drooling and banging my head against a wall like the stereotypical movie nuthouse resident. Think restraints and heavy medication. Of course, I'm just joking anyway. I don't envy you this particular misfortune.

Thanks, but, ... I already do that when I look at Kzinti ships and see that none of our advatages CAN carry over from SFB to SFC2. NO special mines, no special drones, no ships with more than 16 fighters. To me, SFB portrays the Kzin as if they were the dumbest idiots ever to live. We kill each other we get bashed into almost non-existence by never ending Klingon and Lyran attacks, the Feds give us tidbits to amuse ourselves and them with, and we fly garbage scows.

Where is that wall?

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 29, 2003, 03:44:15 pm

Quote:

Weighing in on the F-rack question (had a chance to peek at R3 while checking in at the hotel just now):
The SSDs of the affected ships (D6S for example) all seem to specify they could fire one drone per turn, or one drone per rack per turn with the B refit. Ships that came out before the B refit and have just one drone rack are not limited because only pairs of racks were affected by this rule. So, F-racks generally go on ships pre-B with 2 drone racks. The Taldren F-rack is, like many things, a close approximation of pre-B A-racks, but they fire half as quickly instead of the normal A-rack speed with a limitation on pairs. So, Klingons with F-racks get a slight disadvantage in that if they lose one F-rack, the other still fires at half speed rather than the full speed it would be able to achieve without a second rack competing for time.

Ok. thanks.

Quote:

About E-racks, I noticed the E3D has 2 of these. If I recall correctly, they use type-VI drones which aren't available for ship use in SFC, but only for fighters. The C-rack substitution seems like a fair translation in this instance, unless someone knows how to get fighter drones to work on a ship of the line. Heck, I wasn't aware there was an E-rack available in SFC until this discussion.

Type VI drones are supposed to only have 12 hexes of life. Unless we can also do that, I don't want to touch the E rack.
.. and BTW.. this is why I don't put the M rack on pre X2 ships. The MIRVed drones live for too long and split too early.

Quote:

Can someone refresh my memory on X-ship drone racks (don't have that module with me)? Is there such a thing as CX racks? If so, wouldn't they be essentially like the E-racks people have described here?

Yes.
CX racks have 3 reloads instead of 2. They are capable of using the X drones.

Quote:

On the Mirak X2s, has anyone tried testing a Mirak X with 1 heavy disruptor in place of 2 normal ones? I know the HDisr is a Klingon-only weapon in the stock Taldren list, but I wonder if it would help at all with the desire for more energy weapon crunch while also relieving some of the power drain? I'm just toying with an idea here, not being all that familiar with the HDisr stats after a long vacation from Xes.

I'd rather have 2 dizzies instead. BESIDES! .. the Heavy Disruptor has a leak feature when rolling a 1, I beleive.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Fluf on April 29, 2003, 03:49:29 pm

Nomad its not so much a question of crunch power on the X2 Mirak ships. They have that with the "all powerfull MIRV" (yeah right). Its a matter of power. As you know, speed is life in this game. Compare the following:

H-XCA - 60 power
L-XCA- 56 Power
K-XCA - 56 Power
F-XCA - 56 Power
I-XCA - 53 Power
G-XCA - 52 Power
R-XCA- 52 Power
Z-XCA- 42 Power

Z-CCX - 52 Power! That is the reason we are willing to fly it in 2300. We might live. None of the other Mirak X2 ships are flyable except the X-DD and the X-DG.

The Mirak X2 heavy cruisers just dont have enough power to manuever and fire weapons. Once they are out of drones and lose a shield, they are done. I would rather take my chances in a Z-CCX vs the other X2's in the game, then wallow in one of these tubs.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 29, 2003, 03:56:21 pm

Quote:

I agree Dogmatix, the CC is a fine ship.. Although if you notice, its not supposed to be that way. SFB I believe had it carrying 2 A racks and the CC+ was the refit to C and B racks. As it stands now, there is no difference in the CC and the CC+ in the stock shiplist. My personal opinion is the CC+ should get a 2AMD6 for its refit. Our CC is a good boat until 2270, then it becomes pretty much useless with the new fighters and other ships coming out between 2270 and 2273.

So we edit the CC per SFB specs? I'm in favor of the CC+ being fitted with 2xAMD6. It makes sense and is reasonable.

Quote:

And yes the AOTK MCC was a great help, although we did kill the expanded Dizzy Arcs and took a Phaser off of it I think. It was still no match for a D5 series boat. Also the NCC that was added to the AOTK was used alot. I know Cougar, Green, Jinn and Hades used that boat alot and it was a fine addition to the fleet. It actually gave us a boat that could compete.

I must have never run into those guys. I seem to remember running into Cougar in a CVS, and J'nn in some other boats, but not the NCC. I eaccept they they did indeed fly them. I just never had the pleasure of running into them during those times.

Well, I wouldn't say the MCC was "no match" for a D5 series boat. I mean..it probably competes as well as any of our D5 boats do vis a vis the other races, no? The two extra drone racks count for something..especially when fast drones are available. There's not a huge amount of differnce between the "fixed" MCC and the D5 boats. In addtion, I don't see much reason why we shouldn't have a sweet spot (if we can even call the D5 series that) when other races have their chonological and hull-class sweet spots. I mean...what do we have the competely fairly in Early vs. the Z-DN? Anyone think the C8V is better than the the Z-CVA?

Quote:

And I know you dont like the E rack and I agree with you, it should'nt be on any other ships, other then a 1st Gen X, but I do think it would be the logical progression that the Kzin would follow in their designing of a 1st Gen X ship.

I'm glad there's some agreement there. I look forward to its future use as a "sort of" 1st generation x-weapon mount.

Quote:

This was the MCC in AOTK:

Designation: Z-MCC
<snip>
4x Disruptor 3 (split into 2 Hardpoints FA arc - we wanted FAR/FAL to counter the D5L's FHR, FHL)

<snip>

I think the split of the hardpoints is absolutely proper, but I didn't think it a good thing to retain all four drone racks and then also get the expanded disruptor arcs in an effort to create a Miraki dogfighter. Drop two racks and add the expanded disruptor arcs or leave the ship's racks intact and keep the FA arc. This seems emminently fair to me.

Quote:

The refit for the CC+ in AOTK was taking one of the Dizzy Hardpoints and making it and FX arc, expanding shuttles to 4 and adding the E rack to replace the C rack. It was never flown simply because flying a heavy cruiser in mid era with no AMD is a death blow.

These modifications make sense, though I note that unless we take into account new Klingon variants in the AOTK shiplist, we do not have a CC or refitted CC with expanded disruptor arcs, let alone FX arcs. The addtion of some AMD (how much needs to be examined) to a heavy command cruiser belonging to an drone/AMD-using race only makes sense. I would not argue against such a change.

Quote:

Also notice the BCH+

Designation: Z-BCH+

<snip>

2 more power. Throw the G rack off. Mirak hate G Racks! E Rack added for more reloads to replace the C rack. This thing could almost fight a C7. And I said almost! It still lost most of the time. Year released 2284.

Again..."almost" can be considered fine since there are similar instances in which Klingon ships do not stack up favorably vis a vis Miraki ships (or those of other races). We can either decide to create parity at all class levels or we can continue with the model of disparity at the various hull class levels. Depending upon which way we choose to go, the arguments for or against change dramatically.

How many times did you lose in a Z-CVA vs. K-anything battle? I'm aware multiple players with multiple ships can and did win, but what about a 1 on 1 battle. Would you consider any single Klingon ship a threat (barring the obvious and usually unavailable B10/K/V or B11K).

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 29, 2003, 04:01:18 pm

Quote:

H-XCA - 60 power
L-XCA- 56 Power
K-XCA - 56 Power
F-XCA - 56 Power
I-XCA - 53 Power
G-XCA - 52 Power
R-XCA- 52 Power
Z-XCA- 42 Power

Z-CCX - 52 Power!

Wow. That seems pretty bad, but you know what else looks bad? The Plasma races get less power than the Klingons and Federation, who have drones on board. Since drones don't cost any power to use, I could understand a Mirak having less power because they have fewer energy-draining weapons, but then the Fed and Klingon ships should also be lower than they are now using that rationale, though their X-heavies do cost power wheras the MIRV doesn't. As an experiment, has anyone tried giving ALL XCAs 56 power, except the Hydran 60 (though I'm not clear why theirs would be so high, unless it's due to hold costs)? Or, try the 52-53 range?

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 29, 2003, 04:03:40 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Kortez, I didn't mean to imply you should yell at the wife or anything, but rather that I'd be inclined toward drooling and banging my head against a wall like the stereotypical movie nuthouse resident. Think restraints and heavy medication. Of course, I'm just joking anyway. I don't envy you this particular misfortune.

Thanks, but, ... I already do that when I look at Kzinti ships and see that none of our advatages CAN carry over from SFB to SFC2. NO special mines, no special drones, no ships with more than 16 fighters. To me, SFB portrays the Kzin as if they were the dumbest idiots ever to live. We kill each other we get bashed into almost non-existence by never ending Klingon and Lyran attacks, the Feds give us tidbits to amuse ourselves and them with, and we fly garbage scows.

Where is that wall?

Things are tough all over, mah brutha. We Klingons get to play the part of the Evil Empire (Soviets). We all know how that worked out...heheh.

Nor are you the Hydran's bitch in Early Era PvP.

At least your people aren't shown constantly being defeated or made into charicatures on the various weekly Star Trek dramatic series.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 29, 2003, 04:04:01 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

can you help me find the part that mentions 2272-2273 for the K refit in the SFB material?

..as for the Casual Carriers..... that change *IS* for them. I would not leave them alone. They need fixing. That's the issue, here... a balance overhaul for carriers, casual or not.

-- Luc

EDIT: All master ship charts show Y175..

No..because my SFB material is stuffed away in offsite storage. Going by Taldren's FYAs, that's when the K-refits come out. That was my actual point of reference.

I had all the SSDs as of 4/2002, but my wife threw EVERYTHING away, by accident. I could cry. Anyone know of a good place to order from to regain my status?

My wife only stuffed them away where I will likely never get to them. Same diff, but somehow not quite as bad, I guess.

I've been considering buying new stuff, so opposed am I to mucking around in the dusty, hot offsite storage.

No, I would retrieve them if I could.

Pardon me.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 29, 2003, 04:12:30 pm

Quote:

Quote:

H-XCA - 60 power
L-XCA- 56 Power
K-XCA - 56 Power
F-XCA - 56 Power
I-XCA - 53 Power
G-XCA - 52 Power
R-XCA- 52 Power
Z-XCA- 42 Power

Z-CCX - 52 Power!

Wow. That seems pretty bad, but you know what else looks bad? The Plasma races get less power than the Klingons and Federation, who have drones on board. Since drones don't cost any power to use, I could understand a Mirak having less power because they have fewer energy-draining weapons, but then the Fed and Klingon ships should also be lower than they are now using that rationale, though their X-heavies do cost power wheras the MIRV doesn't. As an experiment, has anyone tried giving ALL XCAs 56 power, except the Hydran 60 (though I'm not clear why theirs would be so high, unless it's due to hold costs)? Or, try the 52-53 range?

The K-XCA may have a few more points of power, but it lacks the crunch of the G and R-XCAs, drones are finite (plasma is not) and far less useful in an era rife with PhG and PlasD (Miraki MIRVs overcome this problem) and the holding cost of all forms of disruptors is pretty high when you consider their damage potential.

I can see the problem with the Z-XCA sitting at 42 power. That would appear to beed some "repairing" at least on a testing basis. In my humble opinion. there is no problem with any of the power levels of the other ships, though I do wonder why the H-XCA has four more power than the next closest race. I know Hydran X-ships are quite good...heheh.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 29, 2003, 04:17:22 pm

Quote:

Quote:

I agree Dogmatix, the CC is a fine ship.. Although if you notice, its not supposed to be that way. SFB I believe had it carrying 2 A racks and the CC+ was the refit to C and B racks. As it stands now, there is no difference in the CC and the CC+ in the stock shiplist. My personal opinion is the CC+ should get a 2AMD6 for its refit. Our CC is a good boat until 2270, then it becomes pretty much useless with the new fighters and other ships coming out between 2270 and 2273.

So we edit the CC per SFB specs? I'm in favor of the CC+ being fitted with 2xAMD6. It makes sense and is reasonable.

SFB specs: there are no ADDs on the Z-CC, refitted or not.

Quote:

Quote:

And I know you dont like the E rack and I agree with you, it should'nt be on any other ships, other then a 1st Gen X, but I do think it would be the logical progression that the Kzin would follow in their designing of a 1st Gen X ship.

I'm glad there's some agreement there. I look forward to its future use as a "sort of" 1st generation x-weapon mount.

I .. .. won't let OP+ become a test shiplist for experiments. Sorry.

Quote:

Quote:

This was the MCC in AOTK:
Designation: Z-MCC
<snip>
4x Disruptor 3 (split into 2 Hardpoints FA arc - we wanted FAR/FAL to counter the D5L's FHR, FHL)

<snip>

I think the split of the hardpoints is absolutely proper, but I didn't think it a good thing to retain all four drone racks and then also get the expanded disruptor arcs in an effort to create a Miraki dogfighter. Drop two racks and add the expanded disruptor arcs or leave the ship's racks intact and keep the FA arc. This seems emminently fair to me.

I fully intend to do what I can about mounts that can be split.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 29, 2003, 04:18:06 pm

So, are we thinking the Z-XCA deserves 52 power? 54? 56? I'd opt for 52 and see how that flies, then up it if needed. Certainly I see no reason why an X1 would have more power than an X2 of the same race. FS, could this possibly be asked in the testers' forum?

Of course, this is all speculative without test results. Now I wish I were at home where my OP is.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Fluf on April 29, 2003, 04:20:07 pm

Quote:

Quote:

H-XCA - 60 power
L-XCA- 56 Power
K-XCA - 56 Power
F-XCA - 56 Power
I-XCA - 53 Power
G-XCA - 52 Power
R-XCA- 52 Power
Z-XCA- 42 Power

Z-CCX - 52 Power!

Wow. That seems pretty bad, but you know what else looks bad? The Plasma races get less power than the Klingons and Federation, who have drones on board. Since drones don't cost any power to use, I could understand a Mirak having less power because they have fewer energy-draining weapons, but then the Fed and Klingon ships should also be lower than they are now using that rationale, though their X-heavies do cost power wheras the MIRV doesn't. As an experiment, has anyone tried giving ALL XCAs 56 power, except the Hydran 60 (though I'm not clear why theirs would be so high, unless it's due to hold costs)? Or, try the 52-53 range?

True, however most know that the Gorn XCA is the best in the game too. I think its just a matter of balancing these ships a little more, and I wish Firesoul or somebody could do this based on SFB instead of Taldrens weird approach to the X2 ships. Hence my reasoning that trying to put another heavy weapon on a Mirak ship, would just exagerate the power problem even more. I think Taldren just felt they had to give the Mirak a cut somewhere, with the introduction of the all powerfull Mirv in the game. If you remember, the Mirv was the most feared weapon in the forums when the game first came out and everyone was complaining about the Mirak X2 ships. After awhile, everyone learned drone defense and this arguement went away leaving the Mirak far behind in the X2 level.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 29, 2003, 04:21:05 pm

Quote:

So, are we thinking the Z-XCA deserves 52 power? 54? 56? I'd opt for 52 and see how that flies, then up it if needed. Certainly I see no reason why an X1 would have more power than an X2 of the same race. FS, could this possibly be asked in the testers' forum?

Of course, this is all speculative without test results. Now I wish I were at home where my OP is.

What we really need is someone to change it and play it against another player a few times..
.. and tell me how it went. It shouldn't be OTT, nor underpowered.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 29, 2003, 04:21:28 pm

And, yes, I agree with FireSoul's stance on OP+ being a list based on SFB and not a testbed. Maybe with good testing results, the Z-XCA could be redesigned and even submitted to Taldren for consideration. Or, maybe FS would consider changing it in his list if he felt a revised one necessary. Bottom line, it's his list. People are certainly free to make their own custom lists.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 29, 2003, 04:23:38 pm

I understand all of that, Luc. I wasn't suggesting you would. We have gone off on a minor tangent.

As far as the E-rack on 1st generation x-ships, it seems proper to use them as a reasonable approximation of the CX rack. I can see not fault in this logic. Anyone?

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 29, 2003, 04:25:06 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

H-XCA - 60 power
L-XCA- 56 Power
K-XCA - 56 Power
F-XCA - 56 Power
I-XCA - 53 Power
G-XCA - 52 Power
R-XCA- 52 Power
Z-XCA- 42 Power

Z-CCX - 52 Power!

Wow. That seems pretty bad, but you know what else looks bad? The Plasma races get less power than the Klingons and Federation, who have drones on board. Since drones don't cost any power to use, I could understand a Mirak having less power because they have fewer energy-draining weapons, but then the Fed and Klingon ships should also be lower than they are now using that rationale, though their X-heavies do cost power wheras the MIRV doesn't. As an experiment, has anyone tried giving ALL XCAs 56 power, except the Hydran 60 (though I'm not clear why theirs would be so high, unless it's due to hold costs)? Or, try the 52-53 range?

True, however most know that the Gorn XCA is the best in the game too. I think its just a matter of balancing these ships a little more, and I wish Firesoul or somebody could do this based on SFB instead of Taldrens weird approach to the X2 ships. Hence my reasoning that trying to put another heavy weapon on a Mirak ship, would just exagerate the power problem even more. I think Taldren just felt they had to give the Mirak a cut somewhere, with the introduction of the all powerfull Mirv in the game. If you remember, the Mirv was the most feared weapon in the forums when the game first came out and everyone was complaining about the Mirak X2 ships. After awhile, everyone learned drone defense and this arguement went away leaving the Mirak far behind in the X2 level.

Based on SFB? .. I truncate the shiplist and toss these out if this was based on SFB.

.. but .. OP+ .. it's an enhancement to the stock shiplist. The idea is to preserve anything that is unique to SFC..

.. see.. I tossed out the X1 ships thinking no one would mind or notice if I replaced them with the real ones. I didn't realize the Z-CCX was that much better than the Z-XCA. It's reappearance as the Z-CCX2 will fix that problem, I would think.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 29, 2003, 04:27:09 pm

Quote:

I understand all of that, Luc. I wasn't suggesting you would. We have gone off on a minor tangent.
As far as the E-rack on 1st generation x-ships, it seems proper to use them as a reasonable approximation of the CX rack. I can see not fault in this logic. Anyone?

The CX rack is a C rack with 3 reloads. Simple, eh?
.. how many drones are in a E rack? How fast does it reload exactly? .

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Kortez on April 29, 2003, 04:33:01 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Kortez, I didn't mean to imply you should yell at the wife or anything, but rather that I'd be inclined toward drooling and banging my head against a wall like the stereotypical movie nuthouse resident. Think restraints and heavy medication. Of course, I'm just joking anyway. I don't envy you this particular misfortune.

Thanks, but, ... I already do that when I look at Kzinti ships and see that none of our advatages CAN carry over from SFB to SFC2. NO special mines, no special drones, no ships with more than 16 fighters. To me, SFB portrays the Kzin as if they were the dumbest idiots ever to live. We kill each other we get bashed into almost non-existence by never ending Klingon and Lyran attacks, the Feds give us tidbits to amuse ourselves and them with, and we fly garbage scows.

Where is that wall?

Things are tough all over, mah brutha. We Klingons get to play the part of the Evil Empire (Soviets). We all know how that worked out...heheh.

Nor are you the Hydran's bitch in Early Era PvP.

At least your people aren't shown constantly being defeated or made into charicatures on the various weekly Star Trek dramatic series.

I don't care how we are portrayed. I only care about the ships we fly, since this is not a RPG bro :P muahahahahahaha

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 29, 2003, 04:34:28 pm

Quote:

And, yes, I agree with FireSoul's stance on OP+ being a list based on SFB and not a testbed. Maybe with good testing results, the Z-XCA could be redesigned and even submitted to Taldren for consideration. Or, maybe FS would consider changing it in his list if he felt a revised one necessary. Bottom line, it's his list. People are certainly free to make their own custom lists.

Thanks Nomad. You said it well..
.. if a balanced better version of the invented version is decided on, I might go for it.

.. but!!
- the SFB ships are going to stay as-is.. any correction would be to SFBize it.
- the invented ships from Taldren are to be left alone.. unless corrections are really needed.
- any other invented ships except from official SFB printed modules or material will be turned down.
- ships from new modules coming out will be.. weighed for balance. An exmaple is J2 based ships.. .. unbalances the shiplist towards non-PF races.
- the original Taldren fighters will remain.. no additional fighters added.
- note that I copied the fighters' data from empires to pirate races, but they're the same fighters.
- note that I have accepted raising the cost of the Killerbee.I and will make appropriate BPV adjustments in the shiplist.

strict, isn't it? These above are all about ship additions tho, not balance.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 29, 2003, 04:34:36 pm

The E-rack is, in effect, a B-rack that loads as fast as a C-rack.

If you can somehow address the "problem" with adding reloads to the stock C-rack, I suppose that's fine.

Incidentally...that raises a question. The D5DR in your shiplist is the same as a D5D, but supposedly has extra "reloads." How is this manifested? I see no difference between it and the stock D5D in terms of systems, maximum drone load (90) or the "free refills" (36) you get after a mission. What have I missed?

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 29, 2003, 04:37:17 pm

Quote:

The E-rack is, in effect, a B-rack that loads as fast as a C-rack.

If you can somehow address the "problem" with adding reloads to the stock C-rack, I suppose that's fine.

Incidentally...that raises a question. The D5DR in your shiplist is the same as a D5D, but supposedly has extra "reloads." How is this manifested? I see no difference between it and the stock D5D in terms of systems, maximum drone load (90) or the "free refills" (36) you get after a mission. What have I missed?

For a player, there is no difference.
For a generated AI, which is ALWAYS created stock, that exrta reload means a scatter pack.. and many more firing chances.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Rod O'neal on April 29, 2003, 04:42:00 pm

[quote

Wow. That seems pretty bad, but you know what else looks bad? The Plasma races get less power than the Klingons and Federation, who have drones on board. Since drones don't cost any power to use, I could understand a Mirak having less power because they have fewer energy-draining weapons, but then the Fed and Klingon ships should also be lower than they are now using that rationale, though their X-heavies do cost power wheras the MIRV doesn't. As an experiment, has anyone tried giving ALL XCAs 56 power, except the Hydran 60 (though I'm not clear why theirs would be so high, unless it's due to hold costs)? Or, try the 52-53 range?

The Hydrans get more power in SFB because all of their weapons use power, unlike the drone races, including rearming their fighter's fusions and hellbores

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 29, 2003, 04:46:03 pm

Quote:

[quote

Wow. That seems pretty bad, but you know what else looks bad? The Plasma races get less power than the Klingons and Federation, who have drones on board. Since drones don't cost any power to use, I could understand a Mirak having less power because they have fewer energy-draining weapons, but then the Fed and Klingon ships should also be lower than they are now using that rationale, though their X-heavies do cost power wheras the MIRV doesn't. As an experiment, has anyone tried giving ALL XCAs 56 power, except the Hydran 60 (though I'm not clear why theirs would be so high, unless it's due to hold costs)? Or, try the 52-53 range?

The Hydrans get more power in SFB because all of their weapons use power, unlike the drone races, including rearming their fighter's fusions and hellbores

Which never run out.

One thing people seem to always omit is that:

#1 Drones are finite

#2 One can always offline fusions if his hellbores aren't charging, and visa versa.

What does a Klingon do when his dizzies won't charge? Turn them off.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 29, 2003, 04:48:10 pm

Quote:

Quote:

The E-rack is, in effect, a B-rack that loads as fast as a C-rack.

If you can somehow address the "problem" with adding reloads to the stock C-rack, I suppose that's fine.

Incidentally...that raises a question. The D5DR in your shiplist is the same as a D5D, but supposedly has extra "reloads." How is this manifested? I see no difference between it and the stock D5D in terms of systems, maximum drone load (90) or the "free refills" (36) you get after a mission. What have I missed?

For a player, there is no difference.
For a generated AI, which is ALWAYS created stock, that exrta reload means a scatter pack.. and many more firing chances.

-- Luc

Ah..okay...so the "R" refit in this case is useless to the player. How, then, would you deal with this reload factor in lieu of instituting E-racks so that it would be useful to an actual player?

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 29, 2003, 04:58:07 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

The E-rack is, in effect, a B-rack that loads as fast as a C-rack.

If you can somehow address the "problem" with adding reloads to the stock C-rack, I suppose that's fine.

Incidentally...that raises a question. The D5DR in your shiplist is the same as a D5D, but supposedly has extra "reloads." How is this manifested? I see no difference between it and the stock D5D in terms of systems, maximum drone load (90) or the "free refills" (36) you get after a mission. What have I missed?

For a player, there is no difference.
For a generated AI, which is ALWAYS created stock, that exrta reload means a scatter pack.. and many more firing chances.

-- Luc

Ah..okay...so the "R" refit in this case is useless to the player. How, then, would you deal with this reload factor in lieu of instituting E-racks so that it would be useful to an actual player?

Easy. The E racks are supposed to be Drones type IV racks only. These drones are supposed to have a life of 12 hexes, no more. I will NOT put E racks in. Especially if just because players want them.
Sorry guys, I didn't have to think hard about that one. The E rack was never even a topic I asked about in this thread either.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 29, 2003, 05:04:52 pm

Well, it's part and parcel of the discussion about the 1st generation Mirak X-ship, in which you've been taking part, nes pas?

As for the rest of your post, I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying other than you're not putting them in, no way, no how (which I get).

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 29, 2003, 05:08:03 pm

Oh.

Ok.. if ever I changed my mind and decided that X1 ships should have the correct loadouts .. that over the importance of the correct weaponry displayed, I would then use B racks for the GX, and E racks for the CX.

.. but I use the G and C racks as is, with 3 reloads instead of 2 as per SFB on the stock ship. I found the aestatics.. the look and feel, to be important.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Corbomite on April 29, 2003, 05:09:09 pm

Quote:

H-XCA - 60 power
L-XCA- 56 Power
K-XCA - 56 Power
F-XCA - 56 Power
I-XCA - 53 Power
G-XCA - 52 Power
R-XCA- 52 Power
Z-XCA- 42 Power

Where did you get these numbers? The X2 ships are as follows:

H-XCA - 66 power

L-XCA - 62 power

K-XCA - 62 power

F-XCA - 58 power

I-XCA - 60 power

G-XCA - 58 power

R-XCA - 59 power

Z-XCA - 48 power

The Z-CCX has 57 power, not 52.

Seems to me the simplest solution is to make the Mirak X2 ships have 56-58 power and they would be fine. They don't need more because they don't have the Heavy Dizzys or Phaser B's to hold, which is why the Klingons have so much. The Lyrans have the ESG Lance to charge as well as the regular ESG and Phaser B's so same story with them. With the new HB charging and holding costs the Hydrans should be trimmed back a bit except for the XCB. The ISC got nothing new, just more of what they had and some Phaser A/B's, even still they are slow, but pack a punch. The Feds have the best long range weapon in the game so they don't need any more power even though they are underpowered for what they pack. E and X Plasma aren't that expensive to hold and other Plasma can be downgraded if power is needed, so the Roms and Gorn are fine.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Fluf on April 29, 2003, 05:18:21 pm

Sorry FS, but I hate the G rack. Taldren never fixed it as they should have and could have. I know you are doing your shiplist based on SFB and I salute you for that. But unfortunately, SFB doesnt always translate to SFC in a balanced way. All we were doing was giving you an alternative that seemed a logical progression to the Kzin X1 ships. The only problem is that if your shiplist is used as the standard shiplist in OP play on a particular server, this could be a problem.

But your right, any admin can change and do the shiplist as he wants, so I guess this is a moot point. Thanks for all your hard work.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 29, 2003, 05:26:51 pm

Quote:

Sorry FS, but I hate the G rack. Taldren never fixed it as they should have and could have. I know you are doing your shiplist based on SFB and I salute you for that. But unfortunately, SFB doesnt always translate to SFC in a balanced way. All we were doing was giving you an alternative that seemed a logical progression to the Kzin X1 ships. The only problem is that if your shiplist is used as the standard shiplist in OP play on a particular server, this could be a problem.

But your right, any admin can change and do the shiplist as he wants, so I guess this is a moot point. Thanks for all your hard work.

A lot of people hate the G rack.
.. but I have adopted it as a rule for this shiplist. .. it's .. well.. very SFC like.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Kortez on April 29, 2003, 06:07:45 pm

Quote:

[quote

Wow. That seems pretty bad, but you know what else looks bad? The Plasma races get less power than the Klingons and Federation, who have drones on board. Since drones don't cost any power to use, I could understand a Mirak having less power because they have fewer energy-draining weapons, but then the Fed and Klingon ships should also be lower than they are now using that rationale, though their X-heavies do cost power wheras the MIRV doesn't. As an experiment, has anyone tried giving ALL XCAs 56 power, except the Hydran 60 (though I'm not clear why theirs would be so high, unless it's due to hold costs)? Or, try the 52-53 range?

The Hydrans get more power in SFB because all of their weapons use power, unlike the drone races, including rearming their fighter's fusions and hellbores

Come on! The Mirak X heavies are horrible pieces of junk. You try flying one and you will see. Good luck cruising around at about speed 15.

And yes, this is FS's shiplist, and he can do what he wants with it. I can tell you this, though, since I know the Mirak are going to get the worst x-ships by far, I cannot imagine any reason to fly Mirak unless you just like sacrificing yourself so everybody else can have a good old time at your expense.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 29, 2003, 06:13:34 pm

You know what you should do, Kortez. Nevermind flying Mirak wishing you have Klingon tools. Just fly Klingon, mah brutha!

I know that isn't the point, but it's a thought!

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Kortez on April 29, 2003, 06:17:56 pm

Quote:

You know what you should do, Kortez. Nevermind flying Mirak wishing you have Klingon tools. Just fly Klingon, mah brutha!

I know that isn't the point, but it's a thought!

Hmmm ... you have a point, you know, and I love the K-XCA!

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Fluf on April 29, 2003, 06:53:17 pm

Doh, actually Kortez was a Klingon in the GFL and we kidnapped him. So his change over to the Mirak shiplist has been, well for lack of better words, less then stellar for him. He just plain thinks the Mirak shiplist sucks. Unfortunately, I have to agree with him on alot of his points. But I have always flown Mirak since the game came out and have always managed to overcome.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Rod O'neal on April 29, 2003, 07:25:40 pm

[quote

The Hydrans get more power in SFB because all of their weapons use power, unlike the drone races, including rearming their fighter's fusions and hellbores

Come on! The Mirak X heavies are horrible pieces of junk. You try flying one and you will see. Good luck cruising around at about speed 15.

This was just to answer why the Hydrans get so much power. It's a carry over from SFB, where they need it. Since it doesn't cost anything to arm ftr fusions and HBs in SFC it's probably out of whack. Except that when a Hydran looses his/her ftrs then they're undergunned. Since fusion ftrs have to fly through a sh*tstorm of phasers and adds to get a shot off, loosing ftrs happens pretty fast. I understand what everyone is saying about the mirak x-ships. Even the Klingons aren't disputing that.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Kortez on April 29, 2003, 07:51:47 pm

Quote:

[quote

The Hydrans get more power in SFB because all of their weapons use power, unlike the drone races, including rearming their fighter's fusions and hellbores

Come on! The Mirak X heavies are horrible pieces of junk. You try flying one and you will see. Good luck cruising around at about speed 15.

I know, and I certainly am not trying to be obnoxious (tough I achieve that effortlessly, with sprezzatura), nor to appear to be getting down on anyone (thought that obnoxious Klingon attitude of mine always pops up--ok, I admit it, I am a real Klingon spy on Earth).

It's just I am passionate about the Mirak shiplist. Fluf is right. I think their ships SUCK!

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: IndyShark on April 29, 2003, 08:10:21 pm

Firesoul, can you check the Democracy class battlecruisers to see why they only have 2 gattling phasers and the LDR light and heavy cruisers all have 4? It seems to me that this is a mistake, but perhaps that is correct as far as SFB goes.

Thanks!

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Corbomite on April 29, 2003, 08:23:17 pm

Quote:

Firesoul, can you check the Democracy class battlecruisers to see why they only have 2 gattling phasers and the LDR light and heavy cruisers all have 4? It seems to me that this is a mistake, but perhaps that is correct as far as SFB goes.

Thanks!

I'm no expert, but I think it might have to do with the fact that they have 6 Disruptors and 4 ESG's vs 4 Disruptors and 2 ESG's.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 29, 2003, 08:25:01 pm

Quote:

Firesoul, can you check the Democracy class battlecruisers to see why they only have 2 gattling phasers and the LDR light and heavy cruisers all have 4? It seems to me that this is a mistake, but perhaps that is correct as far as SFB goes.

Thanks!

It's accurate..
.. they opted for 2 ph1s LS/RS 2 phGs LS/RS .. instead of 4 phGs LS/RS.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Holocat on April 30, 2003, 03:56:24 am

Quote:

Quote:

They'll be BVP adjustments? It's not the hit i'm worried about, it's the difference between a carrier-that-isn't-a-carrier, a casual carrier, and whatever-else-have-you carriers being too small to tatically see; Kinda makes some ship types redundant. Merge the HDW's and HDWC's then? *shrug*

Actually.. I think the HDWs and HDWCs are already correct.

I read the fighter change text file; Woah. That's just nuts. I love it. I can see where the fighter change is going now, and I find myself in favour; non-carrier types with less, dedicated carriers generally holding more. Auxalleries will become... intresting.

I woudn't even mind the 4 to 3 with the way the list seems to be going, but I should really shaddup before I influence anything, as i'm biased

Quote:

Quote:

And... uh... what's an HPT?

HPT? Where?

It was brought up from the depths of the SFB swamp when talking about the Z-CCX; It's not in, but I don't know what it is. What is it?

Quote:

Quote:

Oh, and... uh... why the sudden explosion concerning the Z-CCX? Funny, I thought no one liked *any* of the X-Ships here...
That would be three fighters in one squadron, rather than two and one fighter squadrons, right?
I didn't even know the Mirak were nerfed.
I'm still not clear on why the HDWE costs more than the HDW2; Do cargo boxes really cost that much?

I don't know.
I'll decide the fighter squadrons as I move along.
I didn't know either.
The HDWE is properly configured, on the inside, to be able to call it an Escort. It has the "E" special role. This might come in handy in future scripting. It is a valid variant.

I dunno. the DE is still cheezier.

Quote:

Quote:

Balance (bal*ance) n.

1. A weighing device, especially one consisting of a rigid beam horizontally suspended by a low-friction support at its center, with identical weighing pans hung at either end, one of which holds an unknown weight while the effective weight in the other is increased by known amounts until the beam is level and motionless,
2. A state of equilibrium or parity characterized by cancellation of all forces by equal opposing forces,
3. The power or means to decide,
4. The bloody and vicious trench warfare associated with online game modifications.

Is it always like that?
-- Luc

Let's see, the first game I played online was Diablo. There wasn't too much hue and cry about changes, but most of the patches were to prevent cheating, so there wasn't alot done on the 'balance' thing.

Diablo II was simply bout after bout after bout of "<insert despised character class here> is too powerful! Nerf <insert despised character class here>." or "I can't possibly compete with <insert despised character class here>. Make <insert prefered character class here> completely overpowering." Interspersed with the usual "X is cheating their a*s off." (which they usually were, Diablo and Diablo 2 being nortoriously filled with cheaters

(Pffft, I mean, where do YOU *think* all the hackers that hacked diablo 1 to death went, huh?

))

Concerning Starcraft and C&C(pretty much any flavor thereof). I'd say that the casualties of this balance confrontation was at least several times worse than what we have here, per DAY (I remember particular bitter comments by my friends when they played C&C tiberian sun. I think they just sucked

Dark ages, nexus, and (one-other-game-by-the-same-MMO-company-that-I-can't-remember) The nexus beta was dominated by complaints that there wasn't enough coop. They fixed that in Dark ages and they were then flooded with complaints that you couldn't do anything alone. I think it was somewhere around here I realized what a headache it must be to be a online game programer.

So in short, yes. Balance is usually like that.

Given what i've stated so far, the complication and nicheiness of this game is a bit of a hidden silver lining; More level heads lying about the forums here, so much so that it's almost like everyone was reasonable! (having had my first online game taste as Cheatablo however, I know better than that, yeah. You're all just waiting for a sign of weakness, yeah, like wolves, before you rip firesoul to bits. Beware! Beware!

)

And all should cry, Beware! Beware!
His flashing eyes, his floating hair!
Weave a circle around him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise.

--Samual Taylor Coleridge, "Kubla Khan"

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Capt Jeff on April 30, 2003, 07:18:25 am

Couple quick shiplist questions, and this seems to be the place to get a good answer

F-DDG/+ is listed as a drone bombardment ship....why? It only carries 2 G racks.

Also, should the F-BCG have double drone control? The BCV, which is identical weapons wise, has it.

Same question for the F-GSC/CVL.

Thanks

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 30, 2003, 07:42:13 am

Carriers almost always have double drone control in SFB. Presumably they would be controlling not only their own drones, but others "in the air" from ships in their fleet. Generally (there are always exceptions), the normal cruisers will have drone control = sensor rating, but bombardment ships and carriers would double up. Heck, there are some ships with just 3 drone control.

"G" designation on an F-DDG or a BCG is meant to show it is a "guided weapons" upgrade/variant. That doesn't mean it's a bombardment ship, just that it opts for a couple drones in addition to, but not to totally replace, photons.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 30, 2003, 09:07:47 am

Quote:

Couple quick shiplist questions, and this seems to be the place to get a good answer

F-DDG/+ is listed as a drone bombardment ship....why? It only carries 2 G racks.

Also, should the F-BCG have double drone control? The BCV, which is identical weapons wise, has it.
Same question for the F-GSC/CVL.
Thanks

I confirmed last night the G-BCG only has 6 drone control. I even went to check the erratas..
I already knew the GSC has 6 drone control.

.. as for the carrier variants, like Nomad stated, the 12 DC is there in case fighters want/need to transfer the drones to the mother ship. This is usually just before they get killed.

.. remember... drone control transfer exists in SFB. .. it's not just for drones either, but all seeking weapons.

As for the DDG, I will verify it today.
-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jimmi7769 on April 30, 2003, 09:28:32 am

Quote:

Quote:

And... uh... what's an HPT?

HPT? Where?

It was brought up from the depths of the SFB swamp when talking about the Z-CCX; It's not in, but I don't know what it is. What is it?

--Samual Taylor Coleridge, "Kubla Khan"

I'm thinking maybe they're referring to the Heavy Photon Torpedo from OP X2 Fed Ships. Just a guess.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jimmi7769 on April 30, 2003, 09:30:31 am

How did the giving ships with special sensors an extra 6 drone control turn out??

It only makes sense as this is a chief function of Spec Sen and can be easily simulated in this fashion.

Quote:

Quote:

Couple quick shiplist questions, and this seems to be the place to get a good answer

F-DDG/+ is listed as a drone bombardment ship....why? It only carries 2 G racks.

Also, should the F-BCG have double drone control? The BCV, which is identical weapons wise, has it.
Same question for the F-GSC/CVL.
Thanks

I confirmed last night the G-BCG only has 6 drone control. I even went to check the erratas..
I already knew the GSC has 6 drone control.

.. as for the carrier variants, like Nomad stated, the 12 DC is there in case fighters want/need to transfer the drones to the mother ship. This is usually just before they get killed.
.. remember... drone control transfer exists in SFB. .. it's not just for drones either, but all seeking weapons.

As for the DDG, I will verify it today.
-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 30, 2003, 10:07:15 am

Quote:

How did the giving ships with special sensors an extra 6 drone control turn out??
It only makes sense as this is a chief function of Spec Sen and can be easily simulated in this fashion.

Well.. it needs to be discussed..
.. and tested.. I already know I can have the 18 drone control under OP no problem.. ..

RECAP:
Ships with special sensors, and drones, should gain 6 drone control .. it seems the BPV is already paid by the sensors.
Obvious ships affected would be the Z-CD, the Z-SDF, the F-CAD, the K-D6D.. etc.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jimmi7769 on April 30, 2003, 10:20:52 am

Quote:

Quote:

How did the giving ships with special sensors an extra 6 drone control turn out??
It only makes sense as this is a chief function of Spec Sen and can be easily simulated in this fashion.

Well.. it needs to be discussed..
.. and tested.. I already know I can have the 18 drone control under OP no problem.. ..

RECAP:
Ships with special sensors, and drones, should gain 6 drone control .. it seems the BPV is already paid by the sensors.
Obvious ships affected would be the Z-CD, the Z-SDF, the F-CAD, the K-D6D.. etc.

Now that you say 18 drone control, it reeks of gouda.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 30, 2003, 11:11:08 am

Quote:

Doh, actually Kortez was a Klingon in the GFL and we kidnapped him. So his change over to the Mirak shiplist has been, well for lack of better words, less then stellar for him. He just plain thinks the Mirak shiplist sucks. Unfortunately, I have to agree with him on alot of his points. But I have always flown Mirak since the game came out and have always managed to overcome.

Yes, I know...hence my suggestion. You can take the Klingon out of the Empire, but you can't take the Empire out of the Klingon.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 30, 2003, 11:23:12 am

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

How did the giving ships with special sensors an extra 6 drone control turn out??
It only makes sense as this is a chief function of Spec Sen and can be easily simulated in this fashion.

Well.. it needs to be discussed..
.. and tested.. I already know I can have the 18 drone control under OP no problem.. ..

RECAP:
Ships with special sensors, and drones, should gain 6 drone control .. it seems the BPV is already paid by the sensors.
Obvious ships affected would be the Z-CD, the Z-SDF, the F-CAD, the K-D6D.. etc.

Now that you say 18 drone control, it reeks of gouda.

Possibly. Perhaps it need not be +6. Anything up to +6 might be useful. In any case, it seems like something that's worth testing. I like that some ships, like the Z-CD would end up with an increased drone control rating that seems to make sense. I'm a bit leery of 18X drone control on a D6D or CAD...but then again, I'm not at all sure how big a difference it would make.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 30, 2003, 11:26:10 am

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

How did the giving ships with special sensors an extra 6 drone control turn out??
It only makes sense as this is a chief function of Spec Sen and can be easily simulated in this fashion.

Well.. it needs to be discussed..
.. and tested.. I already know I can have the 18 drone control under OP no problem.. ..

RECAP:
Ships with special sensors, and drones, should gain 6 drone control .. it seems the BPV is already paid by the sensors.
Obvious ships affected would be the Z-CD, the Z-SDF, the F-CAD, the K-D6D.. etc.

Now that you say 18 drone control, it reeks of gouda.

It does, doesn't it.
Ok.. 18 isn't right.. it should be "+6" Drone Control. These ships have a special sensors and this would be a way to correctly reflect used up BPV that ship has, as well as its true importance.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 30, 2003, 11:30:52 am

.. after all.. it's not like I'm adding weapons to these ships.
The players will have to PAY for the drones they use up, etc..

.. but yeah.. I don't think I will implement this right away.. but I feel it's a damned good idea.
-- Luc

PS. Bases would also gain that +6 .. wouldn't they..

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jimmi7769 on April 30, 2003, 11:38:08 am

Quote:

.. after all.. it's not like I'm adding weapons to these ships.
The players will have to PAY for the drones they use up, etc..

.. but yeah.. I don't think I will implement this right away.. but I feel it's a damned good idea.
-- Luc

PS. Bases would also gain that +6 .. wouldn't they..

Yeah, bases would get it as well. But, sensor blinding by weapons fire is something else not included in the SFC conversion.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 30, 2003, 11:39:32 am

Quote:

Yeah, bases would get it as well. But, sensor blinding by weapons fire is something else not included in the SFC conversion.

I'm quite aware of that.. .. nor is the 1 point of power used.

.. but it feels 'right'.. it feels like it would be the right thing to do in this case.
I want opinions.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jimmi7769 on April 30, 2003, 11:42:54 am

Quote:

Quote:

Yeah, bases would get it as well. But, sensor blinding by weapons fire is something else not included in the SFC conversion.

I'm quite aware of that.. .. nor is the 1 point of power used.

.. but it feels 'right'.. it feels like it would be the right thing to do in this case.
I want opinions.

-- Luc

Agreed.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 30, 2003, 11:47:52 am

Quote:

Agreed.

What are you agreeing to?

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jimmi7769 on April 30, 2003, 11:54:16 am

Quote:

Quote:

Agreed.

What are you agreeing to?

That it is the right thing to do by giving ships and bases with special sensors more drone control.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 30, 2003, 11:56:24 am

Cool! Other opinions?

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Holocat on April 30, 2003, 12:33:53 pm

Suddenly, a small grey cat is pushed out from beween the forum curtains and onto the podium. It blinks in the sudden, glaring light and grabs the microphone with a paw, "Uh, test? Te-- *RIIIIIIIIIIIIIING* -st? Alright, I think it's working. Ahem."

"I have been bamboozled, er," The small cat scribbles something on its speech sheets, "Er, I mean, asked to state my opinion, for the record, concerning the plus six drone control that is proposed to be given to ships with special sensors. I, Holocat, find myself in favour of giving said refit to the general OP+ shiplist.

"Firstly, this refit was proposed as a solution to some of the problems that the mirak purportedly face with some of their ships. From preliminary findings, it should add drone control to many deserving mirak ships. However, it also adds drone control to some federation and klingon ships as well, pushing a few into what many will consider," it raises it's kitten paws for effect, "cheeze."

"In defence of this, firstly, the ships that are being pushed into this 'cheeze' are already considered my most in the community to be 'cheezy,' and thus should not bear any significant tatical problems, barring the usual ones that already exist with said 'cheezy' ships.

"Secondly, most bases will recieve this upgrade, most having the special sensor in question. I see this as an improvment of the situation, as most bases do not have an overwhelming drone launch capacity anyway."

"Finally, I believe that even in the case of cheeze, I would find fighting against the extra missle control... intresting. I see it as a new and hitherto unexplored avenue of drone craziness which I think I would enjoy. Thank you for your time."

The cat trots off the podium and looks between the curtains. "Whaaaat?"

Holocat.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Kortez on April 30, 2003, 05:30:27 pm

Quote:

The E-rack is, in effect, a B-rack that loads as fast as a C-rack.

If you can somehow address the "problem" with adding reloads to the stock C-rack, I suppose that's fine.

Incidentally...that raises a question. The D5DR in your shiplist is the same as a D5D, but supposedly has extra "reloads." How is this manifested? I see no difference between it and the stock D5D in terms of systems, maximum drone load (90) or the "free refills" (36) you get after a mission. What have I missed?

All the Mirak ships should have E rackS.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Kortez on April 30, 2003, 05:32:42 pm

Quote:

Couple quick shiplist questions, and this seems to be the place to get a good answer

F-DDG/+ is listed as a drone bombardment ship....why? It only carries 2 G racks.

Also, should the F-BCG have double drone control? The BCV, which is identical weapons wise, has it.

Same question for the F-GSC/CVL.

Thanks

Feds want everything!

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Kortez on April 30, 2003, 05:34:22 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Doh, actually Kortez was a Klingon in the GFL and we kidnapped him. So his change over to the Mirak shiplist has been, well for lack of better words, less then stellar for him. He just plain thinks the Mirak shiplist sucks. Unfortunately, I have to agree with him on alot of his points. But I have always flown Mirak since the game came out and have always managed to overcome.

Yes, I know...hence my suggestion. You can take the Klingon out of the Empire, but you can't take the Empire out of the Klingon.

I still smuggle Gath and bloodwine, and my painstick factory has been making money for the longest time.

Blowing up Fluf has a definite attraction ...

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on April 30, 2003, 06:16:59 pm

Any chance this will be ready for the weekend? I am giving my brother a brand new copy of OP and want to give him the latest stuff... Having never played OP or SFB I want to make a good impression on him so I can recruit a new player LOL!

KF

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 30, 2003, 06:26:58 pm

I started last night.. so..
If I go nuts like I usually do, and forego testing .. maybe.
.. if I want to reserve time for testing,.. no.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on May 01, 2003, 05:51:14 pm

You guys will test this for me..
.. I intend to put this work up tonight.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-JD on May 02, 2003, 08:50:25 pm

Firesoul,

I have noticed the G-BTLE is a CA with the same weps at the G-CA, better shields(all around), 5 tractors, and a little less power.

At 78 BPV it is basically the same ship as the CA at 130? Is this right?

The G-BTs as a rule may need to be looked at.

Thanks,

jd

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on May 02, 2003, 08:55:28 pm

Quote:

Firesoul,

I have noticed the G-BTLE is a CA with the same weps at the G-CA, better shields(all around), 5 tractors, and a little less power.

At 78 BPV it is basically the same ship as the CA at 130? Is this right?

The G-BTs as a rule may need to be looked at.

Thanks,

jd

You might be right.. you definitely might be right. But let's not post in this thread anymore. .. instead, start a new thread.

Title: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 09:57:52 am

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

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 11:01:50 am

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.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: 3dot14 on April 27, 2003, 11:10:22 am

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?

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jimmi7769 on April 27, 2003, 11:23:33 am

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???

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 11:26:08 am

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

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 11:28:03 am

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.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 27, 2003, 11:28:23 am

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.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 11:33:32 am

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

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 27, 2003, 11:33:40 am

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.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 11:43:59 am

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

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 27, 2003, 11:46:17 am

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.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 11:51:08 am

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.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 11:57:25 am

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?

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 27, 2003, 11:58:42 am

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.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 12:07:08 pm

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.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 12:08:55 pm

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

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 27, 2003, 12:09:47 pm

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.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 27, 2003, 12:13:41 pm

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.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 12:23:39 pm

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

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: TarMinyatur on April 27, 2003, 12:24:09 pm

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.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 12:24:51 pm

Quote:

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.

.. thanks for understanding!! .. this was a major issue in the beginning of the shiplist and I had to make a decision way back when.
-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 27, 2003, 12:35:06 pm

Quote:

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

Of course. But, so are Hawk.I, Vizsla.I, Swift.I, and Restitution.I. As far as I can tell, they have the same stats: damage, speed, weapons, BPV. Only the Killerbee.I, with 1 BPV, has any different value for those fields. It is the same fighter as a Hawk.I except it looks different and is 1 BPV less. All I'm saying is there is no logical reason based on capability for these to be different in BPV. If there's a Taldren balance or flavoring decision behind it, that's another matter.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 12:36:49 pm

Quote:

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.

.. just checked. I will do the changes to the K-F5 and K-E4.
.. but the K-DWC ..I can't find it in my books. Where is it? Does it exist? I have the D5W..
Is it a Taldren-invented ship? Explain why I should increase its warp if it's not a real SFB ship?

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 12:39:40 pm

Quote:

Quote:

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

Of course. But, so are Hawk.I, Vizsla.I, Swift.I, and Restitution.I. As far as I can tell, they have the same stats: damage, speed, weapons, BPV. Only the Killerbee.I, with 1 BPV, has any different value for those fields. It is the same fighter as a Hawk.I except it looks different and is 1 BPV less. All I'm saying is there is no logical reason based on capability for these to be different in BPV. If there's a Taldren balance or flavoring decision behind it, that's another matter.

I PM'd DavidF.
-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 27, 2003, 12:48:06 pm

I seem to recall the NCCs are all non-standard ships. They were either created by SFB players or published somewhere outside of the mainline modules. Or, they were created by Taldren, though I somehow doubt that. Were they in an earlier edition of SFB and never published in Captain's? I find that odd if true.

Anyway, can someone point to an online SSD from a fan site? I seem to remember at least one site that had such ships.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: 3dot14 on April 27, 2003, 01:37:05 pm

Quote:

Anyway, can someone point to an online SSD from a fan site? I seem to remember at least one site that had such ships.

http://www.mninter.net/~phdship/03klnships.htm

(I can't thank Nannerslug enough for introducing me to this link...)

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 01:39:04 pm

Ok.. I will increase the centerwarp by 2 and recalculate the BPV.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on April 27, 2003, 02:15:10 pm

Any thoughts on changing the UI on the PFs to a ship UI?
That allows both players to see the loadout, arming and damage status of the PF, and allows the owner to actually select weapons groups when flying it directly. A big bonus for both players, without actually changing anything. GFF, LFF & RLN are the UIs that I've used.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 02:17:24 pm

Quote:

Any thoughts on changing the UI on the PFs to a ship UI?
That allows both players to see the loadout, arming and damage status of the PF, and allows the owner to actually select weapons groups when flying it directly. A big bonus for both players, without actually changing anything. GFF, LFF & RLN are the UIs that I've used.

..uhh.. OP sees all the weapons on a PF just fine... and I did all the adjustments there using the Lyran UI already.
-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: IndyShark on April 27, 2003, 02:49:31 pm

Firesoul, I love the PHD website! Is there any chance we can add some of their ships? I especially like the new ships and captured ships.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on April 27, 2003, 02:55:43 pm

One of the features of OP over EAW, eh? Cool.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 03:01:19 pm

Quote:

Firesoul, I love the PHD website! Is there any chance we can add some of their ships? I especially like the new ships and captured ships.

.. sorry..

.. It's not within my charter.

ADB approves ships sent to them.. and balances them out BPV-wise.
.. I take these official ships which are all balanced and good.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 03:06:22 pm

Quote:

One of the features of OP over EAW, eh? Cool.

One of the lesser ones, yes..

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 27, 2003, 03:39:29 pm

Although ...

The question of additional ships does bring up the ADB-approved "Brothers of the Anarchist" feature from the Captain's Logs. Captured ships appear there regularly, and some are interesting. I have a recent issue on captured Orion ships used in imperial navies and police forces.

I could see a whole separate "fun" list for campaign or skirmish use based on captured ships -- a race would have all kinds of ships except their own. It would be kind of a laugh. Of course, that means someone would have to input all those ships, which I don't see anyone volunteering for when there are more pressing things to do.

The essential problem with additional ships is that many of the ones you can add aren't worth a hill of beans. Many of the captured ships, endless tug variants, and stuff like FCRs fit this category. It may be neat to see them in there, but who would use most of them?

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 03:43:23 pm

I would recommend keeping those for custom campaigns.

.. I have a few of the captain's logs with the "Brothers of the Anarchists" here. I like the ideas but ..

1- I don't have them all and I'm poor right now.
2- I *really* don't feel like getting into making these additions at this time.

Note:
.. I think the only ships I accepted for addition from the captain's logs SSDs are the X1 ships I could find. Anything else I left behind. You have to remember that all ships in the Captain's Logs are not final in their testing and design.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 03:46:58 pm

Anyways.. I don't intend to add any ships at this time.. .. I would like to make that clear. I don't think Module J2 is a good idea either: not all the races have carriers. There would be an unbalance.

SO!.. ;>
.. Can we keep to the items I have listed?

Oh, and correction requests are welcomed.
-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: KBF-Dogmatix on April 27, 2003, 04:30:01 pm

If the current convention is 1 deck crew per fighter, I don't see anything wrong with making the proposed corrections. that seems reasonable to me.

Correcting fighter loadouts to the 2/3 rule is fine, but the casual carriers creat a bit of a problem and I'd be with TarMinytaur in terms of just leaving their conversions alone. Perhaps adjust the deck crews where applicable.

I have zero problems with the proposed hardpoint splitting.

As far as the LYAs go...well, this is a matter of taste. Since I play this game pretty much solely in the D2 arena, I'm going to side with Nomad on making ships' LYAs coincide with the release of a given refit. Nothing bugs me more that seeing Klingon B-refits clogging up the yards on a given server as late as 2277 or '78 (or even later). The K-refits come out around 2272 or '73. There should be no further B-refit production after that date. As I said..this is a matter of taste and certainly this game is played in other manners than D2. However, if we're talking shipyard production, I can't see any reason that B refits would continue to be produced even 1 year after the K-refit comes out. Sure..some may remain in service as 2nd or 3rd echelon forces...but damnit, I don't fly 3rd echelon! heheh...

Love the shiplist!

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 04:36:43 pm

can you help me find the part that mentions 2272-2273 for the K refit in the SFB material?

..as for the Casual Carriers..... that change *IS* for them. I would not leave them alone. They need fixing. That's the issue, here... a balance overhaul for carriers, casual or not.

-- Luc

EDIT: All master ship charts show Y175..

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: TarMinyatur on April 27, 2003, 04:41:33 pm

http://www.mninter.net/~phdship/klndwc.gif

Holy cow, that sucker's a bit stronger than Taldren's DWC.

+2 Center Warp
+1 Ph1 on each wing
Ph1 -> Ph2 on waist
+1 B-rack
all for 9 less BPV! (163 vs 154)

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 04:43:35 pm

Because it's not an official ship, I won't change anything else.. unless there's a GOOD reason for it.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on April 27, 2003, 05:25:40 pm

Quote:

can you help me find the part that mentions 2272-2273 for the K refit in the SFB material?

-- Luc

EDIT: All master ship charts show Y175..

R3.72 "K" REFITS: This refit includes the "b" refit (if any) for that ship, and replaces some Ph-II with Ph-I (cost = 1 point for each phaser replaced). This refit began about Y175 and included approximately 5% of the fleet per year. The priority was: D7C, F5L, C8/9, D7, BP, D5, F5, E5, D6, Tug-A, but this was not absolute. A majority of the ships in service as late as Y183 still lacked this refit. D5s were not automatically built as D5Ks, but some were later converted. ISF ships never received this refit. Klingon ships in Romulan hands did not receive the K refit although theor satndard KR version includes a similar conversion. Many variants also received the K refit, except for minesweepers, scouts, drone ships, maulers, exploration ships, cargo transports, commando ships, PF tenders and penal ships. A D7C with a K refit is designated D7L, not D7CK. Similarly, a D5C with a K refit is called a D5L.

Whilst this extract from the SFB rules tend to suggest a more staggered approach to introducing refitted ships, I tend to agree with Dogmatix that in a D2 environment, no one is going to buy an old ship when a new refit is available, and will just wait for one to appear in the yards. The shipyard will only produce so many ships, as per the gf settings for ship production, empire economy points, etc. and extra ships really do just become an annoyance to players if they are never flown. I'm in favour of setting the YLA to coincide with the release of a new refit, but as has been mentioned, its a decision that ultimately will be made by respective server administrators to suit the flavour of their campaign.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 05:33:44 pm

Thanks Tracey. That does really help. Y175 it is.

but about the YLA overlap..
.. I want some sort of overlap in this general purpose shiplist for all things. Remember, it's not just the D2 out there. I played for a good solid year without even touching the D2. It was all Local LAN, GSA and the coopace script.
.. it's just that I found 3 years too long a period... so I will bring it down to 2 years through some perl scripting.

-- Luc

EDIT: .. yes.. I did say I wanted your opinions.. ..and I would like to thank you all for it.

.. but .. going to 0 is unacceptable.. and 1 year is too short an overlap.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 06:46:36 pm

I just spent 45 minutes arguying with KOTH players on the D2 about the Z-CCX..
.. so I will rehash the argument, for all to see.. and why I changed the Z-CCX long ago.

The Z-CCX was a ship with a few phGs, a fre Mirv racks and other drone racks. It appeared in 2300 like the other xships in OP.

The Z-CCX I entered is the one from SFB.. It appears in 2293 in my shiplist and is part of the X1 era ships. For 247 BPV, it has 10 phXs, 4 dizzies, 6 drone racks. It has 42 warp engines. The G racks causes it to also have 4 ADD6s.

Why did I castrate it?
Well..

.. I also entered the Z-BCX, Z-CMX, Z-FDX, Z-FKX. ..
.. none of those have Mirv racks or phGs either. The Z-CCX was out of place.. it was a ship with X2 tech and ..

.. *ding!* idea....

Quote:

<FireSoul> Ok. I've come to a decision.
<FireSoul> I will reenter the original Z-CCX.
<FireSoul> It will be the Z-CCX2 and will appear in 2300 while my Z-CCX will be
in 2393 like right now.
07:48PM <Corbomite> are you going to keep yours or nerf it FS?
07:48PM <Corbomite> ok that explains it
<FireSoul> Everybody happy?
07:49PM <Corbomite> it will be an X-1.5 ship

There.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 27, 2003, 09:07:00 pm

You've got to be kidding me.

People are complaining about the flavor of their X-cheese in a CUSTOM shiplist? FS, I think you're right to leave it in if you're leaving in all other Taldren X-designs, but I like the X1 ships much better as a group -- more selection and more standardization in conversion rules.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Holocat on April 27, 2003, 09:26:01 pm

Hm. After several bouts of trying to get a mirak tug with SFC freight pods to look, er, not so ugly, I

a.) decided to just skip it and do the lyran tug, which is coming along nicely, and

b.) play OP. alot.

Playing the Fed HDW's was a strange and new experience; The F-HDW & F-HDWC's have a very different design philosphy from the early Fed light cruisers, such as the F-DD.

Enough of the star/naval-gazing and on to the odditiy however. I found that under scrutiny, the F-HDWE (Heavy war destroyer escort) has exactly the same armament as the F-HDW2, four LESS power, but costs 162 as opposed to the 145 of the F-HDW2. I also noticed that it's the only fed escort that lacks the controversial and cheezy Ph-Gs. Is something the matter here? Mabey a oversight, mabey there's something about the F-HDWE that I haven't seen.

I'm also wondering exactly what Firesoul plans to do with the casual carriers; 2/3 of 4 is 2.66 or 2, which would make casual carriers no different from normal war destroyers, or at least from the fed point of view. So, what to be done with them then? 3 fighters is nice, but when scrutinized, it's not a whole lot better than the 2 a normal HDW will carry. Four is enough to make a difference from 2, but I get the feeling that some consider this too many. 3 and consolation prizes, such as an extra 2 shuttles? I dunno.

Anyway, more information on what is planned to be done with HDWC's would be nice,

Holocat.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 11:03:36 pm

Quote:

You've got to be kidding me.

People are complaining about the flavor of their X-cheese in a CUSTOM shiplist? FS, I think you're right to leave it in if you're leaving in all other Taldren X-designs, but I like the X1 ships much better as a group -- more selection and more standardization in conversion rules.

It would be okay D2-wise too.. it would mean that if the campaign lasts ALLllll the way up to 2300, then the Z-CCX2 becomes available.. only to be followed by the other "X2" ships in the shiplist.

The BIG difference would be in standard multiplayer games, I think. Advanced era is advanced era no matter how early or late it is within it... That ship should then still be selectable.
.... .. a good compromise.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 27, 2003, 11:11:38 pm

Quote:

Hm. After several bouts of trying to get a mirak tug with SFC freight pods to look, er, not so ugly, I

a.) decided to just skip it and do the lyran tug, which is coming along nicely, and

b.) play OP. alot.

Playing the Fed HDW's was a strange and new experience; The F-HDW & F-HDWC's have a very different design philosphy from the early Fed light cruisers, such as the F-DD.

Enough of the star/naval-gazing and on to the odditiy however. I found that under scrutiny, the F-HDWE (Heavy war destroyer escort) has exactly the same armament as the F-HDW2, four LESS power, but costs 162 as opposed to the 145 of the F-HDW2. I also noticed that it's the only fed escort that lacks the controversial and cheezy Ph-Gs. Is something the matter here? Mabey a oversight, mabey there's something about the F-HDWE that I haven't seen.

The armaments may be the same, but the internal "Non weapon options" are actually different between the 2 ships. The 4 APRs had to be converted to cargo boxes I believe (or something like that) for this to be a valid escort ship. I was just being thorough.

Quote:

I'm also wondering exactly what Firesoul plans to do with the casual carriers; 2/3 of 4 is 2.66 or 2, which would make casual carriers no different from normal war destroyers, or at least from the fed point of view. So, what to be done with them then? 3 fighters is nice, but when scrutinized, it's not a whole lot better than the 2 a normal HDW will carry. Four is enough to make a difference from 2, but I get the feeling that some consider this too many. 3 and consolation prizes, such as an extra 2 shuttles? I dunno.
Anyway, more information on what is planned to be done with HDWC's would be nice,

The HDWCs have 4 fighters currently because I gave them 6 fighterbays and deck crews, which is the legal SFB limit for the HDWs to count as casual carriers and not FULL carriers. As you can see, the 2/3 rule is already applied and is correct.
.. as for the 2/3rds rule, I have changed my earlier decision of round down and will be just doing a "round".
2/3 of 4 is 2.66 which would mean 3, yes. .. I would however not follow that rule for PFs. It's going to be 2 PFs for a non PFT ship, and 4 for a Full PFT ship. It still kinda approximate to 2/3rds of SFb, but differently interpreted.

I hope this helps.
BTW: The Fed HDWCs differ to the HDWs in the following fashion:
The Fed HDWs have been given 1 transporter, 1 tractor, 1 shuttlebay and 1 lab for the 4 boxes of non-weapon options that I had to fill. The HDWCs have been given 4 more fighterbays (and thus fighters are now up to 6, from 2).

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Fluf on April 28, 2003, 01:32:24 am

Quote:

Quote:

You've got to be kidding me.

People are complaining about the flavor of their X-cheese in a CUSTOM shiplist? FS, I think you're right to leave it in if you're leaving in all other Taldren X-designs, but I like the X1 ships much better as a group -- more selection and more standardization in conversion rules.

It would be okay D2-wise too.. it would mean that if the campaign lasts ALLllll the way up to 2300, then the Z-CCX2 becomes available.. only to be followed by the other "X2" ships in the shiplist.

The BIG difference would be in standard multiplayer games, I think. Advanced era is advanced era no matter how early or late it is within it... That ship should then still be selectable.
.... .. a good compromise.

-- Luc

Thanks for the compromise Firesoul. And yes Nomad, we are complaining about our cheese!

The Mirak have never had a heavy cruiser that could compete in PvP until we got the CCX. Most were very disappointed when they saw it gutted and were not going to play on a server with Firesouls list. I know that sounds very childish, the "taking my ball and going home" line, but it is reality. The CCX is the only ship the Mirak will use, even when the rest of the X2 ships come out. Basically because all the other Mirak X ships are way to underpowered to fly, which of course, is a racial trait we deal with all the way from early era. The orignal Z-CCX is a Taldren mistake I know. However, considering this is a SFB list, where is our Spearfish drone, ECM drone, ect ect. You get my drift. We want our Mirvs. And actually think we should get them when the original CCX comes out in Firesouls list. Our drones are supposed to make up for our lack of power, poor arcs and turning rates. The CCX in Firesouls list will just be another underpowered Mirak heavy cruiser that no one will fly, because of the BPV draw the will face. MIght as well fly a MDC+ with seven drones and pull in smaller AI!

But I do thank Firesoul for listening to us and reaching that compromise.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Holocat on April 28, 2003, 02:28:19 am

Alright, a non PFT ship can have 2 PFTs. A full PFT ship can have 4 PFTs. I assume a full PFT ship is the PFT equivlant of a carrier.

Is there such thing as a casual PFT carrier, or is that just a non PFT ship with mechlinks? If a casual PFT carrier gets 2 PFT's, I get the idea that a casual fighter carrier with 3 fighters is being penalized more.

Meh. I can't tell. It's not like I can figure out whether it's unbalanced or not.

I suppose I simply want to know why the casual carriers are being percieved as unbalanced; A drop from 4 to 3 is pretty drastic, but then I fully admit i'm biased, since i'm fed and flying the ship(s) under controversy. Mabey if you kept four, but stuck them in one squadron instead of two? three fighters and two shuttles? Pfft, I dunno. I find that with one ship alone the four fighters make a difference, but not that big of a difference, and using multiple casual carriers has it's own drawbacks.

If I sound like i'm whining about wanting to keep my cheeze, that's because I am,

Holocat.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 28, 2003, 07:42:39 am

I do have a Captain's Log (#16) that refers to a Kzinti X-drone ship, possibly an MDCX? Anyway, I don't have it on hand to check, but it is mentioned as having been in one of the defunct SFB newsletters, which aren't available. I would be very interested to see what that ship looked like. Apparently the D5DX was designed in a similar fashion.

You know, I thought one of the reasons people don't like OP is because of X-ships. It just seems kind of funny we're even discussing this if Xes are so hated.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 28, 2003, 09:49:28 am

Quote:

Alright, a non PFT ship can have 2 PFTs. A full PFT ship can have 4 PFTs. I assume a full PFT ship is the PFT equivlant of a carrier.

Is there such thing as a casual PFT carrier, or is that just a non PFT ship with mechlinks? If a casual PFT carrier gets 2 PFT's, I get the idea that a casual fighter carrier with 3 fighters is being penalized more.

Meh. I can't tell. It's not like I can figure out whether it's unbalanced or not.

I suppose I simply want to know why the casual carriers are being percieved as unbalanced; A drop from 4 to 3 is pretty drastic, but then I fully admit i'm biased, since i'm fed and flying the ship(s) under controversy. Mabey if you kept four, but stuck them in one squadron instead of two? three fighters and two shuttles? Pfft, I dunno. I find that with one ship alone the four fighters make a difference, but not that big of a difference, and using multiple casual carriers has it's own drawbacks.

If I sound like i'm whining about wanting to keep my cheeze, that's because I am,

A ship with 2, or 4 Mechlinks would have 2 PFs, following Taldren's style of doing things. A ship with 6 Mechlinks would have 4 PFs. Sometimes that should would even be called a "Casual PFT" because it just happened to become that way.
All Lyran "T" refits are as such.

.. as for balancing casual carriers with normal fighters..
.. Why the heck should the Mobile Carriers with 6 fighters be dropped down to 4 while Random J Casual Carrier would keep its 6? The balance is I want to apply the 2/3rds rule everywhere. No exceptions. .. That's why I want to talk about it first, because this could very well turn out that if too many people say "No!" I won't do it.

Fortunately, a lot of people have said instead "It's just 1 or 2 fighters? .. BPV adjustments? .. It's fair. Unfortunate for those who use those ships but fair."

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 28, 2003, 09:51:18 am

Quote:

I do have a Captain's Log (#16) that refers to a Kzinti X-drone ship, possibly an MDCX? Anyway, I don't have it on hand to check, but it is mentioned as having been in one of the defunct SFB newsletters, which aren't available. I would be very interested to see what that ship looked like. Apparently the D5DX was designed in a similar fashion.

You know, I thought one of the reasons people don't like OP is because of X-ships. It just seems kind of funny we're even discussing this if Xes are so hated.

I have refused requests for ships from captain's logs, but I have accepted adding the X ships from them. If you can get me the SSD for the named ship, it would be a good addition.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jimmi7769 on April 28, 2003, 10:11:10 am

Quote:

[. .. I would however not follow that rule for PFs. It's going to be 2 PFs for a non PFT ship, and 4 for a Full PFT ship. It still kinda approximate to 2/3rds of SFb, but differently interpreted.

I hope this helps.
-- Luc

Just keep in mind that some ships are considered Full PFT's but in Taldrens list they have only 2 PF's attached to them and should have a full load of 4. Namely a few Lyrans, Lion DN, Wildcat BC, Hellcat BCH, etc. These are listed in the SFB R section as being full PF tenders and not casual carriers(due to the repair boxes I guess)

On the 1st Gen X-Ships, you kept the Mirak 1X did you keep all of the other wonder boats like the F-CCX and the K-DX or did you replace them with your subpar versions????

I'm kidding!!! Everyone knows who had the worst 1X ships in the game.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Fluf on April 28, 2003, 10:35:28 am

I have to agree Mace, the Klingon D7X just sucked. The F-CCX wanst that bad of a boat, but it still didnt compare to the Z-CCX. None of the first generations X ships did. The Z-CCX is a OTT boat when comparing it with any other first genX ship, and it needed to be adjusted. It was a campaign ender most of the time, which if you remember is what happened to RT3 last year. I would have rather seen the other first genX ships improved to match the CCX instead of seeing it cut. But I agree with Firesouls decision and compromise. The only thing I dont like is "G-Racks" lol. I would have rather seen "E" Racks on this boat and at least 2 PhsGs left on the rear. But oh well.

And yes Nomad, is funny we are debating the X ships. However, Im not a hardcore SFBer. I played the FASA game before SFB. I enjoy the X ships in OP and think OP has the ability to lead all the way into the TNG generation in a balanced fashion if done right. Most D2 campaign never make it into the Advanced era, because of length of time and campaign VC's, so the campaign usually ends before the X ships come out. But its the diversity in OP and the extra ships and even the advanced era which brings me back to it.

Many thanks to Firesoul for developing this shiplist. Its a work of art!

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jimmi7769 on April 28, 2003, 10:48:54 am

Quote:

I have to agree Mace, the Klingon D7X just sucked. The F-CCX wanst that bad of a boat, but it still didnt compare to the Z-CCX. None of the first generations X ships did. The Z-CCX is a OTT boat when comparing it with any other first genX ship, and it needed to be adjusted. It was a campaign ender most of the time, which if you remember is what happened to RT3 last year. I would have rather seen the other first genX ships improved to match the CCX instead of seeing it cut. But I agree with Firesouls decision and compromise. The only thing I dont like is "G-Racks" lol. I would have rather seen "E" Racks on this boat and at least 2 PhsGs left on the rear. But oh well.

And yes Nomad, is funny we are debating the X ships. However, Im not a hardcore SFBer. I played the FASA game before SFB. I enjoy the X ships in OP and think OP has the ability to lead all the way into the TNG generation in a balanced fashion if done right. Most D2 campaign never make it into the Advanced era, because of length of time and campaign VC's, so the campaign usually ends before the X ships come out. But its the diversity in OP and the extra ships and even the advanced era which brings me back to it.

Many thanks to Firesoul for developing this shiplist. Its a work of art!

The X-ships shouldn't have standard G-racks on them. they have a Gx rack which is pretty much a G-rack with 6 rounds instead of 4. To simulate this they should have B-Racks and AMD-B's instead of G-racks and AMD-A's.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jdmckinney on April 28, 2003, 11:08:09 am

Quote:

The X-ships shouldn't have standard G-racks on them. they have a Gx rack which is pretty much a G-rack with 6 rounds instead of 4. To simulate this they should have B-Racks and AMD-B's instead of G-racks and AMD-A's.

Personally, I agree with this translation. The GX racks are essentially bigger Gs, so since SFC requires separate drones and ADDs, it is an easy thing to put in Bs and ADD-12s instead of Gs and ADD-6s. The trouble here might be that any scripted universal edits FS might do regarding drone rack or ADD reloads could affect these ships.

Anyway, I can't really comment on Xes in OP+ just because I haven't actually looked closely at them, and I've certainly not taken the time to play them.

FS, on the phantom MCDX (if that's what it was called), there is no way for me to get this ship. The only way I can think of to get it would be to find someone who had that obsolete newsletter (Star Fleet Times? there were a couple different ones, and I still need to check where it said the ship was published when I get home).

On other CL ships, there are many considered conjectural -- designed but never built, usually. However, some were simply published there as new ships that don't show up in the main body of SSD modules. For instance, they recently published an improved Kzinti survey cruiser. The SRI (SRI+, SRIV as I have begun referring to it in my list) was published because someone convinced them the SR was done wrong. Instead of going back and replacing it altogether with the new specs, the SRI is now available as an alternative or refit. Granted, this is not exactly a ship people would be clamoring for, but it does show an example of how ADB publishes additional legal, actual production ships in CLs now and then. Certainly there should be a legitimacy vs. value test to see if a CL ship is worth adding.

Overall, I find it really cool that the list is in such good shape that we are down to debating minor additions. It shows just how much work you've done on this project.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: CptCastrin on April 28, 2003, 12:21:48 pm

Quote:

Thanks for the compromise Firesoul. And yes Nomad, we are complaining about our cheese! The Mirak have never had a heavy cruiser that could compete in PvP until we got the CCX. Most were very disappointed when they saw it gutted and were not going to play on a server with Firesouls list. I know that sounds very childish, the "taking my ball and going home" line, but it is reality. The CCX is the only ship the Mirak will use, even when the rest of the X2 ships come out. Basically because all the other Mirak X ships are way to underpowered to fly, which of course, is a racial trait we deal with all the way from early era. The orignal Z-CCX is a Taldren mistake I know. However, considering this is a SFB list, where is our Spearfish drone, ECM drone, ect ect. You get my drift. We want our Mirvs. And actually think we should get them when the original CCX comes out in Firesouls list. Our drones are supposed to make up for our lack of power, poor arcs and turning rates. The CCX in Firesouls list will just be another underpowered Mirak heavy cruiser that no one will fly, because of the BPV draw the will face. MIght as well fly a MDC+ with seven drones and pull in smaller AI!

But I do thank Firesoul for listening to us and reaching that compromise.

Well I hate to say it but if it came to allowing the Z-CCX2 in at the pain of all other races (thus making them leave in droves) or just allowing the Z-CCX which is by far more ballanced compared to the other x1 ships then I'd go with the second choice.

Simply put NO X-tech heavy weapons should be on a x1 era ship. Though there are some examples of x1.5 ships, those were mostly prototypes and never saw combat if they even truely exisited.

If there is to be a Z-CCX2 then there shold be equivalents in all races for the same and that is a game balance nightmare (does anyone REALLY want to see a F-CCX with HPTs?).

Look I love Kzin/Mirak (my 2nd fav race btw) ships but the Z-CCX a la Taldren was a bad idea. If it comes back to the OP+ shiplist (as the Z-CCX2) then for the sake of all the other races it will most probably be a "R" classed ship and never see the deeps of space on a server that I run (excepting if the rest of the group want it included in a particular campaign). When some race has a weapon that there is no real defense for it's pretty much game over. MIRV racks fit this discription in SFC in that gap where other races only have pre-X tech to defend against them.

The case that Kzin/Mirak ships turn like boats and have no power is a bad argument for including MIRV racks. The Feds have long had to deal with the same however we don't have the luxury of a weapon that can be added and that has no power cost yet can rip a ship to shreads in record time. Equiping HPTs would proably be the death of us.

The SFB crew had it right and I apploded Firesoul for using the SFB version. Even if it means that a sometime ally gets a ship that they are not happy with.

So if not having the "Z-CCX2" prevents you from playing on a OP+ server I'm sorry to hear that but them's the breaks. I'd rather have a server full of Klinks, Lyrans (you guys are nuts), Feds, and what not then sacrifice them just so I can get some Mirak to play. Sorry, the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few (now where did I hear that?

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 28, 2003, 12:25:00 pm

Quote:

Just keep in mind that some ships are considered Full PFT's but in Taldrens list they have only 2 PF's attached to them and should have a full load of 4. Namely a few Lyrans, Lion DN, Wildcat BC, Hellcat BCH, etc. These are listed in the SFB R section as being full PF tenders and not casual carriers(due to the repair boxes I guess)

You haven't seen my shiplist lately, have you..

Quote:

On the 1st Gen X-Ships, you kept the Mirak 1X did you keep all of the other wonder boats like the F-CCX and the K-DX or did you replace them with your subpar versions????
I'm kidding!!! Everyone knows who had the worst 1X ships in the game.

Replaced them with the REAL versions.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 28, 2003, 12:27:55 pm

Quote:

The X-ships shouldn't have standard G-racks on them. they have a Gx rack which is pretty much a G-rack with 6 rounds instead of 4. To simulate this they should have B-Racks and AMD-B's instead of G-racks and AMD-A's.

ADD12s.. crap you're right.

.. however, to keep them as G-racks in the UIs, I left them in as G-racks... but with 3 reloads for the AI side of things. I hope no one minds... I found the aestatics more pleasing.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 28, 2003, 12:32:59 pm

Quote:

So if not having the "Z-CCX2" prevents you from playing on a OP+ server I'm sorry to hear that but them's the breaks. I'd rather have a server full of Klinks, Lyrans (you guys are nuts), Feds, and what not then sacrifice them just so I can get some Mirak to play. Sorry, the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few (now where did I hear that? ).

I am fine with putting it in as a "R" ship .. even as a normal ship. By the time it comes out, everyone has an xship so the MIRVs won't be that much of an issue.

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Kortez on April 28, 2003, 01:14:16 pm

Quote:

So if not having the "Z-CCX2" prevents you from playing on a OP+ server I'm sorry to hear that but them's the breaks. I'd rather have a server full of Klinks, Lyrans (you guys are nuts), Feds, and what not then sacrifice them just so I can get some Mirak to play. Sorry, the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few (now where did I hear that? ).

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jimmi7769 on April 28, 2003, 01:22:19 pm

Quote:

The only thing I dont like is "G-Racks" lol. I would have rather seen "E" Racks on this boat and at least 2 PhsGs left on the rear. But oh well.

I think the Phaser G's all over the X1 ships was basically a concession to the fact that SFB P-1's on X1 ships could fire as P-G's if the need arose. Since this couldn't be done in game (much like the infamous G-Rack) we get P-G's all over the place.

I'm not opposed to having these on the ships just not very many(the restrictions on how they could fire were pretty harsh in SFB).

As for the Mirak getting special drones, Klingons and Feds would get these as well(as would the Mirak get Dis-H).

In a perfect world.................

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: FireSoul on April 28, 2003, 01:35:56 pm

Quote:

Quote:

The only thing I dont like is "G-Racks" lol. I would have rather seen "E" Racks on this boat and at least 2 PhsGs left on the rear. But oh well.

I think the Phaser G's all over the X1 ships was basically a concession to the fact that SFB P-1's on X1 ships could fire as P-G's if the need arose. Since this couldn't be done in game (much like the infamous G-Rack) we get P-G's all over the place.

I'm not opposed to having these on the ships just not very many(the restrictions on how they could fire were pretty harsh in SFB).

As for the Mirak getting special drones, Klingons and Feds would get these as well(as would the Mirak get Dis-H).

In a perfect world.................

Actually..
.. the SFB rules for X1 have changed. What you have there are early test rules. Later rules stated that ph1X could be overloaded, and that's it. .. and now recent rules state that they cannot be overlaoded at all. Since the phX is based on the overload-capable but no phG rules, I think it was fair to correct the ships. After all, I add a few other dozen xships to enter at the same time which followed that set of rules.

The NEW rules can be found here. These rules will not apply for this game.
http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/X-shipCL23.pdf

-- Luc

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: Fluf on April 28, 2003, 01:42:00 pm

Sorry to hear that Castrin, as the Miraks are the 3rd largest populated fleets in SFC, with the KOTHs and KATS supporting over 60 members. Firesoul's compromise gives us our CCX in 2300, when the rest of the X ships come out. I dont see the problem with this. KLAW will discuss this issue and vote accordingly on which servers we will play on as they come up.

Title: Re: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?
Post by: jimmi7769 on April 28, 2003, 01:55:36 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

The only thing I dont like is "G-Racks" lol. I would have rather seen "E" Racks on this boat and at least 2 PhsGs left on the rear. But oh well.

I think the Phaser G's all over the X1 ships was basically a concession to the fact that SFB P-1's on X1 ships could fire as P-G's if the need arose. Since this couldn't be done in game (much like the infamous G-Rack) we get P-G's all over the place.

I'm not opposed to having these on the ships just not very many(the restrictions on how they could fire were pretty harsh in SFB).

As for the Mirak getting special drones, Klingons and Feds would get these as well(as would the Mirak get Dis-H).

In a perfect world.................

Actually..
.. the SFB rules for X1 have changed. What you have there are early test rules. Later rules stated that ph1X could be overloaded, and that's it. .. and now recent rules state that they cannot be overlaoded at all. Since the phX is based on the overload-capable but no phG rules, I think it was fair to correct the ships. After all, I add a few other dozen xships to enter at the same time which followed that set of rules.

The NEW rules can be found here. These rules will not apply for this game.
http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/X-shipCL23.pdf

-- Luc

True enough.