Post by: FireSoul on May 02, 2003, 08:57:20 pm
Please.. no requests of ships that don't exist in SFB.
TarMinyatur: can you repost your data here?
-- Luc
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 02, 2003, 09:15:52 pm
Vessels (and variants thereof) affected: HET+2/Nimble entry should be 1
H-HN
H-CU
H-CRU
H-EH
H-CVE
K-E4
K-E6
K-F5
K-F6
L-FF
L-MP
L-DW
R-K4
R-K5
R-SKA
R-WB
R-KFR
Now, these vessels simply have base HET% errrors:
F-FFE and F-FFR should be like all F-FF's ("5", meaning 66% base success)
F-DE and F-DER should be like all F-DD's ("4", meaning 50% base success)
Oh yeah, the Z-NCA has a huge BPV error. Taldren lists it at something crazy like 157, the Z-NCA is really only 135! The R-KDR is also overpriced. It should be 137, not 146! The L-DWLP gets a power pack for free as well. It should come in at around 114 with UIM tax."
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 02, 2003, 09:16:49 pm
SFB:
MNR = 390
MNV = 402
Add 32 for KillerBees.
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 02, 2003, 09:21:12 pm
Download the master ship chart zip archive.
Post by: FireSoul on May 02, 2003, 09:35:03 pm
crap.
That means OP+ 2.1 and 2.1b are broken. I will have to make a 2.1c, but not tonight.
BE ADVISED!
Post by: FireSoul on May 02, 2003, 09:42:42 pm
You have overnight to stuff this thread, for me to work on tomorrow to release 2.1c ..
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 02, 2003, 09:47:30 pm
Quote:
Here's a good URL http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/sfb/aids/msc.html for people looking for info.
Download the master ship chart zip archive.
Oh god..
WOOHOO!
.. Ok.. Now I need to be able to convert this into a usable parseable script-compatible format. With this data, I can work on the nimble ships tomorrow.
It seems I also have to re-split the mounts for the F-CVS .. an error which was reintroduced when I remerged the ship from the pre-2/3rds stuff.
-- Luc
Post by: Cleaven on May 02, 2003, 09:53:17 pm
Already you are fiddling back and forth, without having achieved the first goal. It may turn out that nobody wants the pure SFB list, and are waiting for the Deluxe version with play balanced X2 ships but that will be a long haul goal for sure.
Post by: FireSoul on May 02, 2003, 10:11:56 pm
Quote:
Already you are fiddling back and forth, without having achieved the first goal. It may turn out that nobody wants the pure SFB list, and are waiting for the Deluxe version with play balanced X2 ships but that will be a long haul goal for sure.
Don't call it fiddling.
Be constructive.
I am already frustrated enough as it is.
SFB is the source material, but it seems people don't care about accuracy that much. They just want more more more.
So at this point I will just do corrections and additions. Be damned, good ideas, because there's no room for you.
-- Luc
Post by: Cleaven on May 02, 2003, 10:28:52 pm
Don't go into appeasement mode about fighters/drones/bar fridges, as long as the BPV's are correct (for SFC) and the SFB heritage is true.
Once you have achieved your primary goal, read the emails from people threatening never to play again, and the messages written in chicken blood about how you have killed the game or some such. They may occasionally have a valid point to make but they are delusional if they think you are stopping them from using the stock shiplist.
Then strap yourself in as you consider what you want to achieve in the way of D2 and GSA play balance. In the meantime there will be some very happy people playing with a true SFB shiplist, and will be able to give more reliable input into how the SFB versions really play. Who's to say what the balance will be like after a large scale mod.
PS - the BPV's for the SFB ships may be the subject of a little debate, but better to be argueing about what the ship is worth then trying to create a "balanced" shiplist straight up.
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 02, 2003, 10:29:11 pm
The tricky issue is differentiating a true typo from a design decision by the Taldren folks (who are now VERY silent, essentially retired). I've also run into some boggling BPV values for SFB ships. Look at the Fed CVA for instance. 150 Combat BPV for that? Gimme a break. Even at the Econ BPV of 172 it's still a bargain.
Post by: FireSoul on May 02, 2003, 11:51:47 pm
Quote:
Okay, don't fiddle. Do the SFB stuff, and accept the changes people point out which are essentially corrections to the addition/standardisation process.
Don't go into appeasement mode about fighters/drones/bar fridges, as long as the BPV's are correct (for SFC) and the SFB heritage is true.
Once you have achieved your primary goal, read the emails from people threatening never to play again, and the messages written in chicken blood about how you have killed the game or some such. They may occasionally have a valid point to make but they are delusional if they think you are stopping them from using the stock shiplist.
Then strap yourself in as you consider what you want to achieve in the way of D2 and GSA play balance. In the meantime there will be some very happy people playing with a true SFB shiplist, and will be able to give more reliable input into how the SFB versions really play. Who's to say what the balance will be like after a large scale mod.
PS - the BPV's for the SFB ships may be the subject of a little debate, but better to be argueing about what the ship is worth then trying to create a "balanced" shiplist straight up.
So .. THAT's what's this is about. You're pissed that I changed my mind.
Fine. I'm sick of stuff like this where no one is happy. I'll release 2.1c as promised, with the least possible work included.
Signing off,
-- Luc
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 03, 2003, 12:08:20 am
In the end, trust your own judgment.
We are all lucky to benefit from your labour.
Post by: Cleaven on May 03, 2003, 12:08:55 am
I am not alarmed, surprised or distressed about this, because I have gotten used to it. It is the nature of the whole SFC series. Almost, but not quite right. And that's just the way things are. People/designers lose interest, are side-tracked or diverted onto other things by imperatives which make "near enough is good enough" an acceptable state of affairs for something this big (and it is big). And the truth is that quite often near enough IS good enough.
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 12:20:04 am
Quote:
No, not at all. Haven't even DL'ed it yet. But your time is key to the success of the project. But the original stated objective is being side-stepped. And if you stop now then you have achieved neither a balanced list or an SFB correct list.
I am not alarmed, surprised or distressed about this, because I have gotten used to it. It is the nature of the whole SFC series. Almost, but not quite right. And that's just the way things are. People/designers lose interest, are side-tracked or diverted onto other things by imperatives which make "near enough is good enough" an acceptable state of affairs for something this big (and it is big). And the truth is that quite often near enough IS good enough.
The original intent WAS sidestepped when I decided to start doing balance changes.
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.
.. that's my true goal. 2.1b was to go towards that but I encountered a fatal flaw which resulted in CTD.
2.1c will correct that flaw.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 12:34:48 am
Quote:
"I don't mean to be a pain in your Canadian ass, FireSoul, but did you decide not to adopt SFB's HET breakdown numbers? Taldren gave many non-nimble ships a "+66%" bonus. Only truly nimble vessels get two bonuses on their first and second HETs in a scenario. Perhaps you might consider changing these ships...
Vessels (and variants thereof) affected: HET+2/Nimble entry should be 1
H-HN
H-CU
H-CRU
H-EH
H-CVE
K-E4
K-E6
K-F5
K-F6
L-FF
L-MP
L-DW
R-K4
R-K5
R-SKA
R-WB
R-KFR
Now, these vessels simply have base HET% errrors:
F-FFE and F-FFR should be like all F-FF's ("5", meaning 66% base success)
F-DE and F-DER should be like all F-DD's ("4", meaning 50% base success)
Oh yeah, the Z-NCA has a huge BPV error. Taldren lists it at something crazy like 157, the Z-NCA is really only 135! The R-KDR is also overpriced. It should be 137, not 146! The L-DWLP gets a power pack for free as well. It should come in at around 114 with UIM tax."
All changes checked and approved.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 12:37:48 am
Quote:
RE: MNR and MNV
SFB:
MNR = 390
MNV = 402
Add 32 for KillerBees.
The current prices were:
MNR: 417 -> changed to 422
MNV: 367 -> changed to 434
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 12:42:54 am
Post by: Cleaven on May 03, 2003, 12:55:32 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 12:57:51 am
Quote:
Of course, you have to adhere to the Taldren way of doing things such for fighters, PF's drone control etc. But how long do you think the balancing phase of the operation will take? While you are going through the balancing iterations there will be people who would like to just play with what are in essence the unbalanced stock and additional ships from SFB and other corrections as per the SSD's, and not have to argue about balance (because there has been no attempt at balance). I would imagine a monthly cycle, repeated over about six months, until the balance project could be considered complete.
Lesson from experiencing April: screw the blanket balancing.
.. only way that'll work with the players using the Taldren shiplist is to not use it.
A 100% purist SFB shiplist is the only way to make it work.
SO! Back to square 1. Add. Fix. Adjust. That's it.
-- Luc
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 03, 2003, 01:01:24 am
Likewise the R-KRC and R-KRCS should have 3 tractors not 5. Your R-KRCSF's 5 tracs are OK. Additionally, all the KRCS's should have 5 APR, not 7.
The G-CC+ and G-CCF should have 2 APR, not 3.
Fed CA+ shouldn't automatically have the RH Ph-1 refit. It should have just the Ph-3 and G-rack refit. Your CA+ is really a CAR+.
Your L-DWL got the PowerPack refit. I think the DWLP should get it (as Taldren tends to combine the PowerPack and Phaser refit together, see CWL vs CWLP) or you need to make a base DWL that is without a PowerPack.
Possible Combinations of L-CWL (134 bpv)
CWL = 30 power
CWL-Phas = 30 power, Ph3 to Ph1 refit, +4 bpv (unbuilt)
CWL-Pow = 34 power, +9 bpv (unbuilt)
CWL-Phas+Pow = 34 power, +13 bpv (Taldren's CWLP)
Combinations of L-DWL (103 bpv)
DWL = 23 power (not in OP+ shiplist)
DWL-Phas = 23 power, Ph3 to Ph2 refit, +2 bpv (unbuilt)
DWL-Pow = 27 power, +9 bpv (your "DWL" although it didn't pay for PowerPack, bpv = 103)
DWL-Phas+Pow = 27 power, Ph3 to Ph2 refit, + 11 bpv (your "DWLP" although it didn't pay for PowerPack, bpv = 106)
Post by: Cleaven on May 03, 2003, 01:15:22 am
Quote:
.. only way that'll work with the players using the Taldren shiplist is to not use it.
A 100% purist SFB shiplist is the only way to make it work.
SO! Back to square 1. Add. Fix. Adjust. That's it.
-- Luc
I wasn't going to say that, but it is quite true. Just remember that you cannot disappoint me any more than I was after playing on the D3 the first time (which has since improved a tad). With that as low water mark for lost potential in SFC you would have to do something really weird to make it worse.
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 01:38:06 am
Could you check the gorn Tugs? I think my BPVs are low. I used the BPV instead of EPV and now I wonder..
-- Luc
Post by: Rod O'neal on May 03, 2003, 02:31:30 am
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 03, 2003, 04:05:11 am
Post by: Holocat on May 03, 2003, 05:55:35 am
What is that, exactly?
A small housecat, lost, in a sea of beer swillin', flame fillin', starship spillin', SFBers,
Holocat.
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on May 03, 2003, 07:23:25 am
Quote:
Hey, I read that the ISC get something called 'Torpedo fighters' on one of the threads Firesoul has abandoned recently.
What is that, exactly?
A small housecat, lost, in a sea of beer swillin', flame fillin', starship spillin', SFBers,
Holocat.
ISC Fighters per SFB:
There are 2 "major" fighter lines for the ISC in SFB. The "Superiority" Fighter packs 2/Ph-3 & 2x Pl-D. The "Torpedo" fighter packs 1xPh-3, less maneuverability (lower dogfight rating which is not used in SFC), and a Pl-F.
These fighters get the usual speed upgrades as time goes on, but not much else (like lots of extra ammo and stuff like that...)
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 10:53:51 am
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 10:56:49 am
.. any other fixes you want me to do before I send this one out?
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 12:41:12 pm
2.1c is declared final, and is to be released now.
Post by: Rod O'neal on May 03, 2003, 11:01:32 pm
Quote:
Rod, I think that's where our collective experience of thousands of battles played should be valuable. We all know that the F-SC isn't worth 120 in SFC. We could probably narrow it down to +-10 of some number. The fact is that Taldren was faithful to SFB bpvs overall. The deviations from SFB bpvs draw attention naturally. Of course, many ships that "obey" SFB bpvs are tough to justify in the SFB environment not to mention the real-time SFC environment as you stated. The easier job (which I've been doing for a while) is looking at refits and making a case for it to be more or less based on the relative change in specs. The L-NCA v L-NCAL comes to mind. Additionally, I've been looking at ships that are nearly identical but have quite different BPVs (I-CVLZ vs I-CLZ). A very tough question to ask from a blank slate..."How much should the R-FHK cost?" I bet you'll start to wonder "Against what opponent?" Yup, BPV is a messy subject. Only the most vile offenders can be addressed by a group of players I've come to learn.
You're right, and that's what I meant to say. The SFB loadots and BPVs are the logical place to start. What you've (That's a collective you for all those who have worked on it.) done with the your shiplist to balance things will also need to be done with FireSoul's. It appears, to an outsider, that balancing has been, and is continuing to be done, to yours one ship at a time. With all the ships in SFC that would take a very long time, even for a large playtest group.
We should be able to figure out the true SFC value of an R-torp, for example, by taking the value in SFB and adjusting it up for being able to hold it, both as a standard and an enveloper, and subtracting some value for not having the rolling delay ability and come up with an accurate value for an R-torp. This is just one example. It needs to be done for most of the systems since almost none of them operate precisely as they do in SFB. Even the stock shiplist needs this. Individual races can be looked at to see if there are any holes in their shiplist that need to be plugged and ships can be designed. I just don't think FireSoul should be beating his head against the wall trying to do it all at once. You and your group, and others have been doing this part for a while. Your shiplist is very well thought out. You have shown a willingness to contribute here, and after you've had a chance to use and examine it I'm sure you, and others, will have plenty of constructive input to help balance things out.
Major shiplist editing, of any type, is a lot of work, and is very tedious. To FireSoul, Just making the thing is effort enough
To anyone who thinks that he's somehow *copping out* by not trying to perfect it all at once, You just don't understand how much work he's doing.
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 11:03:42 pm
.. sometimes a little "keep going" helps. .. I need that from you guys laterly.
Post by: Rod O'neal on May 03, 2003, 11:19:48 pm
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 11:41:49 pm
.. I've written myself some perl scripts on my linux box to detect a lot of the common issues.. And that saved me time.
For example..
.. my perl script tells me if any heavy weapon that requires power to load is fitted in a phaser slot as well as a phser fitted in a weapon slot.
.. my scripts tell me which ships still have 1-reload weapons prior to Y175..
.. how many ships per hulltype per race there are (because of the old 64 max, and now 128 max)..
Which ships don't have names in "shipnames.txt" as well as something in "strings.txt" for the ship's description.
etc. I must be checking for dozens of conditions now.. all run neatly together.
Sample:
Quote:
# ./check.sh
--------- count_by_hull.pl
REMEMBER: the usable limit is 64 ships PER hulltype PER race.
Showing with 64 ships or more in category.
---------------------------------------
Klingon -- CA -- 66
Klingon -- FF -- 77
Lyran -- CA -- 97
Lyran -- CL -- 77
Lyran -- FF -- 81
Mirak -- CA -- 67
Mirak -- FF -- 73
OrionOrion -- CL -- 64
--------- fighter_checker.pl
--------- ph_mount_checker.pl
H-SBX -- 902:
Heavy weapon mount has phaser --- Mount: 8 type: PhG2
Heavy weapon mount has phaser --- Mount: 9 type: PhG2
Heavy weapon mount has phaser --- Mount: 10 type: PhG2
--------- shipnames_checker.pl
--------- strings_checker.pl
--------- drone_reload_y175.pl
There are 0 ships with possible drone reload errors.
--------- Done ----------
If you guys ever need someone to put some scritable checking together for your own shiplist, let me know. It might not run at your end, but I could probably generate answers for you and return these to you via email.
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 04, 2003, 01:19:56 am
I've not yet learned how to usefully parse such data with Java apps.
Post by: FireSoul on May 04, 2003, 01:23:56 am
Maybe with copy-paste or something.. I dunno. I'm pretty sure some corrolation between the MSC and any shiplist could be done.
Post by: FireSoul on May 13, 2003, 09:47:45 pm
There's a Romulan CL with '???' for name.. a SEG?
.. needs to be checked.
Post by: jdmckinney on May 16, 2003, 12:06:17 pm
Many of the Romulan new-design cruisers are probably overclassed as HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER. Roms have bloated BPVs due to the cloak, so some of the 170-190 BPV hawks should probably be NCA or CA. This is a tricky issue that needs more input.
G-BDDs seem a bit overclassed as WAR_DESTROYER considering BPVs are more in line with the DESTROYER class.
I noticed most, but not all, fast cruisers are "R"estricted. Either all of them should be, or none of them should be (I prefer the latter).
Some FFV/DDV ships are not classed as CARRIER, but some DWV/HDWV are classed as CARRIER even though they have the same number of fighters as the others. This is probably a case-by-case issue where blanket rules are hard to follow.
I believe some of the AxPFTs still have just 2 INTs, instead of 4. Specifically, the L-AxPFT and R-AxPFT have just 2. Adding 2 more will also require a BPV adjustment. The G-AxPFT has 4 INTs.
Romulan KRs (KR, KRB, KRM) should probably be classed as LIGHT_CRUISER, since they are D6 conversions, not D7 conversions. Those are the K7s and KRC/KRCS. The most obvious difference is the number of phasers.
Post by: FireSoul on May 16, 2003, 04:35:31 pm
I'll let things pill up for a while until I decide to do something about it.
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on May 16, 2003, 05:46:21 pm
Keep up the good work.
Post by: NannerSlug on May 16, 2003, 05:52:04 pm
2) what are these things? CAH, CAM , BCP, BCS, CMC, MS, (there are a few more.. )
inquiring minds would love to know.. your probably uber busy anyhow.
Post by: Cleaven on May 16, 2003, 07:13:40 pm
Post by: FireSoul on May 16, 2003, 07:31:51 pm
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 16, 2003, 07:33:40 pm
Quote:
1) f-LTV Phaser arcs?
2) what are these things? CAH, CAM , BCP, BCS, CMC, MS, (there are a few more.. )
inquiring minds would love to know.. your probably uber busy anyhow.
CAH? dunno.
CAM? dunno.
BCP: what race's?
BCS: Battle Control Ship. Normally a ship with about 6 fighters and 6 PFs on a BCH hull.
CMC: dunno.
MS: MineSweeper.
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 17, 2003, 06:00:37 pm
Quote:
Romulan KRs (KR, KRB, KRM) should probably be classed as LIGHT_CRUISER, since they are D6 conversions, not D7 conversions. Those are the K7s and KRC/KRCS. The most obvious difference is the number of phasers.
The D6 should be considered a Heavy Cruiser just like its pointy-eared cousin, the KR. Ships with 30 warp can hardly be classed as Light Cruisers (which almost always have 24 warp).
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 17, 2003, 07:02:47 pm
Quote:
The D6 should be considered a Heavy Cruiser just like its pointy-eared cousin, the KR. Ships with 30 warp can hardly be classed as Light Cruisers (which almost always have 24 warp).
I've often wondered how that is the way it is. If you look in the shiplist in game, it says heavy cruiser, but on the shiplist.txt it's light cruiser. I'm assuming that it's a mistake. Or perhaps Taldren thought the best way to insert some balance was to downgrade them? Considering that there is nothing like the F&E klink reserve fleet (with 24 D6's in it alone) in SFC perhaps this was a D2 balance move (and insures that there are 50x too many D6D's, lol).
At any rate, on to my real question: Are you keeping a master errata file for SFC Tar? I've got a shiplist project that I'm considering, and I just don't have all the SSD's that I need. The first thing I'd like to do is chuck the mistakes but I don't know where they all are.
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 17, 2003, 08:57:46 pm
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 17, 2003, 09:12:33 pm
My trusty G-CC has two Ph-3's that it really shouldn't have. The G-CC is the only CC in the galaxy that has the same firepower as its base CA! The CCF compounds this error by applying the "F-refit"(+2 Plas-F and +2 wing Ph-3's) to these Ph-3's. The CCF should really have 2 Ph3, not 4. The CCF is an excellent ship with all that phaser padding, but it is an error that warrants fixing.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 17, 2003, 10:13:00 pm
Post by: IndyShark on May 17, 2003, 10:34:45 pm
I don't know if this is an error or just a game quirk.
Post by: FireSoul on May 17, 2003, 10:36:36 pm
.. I don't think it's a good idea to do it jsut because it doesn't 'feel right'. I want to do it because it's a correction.
ie:
.. H-CHC, H-CHA were changed to their correct status.
On that note, ships that I added myself are my call, I guess. .. so those I am more willing to change if it's needed.
-- Luc
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 18, 2003, 12:03:25 am
Taldren had the F5 listed as a "Frigate" yet the F5B was listed as a "Destroyer". The D5 was listed as a "War Destroyer", which we know is BS. The KCR was amazingly listed as an ordinary "Heavy Cruiser" yet the weakling Firehawk-A was deemed a "Heavy Battlecruiser". I think it is safe to say that Taldren was not too concerned about things making sense with regards to this shiplist entry. Not surprisingly, "War Cruiser" isn't even an option.
I suggest you consider using movement costs to decide Ship Class (.33 = FF, .5 = DD, .67 or .75 = CL, 1 = CA, 1.25 to 1.5 = DN, 2 = BB). BCH status is pretty clear. DD vs DW can be a bit tricky though. NCA vs CA is pretty straight forward.
Post by: FireSoul on May 18, 2003, 12:17:12 am
.. btw, most of THOSE corrections I have already done in 2.1c
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 18, 2003, 12:32:41 am
Quote:
Regarding ship classes:
Taldren had the F5 listed as a "Frigate" yet the F5B was listed as a "Destroyer". The D5 was listed as a "War Destroyer", which we know is BS. The KCR was amazingly listed as an ordinary "Heavy Cruiser" yet the weakling Firehawk-A was deemed a "Heavy Battlecruiser". I think it is safe to say that Taldren was not too concerned about things making sense with regards to this shiplist entry. Not surprisingly, "War Cruiser" isn't even an option.
I suggest you consider using movement costs to decide Ship Class (.33 = FF, .5 = DD, .67 or .75 = CL, 1 = CA, 1.25 to 1.5 = DN, 2 = BB). BCH status is pretty clear. DD vs DW can be a bit tricky though. NCA vs CA is pretty straight forward.
With exception to romulans. Romulans are...different.
I was wondering, we have basically a conversion effort from SFB to SFC using the taldren "style" here. Perhaps we could also do the fighterlist as well?
Post by: FireSoul on May 18, 2003, 01:29:23 am
.. for that, I encourage a separate project be spawned.
-- Luc
Post by: Cleaven on May 18, 2003, 02:49:57 am
(And I like the EAW Shipwrights list a lot too, but I'm stuck on OP now.)
Post by: jimmi7769 on May 18, 2003, 08:18:38 am
Quote:
Ok, so where does the I-CPF fall into?
.. btw, most of THOSE corrections I have already done in 2.1c
the I-CPF is based on the light cruiser hull isn't it??
Post by: jdmckinney on May 18, 2003, 09:01:32 am
As for the D6/KR issue, the class changes only affect price and availability on the D2. Such changes would not alter the BPV matchups or effectiveness of the ships. The D6 is worse than a D5, yet it costs more if it is considered a CA. It may have more warp, but it has CL shields and weapons. Until D5s come out, the D6 class is the only CL the Klingons have. More warp + 1.0 move cost pretty much equal a ship with less warp and a .67 move cost. I think the D6-based ships are reasonable to consider CLs.
Concerning shiplist corrections, if I've read FS right in past posts, he has only fixed those ship errors that he has come across or had brought to his attention. It is entirely possible (even probable) that there are errors he has not identified yet. I've been working on a straight reworking of the default shiplist to SFB specs, but it takes me a long time to do because I'm checking every single ship against the SSDs. That's the difference between having a shiplist to play and having one that's still unreleased.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 18, 2003, 11:05:49 am
Quote:
The I-CPF is a CL hull. It only carries a couple phasers. It and the CPFW (adds Ph3s) should be classed as LIGHT_CRUISER. Nobody will ever buy this ship at even that pricing bracket, but it is better than NCA.
As for the D6/KR issue, the class changes only affect price and availability on the D2. Such changes would not alter the BPV matchups or effectiveness of the ships. The D6 is worse than a D5, yet it costs more if it is considered a CA. It may have more warp, but it has CL shields and weapons. Until D5s come out, the D6 class is the only CL the Klingons have. More warp + 1.0 move cost pretty much equal a ship with less warp and a .67 move cost. I think the D6-based ships are reasonable to consider CLs.
Concerning shiplist corrections, if I've read FS right in past posts, he has only fixed those ship errors that he has come across or had brought to his attention. It is entirely possible (even probable) that there are errors he has not identified yet. I've been working on a straight reworking of the default shiplist to SFB specs, but it takes me a long time to do because I'm checking every single ship against the SSDs. That's the difference between having a shiplist to play and having one that's still unreleased.
See, I don't buy the argument that a D6 is a light cruiser. It's a heavy cruiser. It's even listed as one. It's just a crappy heavy cruiser. Compare this:
Designation: K-D6B
BPV: 128
Crew: 43
Marines: 14
Shield 1: 30
Shield 2 & 6: 22
Shield 3 & 5: 22
Shield 4: 22
Total Shields: 140
Movement Cost: 1
Turn Mode: B
Total Warp Power: 30
Impulse Power: 5
Aux Power: 2
Total Engine Power: 35
Battery: 3
Transporters: 5
Tractors: 3
Mech Tractors:
Shuttles: 2
Fighters:
4x Disruptor 3
2x Missle Rack A
7x Phaser 2
1x ADD 6
With:
Designation: K-D5
BPV: 110
Crew: 39
Marines: 8
Shield 1: 30
Shield 2 & 6: 26
Shield 3 & 5: 26
Shield 4: 26
Total Shields: 160
Movement Cost: 0.67
Turn Mode: B
Total Warp Power: 24
Impulse Power: 5
Aux Power: 2
Total Engine Power: 29
Battery: 3
Transporters: 3
Tractors: 3
Mech Tractors:
Shuttles: 2
Fighters:
4x Disruptor 3
2x Missle Rack A
2x Phaser 1
2x Phaser 2
4x Phaser 3
2x AMD 12
These are the 2 variants available at the same time, the D6B in 2265 and the D5 available in 2268. In comparison, the D6 has more phasers (though all are ph-2), more transporters, and (something that people generally don't consider), more internals (76 on the D5, 81 on the D6 by my quick count). The last means it's takes enemy fire better than the D5. It's true that they have the same shielding. It's also true that so does the D7 - the D6 and D7 have the same amount of shielding. Again, CA level stuff. Comparing the D6 to D7 again, the power plant on the D7 has only 2 more points of aux power as well, and it has 2 more ph-2. As for the argument that the klingons don't have a CL then, MANY races don't have a CL. Hydrans for instance don't get a CL of any type until 2268 with the horseman. The D6 is a CA and should be treated as one.
Post by: jdmckinney on May 18, 2003, 01:58:43 pm
This is exactly why I like these threads -- people can discuss things and find common ground or improvements without getting into a flamefest.
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 18, 2003, 04:56:08 pm
H&R Modifier:
Frigate and Carrier = 9/6
Destroyer = 9/7
War Destroyer = 9/8
Light Cruiser = 9/9
Heavy Cruiser, New Heavy Cruiser, and Special = 9/10
Heavy Battlecruiser = 9/12
Dreadnought = 9/14
Battleship = 9/16
Here's the H&R formula:
(20-(DefendingMarines*Modifier))/60 = Vulnerability
So a ship with no marines has a vulnerability of 20/60 or 0.33 or 33%.
Note that the product of DefendingMarines*Modifier has an upper limit of 16, which means a minimum vulnerability of 0.067 or 6.7%.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 18, 2003, 07:21:54 pm
Quote:
Some very good points there. Note the D6 has LESS shielding than the D5
I looked at this about 6 times and missed that, thank you.
Quote:
... and a worse power curve. Actually, most players would take a D5 over a D7. The D5 is a war cruiser, so really the Klingons, as with other races, skip CLs altogether. They don't actually have ANY. Upon examination of your arguments, and looking at the Hydrans as a common foe with similar ship production, the D6s are like unrefitted DGs -- poor cruisers that are best used as hulls to build variants from.
There's nothing "poor" about a DG or RN. They are good ships actually. Your analogy is incorrect IMO; a better comparison is the DG/RN against the D7/D6, or the DG+/RN+ against the D7B/D6B. Though the Hydran has the advantage here. This is intentional. Something that unfortunately can't be simulated correctly is the issue of numbers, and production costs and priorities. The klingons decided that "quantity has a quality all of it's own" since ADB based them loosely off of the soviet union. A quick check of my appendix of F&E 2K shows that, at the start of fighting of the general war, the hydran kingdom could muster 55 total combat vessels. This number increases somewhat if you factor in the expansions, but not by a significant number. The Klingon empire on the other hand, has 148 combat ships in it's various fleets. Not only that, but they also have a reserve fleet with another 15 ships, and a mothballed fleet (requires EP to activate) of 32 D6, 12 F5, 12 E4. To the hydran and Kzinti players in the early going it does not matter if your ships are superior to the klingon's, it is like trying to break a tidal wave. Also, a DG and RN cost 10 EP each (counting fighter factors) while a D6 and D7 costs 8.
What does this mean? Only that a D6 is a heavy cruiser, that is inferior because it's supposed to be inferior. The D7 is the same thing basically. These are klingon design decisions. What's really needed in the D2 play is perhaps having racial adjustments to ship pricing. A hydran CA costs X while a klingon one costs Y. IMO though we're facing a program limitation and I don't know if there's anything that can be done about it really.
Post by: Cleaven on May 18, 2003, 08:22:36 pm
Quote:
What does this mean? Only that a D6 is a heavy cruiser, that is inferior because it's supposed to be inferior. The D7 is the same thing basically. These are klingon design decisions. What's really needed in the D2 play is perhaps having racial adjustments to ship pricing. A hydran CA costs X while a klingon one costs Y. IMO though we're facing a program limitation and I don't know if there's anything that can be done about it really.
This is indeed the crux of the matter, and while the use of a SQL database and tools would make it possible for empire specific factors (like cheap drones for the Kzinti) there are also practical limitations on achieving this, in that somebody has to do all the work in the first place. While a number of people have made a fair bit of progress it's not possible to do this tomorrow, or the day after. Until then comprimise and practicalities must have right of way.
Post by: Magnum357 on May 20, 2003, 09:00:22 pm
Post by: FireSoul on May 20, 2003, 10:10:50 pm
.. why?
Post by: jimmi7769 on May 20, 2003, 10:16:44 pm
Quote:
Hey guys, just a quick question. Does this shiplist include Monitors? I never really checked if the original OP shiplist ever included them.
The original OP shiplist did not include them.
Post by: Magnum357 on May 21, 2003, 01:06:21 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 21, 2003, 01:35:37 am
.. .. anyways.
.. note to self:
Check to redo weapons on ISC CMs.
.. also, check fighterlist for H-WASP costs.
Post by: FireSoul on May 22, 2003, 02:04:33 am
The Z-MBT(+) aka Z-MTT-B needs to have its disruptors reorganized. Just 2 banks for 5 dizzies seems odd.
Post by: FireSoul on May 22, 2003, 04:39:03 am
The plasma-race's HDWs need to have both a Plasma-D and Ph1 variant for their HDWEs. Similarly, the Klingon's HF5E and the Mirak HDWE should have both a ph1 and a ADD12 variant. The Fed HDWE should have both a ph1 and Drone-G variant. The hydran's HDWE is fine, with the extra phGs. The lyran HDWE is stuck with ph1s, I guess.
Post by: jdmckinney on May 22, 2003, 06:43:14 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 22, 2003, 06:55:12 am
1- HDWs are Size-class 4. Option-mount rules state the ship needs to be size-class 3 or larger.
2- the 2 option mounts are considered 'hull mounted', but are not together. They can't be used this way.
.. in fact, the only HDW with 2 weapon options that are together is the Gorn's..
.. hence, there are more Grn HBD variants:
HBD1: 2x PlasmaFs RH (AP)
HBD2: 1x PlasmaG RH (AP) (!!!)
HBD3: 2x PlasmaD RAR/RAL arc to simulate RPR/LPR arc. (this could also have been "RH" by the rules)
HBD4: 2x Ph1 (I always made at least one of these per race)
Note that the ISC's HDD has RH PlasmaDs and the 2 rear plasmas are in a single mount: I ran out of mounts for it. Maybe I should put the ship on a larger model? I could then split the rear optionmounts and give the plasma-Ds separate arcs for better coverage, as well as separate pseudos for the Fs.
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on May 22, 2003, 02:09:27 pm
Is there a 3-ESG ship in the current list? I haven't looked closely at the Lyran specs, but I seem to remember a battle tug or somesuch having a total of 3 ESGs when using a pallet. I've always thought a 3-ESG ship would be a good thing on a cruiser, so you have something between the CAs and the 4-ESG BC(H)s. I'll have to crack a few SSD books to satisfy my curiosity now.
Post by: Rod O'neal on May 22, 2003, 02:48:37 pm
Post by: Strafer on May 22, 2003, 04:02:23 pm
Quote:
In SFB, the Lyran and LDR LBTs (Light Battle Transport) have three ESGs with the Klink battle pod.
Confirmed, the LBT, LBT+ and LBTF have 3 ESGs in OP+.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 22, 2003, 04:30:57 pm
Post by: FireSoul on May 22, 2003, 10:53:36 pm
Quote:
Something to consider: FRD's aren't armed like they are supposed to be. Plus, bases need work. There's a lot more combinations you can have depending on what modules are mounted.
Adding impulses will allow FRDs to move around as it was originally intended.. but that's no good if all they do is charge the enemy. That would have to be discussed first.
Similarly, phaser-armed planets should be given ph3s to avoid drone abuse.. ..
.. also.. come to think of it, there are other base-platforms that could be added too. Like commercial platforms and the like. These could be added as either LPs or SPECIAL. Comments?
-- Luc
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 23, 2003, 12:05:59 am
I didn't design the way it works, I just play it.
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 12:24:29 am
Post by: Magnum357 on May 23, 2003, 01:18:37 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 01:22:47 am
The Z-DD+ has an error. The "Shuttles Max" is supposed to be 2, but is marked as 1. "Shuttles Base" is 1, and is ok.
The Z-DD itself is fine with a "Shuttles Max" of 2.
Thanks Fluf.
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 01:24:53 am
Quote:
I wonder, if a 3D modeler reduces the scale of the planet models, would that in effect reduce inside edge of the planet where it would do that? I know how to use Milkshape, I could experiment this to see if it would work.
I guess the planet would have to be very very very small. I think the weapons are all 'mounted' in the dead-center of the model, and thus why they're marked as "360 degrees" weapons.
That really really really sucks.
- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 05:34:56 am
Encountered a L-DHDW2 LDR ship that had standard Lyran skin, not the black one. Will have to double-check that.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 06:03:15 am
Once it's over, I'll be revisiting this data, and do all changes I find good..
.. after that, a version 2.2 of the shiplist will be released, and we can play with it some. I will probably start a new corrections thread at that point, for a clean slate.
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on May 23, 2003, 07:00:45 am
Personally, I like the armed FRDs. I've tested them in play and enjoyed the extra dimension they add even if stationary. Defenders can use them to intercept drones, distract the enemy, and generally add more firepower to the field. Attackers have to be wary of them, but can attempt captures to even the odds.
The funny thing with the shipyard mission setup is armed FRDs, once captured, will fire at the other FRDs with any weapon that can reach that far -- if there are no closer enemies. They don't do much damage, though.
Other base types would be interesting, but perhaps hard to implement without missions specifically made for them. It would certainly be interesting to see PFs or fighters defending a planet. Since they'd be launched once and never recovered, anyway, they could be based on orbiting platforms.
Another idea I had but never got to work right was to have FRDs launch docked frigates as additional defenders. They can be given PFs or fighters, though.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 23, 2003, 07:22:14 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 07:30:39 am
Quote:
If you (or rather anyone doing a shiplist mod, since FS knows this) would like armed FRDs with impulse, but don't want them to move (because they will act like typical moronic AIs), just make sure they don't have a move cost. This is the default for FRDs already. The impulse is then essentially just additional power. I believe they are supposed to be able to move mainly so they can get from point A to point B, not so they could attack something, though that's exactly what they would do if they could.
Personally, I like the armed FRDs. I've tested them in play and enjoyed the extra dimension they add even if stationary. Defenders can use them to intercept drones, distract the enemy, and generally add more firepower to the field. Attackers have to be wary of them, but can attempt captures to even the odds.
The funny thing with the shipyard mission setup is armed FRDs, once captured, will fire at the other FRDs with any weapon that can reach that far -- if there are no closer enemies. They don't do much damage, though.
Other base types would be interesting, but perhaps hard to implement without missions specifically made for them. It would certainly be interesting to see PFs or fighters defending a planet. Since they'd be launched once and never recovered, anyway, they could be based on orbiting platforms.
Another idea I had but never got to work right was to have FRDs launch docked frigates as additional defenders. They can be given PFs or fighters, though.
Do you know of a shiplist with the equipped FRDs? It would save me time to just use someone else's work. Besides, god knows how many people use Mine.
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 07:33:22 am
Quote:
Now, something that you CAN do is give a planet a UI for a ship but the model of a planet. They then can fire all weapons normally, launch fighters, etc. It's just then the UI thinks it's a ship and tries to pull a death star. Giving it no power to move itself with doesn't fix the problem, as it then attempts to rotate itself to get weapons in arc, which is odd looking to say the least.
It would indeed be interesting.. but would it work with the stock Taldren missions? That has to be a requirement.
Also, a problem, I don't think there would be collision if it's a ship or a base.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 08:02:23 am
idea: should I enter FRDs with the fighter / PF upgrades over time? Yeah, I should.. just like bases.
problem: most missions are hardcoded to use the most basic FRDs..
ie, taken from ShipYard assault code:
Code:
std::string shipyard = "";
eRace race = mGetRace();
switch ( race )
{
case kFederation: shipyard = "F-FRD"; break;
case kKlingon: shipyard = "K-FRD"; break;
case kRomulan: shipyard = "R-FRD"; break;
case kLyran: shipyard = "L-FRD"; break;
case kGorn: shipyard = "G-FRD"; break;
case kHydran: shipyard = "H-FRD"; break;
case kISC: shipyard = "I-FRD"; break;
case kMirak: shipyard = "Z-FRD"; break;
default: shipyard = "O-FRD"; break;
}
In other words, only the basic "FRD"s are used in the standard missions.. .. which makes sense because they're entered as "SPECIAL" in the shiplist. Bleh.
.. adding the other FRDs isn't a problem, but nothing would use them unless scripted for it.. and thus that would only work with custom shiplists with the extra FRDs.. .. double bleh.
idea: should I enter DEFSATs? It would be amusing.. .. maybe use "BOX" for the model.
.. I like the idea already.DEFSATs are usually destroyed on 24 points of damage, no matter the internals. This could be simulated with armor.
ie: DEFSAT has 6 weapon boxes. They would count as 6. There would be ..say.. 2 excess damage hits, and 16 armor hits.
They would have no DAMCON, SENSOR, etc. hits... unless it's absolutely necessary. Then I would simply put the minimum of "1" in the proper fields.
idea: maybe create planets that recieve upgrades (as ground bases)? .. it wouldn't work all the time, but some planets could launch fighters I suppose. PFs for others.. let me check the ground bases SSDs... hmmm... .. small ground fighter base: 6 fighters (4).. medium: 12 fighters (8).. Interesting. ..
problem: how would people/scripts account the BPV used for the use of these bases?
problem: How many such bases should be used per planet? 1?
Post by: jdmckinney on May 23, 2003, 10:22:51 am
I'll upload a .txt file (zipped) with JUST the armed FRDs so you can quickly access them from my webspace.
Post by: jdmckinney on May 23, 2003, 10:49:28 am
Also, I think I did plas-D/plas-F combos on the plasma race FRDs because there are no offensive plas-D in SFC. I think they should have had 2 of those, but I decided on a closest approximation of 1 D and 1 F.
I'll PM you the link.
About the FRDs being called in scripts -- I would suggest the shiplist assign the simplest armed FRDs to the FRD spot (therefore getting called in all missions), and perhaps use FRDx (for whatever designation you want) to do alternate FRDs that a revised shipyard script could take into account. That's probably more a question for you scripters. One problem with the missions themselves are that you (almost?) never get your own race's FRD to defend (or your enemy's own FRD to attack). It sure would be nice if that could be fixed.
Post by: NuclearWessels on May 23, 2003, 11:35:01 am
Quote:
One problem with the missions themselves are that you (almost?) never get your own race's FRD to defend (or your enemy's own FRD to attack). It sure would be nice if that could be fixed.
Getting your own FRD to defend is easily fixed - I should have a recompiled version along with a bunch of other fixes in the next hour or two. Getting the right enemy FRD is more of a pain in the rump, but I'll see what I can do.
dave
Post by: jdmckinney on May 23, 2003, 11:59:43 am
As usual, we are all in your (NW & FS) debt.
Post by: NuclearWessels on May 23, 2003, 01:35:41 pm
Just spend about 10 minutes staring at the current code going ... "That should have worked!?!?"
<whew>
dave
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 23, 2003, 06:17:31 pm
Quote:
It would indeed be interesting.. but would it work with the stock Taldren missions? That has to be a requirement.
Also, a problem, I don't think there would be collision if it's a ship or a base.
-- Luc
I'm sorry, I don't know/remember. The testing that revealed these problems was done long ago, about a year back IIRC. Nuclearwessels could probabally look at it and give you an answer that is correct.
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 07:18:13 pm
However, nothing stops me from adding extra FRDs to the shiplist if anyone wants to work on them.
-- Luc
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 23, 2003, 08:55:08 pm
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 10:09:46 pm
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 23, 2003, 11:43:41 pm
As for the cloak, see http://208.57.228.4/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB2&Number=67223&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 about this problem child.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 24, 2003, 10:49:03 pm
I get the feeling that there are errors here, but I don't have the reference material to correct.
Post by: jimmi7769 on May 24, 2003, 11:00:06 pm
Quote:
Next question: Looking through the shiplist, I am once again confused by the term BCH when applied to the roms. What, exactly, is the rom BCH? Other than the KHK, which is literally supposed to replace a destroyed DN, or a KCN, which in SFB is a conjectural design since the klinks could never spare a C7 for any reason. The Firehawk-A is listed as a BCH. Two S torps and two F torps, plus 4 ph-3 and 5 ph-1 don't normally add up to a BCH. I went and checked advanced missions (my rom stuff is limited to this and basic) and it's listed as a CA. However, it also lists the KHK as a CA.
I get the feeling that there are errors here, but I don't have the reference material to correct.
There is much debate over this topic.
In short the Roms only true BCH is the KCR.
In SFB the Novahawk was considered a BCH but it had a working cloak, the SFC one doesn't.
Most Roms consider the KHK a BCH, but I think it's really a step above the other BCH's I mean it's got 6 more power than a C7 and that should just be illeagal.
But, realisticaly, I the the Gorn BCH is superior to the KCR(cause of the lack of offensive D-Racks) so there we are again, the Roms really don't have one.
Post by: Mog on May 24, 2003, 11:30:21 pm
Post by: jimmi7769 on May 25, 2003, 12:41:06 am
Quote:
Mace, having flown the G-BCH and the KCR a lot, in a battle between the 2 I'd go for the KCR. Better power curve, turn rate, and imho, better firing arcs on the ph1s.
Well, it is based on the best ship in the game ;-)
Post by: FireSoul on May 25, 2003, 12:58:46 am
Quote:
Romulan CA R-FHA HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-FHK HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-FFH-A HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-FFH-K HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-RGK HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-RHK NEW_HEAVY_CRUISER
Romulan CA R-NHK HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-KCR HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-KCRF HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-KHK HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Bleh.
.. I think I will change that to:
Quote:
Romulan CA R-FHA NEW_HEAVY_CRUISER
Romulan CA R-FHK NEW_HEAVY_CRUISER
Romulan CA R-FFH-A NEW_HEAVY_CRUISER
Romulan CA R-FFH-K NEW_HEAVY_CRUISER
Romulan CA R-RGK NEW_HEAVY_CRUISER
Romulan CA R-RHK NEW_HEAVY_CRUISER
Romulan CA R-NHK HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-KCR HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-KCRF HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-KHK HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Sounds good?
-- Luc
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 25, 2003, 01:45:40 am
Post by: jdmckinney on May 25, 2003, 10:14:19 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 25, 2003, 10:24:45 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 25, 2003, 11:42:56 am
Someone reported to me that lyran PFs were short-changed by 1 point of power.
Hm. I could always do a check-up..
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 25, 2003, 04:22:17 pm
Quote:
Note to self:
Someone reported to me that lyran PFs were short-changed by 1 point of power.
Hm. I could always do a check-up..
Possibly, but the problem is that the WBP issue has always been problematic, with fighters and PF's. Especially since the introduction date for WBP's is Y180, but this is not reflected in the fighterlist.
Post by: jdmckinney on May 25, 2003, 05:17:24 pm
FFH-A: CA (all other races' CFs are CA in the Tech Wars list, and not restricted)
FFH-K: CA
FHA: CA
FHF: CA
FHK: CA
KCR: BCH
KCRF: BCH
KHK: BCH
NHK: NCA (some other races' cruisers were also put here, since NCA on Tech Wars is more expensive than CA)
RGK: CA
RHK: NCA
SUA: CA
SUK: CA
Hope that helps.
Post by: FireSoul on May 26, 2003, 01:53:55 am
The H-IC is way too powerful as it is, Playing it on TechWars proved it easily, aside from the crap that I've recieved from MadElf about it.
.. looking at the BPV of the ship, it has a EPV of 35 points higher. Increasing the BPV by 35 eems like a good way to help balance the ship a bit.
Request: Nomad, if you read this..
.. please change the IC's hulltype on techwars.. and up the BPV by 35 on the server side's shpilist too, while at it..
It's only 16-17K as it is, and is completely OTT. A ship like that should be priced as a CVA .. which is "DN".
-- Luc
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 26, 2003, 02:16:11 am
There is no listing for "Carriers" on the master ship chart; it lists the fed CVS as a heavy cruiser for example. I say follow this lead.
Post by: FireSoul on May 26, 2003, 02:21:21 am
Quote:
The problem, IMO, is the class listing. What SFC2.NET has done for the last several servers is take all carriers and assign them to the base hull class they come from. That makes the Uhlan a destroyer, a Trooper a Light Cruiser, and the Iron Duke and Chancellor dreadnaughts. It's silly that a Uhlan might have nearly the same cost as an Iron Duke.
There is no listing for "Carriers" on the master ship chart; it lists the fed CVS as a heavy cruiser for example. I say follow this lead.
That should be up to the admin..
.. remember, my shiplist has to remain taldren-like and be compatible with GSA and other forms of play.
-- Luc
Post by: Cleaven on May 26, 2003, 04:56:50 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 26, 2003, 05:04:50 am
There's more to standard multiplayer than SL!
Post by: Cleaven on May 26, 2003, 06:51:43 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 26, 2003, 07:05:24 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."
The ships' status are going to have to remain the same. This shiplist works beautifully with local single-player D2 (I have played a lot of it) and simple multiplayer (many hundreds of hours there). The online D2 servers can also use the shiplist, but their admins will have to adapt it for their uses at their end.
The shiplist will remain like this to support the broadest audience, and my own preferences.
-- Luc
EDIT: The above was about optomizing the shiplist for D2 play, unlike the stock Taldren shiplist.
Post by: jdmckinney on May 26, 2003, 08:01:14 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 26, 2003, 08:07:48 am
HM..
Hm..
Quote:
HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER = 2.5
CARRIER = 2.0
DREADNOUGHT = 3.0
Hm.
You guys might be right after all..
.. should I change all BCHs and higher that are marked as CARRIER to their proper hull classes?
.. But that'll screw up a lot of things elsewhere. I can think of the coopace script on GSA, for instance. I still think it's best to leave it alone for the default shiplist.
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on May 26, 2003, 03:28:33 pm
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 26, 2003, 04:27:15 pm
Post by: FireSoul on May 27, 2003, 12:08:14 am
The IC will be 220. It has 24 fighters, so the BPV will be increased by 48: 268
The IC+ will be 240. It has 24 fighters, so the BPV will be increased by 48: 288
Those BPVs will be in the next shiplist, I would think.
Post by: FireSoul on May 27, 2003, 02:38:49 am
.. now I've posted a bug about it to Taldren.. but..
.. if they don't do anythign about it, should I swallow my own pride and change some phXs to phGs like the Taldren X1 ships had?
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on May 27, 2003, 06:07:43 am
The trouble with PhX and point defense is they can't be set to PD and overloaded at the same time. Apparently the AI chooses power over defense.
Post by: FireSoul on May 27, 2003, 07:13:10 am
We'll see.
Post by: FireSoul on May 29, 2003, 11:57:04 am
.. seems that through testing, G racks don't have enough ammo at all on X ships. B racks it is, I guess... but that's gonna screw up my sanity checkign scripts. I'll have to be careful if there are new xships additions later on.
-- Luc
Post by: Kel on May 29, 2003, 12:40:53 pm
Do you know if the OP D2 server kit is being worked on? If so, by whom? I have some suggestions for SQL compatability.
GDA-Kel
Gorn Dragon Alliance
Post by: Mog on May 29, 2003, 12:56:40 pm
Post by: FireSoul on May 29, 2003, 01:07:15 pm
Post by: Kel on May 29, 2003, 01:12:05 pm
Quote:
I dunno if I have the right to answer any questions about that. :-/
Alright then...don't tell me who is working on it, but can you tell me IF it is being worked on?
If it IS being worked on by some un-named person, would you be in a position to pass along my suggestions for SQL implementation?
GDA-Kel
Gorn Dragon Alliance
Post by: FireSoul on May 29, 2003, 02:25:58 pm
.. as for whether or not there's going to be another patch .. or if there's someone working on OP.. (I don't want to get any false hopes up) .. I know some issues, non-D2, have been looked at. It still doesn't mean that those fixes will be used to create a new patch. Instead, the work could always be shelved. :-/
I think I'm one of the most active testers for SFC:OP at the moment. I will pass along anything you might have to add that might help.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 29, 2003, 03:29:32 pm
.. makes me think that TarMinyatur might be right in giving all X1 ships a pair of phGs.
Explanation:
AI does not use phX for defense. Yet for the Rom and Gorn X1 ships, there are no defensive weapons on the ships at all (with my X1 ships). They've got a bunch of phXs and offensive plasmas.. and that's it.
.. would replacing 2 phX into 2 gatlings on all X1 ships (including hydran to be fair) be too drastic? It is known the AI doesn't hold the phGs back when attakcing. A player can tease an AI to fire its gatling from range 12-14, then fire drones at it.
The feds, miraks and klingons are just about immune from drones with the numerous G racks (and ADDs).
.. but what do we do about the Gorn, Rom, (and ISC?) X1 ships?
Edit:
How about
<FireSoul> then what do you suggest? A sacrifice in plasma power to get plDs?
<FireSoul> ie: 2xGs -> 2xFs + 2xDs?
Edit2:
Doing this would increase the BPV by 3 per G->F+D conversion.
Post by: Mog on May 29, 2003, 03:59:52 pm
Post by: FireSoul on May 29, 2003, 04:13:26 pm
.. besides, I *have* seen the lyrans use their ESGs defensively with OP.. I was impressed.
I think these would be fine for now. Besides, the Lyrans have LDRs (and thus gatlings) and the Hydrans have their fighters in their X1 ships.
Edit: the stock fighters in Hydran X1 ships are type IIIs.
Edit: The lyrans MAY have PFs. (Ints... but it helps)
Post by: FireSoul on May 29, 2003, 05:10:38 pm
.. the triple batteries on the X1 ships are not present on the X2..
.. also, they give triple hull hits on the batteries right now.
I should really change that to single battery per box on SSD. You know.. to make it consistant. I wonder if there's a way to properly calculate a BPV adjustment. Any ideas, people?
-- Luc
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 29, 2003, 05:54:54 pm
Quote:
It has been discovered that X1 ships are indeed unbalanced through test-playing on the TechWars server..
.. makes me think that TarMinyatur might be right in giving all X1 ships a pair of phGs.
Huh? I've never suggested anything to do with X-ships. I've never flown an X-ship nor do I ever really want to
Post by: FireSoul on May 29, 2003, 05:57:36 pm
.. my memory fails me..
..
Post by: Rod O'neal on May 29, 2003, 06:40:48 pm
). In effect increasing the # of internals anyway. If you cut back on the generating power systems to SFB spec then the additional batts. internals don't really matter. I find it makes using x-ships a little more challenging that way too. IMHO
Post by: jdmckinney on May 29, 2003, 06:51:20 pm
On the Plasma, Fs are nearly useless in an X vs. X fight -- they're too fast to hit with Fs because of the limited range and drop-off in damage. Droners don't have that damage reduction, and their drones fly for much longer. Also, I wonder about plasma D BPVs according to SFB, since there they could be used offensively, right? Here they can't.
I also agree that PhG are a tricky issue, because they are so good offensively. I still like the Ph3 as an option, though it has plenty of flaws, too.
What I'd really like to hear is more opinions, especially from players with a lot of flight time. It's all academic until it plays out in a match.
Post by: Rod O'neal on May 29, 2003, 07:01:24 pm
Quote:
I believe you could easily get the PhGs selectable by first selecting all weapons, then deselecting the ones you don't want grouped with them (maybe even all other hardpoints), and then assigning them a hotkey.
Good point. I didn't think of that, because I've never tried it, I guess
.
Post by: FireSoul on May 29, 2003, 08:51:38 pm
Good: defense versus tracking objects
Bad: AI using phGs can be outplayed.. the phGs would not be used for defense, but for offense.
This fix is for the AI, not the player. .. .. so that eliminates the phGs as useful.
Pl-Ds, PlaGs->PLaFs:
Good: defense..
Bad: costless defense for a while... no power needs to be expended on ships that would normally do that.
Bad: X-ships would out-run PLaFs fired at them easily.
Players could abuse this easily.
Well.. maybe I should just leave this alone for now.. I hope that Taldren will heed my request to make the phX defense-capable by default. That would solve everything here.
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 29, 2003, 09:17:25 pm
I think SFC would have been vastly improved had the Ph-3/G chart simply been truncated at range 2 instead of inheriting SFB's woefully ineffective range 3 to 15 shots. I've never fired a Ph-3 from range 3+ in all my years of SFB/SFC. Yet the AI does it like it's going out of style.
Post by: FireSoul on May 29, 2003, 09:23:38 pm
Yeah, I've done it. The 2 ships were coming apart from each other and the down shield was facing me.
... I had to try.. and did sometihng like 2 internals.
Anyways.. yeah.. .. but that's an old argument..
.. fact remains that phGs are useless in such manner at this time.
Post by: MadElf on May 30, 2003, 05:01:04 am
Good: defense..
Bad: costless defense for a while... no power needs to be expended on ships that would normally do that.
Bad: X-ships would out-run PLaFs fired at them easily"
True, but people are also forgetting about the fact that the X1 have R torps instead of M torps, and that's a significant increase in firepower already. I think the G -> F plasma conversion with the makes them much more accurate in overall firepower compared to the origional SFB models. Also, D plasma do run out soon enough, this is just a little bump to the rom/gorn X1, not a big edge. Take note that, for example, the K-DXD had 6 amd 12, and the rom counterpart (same hull, 2 less power) has 0 drone/fighter defenses. A DXD will go through fighter swarms and drone waves like they weren't even there. Guys, try flying a rom or gorn X1 ship in an agent recovery mission vs mirak or klingon ai. Then fly a klingon or mirak through the same mission. You'll see what I mean.
Also true, X ships can out run plasma F. But that doesn't make them useless by any means. Rom/gorn X2 ships are loaded down with tons of F torps, and I always seem to manage to hit people with them anyway, and that's vs the much faster X2 ships, not just the X1.
Post by: FireSoul on May 30, 2003, 05:28:27 am
Other comments?
Post by: jdmckinney on May 30, 2003, 07:49:21 am
I know this is a one-sided look at the Lyran issues. Granted, the others have their own peculiarities, but I think the Lyran situation is worthy of more discussion.
Post by: FireSoul on May 30, 2003, 08:17:08 am
.. the very best solution is to see the phX fixed .. so that AI can use it defensively. (Please Taldren? GO TALDREN!!)
heh
Post by: FireSoul on May 30, 2003, 08:18:49 am
I have found some corrected SSDs available for download from the ADB SFB pages..
.. these are to be considered replacement SSDs. Should I use them?
http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sfin/Reprinted_SSDs.pdf
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on May 30, 2003, 08:33:21 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 30, 2003, 08:42:44 am
and some rear shield differences in the F-CVA..
.. and an error correction for the R-KDR's Emer IMP -> APR.
.. do you have a URL to SSD erratas in text?
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 30, 2003, 08:54:31 am
.. crap.. I can't believe I have missed/ignore tihs all along.
Thre are *4* shuttlebay related fields
1- # of shuttlebay boxes
2- launchrate
3- # shuttles BASE. (for stock configuration)
4- # shuttles MAX.
.. in the Z-DD+ bug above, the # shuttles max is 1, instead of 2 despite the baysize of 2. In-game, that meant a single shuttle.
.. so it DOES work. That means I should review ALL fighter-carriers and add all the missing internal hits to the # of shuttlebays! .. that means 40 more for the IC+, for example! That's 80 internals more.
..Crap.. crap crap crap. This is a MUST do.
-- Luc
EDIT: as long as there's 1 bay, all fighters may rearm. That's wrong.. crap.. the old arguments again.
PS. No, I'm not using standard hull. That screws up DAC. Best would be to leave alone unless good arguments come up.
Edit2: Argument via D2 server: .. no bays hits is appropriate balance for fighter regen.
Post by: jdmckinney on May 30, 2003, 09:22:15 am
I saw the Romulan examples you gave here: http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/errata14.html.
The main page for the Errata (broken into subpages by rule numbers), is here: http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/erratoc.html.
Post by: jdmckinney on May 30, 2003, 09:39:52 am
http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/X-shipCL23.pdf
Post by: FireSoul on May 30, 2003, 09:41:39 am
Quote:
If you want to really get confused about Xes, check out the X-errata, which essentially kills any chance OP has at approximating SFB Xes. Since OP depends upon the PhX, and SFB depends more on X-heavy rules like fast-loads (as far as weapons are concerned), we've essentially got the opposite of what SFB Xes should be. It's getting to the point where we might as well throw out all Xes and start from scratch -- meaning there can't be a good translation from SFB if using SFC limitations and SFB SSDs and BPVs.
http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/X-shipCL23.pdf
Yeah.. I know.
... that's why I selectively decided to ignore the CL23 rule changes.. in favor of SFC.
That means also I didn't use the BPVs at the bottom of the errata, there.
Post by: jdmckinney on May 30, 2003, 09:56:08 am
Post by: jdmckinney on May 30, 2003, 09:58:01 am
Post by: Mog on May 30, 2003, 11:41:27 am
Alternatively, with a code change, do as Tar Minyatur suggested (and something that I've posted about several times now), and restrict ph3/G fire to a max of range 2. That way, if a player wants to tease out point defence phasers, he has to go into their effective range and take some damage.. On top of this, I would also recommend that the pd option for phasers to fire on plasma torps be removed too, else the plasma users have an advantage over the other races in that they canlaunch a pseudo to waste pd fire then launch real ones.
Ideally, doing similar (ie range restrictions) to other weapons would improve the ai's fighting capability a lot. Restrict ph1s to range 8.99 max (15.99 if facing a downed shield), fusions to 2.99 etc. By restricting, I don't mean cut off the weapons' ranges, I mean put some sort of If/Then statement in to check range to target , and if the target is outside of those ranges,then to not fire those weapons.
Post by: FireSoul on May 30, 2003, 12:01:45 pm
I know it's not perfect.. But it's just the AI anyways.
My current stand is: I want to wait and see if my request is going to be rejected or not. I don't want to get players used to having some fantastic gatlings on all the xships again if I'm just going to take them away.
anyways.. I would like to hold off on requesting the range changes in AI behaviour at this time. I have done enough requests lately to warrant shutting up for a while until DavidF is more comfortable to hearing about things like this.
Unless someone else wants to ask him, this time?
BTW,.. I agree fully about the AI. Know that.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 30, 2003, 07:13:29 pm
Quote:
Note to self:
.. crap.. I can't believe I have missed/ignore tihs all along.
Thre are *4* shuttlebay related fields
1- # of shuttlebay boxes
2- launchrate
3- # shuttles BASE. (for stock configuration)
4- # shuttles MAX.
.. in the Z-DD+ bug above, the # shuttles max is 1, instead of 2 despite the baysize of 2. In-game, that meant a single shuttle.
.. so it DOES work. That means I should review ALL fighter-carriers and add all the missing internal hits to the # of shuttlebays! .. that means 40 more for the IC+, for example! That's 80 internals more.
..Crap.. crap crap crap. This is a MUST do.
-- Luc
EDIT: as long as there's 1 bay, all fighters may rearm. That's wrong.. crap.. the old arguments again.
PS. No, I'm not using standard hull. That screws up DAC. Best would be to leave alone unless good arguments come up.
Edit2: Argument via D2 server: .. no bays hits is appropriate balance for fighter regen.
1. I'm not sure if adding shuttlebay boxes will work. I seem to recall that there is a max number.
2. All fighters rearming on 1 shuttlebay is not as bad as the ability to hit and run the shuttlebay and take it out of commission so that you can't launch fighters at all. I don't have the SSD for the IC, but I'll guarantee it has more than 2 launch tubes. Use cargo or barracks instead of hull if you want to add the internals. Tar I'm sure will point out that SFC has no chance for a chain reaction, but seriously, I can't think of any competent fighter commander that would allow a situation to develop that would trigger one, unless he was totally suprised at fairly close range. In which case it's probabally not your biggest problem anyway.
You COULD rearm 40 fighters with only 1 fighter bay. It would just take a very long time. Also, in a situation with a crippled CVA, the escorts could also rearm the fighters; or at least the hydran and federation could.
Again the long and short of it is that taldren hosed this issue somewhat, just like the decision to not give everyone fighters and PF's.
Post by: FireSoul on May 31, 2003, 07:46:01 am
2xPLaM -> 2xPLaR (upgraded)
2xPLaS -> 2xPLaG (downgraded)
No BPV change.
.. while other ships:
PLaM -> PLaR, +10 BPV
No downgrades (because there aren't as many Rs as Ms)
The question is: Should I leave it like that, with some ships haivng lower BPV but also less firepower, or should I reupgrade their PLaGs to PLaSs with +10BPV each?
Post by: jdmckinney on May 31, 2003, 09:17:15 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 31, 2003, 10:30:19 am
.. I'm waiting to see if my request for defensive-capable (on default) phX will be acknowledged.
*THE* best point concerning plasma I have heard is "if you downgrade it, it can probably be outrun. That's why I feel the downgrades I have already done is in error. I should have increased the BPV instead with the better PlasmaRs.
As for PlasmaD.. well.. killing 12 drones for free per rack seems, ..well, a bit much. The ship has all those ph1s.. oh sorry, phX, to be able to defend itself as well as be offensive. We've already discussed the phGs, so the ups and downs are all said, there.
.. anyways..
Let's wait and see what happens. There's still 1 patch left.
-- Luc
Post by: jimmi7769 on May 31, 2003, 10:32:57 am
They stirred up all kinds of problems in SFB too.
Post by: FireSoul on May 31, 2003, 10:35:53 am
.. they're a lot of fun, too.
-- Luc
Post by: jimmi7769 on May 31, 2003, 10:45:23 am
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 01, 2003, 12:19:42 am
Post by: jimmi7769 on June 01, 2003, 09:13:27 am
Quote:
Just curious. Why don't you use PlaX for PlaM? Also, how do you adjust for the lack of a PlaL in SFC?
Plasma L is an easy one, they are identical to the Plasma G in every way except I think they only take up one option mount space.
Post by: FireSoul on June 01, 2003, 09:48:12 am
As for the PLaX.. it's too damned fast. speed 40? No way I'll use it.
Post by: FireSoul on June 02, 2003, 11:29:30 pm
The FX phasers on the Lyran BBs are actually KFX. (Klingon FX boom arc)
Needs correction/review.
Post by: jdmckinney on June 05, 2003, 09:11:20 am
Quote:
New ships include the Federation GVX, heavy fighter pod, and scout pod; the Klingon heavy fighter resupply pod, PF transport pod, a medium hangar pod; the Kzinti CDX, scout pod, heavy fighter resupply pod, and PF transport pod; the Gorn scout pod, heavy fighter resupply pod, and PF transport pod; the Tholian heavy fighter resupply pack; the Hydran Boar Hunter commando DW, advanced fighter resupply ship, heavy fighter resupply pallet, and PT transport pallet; Lyran scout pod, heavy fighter resupply pod and pallet, PF transport pod and pallet.
...
Battle Group 900 focuses on a published scenario. Anarchist covers Seltorian-vs-Tholian with four SSDs, a complete master ship chart covers all ships published in previous Captain?s Logs, the Klingon Legal System is described in frightening detail.
Post by: jdmckinney on June 05, 2003, 09:29:09 am
I just realized CL26 is NOT the only new product available June 25. Module R10: The New Cruisers is absolutely essential! Check it out:
Quote:
They said it would never be done, but here it is! Module R10 includes variants of the New Heavy Cruisers, giving all of those War Cruiser Variants increased combat power and survival. There are 79 new ships including:
- Federation New Command Cruiser, New Strike Carrier, New Fast Cruiser, New Drone Cruiser, New Survey Cruiser, New Division Control Ship, New Cruiser Leader, New Heavy Fighter Carrier, New Heavy Scout, New Aegis Escort
- Klingon New Heavy Cruiser Leader, New Strike Carrier, New Fast Heavy Cruiser, New Drone Bombardment Cruiser, New Survey Cruiser, New Fast Patrol Tender, New Division Control Ship, New Penal Cruiser, New Heavy Scout Cruiser, New Diplomatic Cruiser, New Escort Cruiser, New Mauler Cruiser, New Commando Cruiser, New Drone Cruiser, and New Stasis Cruiser
- Romulan FireHawk-B carrier, Firehawk-E PF tender, FireHawk-S Scout, RegalHawk-B carrier, RegalHawk-E PF tender, RegalHawk-C Scout, FlameHawk-P true mauler, New Heavy KR, New Heavy KR Scout, New Heavy KR Carrier
- Kzinti New Command Cruiser, New Strike Carrier, New Fast Cruiser, New Scout Cruiser, New Command Cruiser, New Drone Cruiser, New Survey Cruiser, Heavy PF Tender, New Division Control Ship, New Escort Cruiser
- Gorn Fast Medium Cruiser, Medium Survey Cruiser, Medium Fast Patrol Tender, Medium Commando Cruiser, Medium Division Control Ship, Medium Carrier, Medium Scout Cruiser, Heavy Destroyer Dreadnought
- Tholian New Heavy Cruiser and New Photon Cruiser
- Orion Heavy Battle Carrier and Heavy Battle PF Tender
- Hydran New Command Cruisers, New Medium Carrier, New Fast Cruiser, New Survey Cruiser, Medium PF Tender, Division Control Ship, New Tug, Heavy Escort Cruiser, Heavy Scout Carrier
- Andromedan Conqueror (their only three-engined ship!)
- Lyran New Command Cruiser, New Fast Cruiser, New Survey Cruiser, New Heavy PF Tender, New Division Control Ship, and New Mauler Cruiser
- ISC New Heavy Cruiser and New Strike Cruiser
- LDR New Command Cruiser and New Strike Carrier
- Seltorian New Heavy Cruiser and New Strike Carrier
Also included are counters and scenarios.
Post by: FireSoul on June 05, 2003, 09:32:31 am
.. as for copying ships from Captain's Logs.. well.. there's a good reason why I don't do it often: the SSDs given don't cover all races. Because of balance, when a type of ship is released, I want to be able to add all of the race's variants of this ship.
The only exception I have made was to use CL #16's X1 Drone Bombardment ships.
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on June 05, 2003, 09:34:33 am
Post by: FireSoul on June 05, 2003, 09:36:10 am
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on June 05, 2003, 09:46:32 am
I'm just glad I stumbled upon these at the ADB site. I never buy from shops, because the only one nearby doesn't stock the new stuff reliably. I order everything from ADB, and I've never had a problem getting what I want. Anyway, R10 is a BIG DEAL. I wasn't expecting it to be the next major release, so it's a bit of a surprise.
Post by: FireSoul on June 05, 2003, 09:47:36 am
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on June 05, 2003, 11:05:39 am
Direct link to R10 page: Module R10: The New Cruisers
Direct link to CL26 page: Captain's Log 26
Post by: FireSoul on June 05, 2003, 12:18:47 pm
6 gatlings, 4 MIRVs 57 power which means it goes speed 31 and Overloads the 4 dizzies all the time..
Things I can do:
1- "R" designation. I don't want that thing on the D2. Ever.
2- Shipedit itself says that it's 20 BPV *UNDER*priced. .. and that's at LEAST.
.. that ship has no place in the shiplist..why I never noticed it before, nor looked at it closely, I am not sure. But KOTH and KAT be damned, that ship isn't staying as-is. I need opinions.
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on June 05, 2003, 12:24:57 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 05, 2003, 12:26:09 pm
.. based on data, it should come down to maybe .. 190? .. -25BPV. 189 BPV sounds ok?
.. compare with the K-D5D.. it is only at 116 BPV.
Other comparaison:
K-D5L: 133
K-D5X: 197.
It sounds about right from gameplay perspective too.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on June 05, 2003, 12:31:24 pm
Quote:
Without looking closely, I'd say no non-Hydran ship should get 6 gatlings. Also, 4 MIRVs seems excessive. If that were 2 MIRVs and 2 Bs, it would still be plenty of drones in the air (does it have other drones as well?). The power curve is tricky. It seems the Taldren default was perhaps not as far off on power as some thought (myself included). Maybe stepping it down by a couple power boxes at a time and testing on GSA would help to find a sweet spot.
Yeah.. it has 2 C racks as well. ..
.. I am thinking of removing it, and putting in a special mention that that ship has been banned from my shiplist for being OTT. If you aren't happy with that decision, sorry and too bad. I've actually TESTED that ship and found it too much for my liking.
Oh, and no.. I don't cater to fleets who threathen to not use my shiplist. So *nyah*!
Post by: jdmckinney on June 05, 2003, 02:18:02 pm
Post by: DH123 on June 05, 2003, 03:36:58 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 05, 2003, 03:53:59 pm
Post by: jimmi7769 on June 05, 2003, 10:36:41 pm
R6 fast warship
R7 Dreadnaughts at war
R10 new cruisers..............
Were'd R8 and R9 go??
Post by: MadElf on June 05, 2003, 11:11:58 pm
Post by: jdmckinney on June 06, 2003, 11:10:52 am
Post by: FireSoul on June 06, 2003, 11:15:11 am
.. so the until I can pay him back, he'll own them but I'll be able to use them.
So, people, give him your thanks.
-- Luc
Post by: Strafer on June 06, 2003, 11:27:31 am
Quote:
...
So, people, give him your thanks.
-- Luc
Or curses, as these new babies will eventually be on your tail in an asteroid field near you!
Post by: IndyShark on June 08, 2003, 08:39:58 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 08, 2003, 08:45:31 pm
(I tried for 18, bcause it has 12, and has special sensor channels.)
Post by: IndyShark on June 09, 2003, 06:15:26 am
Post by: FireSoul on June 11, 2003, 12:24:44 pm
.. my gut was right! The CAD+ doesn't get a 7th B rack, it's a G-rack! .. the CAD+ and CADR should be updated to use a G-rack, and a ADD. I'll have to adjust the BPV, of course.
-- Luc
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on June 11, 2003, 07:47:32 pm
Quote:
Not to self!
.. my gut was right! The CAD+ doesn't get a 7th B rack, it's a G-rack! .. the CAD+ and CADR should be updated to use a G-rack, and a ADD. I'll have to adjust the BPV, of course.
-- Luc
Interesting...
Post by: Strafer on June 11, 2003, 10:36:12 pm
Quote:
Interesting...
When a woman says that word...
... it's either expensive or hazardous.
Post by: Sethan on June 12, 2003, 04:50:23 pm
Quote:
The Z-CCX2 is way way WAY over the top.
6 gatlings, 4 MIRVs 57 power which means it goes speed 31 and Overloads the 4 dizzies all the time..
Things I can do:
1- "R" designation. I don't want that thing on the D2. Ever.
2- Shipedit itself says that it's 20 BPV *UNDER*priced. .. and that's at LEAST.
.. that ship has no place in the shiplist..why I never noticed it before, nor looked at it closely, I am not sure. But KOTH and KAT be damned, that ship isn't staying as-is. I need opinions.
-- Luc
The real question is how it compares to X2 cruisers of other races. If it is OTT, tone it down or make a reasonable ship from scratch to go in its place. You can't really just remove it, as it would leave a 'hole' in the shiplist for the Mirak (i.e., a place where other races have a ship and the Mirak have nothing comparable).
Post by: Strafer on June 12, 2003, 05:01:44 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 12, 2003, 09:50:01 pm
..
.. ok. I'll be rude. I had a bad day today: my father died.
If you lose with the Z-CCX2 (Taldren's) .. you REALLY SUCK.
Edit: I tested myself against it. I died miserably. Twice. 2 separate tests vs another player. There reallty aren't many ships that can take it on. Seriously! The Mirak X2 are GOOD SHIPS. They have less power, but a crapload of droneracks to take up the room.
-- Luc
Post by: MadElf on June 12, 2003, 11:35:02 pm
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 12, 2003, 11:54:52 pm
Quote:
exactly. The true CCX is present to counter the the other X1s.
..
.. ok. I'll be rude. I had a bad day today: my father died.
If you lose with the Z-CCX2 (Taldren's) .. you REALLY SUCK.
Edit: I tested myself against it. I died miserably. Twice. 2 separate tests vs another player. There reallty aren't many ships that can take it on. Seriously! The Mirak X2 are GOOD SHIPS. They have less power, but a crapload of droneracks to take up the room.
-- Luc
FireSoul, Sorry to hear about your dad. It's one of those very unfortunate facts of life that most of us have to go through. You seem like a strong individual. Hang in there. My condolences to you and your family.
Post by: FireSoul on June 13, 2003, 12:11:22 am
.. it's been.. .. rough.. today.
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on June 13, 2003, 12:33:14 am
Post by: Sethan on June 13, 2003, 01:11:00 am
My condolences, Firesoul.
Post by: IndyShark on June 13, 2003, 09:41:27 am
Post by: Bernard Guignard on June 15, 2003, 08:12:52 am
My deepest condolences on your loss. I know that you will get though this keep the faith and know that you have friends
that you can draw support from.
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 15, 2003, 12:36:15 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 15, 2003, 01:02:46 pm
Post by: Sten on June 15, 2003, 01:15:22 pm
Question for you. In your latest SFB conversion of the shiplist have you given the PFs The power a SFB PF has?
The last shiplist of yours I downloaded all the PF were still shorted in the power department.
May not seem like much but the PFs have enough problems.
For instance the Romulan Starhawk A.
8 Total Warp--->Should be 12
The Lyran PFs are shorted by 1-2 points of power each.
The Gorn PFs are simular to the Lyran PFs short by 1-2 points of power.
Sten
Concerned Lyran Player
Post by: FireSoul on June 15, 2003, 01:25:44 pm
-- Luc
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 15, 2003, 02:00:58 pm
Quote:
Firesoul,
Question for you. In your latest SFB conversion of the shiplist have you given the PFs The power a SFB PF has?
The last shiplist of yours I downloaded all the PF were still shorted in the power department.
May not seem like much but the PFs have enough problems.
For instance the Romulan Starhawk A.
8 Total Warp--->Should be 12
The Lyran PFs are shorted by 1-2 points of power each.
The Gorn PFs are simular to the Lyran PFs short by 1-2 points of power.
Sten
Concerned Lyran Player
Just a couple of thoughts on PFs. You can't really make them like SFB. For one, the plasma PFs in SFB are limited to firing 2 PlaF/turn. Some of the PFs have 5 PlaF on them. That's an 100pt alpha strike. I thought about using a combo of 1 PlaF and the rest PlaI, but that only works on the first turn. The PF would then be limited to 1 PlaI/turn until the PlaF rearmed. Also, they aren't penalized by the 2X damage when packed. I noticed that the Lyran player didn't mention that the PFE is overgunned when compared to the PFL though.
More weapons than a frigate! I'm not trying to start a disagreement here, but I think that the overall balance of weapons and power works pretty well as is. More power would make them too deadly IMO.
Post by: Strafer on June 15, 2003, 02:35:04 pm
At least an attempt to do so was made... Mags? Care to comment?
Post by: FireSoul on June 15, 2003, 03:13:46 pm
Post by: Holocat on June 17, 2003, 02:47:53 am
If so, can't the problem of '2-plas-F-per-turn' SFB rule put into effect by having 2 Plas-I hardpoints, one with 2 weapons, and the other with 3? Theoretically, it *should* fire only and up to 2 plas-F per turn if available.
Of course, the obvious peculiarities of this setup would make the PF fire up to five at other PFs and fighters.
I bet the AI would make this problem worse by using main if there aren't fighters/PFs present; Anyone else see a shotgun hole in this plan?
Would switching the default setting of Main to Defence for Plas-I (how this would be done, I have no clue) help this fix?
Hypothetically working,
Holocat.
Post by: MadElf on June 17, 2003, 04:09:06 am
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 17, 2003, 07:12:06 am
What does happen is that the number of plasmas that come out charged is dependent on how the weapons are arranged on hardpoints. If you put all 5 plasmas on their own hardpoints, they come out all charged at once and are able to be fired. Mounting multiple weapons on the same hardpoint results in having to charge some of them, adding a restriction of a kind at least.
It might be nice to get how it's supposed to be; otherwise, believe me a speed 31 cloaked ship can be hard to stop.
Post by: Strafer on June 17, 2003, 10:58:04 am
Quote:
Dosen't OP still have that Plas-I 'bug' where every Plas-I hardpoint may fire one torpedo at a big target per turn if available?
Yes, because for some odd voodoo magic shooting an Itorp from the left side on an enemy ship with certain drone launcher types will cause the Itorps to stop shooting altogether. It doesn't make any sense at all, but it does it.
Post by: FireSoul on June 17, 2003, 11:20:11 am
So maybe the issue is the lack of power within PFs that has been reported.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on June 17, 2003, 06:12:08 pm
If you can think of better Orion weapon loadouts that are SFB-legal and 100% local empire based, I want to know about it! Please check in my 2.1c shiplist to make sure I don't already have it.
-- Luc
Post by: jimmi7769 on June 17, 2003, 09:09:50 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 17, 2003, 09:40:02 pm
... I meant specific..
like: " a DCR with 2x___ and ____ isn't made for cartel ____."
Post by: Holocat on June 17, 2003, 10:29:54 pm
Any rules to loadouts that you might want to tell us about?
Mar har har and a can of cat treats,
Holocat.
Post by: Strafer on June 17, 2003, 10:51:24 pm
Post by: Holocat on June 17, 2003, 11:09:06 pm
If a ship can have any number of any kind of weapons it wants (provided it falls into the 10% of this 'fleet,' or wherever), isn't that simply a carte blanche for a pirate shipbuilder?
To be specific, what are the limitations for loadouts for each hull class? How many primaries? How many heavies? How much power etc. etc. etc. I don't have an SFB shipbuilder's manual with me so I know precious little on what's legal and what's not.
I guess, to be succinct, I don't really understand the question on loadouts without more information.
Holocat.
Post by: FireSoul on June 18, 2003, 12:49:22 am
Quote:
Usual limitations are that the fleet has 70% local empirical weapons, 20% neighboring weapons and 10% exotic.
I'll allow 70% local zone and 20% operational zone weapons. The 10% I already took up.
I guess to do this you need to know some basic ground rules, and a little about SFB:
1- most weapons take a single option mount. Some weapons take 2 and have to be hull mounted.
ie:
- PLaG
- ESG
- PLaS
- PPD
2- phasers are allowed. None of the taldren pirates have phasers in optionmounts. Let's not go nuts on phaser boats tho.
3- cloak is also allowed, but only a fraction of all pirates had cloak. I'll try to distribute the cloakable ships appropirately.
Post by: FireSoul on June 18, 2003, 12:58:50 am
Quote:
If a ship can have any number of any kind of weapons it wants (provided it falls into the 10% of this 'fleet,' or wherever), isn't that simply a carte blanche for a pirate shipbuilder?
I guess it's more of a question that you'd have to know what's available where and how on which ships. .. I guess this demand mostly goes to people with SFB material.
Here's are online examples: Tournament ship SSDs (ignore the special tournament rules written on it)
T-BR
T-CA
In these examples, you'll notice "OPT" mounts on the wings .. and some in the hull itself, at the front.
The T-CA has 2 hull mounts, together, and 4 wing mounts.
So.. I could put 4 droneracks on the wings, and .. say.. 2 HBs in front. That's one example.
Or.. 4ph1s in wings, 2 photons in front..
or.. (non-tourney rules) .. 2 plaDs, 2plaFs in wings, and 1 PLaS in front. (ohh.. that would be nice. )
.. you get the idea.
I want to know which race, and the loadout you would like to see that I haven't put together.
Localzone is local empire. IE: Prime Industries is Romulan.
Openrational zone is the area working in. IE: Prime functions in Fed and ISC space, as well as within Roluman space itself.
70% of the weapons have to come from Local, 20% from operational zone. Consider the other 10% (from anywhere) already taken.
Oh.. and I already have phaser gunboats.. a few ships from Beastraiders with nothing but gatlings for example. I think I'll be fine and no need for more of THOSE.
-- Luc
Post by: MadElf on June 18, 2003, 01:17:56 am
d match, try and avoid cheese
Post by: FireSoul on June 18, 2003, 01:26:00 am
Post by: MadElf on June 18, 2003, 05:51:11 am
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 18, 2003, 07:17:20 am
Post by: jdmckinney on June 18, 2003, 07:26:55 am
http://www.sfbonline.com/ra03q2.htm
In another case, 2 Orions faced each other in the final match. Granted, these players have good overall track records. Plus, there's something to be said for being able to choose a configuration that suits your style of play. I noticed that of the 5 option mounts on the Orion tournament ship (BR), a PhG is almost always chosen for one (and they are only allowed one in the rules I saw). There are often 2 Ph1s chosen, as well. That would give a player with such a TBR 6 Ph1, 6 Ph3, and 1 PhG plus 2 heavies (hellbore, droB, plasF seem common).
Post by: IndyShark on June 18, 2003, 12:37:16 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 18, 2003, 01:58:41 pm
Quote:
A side note about Orions and phaser boats: I have seen some SFB tournament rundowns that indicate Orion phaser boats can be quite successful. Actually, it's amazing how often some of the SFB Online tournaments have Orions in the later rounds (and also odd how few players choose Fed). For instance, look at the following tournament results and you'll see 3 of the 4 Orions made it to the fourth round (last one shown, still in progress):
http://www.sfbonline.com/ra03q2.htm
In another case, 2 Orions faced each other in the final match. Granted, these players have good overall track records. Plus, there's something to be said for being able to choose a configuration that suits your style of play. I noticed that of the 5 option mounts on the Orion tournament ship (BR), a PhG is almost always chosen for one (and they are only allowed one in the rules I saw). There are often 2 Ph1s chosen, as well. That would give a player with such a TBR 6 Ph1, 6 Ph3, and 1 PhG plus 2 heavies (hellbore, droB, plasF seem common).
I already have added quite a few phaser boats to my shiplist under various races. There aren't any restrictions as to how many phGs you're allowed to have. One of my favorite is the little B-LRg I made. It's in the shiplist since version 2.0.
Quote:
Designation: B-LRg
BPV: 72
3x Phaser 1
3x Phaser G
heh.
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on June 18, 2003, 02:20:44 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 19, 2003, 12:21:03 am
.. what if we were to replace 2 phX by 3 ph1s (or 4 phXs to 6 using ph1s if I have to do it on 2 sides of the ship) to allow PD? I really really don't like the idea of putting gatlings on X1 ships, and ph1s are the closest to phX that are capable of PD on AI.
.. so .. what do you think? Replacing 2phX by 3 ph1s on the F-CX would be replacing the 2 360 degree phX with 3 ph1s. Stuff like that.
Really. What do you think?
-- Luc
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 19, 2003, 12:25:04 am
http://members.aol.com/rocketrod6a/images/opt_mts.jpg
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 19, 2003, 10:11:13 pm
What is up with the D7V and D6V?
Their BPV's are listed as 135 and 147 respectively. The problem is that according to my captian's edition SSD's these are supposed to be the real BPV's of the ships:
D6V BPV: 114, K refit +3, Y175 refit (AMD-6 to AMD-12) +3, UIM refit +5. Total with everything: 125.
D7V BPV: 123, K refit +3, UIM refit +5. Total with everything: 131.
What's up here? The BPV additions for stock fighters figure in, but is it this much? The D6V also has too many fighters; it has only 10 in SFB.
Note: this is in the STOCK shiplist, which is carried over into yours.
Post by: FireSoul on June 19, 2003, 10:56:54 pm
D7V: 123 + 5 for UIM (auto) + 2*8 for fighters = 144 (147 here)
D7VK: +3 = 147 (150 here)
D6V: 114 +5 for UIM (auto) + 2*8 for fighters = 135 (127 here)
D6VK: +3 = 138 (130 here)
D6VR: +3 = 141 (133 here)
The last time I tried to adjust the number of fighters for all the ships at once, people harked at me for quite some time. So I'll leave the number of fighters alone. (D7V would have have 9. D6V would have 7). As for the BPVs, I can correct the values for these if you want.
-- Luc
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 19, 2003, 11:46:41 pm
I see where the numbers come from now, not that I agree with them. Something on the order of 135 seems more like sense, but I won't pester you with it.
Post by: FireSoul on June 19, 2003, 11:52:44 pm
.. well.. let's see. the cost of upgrading fighters in SFC:
8x8BPV - 8x2BPV(base cost) = 64 - 16 = 48 BPV.
147 + 48 = 195BPV.
Post by: FireSoul on June 20, 2003, 01:50:36 am
Had fantasic idea tonight. HDWs could use a new variant. I call it the "M" variant for "Marine Assault".
Let me explain. In in HDW, there are some Non-weapon options NWOs) and a couple of rear-facing weapon options (OPT). There's also a block of APR boxes that can be changed into something else (all boxes to a different type).
ie:
To make a LEGAL commando ship, I had to change all 4 APRs into shuttlebays, 2 NWOs into Cargo and 2 NWOs into barracks. The ship's own Transporter would suffice. The extra shuttles would be ground-assault shuttles and heavy assault shuttles that exist in SFB to take on planets and bases.
The "M" Marine Assault HDW idea would revolve solely on H&R tactics. The NWOs would be 100% transporters, except for when that would be excessive for the number of marines on the ship. the ship's power would be intact.
Here's the result: (Each barracks holds an extra 10 marines, base, onto the ship)
Fed: 6 transporters
Klingon: 6 transporters
Rom: 6 trans
Gorn: 5 trans
Lyran HDWM: 6 Trans
Lyran JGPM: 7 trans, 1 barracks
Hydran HDWM: 6 trans
Hydran LNHM: 6 trans
Mirak: 6 trans, 1 barracks
ISC: 6 trans
and.. get this..
Orion: 9 trans, 3 barracks
This is a LEGAL interpretation of the HDWs. This could OUTCLASS the HDWCs in popularity.
-- Luc
Post by: Holocat on July 02, 2003, 12:15:59 am
romulan( SBH1): 20 marines max / 6 trans = 3 full attacks + 2 extra.
federation(HDW1): 16 marines max / 6 trans = 2(!) attacks + 4 extra.
klingon(HF5C1): 24 marines max / 6 trans = 4 attacks.
ISC (HDDC-1): 24 marines max / 6 trans = 4 attacks.
Mirak (HDW1): 20 marines max / 6 trans = 3 attacks + 2 extra.
Gorn (HBD1): 24 marines max / 5 trans = 4 attacks + 4 extra.
Lyran (HDW-1): 20 marines max / 6 trans = 3 attacks + 2 extra.
Lyran (JPG): 20 marines max + 20 marines max (barrack for the M refit) / 7 trans = 5 attacks + 5 extra.
Hydran (HDW1): 24 marines max / 6 trans = 4 attacks.
Hydran (LNH1): 24 marines max / 6 trans = 4 attacks.
I may not be an ace pilot around here but I have learned a few simple things concerning small ships, which I fly. Firstly, the marine complements on small ships are somewhat small. Because of this, larger ships can easily capture a small ship in only a few turns. The first step in preventing this is to always carry as many marines as possible on small ships. The second is not to waste them in H&R that MAY work but will GUARENTEE that you can easily be captured, due to the larger ship's capacity in both marines and transporters; Marines are precious, and cannot be wasted frivolously. When flying the Federation's HDW series, the three transporters are sufficient for small time H&R. However, with only 16 marines every attack weakens your own complement quickly. I usually avoid the marine varient because the mere 2 transporters make it highly unsuitable for any H&R action, as is usually the case with federation small ships.
Now to be fair, Federation starships (and generally all the starships that can be seen as 'bad' at H&R here) are usually unsuitable for serious H&R/capture actions as a whole, but as you have said before, "as long as it's legal there's nothing wrong with cheese."
By observing how you're juggling systems, there are 4 NWO's in HDW's; One shuttle, one lab, one tractor and one transporter. take the shuttlebay, lab and tractor and install transporters; Can a barracks be added with two transporters instead of three transporters? I am unsure what a barracks can replace and how 'large' it is.
If this is possible, I would suggest that all ships with only three marine attacks available to them be given at least one barrack in exchange for whatever needs to be sacrificed to get it; If the ship is to revolve around H&R, it should be able to do H&R without dropping any more of their pant-equivalents as necessary.
Ok? Complications? Utter crap?
Using marines would be... strange,
Holocat.
annendum: I think that captures between players don't work. To nip that in the bud, AI captures work well enough and there have been aggrements that someone that is about to be captured blow up, or so I hear. If the player vs. player ever does work, however, this is something to be taken into consideration, and should be for player vs. AI or AI vs AI battles. Additionally, the opinions above DO relate well to H&R, a fairly easy task if one dosen't have alot of marines onboard to oppose them.
Post by: FireSoul on July 08, 2003, 12:10:49 pm
Post by: FireSoul on July 08, 2003, 12:14:33 pm
.. There's still a lot of work left to do.. (for example I just flew one of the ships Strafer entered for me, and it didn't have tractorbeams on it at all).. and it could still be some time before a release is ready. Meanwhile, family issues and being a tester for the next OP patch are more important than this shiplist, so although work continues, it progresses much more slowly than past versions.
However... I have managed this:
It took no time at all with the NullSoft NSIS software..
-- Luc
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 10, 2003, 11:34:26 pm
Post by: FireSoul on July 13, 2003, 01:06:20 pm
.. the shiplist is still in devel .. and can't be released until the next OP patch is out. In fact, last night I had a good idea for the TigerHeart Cartel and I'm acting on it today.. (lots of work to do to make it work right).. This could actually make them a harsh enemy to fight against.
.. but for the interested, the shiplist has passed the 4000 ships mark today. Compare with 3729 ships in OP+ 2.1c, and that's what will be coming soon.
-- Luc
Post by: Corbomite on July 13, 2003, 01:09:33 pm
Quote:
.. but for the interested, the shiplist has passed the 4000 ships mark today. Compare with 3729 ships in OP+ 2.1c, and that's what will be coming soon.
-- Luc
Lol! Are you sure our HD won't explode?
Post by: FireSoul on July 13, 2003, 01:19:41 pm
Quote:Quote:
.. but for the interested, the shiplist has passed the 4000 ships mark today. Compare with 3729 ships in OP+ 2.1c, and that's what will be coming soon.
-- Luc
Lol! Are you sure our HD won't explode?
Naah.. that's barely 1.9mb of shiplist textfile..
Post by: quircus on July 13, 2003, 01:29:39 pm
(PLEASE READ MY 'New Shields???' Post, and see if you can help me!!)
)
Post by: FireSoul on July 13, 2003, 01:38:01 pm
Post by: FireSoul on July 13, 2003, 01:39:20 pm
Quote:
(PLEASE READ MY 'New Shields???' Post, and see if you can help me!!)
That's SFC3. I can't help you.
Post by: FireSoul on July 14, 2003, 01:05:00 pm
Thank you Nomad, these FRDs saved me the time needed for me to input them. I'd like to noitfy you of a couple of minor bugs with them:
1- Mirak fighters have a typo: "Z-Vizsla.I" .. not "Z-Viszla.I"
2- ISC needs 6 deckcrews
3- Klingon needs 6 deckcrews
-- Luc
edit:
PS: I had to create FRDs for the local pirate races too, since they have some in the OP shiplist. I just used the local race's configuration, and the race's own fighters/PFs.
Post by: jdmckinney on July 14, 2003, 02:15:31 pm
BTW, any idea what you're going to do with the new F-NCC shields? I'm leaning toward the CLC levels, even if ADB doesn't back that up. Certainly I think the BPV reflects a better ship than the published shields would indicate.
Post by: FireSoul on July 14, 2003, 02:35:25 pm
Quote:
BTW, any idea what you're going to do with the new F-NCC shields? I'm leaning toward the CLC levels, even if ADB doesn't back that up. Certainly I think the BPV reflects a better ship than the published shields would indicate.
I'm going to back ADB, and enter their levels of shields. There's been precedence, btw. The D5X ships have less #1 shields then the D5C/L. (32 < 36)
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on July 14, 2003, 02:53:44 pm
it's better to use the EPV over the BPV when the EPV is higher.. in other words, use the higher of the 2 values (after all the components have all been added up). I've done many corrections, and the ships are more balance because of it.
Example: D5V:
OP 2538: 119 BPV, includes 8 fighters.
OP+ in progress: 131 BPV
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 14, 2003, 06:49:59 pm
Quote:
Luc, I'm glad they were useful as a starting point. I haven't incorporated them fully into my list, since I wasn't sure they would become stock (being only able to use one type of FRD per race at a time in stock scripts). As such, I haven't checked them thoroughly. Thanks for the correction notes.
BTW, any idea what you're going to do with the new F-NCC shields? I'm leaning toward the CLC levels, even if ADB doesn't back that up. Certainly I think the BPV reflects a better ship than the published shields would indicate.
SVC seemed to say on their boards that it might be a mistake but they'd just pull something out later to explain it and make it official. However he also did say that his assistant Petrick was working on the errata file and he'd make that call...and that any such file would not appear until the NEXT captain's log.
Post by: FireSoul on July 14, 2003, 08:27:54 pm
I *do* accept official erratas for this shiplist.. once I have the official material in my hands.
.. yeah.. I'm being a bastard..but to nitpick about 1 ship out of 4000 is quite annoying.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on July 14, 2003, 10:25:06 pm
.. the next shiplist, version 2.2, is now feature-frozen. So for a while, I will be testing my own work with local friends.
Oh.. don't feel bad, it requires the next patch anyways.
The installer is a bzip2-compressed executable file of 244kb in size. (Bzip2 is a lot better than Zip.) I don't think you'll be disappointed.
Now, I have to start on the next part of this shiplist release: the web stuff.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on July 17, 2003, 02:33:20 pm
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 17, 2003, 05:56:18 pm
Quote:
There aren't any models with the OP+ stuff... yet.
So are you planning to use Fleetdock13's SFB based models only, or possibly a mixture of SFB, TMP, etc.
If you are planning to make an OP+ "mod" with appropriate SFB models I am absolutely salivating at this idea.
I am most impressed by your adherance to the spirit of SFB in your OP+ shiplist. Your attention to detail is the best I've seen. Absolutely excellent work.
Post by: FireSoul on July 17, 2003, 06:00:23 pm
-- Luc
Post by: IndyShark on July 17, 2003, 08:22:10 pm
Post by: FireSoul on July 18, 2003, 05:51:56 pm
Quote:
Firesoul, I was surprised to see the F-NDC has a top speed of 29.5. That seems slow for a NCA variant with no photon torpedoes. I know you are very thorough, but is there any chance this is wrong? I enjoy playing Coop Ace with NCD+'s and this one was a surprise. (Not your fault, but damn I wish they added a few more warp points!)
I'm afraid it's accurate. It's got 30 warp, 4 Impulse engines. No APR/AWR. Movement Cost of 1. That means what's missing is taken up by "house keeping".
On the SSD, the AWR was converted to Cargo for drone storage. (50 more drones spaces per cargo box, 4 boxes.)
-- Luc
Post by: KHHJakle on July 18, 2003, 06:33:41 pm
Quote:
Quote:
There aren't any models with the OP+ stuff... yet.
So are you planning to use Fleetdock13's SFB based models only, or possibly a mixture of SFB, TMP, etc.
If you are planning to make an OP+ "mod" with appropriate SFB models I am absolutely salivating at this idea.
I am most impressed by your adherance to the spirit of SFB in your OP+ shiplist. Your attention to detail is the best I've seen. Absolutely excellent work.
Firesoul using Taldren-like models makes sense, even if only for logistical reasons. In order to make the new models fit seamlessly, they have to 'fit' the rest of the games models. To use SFB models for the new ships, lets say the Battle Tugs, they would stick out like sore thumbs. That is unless you replace all those other models with their SFB equivelants too.
You say you salivate at that idea? I was bitten by that same bug after discovering Fleetdock's SFB mods. It took alot of time, but I eventually downloaded all of them and modified Firesouls shiplist to draw on them, to create my own little SFB mod.
It's like 17 MB zipped. This is the strongest case for finding a handful of Taldren like models to fill in for the really different ships (like tugs).
To me, the VARIETY of ship models are really what makes using Fleetdocks models so sweet. Also the fact that the slight variations between different hulls that really showcase the differences between different ships, like NCL's and NCA's. That and I hate the Taldren D5 compared to the ADB(SFB) D5.
At the same time, I have received comments from those who I have shared my mod with (I had to burn it on disks and mail it out) that the models are 'drab' compared to Taldren's. I think Fleetdock's models are actually higher polygon models, but they are SFB based ie TOS based - and I guess you can say that the TOS ENterprise is 'drab' compared to the TMP Enterprise.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Post by: FireSoul on July 18, 2003, 10:51:18 pm
Quote:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Yes.. That why I said I didn't think I could make everyone happy..
.. btw.. I'm up to 23 mb of chosen additional models, zipped.
TEASER ONLY
One thing that I've done is installed "old" style pre-refit ships.
For example:
F-CA -> Old style TOS FCA (FECA)
F-CA+ -> Current SFC FCA
That's just *1* thing out of many many.. please be patient .. I don't intend a release for a while.. maybe a month or more.
-- Luc
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 18, 2003, 11:04:45 pm
Even though you are using Taldren-like models, are you considering using an "SFB style" Texas class CL instead of a DD model for the F-CL class of ships?
Post by: Auron on July 18, 2003, 11:05:57 pm
Quote:Quote:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Yes.. That why I said I didn't think I could make everyone happy..
.. btw.. I'm up to 23 mb of chosen additional models, zipped.
TEASER ONLY
One thing that I've done is installed "old" style pre-refit ships.
For example:
F-CA -> Old style TOS FCA (FECA) L Matter
F-CA+ -> Current SFC FCA
That's just *1* thing out of many many.. please be patient .. I don't intend a release for a while.. maybe a month or more.
-- Luc
Looks good.
Post by: FireSoul on July 18, 2003, 11:10:31 pm
Quote:
O.k. just one more question Firesoul and I'll stop asking questions for a while.
Even though you are using Taldren-like models, are you considering using an "SFB style" Texas class CL instead of a DD model for the F-CL class of ships?
Can you send me a link to the Texas class ship? .. Is that the Daedelus?
Post by: FireSoul on July 18, 2003, 11:12:24 pm
Quote:
F-CA -> Old style TOS FCA (FECA) L Matter
Ha. Ha.
.. uhm.. Federation Early CA. FECA.
.. well.. yes, other races find it to be a big piece of [censored].
-- Luc
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 19, 2003, 09:19:47 am
Quote:
Can you send me a link to the Texas class ship? .. Is that the Daedelus?
No the Texas class Old CL is different from the Daedelus. Check out this link to Fleetdock 13's fed section. Look at the first ship in the "cruisers" section about the middle of the page...that is a good model for it:
http://www.strategyplanet.com/sfc/omega/fleetdock13/
The Daedelus would make a decent substitute for this ship, but the Daedelus is really an "exploration cruiser" more akin to the F-CA or F-GSC for it's time. The Texas class is purely SFB. The Daedalus was never officially incorporated into SFB that I know.
Post by: 3dot14 on July 19, 2003, 10:05:22 pm
Post by: Holocat on July 19, 2003, 10:48:28 pm
I've been goofing around and running from Cleaven on Bonk's OP+ server.
I've also been waiting alllll day for an HDWC1 or 2. (preferably 2).
The shipyard NEVER produces any HDW type other than the third one. HDW3, HDWC3, HDWM3, etc. Dunno if this is a problem with the server, or with the ship list, but i'll post it here and on bonk's server thread just to let everyone know.
You know, just in case anyone other than I ever actually use these things as career ships
Wheee! It works, it works! Now let me out of this drone NCL.
Holocat.
Post by: FireSoul on July 20, 2003, 01:24:39 am
Quote:
Firesoul, do you have any plans for the fighter list? As I understand SFB has quite a few more fighter variants.
I don't intend to add SFB fighter variants as they don't really translate well for all races.
.. .. remember that this has been an expansion of the stock shiplist, from day 1.
Post by: FireSoul on July 20, 2003, 01:25:47 am
Quote:
Here's something odd.
I've been goofing around and running from Cleaven on Bonk's OP+ server.
I've also been waiting alllll day for an HDWC1 or 2. (preferably 2).
The shipyard NEVER produces any HDW type other than the third one. HDW3, HDWC3, HDWM3, etc. Dunno if this is a problem with the server, or with the ship list, but i'll post it here and on bonk's server thread just to let everyone know.
You know, just in case anyone other than I ever actually use these things as career ships
Wheee! It works, it works! Now let me out of this drone NCL.
Holocat.
.. it must be the server and bad odds.
Post by: Corbomite on July 22, 2003, 08:44:43 am
Also, did you have to use the X ship UI for the tugs (noticed it on the Feds)? They were fine before IIRC.
Post by: Strafer on July 22, 2003, 10:57:02 am
Quote:
did you have to use the X ship UI for the tugs (noticed it on the Feds)? They were fine before IIRC.
That's been there for a while, it's the only UI with the necessary # of visible mounts.
Post by: FireSoul on July 22, 2003, 03:11:34 pm
Quote:
FS, the Gorn XCA doesn't show the E-Torps in the selection menu, although they are listed and do appear on the ship in combat.
I don't understand.. ..huh?
Quote:
Also, did you have to use the X ship UI for the tugs (noticed it on the Feds)? They were fine before IIRC.
Lack of mounts.. and only 1 or 2 tugs have that.
Post by: jimmi7769 on July 22, 2003, 04:19:14 pm
I always wondered why the Klingons would put crappy P-2's on such an advanced ship.
Good to know they didn't.
Post by: FireSoul on July 22, 2003, 04:26:35 pm
FA ph2s -> ph1s.
Fix will of course appear in next revision of shiplist... uhh.. mod.. uhh.. whatever.
Post by: Corbomite on July 22, 2003, 04:52:58 pm
Quote:
FS, the Gorn XCA doesn't show the E-Torps in the selection menu, although they are listed and do appear on the ship in combat.
Ok scratch that I just checked again and they were there. I know for a fact they weren't showing up last night though. I played that ship twice and they didn't show on the SSD. Just a loading glitch I guess.
Post by: FireSoul on July 22, 2003, 07:37:26 pm
.. however, I'm afraid it's too late for OP itself.
.. no worries, my OP+ fighterlist will have the right data, in the next version.
-- Luc
Post by: Cmdr. Krotz on July 31, 2003, 03:48:42 pm
...all the DW variants are good though (what's supposed to be the big difference btw DWC and DWL, just curious)
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on July 31, 2003, 04:16:46 pm
Post by: FireSoul on May 02, 2003, 08:57:20 pm
Please.. no requests of ships that don't exist in SFB.
TarMinyatur: can you repost your data here?
-- Luc
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 02, 2003, 09:15:52 pm
Vessels (and variants thereof) affected: HET+2/Nimble entry should be 1
H-HN
H-CU
H-CRU
H-EH
H-CVE
K-E4
K-E6
K-F5
K-F6
L-FF
L-MP
L-DW
R-K4
R-K5
R-SKA
R-WB
R-KFR
Now, these vessels simply have base HET% errrors:
F-FFE and F-FFR should be like all F-FF's ("5", meaning 66% base success)
F-DE and F-DER should be like all F-DD's ("4", meaning 50% base success)
Oh yeah, the Z-NCA has a huge BPV error. Taldren lists it at something crazy like 157, the Z-NCA is really only 135! The R-KDR is also overpriced. It should be 137, not 146! The L-DWLP gets a power pack for free as well. It should come in at around 114 with UIM tax."
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 02, 2003, 09:16:49 pm
SFB:
MNR = 390
MNV = 402
Add 32 for KillerBees.
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 02, 2003, 09:21:12 pm
Download the master ship chart zip archive.
Post by: FireSoul on May 02, 2003, 09:35:03 pm
crap.
That means OP+ 2.1 and 2.1b are broken. I will have to make a 2.1c, but not tonight.
BE ADVISED!
Post by: FireSoul on May 02, 2003, 09:42:42 pm
You have overnight to stuff this thread, for me to work on tomorrow to release 2.1c ..
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 02, 2003, 09:47:30 pm
Quote:
Here's a good URL http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/sfb/aids/msc.html for people looking for info.
Download the master ship chart zip archive.
Oh god..
WOOHOO!
.. Ok.. Now I need to be able to convert this into a usable parseable script-compatible format. With this data, I can work on the nimble ships tomorrow.
It seems I also have to re-split the mounts for the F-CVS .. an error which was reintroduced when I remerged the ship from the pre-2/3rds stuff.
-- Luc
Post by: Cleaven on May 02, 2003, 09:53:17 pm
Already you are fiddling back and forth, without having achieved the first goal. It may turn out that nobody wants the pure SFB list, and are waiting for the Deluxe version with play balanced X2 ships but that will be a long haul goal for sure.
Post by: FireSoul on May 02, 2003, 10:11:56 pm
Quote:
Already you are fiddling back and forth, without having achieved the first goal. It may turn out that nobody wants the pure SFB list, and are waiting for the Deluxe version with play balanced X2 ships but that will be a long haul goal for sure.
Don't call it fiddling.
Be constructive.
I am already frustrated enough as it is.
SFB is the source material, but it seems people don't care about accuracy that much. They just want more more more.
So at this point I will just do corrections and additions. Be damned, good ideas, because there's no room for you.
-- Luc
Post by: Cleaven on May 02, 2003, 10:28:52 pm
Don't go into appeasement mode about fighters/drones/bar fridges, as long as the BPV's are correct (for SFC) and the SFB heritage is true.
Once you have achieved your primary goal, read the emails from people threatening never to play again, and the messages written in chicken blood about how you have killed the game or some such. They may occasionally have a valid point to make but they are delusional if they think you are stopping them from using the stock shiplist.
Then strap yourself in as you consider what you want to achieve in the way of D2 and GSA play balance. In the meantime there will be some very happy people playing with a true SFB shiplist, and will be able to give more reliable input into how the SFB versions really play. Who's to say what the balance will be like after a large scale mod.
PS - the BPV's for the SFB ships may be the subject of a little debate, but better to be argueing about what the ship is worth then trying to create a "balanced" shiplist straight up.
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 02, 2003, 10:29:11 pm
The tricky issue is differentiating a true typo from a design decision by the Taldren folks (who are now VERY silent, essentially retired). I've also run into some boggling BPV values for SFB ships. Look at the Fed CVA for instance. 150 Combat BPV for that? Gimme a break. Even at the Econ BPV of 172 it's still a bargain.
Post by: FireSoul on May 02, 2003, 11:51:47 pm
Quote:
Okay, don't fiddle. Do the SFB stuff, and accept the changes people point out which are essentially corrections to the addition/standardisation process.
Don't go into appeasement mode about fighters/drones/bar fridges, as long as the BPV's are correct (for SFC) and the SFB heritage is true.
Once you have achieved your primary goal, read the emails from people threatening never to play again, and the messages written in chicken blood about how you have killed the game or some such. They may occasionally have a valid point to make but they are delusional if they think you are stopping them from using the stock shiplist.
Then strap yourself in as you consider what you want to achieve in the way of D2 and GSA play balance. In the meantime there will be some very happy people playing with a true SFB shiplist, and will be able to give more reliable input into how the SFB versions really play. Who's to say what the balance will be like after a large scale mod.
PS - the BPV's for the SFB ships may be the subject of a little debate, but better to be argueing about what the ship is worth then trying to create a "balanced" shiplist straight up.
So .. THAT's what's this is about. You're pissed that I changed my mind.
Fine. I'm sick of stuff like this where no one is happy. I'll release 2.1c as promised, with the least possible work included.
Signing off,
-- Luc
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 03, 2003, 12:08:20 am
In the end, trust your own judgment.
We are all lucky to benefit from your labour.
Post by: Cleaven on May 03, 2003, 12:08:55 am
I am not alarmed, surprised or distressed about this, because I have gotten used to it. It is the nature of the whole SFC series. Almost, but not quite right. And that's just the way things are. People/designers lose interest, are side-tracked or diverted onto other things by imperatives which make "near enough is good enough" an acceptable state of affairs for something this big (and it is big). And the truth is that quite often near enough IS good enough.
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 12:20:04 am
Quote:
No, not at all. Haven't even DL'ed it yet. But your time is key to the success of the project. But the original stated objective is being side-stepped. And if you stop now then you have achieved neither a balanced list or an SFB correct list.
I am not alarmed, surprised or distressed about this, because I have gotten used to it. It is the nature of the whole SFC series. Almost, but not quite right. And that's just the way things are. People/designers lose interest, are side-tracked or diverted onto other things by imperatives which make "near enough is good enough" an acceptable state of affairs for something this big (and it is big). And the truth is that quite often near enough IS good enough.
The original intent WAS sidestepped when I decided to start doing balance changes.
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.
.. that's my true goal. 2.1b was to go towards that but I encountered a fatal flaw which resulted in CTD.
2.1c will correct that flaw.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 12:34:48 am
Quote:
"I don't mean to be a pain in your Canadian ass, FireSoul, but did you decide not to adopt SFB's HET breakdown numbers? Taldren gave many non-nimble ships a "+66%" bonus. Only truly nimble vessels get two bonuses on their first and second HETs in a scenario. Perhaps you might consider changing these ships...
Vessels (and variants thereof) affected: HET+2/Nimble entry should be 1
H-HN
H-CU
H-CRU
H-EH
H-CVE
K-E4
K-E6
K-F5
K-F6
L-FF
L-MP
L-DW
R-K4
R-K5
R-SKA
R-WB
R-KFR
Now, these vessels simply have base HET% errrors:
F-FFE and F-FFR should be like all F-FF's ("5", meaning 66% base success)
F-DE and F-DER should be like all F-DD's ("4", meaning 50% base success)
Oh yeah, the Z-NCA has a huge BPV error. Taldren lists it at something crazy like 157, the Z-NCA is really only 135! The R-KDR is also overpriced. It should be 137, not 146! The L-DWLP gets a power pack for free as well. It should come in at around 114 with UIM tax."
All changes checked and approved.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 12:37:48 am
Quote:
RE: MNR and MNV
SFB:
MNR = 390
MNV = 402
Add 32 for KillerBees.
The current prices were:
MNR: 417 -> changed to 422
MNV: 367 -> changed to 434
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 12:42:54 am
Post by: Cleaven on May 03, 2003, 12:55:32 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 12:57:51 am
Quote:
Of course, you have to adhere to the Taldren way of doing things such for fighters, PF's drone control etc. But how long do you think the balancing phase of the operation will take? While you are going through the balancing iterations there will be people who would like to just play with what are in essence the unbalanced stock and additional ships from SFB and other corrections as per the SSD's, and not have to argue about balance (because there has been no attempt at balance). I would imagine a monthly cycle, repeated over about six months, until the balance project could be considered complete.
Lesson from experiencing April: screw the blanket balancing.
.. only way that'll work with the players using the Taldren shiplist is to not use it.
A 100% purist SFB shiplist is the only way to make it work.
SO! Back to square 1. Add. Fix. Adjust. That's it.
-- Luc
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 03, 2003, 01:01:24 am
Likewise the R-KRC and R-KRCS should have 3 tractors not 5. Your R-KRCSF's 5 tracs are OK. Additionally, all the KRCS's should have 5 APR, not 7.
The G-CC+ and G-CCF should have 2 APR, not 3.
Fed CA+ shouldn't automatically have the RH Ph-1 refit. It should have just the Ph-3 and G-rack refit. Your CA+ is really a CAR+.
Your L-DWL got the PowerPack refit. I think the DWLP should get it (as Taldren tends to combine the PowerPack and Phaser refit together, see CWL vs CWLP) or you need to make a base DWL that is without a PowerPack.
Possible Combinations of L-CWL (134 bpv)
CWL = 30 power
CWL-Phas = 30 power, Ph3 to Ph1 refit, +4 bpv (unbuilt)
CWL-Pow = 34 power, +9 bpv (unbuilt)
CWL-Phas+Pow = 34 power, +13 bpv (Taldren's CWLP)
Combinations of L-DWL (103 bpv)
DWL = 23 power (not in OP+ shiplist)
DWL-Phas = 23 power, Ph3 to Ph2 refit, +2 bpv (unbuilt)
DWL-Pow = 27 power, +9 bpv (your "DWL" although it didn't pay for PowerPack, bpv = 103)
DWL-Phas+Pow = 27 power, Ph3 to Ph2 refit, + 11 bpv (your "DWLP" although it didn't pay for PowerPack, bpv = 106)
Post by: Cleaven on May 03, 2003, 01:15:22 am
Quote:
.. only way that'll work with the players using the Taldren shiplist is to not use it.
A 100% purist SFB shiplist is the only way to make it work.
SO! Back to square 1. Add. Fix. Adjust. That's it.
-- Luc
I wasn't going to say that, but it is quite true. Just remember that you cannot disappoint me any more than I was after playing on the D3 the first time (which has since improved a tad). With that as low water mark for lost potential in SFC you would have to do something really weird to make it worse.
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 01:38:06 am
Could you check the gorn Tugs? I think my BPVs are low. I used the BPV instead of EPV and now I wonder..
-- Luc
Post by: Rod O'neal on May 03, 2003, 02:31:30 am
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 03, 2003, 04:05:11 am
Post by: Holocat on May 03, 2003, 05:55:35 am
What is that, exactly?
A small housecat, lost, in a sea of beer swillin', flame fillin', starship spillin', SFBers,
Holocat.
Post by: Julin Eurthyr on May 03, 2003, 07:23:25 am
Quote:
Hey, I read that the ISC get something called 'Torpedo fighters' on one of the threads Firesoul has abandoned recently.
What is that, exactly?
A small housecat, lost, in a sea of beer swillin', flame fillin', starship spillin', SFBers,
Holocat.
ISC Fighters per SFB:
There are 2 "major" fighter lines for the ISC in SFB. The "Superiority" Fighter packs 2/Ph-3 & 2x Pl-D. The "Torpedo" fighter packs 1xPh-3, less maneuverability (lower dogfight rating which is not used in SFC), and a Pl-F.
These fighters get the usual speed upgrades as time goes on, but not much else (like lots of extra ammo and stuff like that...)
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 10:53:51 am
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 10:56:49 am
.. any other fixes you want me to do before I send this one out?
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 12:41:12 pm
2.1c is declared final, and is to be released now.
Post by: Rod O'neal on May 03, 2003, 11:01:32 pm
Quote:
Rod, I think that's where our collective experience of thousands of battles played should be valuable. We all know that the F-SC isn't worth 120 in SFC. We could probably narrow it down to +-10 of some number. The fact is that Taldren was faithful to SFB bpvs overall. The deviations from SFB bpvs draw attention naturally. Of course, many ships that "obey" SFB bpvs are tough to justify in the SFB environment not to mention the real-time SFC environment as you stated. The easier job (which I've been doing for a while) is looking at refits and making a case for it to be more or less based on the relative change in specs. The L-NCA v L-NCAL comes to mind. Additionally, I've been looking at ships that are nearly identical but have quite different BPVs (I-CVLZ vs I-CLZ). A very tough question to ask from a blank slate..."How much should the R-FHK cost?" I bet you'll start to wonder "Against what opponent?" Yup, BPV is a messy subject. Only the most vile offenders can be addressed by a group of players I've come to learn.
You're right, and that's what I meant to say. The SFB loadots and BPVs are the logical place to start. What you've (That's a collective you for all those who have worked on it.) done with the your shiplist to balance things will also need to be done with FireSoul's. It appears, to an outsider, that balancing has been, and is continuing to be done, to yours one ship at a time. With all the ships in SFC that would take a very long time, even for a large playtest group.
We should be able to figure out the true SFC value of an R-torp, for example, by taking the value in SFB and adjusting it up for being able to hold it, both as a standard and an enveloper, and subtracting some value for not having the rolling delay ability and come up with an accurate value for an R-torp. This is just one example. It needs to be done for most of the systems since almost none of them operate precisely as they do in SFB. Even the stock shiplist needs this. Individual races can be looked at to see if there are any holes in their shiplist that need to be plugged and ships can be designed. I just don't think FireSoul should be beating his head against the wall trying to do it all at once. You and your group, and others have been doing this part for a while. Your shiplist is very well thought out. You have shown a willingness to contribute here, and after you've had a chance to use and examine it I'm sure you, and others, will have plenty of constructive input to help balance things out.
Major shiplist editing, of any type, is a lot of work, and is very tedious. To FireSoul, Just making the thing is effort enough
To anyone who thinks that he's somehow *copping out* by not trying to perfect it all at once, You just don't understand how much work he's doing.
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 11:03:42 pm
.. sometimes a little "keep going" helps. .. I need that from you guys laterly.
Post by: Rod O'neal on May 03, 2003, 11:19:48 pm
Post by: FireSoul on May 03, 2003, 11:41:49 pm
.. I've written myself some perl scripts on my linux box to detect a lot of the common issues.. And that saved me time.
For example..
.. my perl script tells me if any heavy weapon that requires power to load is fitted in a phaser slot as well as a phser fitted in a weapon slot.
.. my scripts tell me which ships still have 1-reload weapons prior to Y175..
.. how many ships per hulltype per race there are (because of the old 64 max, and now 128 max)..
Which ships don't have names in "shipnames.txt" as well as something in "strings.txt" for the ship's description.
etc. I must be checking for dozens of conditions now.. all run neatly together.
Sample:
Quote:
# ./check.sh
--------- count_by_hull.pl
REMEMBER: the usable limit is 64 ships PER hulltype PER race.
Showing with 64 ships or more in category.
---------------------------------------
Klingon -- CA -- 66
Klingon -- FF -- 77
Lyran -- CA -- 97
Lyran -- CL -- 77
Lyran -- FF -- 81
Mirak -- CA -- 67
Mirak -- FF -- 73
OrionOrion -- CL -- 64
--------- fighter_checker.pl
--------- ph_mount_checker.pl
H-SBX -- 902:
Heavy weapon mount has phaser --- Mount: 8 type: PhG2
Heavy weapon mount has phaser --- Mount: 9 type: PhG2
Heavy weapon mount has phaser --- Mount: 10 type: PhG2
--------- shipnames_checker.pl
--------- strings_checker.pl
--------- drone_reload_y175.pl
There are 0 ships with possible drone reload errors.
--------- Done ----------
If you guys ever need someone to put some scritable checking together for your own shiplist, let me know. It might not run at your end, but I could probably generate answers for you and return these to you via email.
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 04, 2003, 01:19:56 am
I've not yet learned how to usefully parse such data with Java apps.
Post by: FireSoul on May 04, 2003, 01:23:56 am
Maybe with copy-paste or something.. I dunno. I'm pretty sure some corrolation between the MSC and any shiplist could be done.
Post by: FireSoul on May 13, 2003, 09:47:45 pm
There's a Romulan CL with '???' for name.. a SEG?
.. needs to be checked.
Post by: jdmckinney on May 16, 2003, 12:06:17 pm
Many of the Romulan new-design cruisers are probably overclassed as HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER. Roms have bloated BPVs due to the cloak, so some of the 170-190 BPV hawks should probably be NCA or CA. This is a tricky issue that needs more input.
G-BDDs seem a bit overclassed as WAR_DESTROYER considering BPVs are more in line with the DESTROYER class.
I noticed most, but not all, fast cruisers are "R"estricted. Either all of them should be, or none of them should be (I prefer the latter).
Some FFV/DDV ships are not classed as CARRIER, but some DWV/HDWV are classed as CARRIER even though they have the same number of fighters as the others. This is probably a case-by-case issue where blanket rules are hard to follow.
I believe some of the AxPFTs still have just 2 INTs, instead of 4. Specifically, the L-AxPFT and R-AxPFT have just 2. Adding 2 more will also require a BPV adjustment. The G-AxPFT has 4 INTs.
Romulan KRs (KR, KRB, KRM) should probably be classed as LIGHT_CRUISER, since they are D6 conversions, not D7 conversions. Those are the K7s and KRC/KRCS. The most obvious difference is the number of phasers.
Post by: FireSoul on May 16, 2003, 04:35:31 pm
I'll let things pill up for a while until I decide to do something about it.
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on May 16, 2003, 05:46:21 pm
Keep up the good work.
Post by: NannerSlug on May 16, 2003, 05:52:04 pm
2) what are these things? CAH, CAM , BCP, BCS, CMC, MS, (there are a few more.. )
inquiring minds would love to know.. your probably uber busy anyhow.
Post by: Cleaven on May 16, 2003, 07:13:40 pm
Post by: FireSoul on May 16, 2003, 07:31:51 pm
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 16, 2003, 07:33:40 pm
Quote:
1) f-LTV Phaser arcs?
2) what are these things? CAH, CAM , BCP, BCS, CMC, MS, (there are a few more.. )
inquiring minds would love to know.. your probably uber busy anyhow.
CAH? dunno.
CAM? dunno.
BCP: what race's?
BCS: Battle Control Ship. Normally a ship with about 6 fighters and 6 PFs on a BCH hull.
CMC: dunno.
MS: MineSweeper.
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 17, 2003, 06:00:37 pm
Quote:
Romulan KRs (KR, KRB, KRM) should probably be classed as LIGHT_CRUISER, since they are D6 conversions, not D7 conversions. Those are the K7s and KRC/KRCS. The most obvious difference is the number of phasers.
The D6 should be considered a Heavy Cruiser just like its pointy-eared cousin, the KR. Ships with 30 warp can hardly be classed as Light Cruisers (which almost always have 24 warp).
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 17, 2003, 07:02:47 pm
Quote:
The D6 should be considered a Heavy Cruiser just like its pointy-eared cousin, the KR. Ships with 30 warp can hardly be classed as Light Cruisers (which almost always have 24 warp).
I've often wondered how that is the way it is. If you look in the shiplist in game, it says heavy cruiser, but on the shiplist.txt it's light cruiser. I'm assuming that it's a mistake. Or perhaps Taldren thought the best way to insert some balance was to downgrade them? Considering that there is nothing like the F&E klink reserve fleet (with 24 D6's in it alone) in SFC perhaps this was a D2 balance move (and insures that there are 50x too many D6D's, lol).
At any rate, on to my real question: Are you keeping a master errata file for SFC Tar? I've got a shiplist project that I'm considering, and I just don't have all the SSD's that I need. The first thing I'd like to do is chuck the mistakes but I don't know where they all are.
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 17, 2003, 08:57:46 pm
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 17, 2003, 09:12:33 pm
My trusty G-CC has two Ph-3's that it really shouldn't have. The G-CC is the only CC in the galaxy that has the same firepower as its base CA! The CCF compounds this error by applying the "F-refit"(+2 Plas-F and +2 wing Ph-3's) to these Ph-3's. The CCF should really have 2 Ph3, not 4. The CCF is an excellent ship with all that phaser padding, but it is an error that warrants fixing.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 17, 2003, 10:13:00 pm
Post by: IndyShark on May 17, 2003, 10:34:45 pm
I don't know if this is an error or just a game quirk.
Post by: FireSoul on May 17, 2003, 10:36:36 pm
.. I don't think it's a good idea to do it jsut because it doesn't 'feel right'. I want to do it because it's a correction.
ie:
.. H-CHC, H-CHA were changed to their correct status.
On that note, ships that I added myself are my call, I guess. .. so those I am more willing to change if it's needed.
-- Luc
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 18, 2003, 12:03:25 am
Taldren had the F5 listed as a "Frigate" yet the F5B was listed as a "Destroyer". The D5 was listed as a "War Destroyer", which we know is BS. The KCR was amazingly listed as an ordinary "Heavy Cruiser" yet the weakling Firehawk-A was deemed a "Heavy Battlecruiser". I think it is safe to say that Taldren was not too concerned about things making sense with regards to this shiplist entry. Not surprisingly, "War Cruiser" isn't even an option.
I suggest you consider using movement costs to decide Ship Class (.33 = FF, .5 = DD, .67 or .75 = CL, 1 = CA, 1.25 to 1.5 = DN, 2 = BB). BCH status is pretty clear. DD vs DW can be a bit tricky though. NCA vs CA is pretty straight forward.
Post by: FireSoul on May 18, 2003, 12:17:12 am
.. btw, most of THOSE corrections I have already done in 2.1c
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 18, 2003, 12:32:41 am
Quote:
Regarding ship classes:
Taldren had the F5 listed as a "Frigate" yet the F5B was listed as a "Destroyer". The D5 was listed as a "War Destroyer", which we know is BS. The KCR was amazingly listed as an ordinary "Heavy Cruiser" yet the weakling Firehawk-A was deemed a "Heavy Battlecruiser". I think it is safe to say that Taldren was not too concerned about things making sense with regards to this shiplist entry. Not surprisingly, "War Cruiser" isn't even an option.
I suggest you consider using movement costs to decide Ship Class (.33 = FF, .5 = DD, .67 or .75 = CL, 1 = CA, 1.25 to 1.5 = DN, 2 = BB). BCH status is pretty clear. DD vs DW can be a bit tricky though. NCA vs CA is pretty straight forward.
With exception to romulans. Romulans are...different.
I was wondering, we have basically a conversion effort from SFB to SFC using the taldren "style" here. Perhaps we could also do the fighterlist as well?
Post by: FireSoul on May 18, 2003, 01:29:23 am
.. for that, I encourage a separate project be spawned.
-- Luc
Post by: Cleaven on May 18, 2003, 02:49:57 am
(And I like the EAW Shipwrights list a lot too, but I'm stuck on OP now.)
Post by: jimmi7769 on May 18, 2003, 08:18:38 am
Quote:
Ok, so where does the I-CPF fall into?
.. btw, most of THOSE corrections I have already done in 2.1c
the I-CPF is based on the light cruiser hull isn't it??
Post by: jdmckinney on May 18, 2003, 09:01:32 am
As for the D6/KR issue, the class changes only affect price and availability on the D2. Such changes would not alter the BPV matchups or effectiveness of the ships. The D6 is worse than a D5, yet it costs more if it is considered a CA. It may have more warp, but it has CL shields and weapons. Until D5s come out, the D6 class is the only CL the Klingons have. More warp + 1.0 move cost pretty much equal a ship with less warp and a .67 move cost. I think the D6-based ships are reasonable to consider CLs.
Concerning shiplist corrections, if I've read FS right in past posts, he has only fixed those ship errors that he has come across or had brought to his attention. It is entirely possible (even probable) that there are errors he has not identified yet. I've been working on a straight reworking of the default shiplist to SFB specs, but it takes me a long time to do because I'm checking every single ship against the SSDs. That's the difference between having a shiplist to play and having one that's still unreleased.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 18, 2003, 11:05:49 am
Quote:
The I-CPF is a CL hull. It only carries a couple phasers. It and the CPFW (adds Ph3s) should be classed as LIGHT_CRUISER. Nobody will ever buy this ship at even that pricing bracket, but it is better than NCA.
As for the D6/KR issue, the class changes only affect price and availability on the D2. Such changes would not alter the BPV matchups or effectiveness of the ships. The D6 is worse than a D5, yet it costs more if it is considered a CA. It may have more warp, but it has CL shields and weapons. Until D5s come out, the D6 class is the only CL the Klingons have. More warp + 1.0 move cost pretty much equal a ship with less warp and a .67 move cost. I think the D6-based ships are reasonable to consider CLs.
Concerning shiplist corrections, if I've read FS right in past posts, he has only fixed those ship errors that he has come across or had brought to his attention. It is entirely possible (even probable) that there are errors he has not identified yet. I've been working on a straight reworking of the default shiplist to SFB specs, but it takes me a long time to do because I'm checking every single ship against the SSDs. That's the difference between having a shiplist to play and having one that's still unreleased.
See, I don't buy the argument that a D6 is a light cruiser. It's a heavy cruiser. It's even listed as one. It's just a crappy heavy cruiser. Compare this:
Designation: K-D6B
BPV: 128
Crew: 43
Marines: 14
Shield 1: 30
Shield 2 & 6: 22
Shield 3 & 5: 22
Shield 4: 22
Total Shields: 140
Movement Cost: 1
Turn Mode: B
Total Warp Power: 30
Impulse Power: 5
Aux Power: 2
Total Engine Power: 35
Battery: 3
Transporters: 5
Tractors: 3
Mech Tractors:
Shuttles: 2
Fighters:
4x Disruptor 3
2x Missle Rack A
7x Phaser 2
1x ADD 6
With:
Designation: K-D5
BPV: 110
Crew: 39
Marines: 8
Shield 1: 30
Shield 2 & 6: 26
Shield 3 & 5: 26
Shield 4: 26
Total Shields: 160
Movement Cost: 0.67
Turn Mode: B
Total Warp Power: 24
Impulse Power: 5
Aux Power: 2
Total Engine Power: 29
Battery: 3
Transporters: 3
Tractors: 3
Mech Tractors:
Shuttles: 2
Fighters:
4x Disruptor 3
2x Missle Rack A
2x Phaser 1
2x Phaser 2
4x Phaser 3
2x AMD 12
These are the 2 variants available at the same time, the D6B in 2265 and the D5 available in 2268. In comparison, the D6 has more phasers (though all are ph-2), more transporters, and (something that people generally don't consider), more internals (76 on the D5, 81 on the D6 by my quick count). The last means it's takes enemy fire better than the D5. It's true that they have the same shielding. It's also true that so does the D7 - the D6 and D7 have the same amount of shielding. Again, CA level stuff. Comparing the D6 to D7 again, the power plant on the D7 has only 2 more points of aux power as well, and it has 2 more ph-2. As for the argument that the klingons don't have a CL then, MANY races don't have a CL. Hydrans for instance don't get a CL of any type until 2268 with the horseman. The D6 is a CA and should be treated as one.
Post by: jdmckinney on May 18, 2003, 01:58:43 pm
This is exactly why I like these threads -- people can discuss things and find common ground or improvements without getting into a flamefest.
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 18, 2003, 04:56:08 pm
H&R Modifier:
Frigate and Carrier = 9/6
Destroyer = 9/7
War Destroyer = 9/8
Light Cruiser = 9/9
Heavy Cruiser, New Heavy Cruiser, and Special = 9/10
Heavy Battlecruiser = 9/12
Dreadnought = 9/14
Battleship = 9/16
Here's the H&R formula:
(20-(DefendingMarines*Modifier))/60 = Vulnerability
So a ship with no marines has a vulnerability of 20/60 or 0.33 or 33%.
Note that the product of DefendingMarines*Modifier has an upper limit of 16, which means a minimum vulnerability of 0.067 or 6.7%.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 18, 2003, 07:21:54 pm
Quote:
Some very good points there. Note the D6 has LESS shielding than the D5
I looked at this about 6 times and missed that, thank you.
Quote:
... and a worse power curve. Actually, most players would take a D5 over a D7. The D5 is a war cruiser, so really the Klingons, as with other races, skip CLs altogether. They don't actually have ANY. Upon examination of your arguments, and looking at the Hydrans as a common foe with similar ship production, the D6s are like unrefitted DGs -- poor cruisers that are best used as hulls to build variants from.
There's nothing "poor" about a DG or RN. They are good ships actually. Your analogy is incorrect IMO; a better comparison is the DG/RN against the D7/D6, or the DG+/RN+ against the D7B/D6B. Though the Hydran has the advantage here. This is intentional. Something that unfortunately can't be simulated correctly is the issue of numbers, and production costs and priorities. The klingons decided that "quantity has a quality all of it's own" since ADB based them loosely off of the soviet union. A quick check of my appendix of F&E 2K shows that, at the start of fighting of the general war, the hydran kingdom could muster 55 total combat vessels. This number increases somewhat if you factor in the expansions, but not by a significant number. The Klingon empire on the other hand, has 148 combat ships in it's various fleets. Not only that, but they also have a reserve fleet with another 15 ships, and a mothballed fleet (requires EP to activate) of 32 D6, 12 F5, 12 E4. To the hydran and Kzinti players in the early going it does not matter if your ships are superior to the klingon's, it is like trying to break a tidal wave. Also, a DG and RN cost 10 EP each (counting fighter factors) while a D6 and D7 costs 8.
What does this mean? Only that a D6 is a heavy cruiser, that is inferior because it's supposed to be inferior. The D7 is the same thing basically. These are klingon design decisions. What's really needed in the D2 play is perhaps having racial adjustments to ship pricing. A hydran CA costs X while a klingon one costs Y. IMO though we're facing a program limitation and I don't know if there's anything that can be done about it really.
Post by: Cleaven on May 18, 2003, 08:22:36 pm
Quote:
What does this mean? Only that a D6 is a heavy cruiser, that is inferior because it's supposed to be inferior. The D7 is the same thing basically. These are klingon design decisions. What's really needed in the D2 play is perhaps having racial adjustments to ship pricing. A hydran CA costs X while a klingon one costs Y. IMO though we're facing a program limitation and I don't know if there's anything that can be done about it really.
This is indeed the crux of the matter, and while the use of a SQL database and tools would make it possible for empire specific factors (like cheap drones for the Kzinti) there are also practical limitations on achieving this, in that somebody has to do all the work in the first place. While a number of people have made a fair bit of progress it's not possible to do this tomorrow, or the day after. Until then comprimise and practicalities must have right of way.
Post by: Magnum357 on May 20, 2003, 09:00:22 pm
Post by: FireSoul on May 20, 2003, 10:10:50 pm
.. why?
Post by: jimmi7769 on May 20, 2003, 10:16:44 pm
Quote:
Hey guys, just a quick question. Does this shiplist include Monitors? I never really checked if the original OP shiplist ever included them.
The original OP shiplist did not include them.
Post by: Magnum357 on May 21, 2003, 01:06:21 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 21, 2003, 01:35:37 am
.. .. anyways.
.. note to self:
Check to redo weapons on ISC CMs.
.. also, check fighterlist for H-WASP costs.
Post by: FireSoul on May 22, 2003, 02:04:33 am
The Z-MBT(+) aka Z-MTT-B needs to have its disruptors reorganized. Just 2 banks for 5 dizzies seems odd.
Post by: FireSoul on May 22, 2003, 04:39:03 am
The plasma-race's HDWs need to have both a Plasma-D and Ph1 variant for their HDWEs. Similarly, the Klingon's HF5E and the Mirak HDWE should have both a ph1 and a ADD12 variant. The Fed HDWE should have both a ph1 and Drone-G variant. The hydran's HDWE is fine, with the extra phGs. The lyran HDWE is stuck with ph1s, I guess.
Post by: jdmckinney on May 22, 2003, 06:43:14 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 22, 2003, 06:55:12 am
1- HDWs are Size-class 4. Option-mount rules state the ship needs to be size-class 3 or larger.
2- the 2 option mounts are considered 'hull mounted', but are not together. They can't be used this way.
.. in fact, the only HDW with 2 weapon options that are together is the Gorn's..
.. hence, there are more Grn HBD variants:
HBD1: 2x PlasmaFs RH (AP)
HBD2: 1x PlasmaG RH (AP) (!!!)
HBD3: 2x PlasmaD RAR/RAL arc to simulate RPR/LPR arc. (this could also have been "RH" by the rules)
HBD4: 2x Ph1 (I always made at least one of these per race)
Note that the ISC's HDD has RH PlasmaDs and the 2 rear plasmas are in a single mount: I ran out of mounts for it. Maybe I should put the ship on a larger model? I could then split the rear optionmounts and give the plasma-Ds separate arcs for better coverage, as well as separate pseudos for the Fs.
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on May 22, 2003, 02:09:27 pm
Is there a 3-ESG ship in the current list? I haven't looked closely at the Lyran specs, but I seem to remember a battle tug or somesuch having a total of 3 ESGs when using a pallet. I've always thought a 3-ESG ship would be a good thing on a cruiser, so you have something between the CAs and the 4-ESG BC(H)s. I'll have to crack a few SSD books to satisfy my curiosity now.
Post by: Rod O'neal on May 22, 2003, 02:48:37 pm
Post by: Strafer on May 22, 2003, 04:02:23 pm
Quote:
In SFB, the Lyran and LDR LBTs (Light Battle Transport) have three ESGs with the Klink battle pod.
Confirmed, the LBT, LBT+ and LBTF have 3 ESGs in OP+.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 22, 2003, 04:30:57 pm
Post by: FireSoul on May 22, 2003, 10:53:36 pm
Quote:
Something to consider: FRD's aren't armed like they are supposed to be. Plus, bases need work. There's a lot more combinations you can have depending on what modules are mounted.
Adding impulses will allow FRDs to move around as it was originally intended.. but that's no good if all they do is charge the enemy. That would have to be discussed first.
Similarly, phaser-armed planets should be given ph3s to avoid drone abuse.. ..
.. also.. come to think of it, there are other base-platforms that could be added too. Like commercial platforms and the like. These could be added as either LPs or SPECIAL. Comments?
-- Luc
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 23, 2003, 12:05:59 am
I didn't design the way it works, I just play it.
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 12:24:29 am
Post by: Magnum357 on May 23, 2003, 01:18:37 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 01:22:47 am
The Z-DD+ has an error. The "Shuttles Max" is supposed to be 2, but is marked as 1. "Shuttles Base" is 1, and is ok.
The Z-DD itself is fine with a "Shuttles Max" of 2.
Thanks Fluf.
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 01:24:53 am
Quote:
I wonder, if a 3D modeler reduces the scale of the planet models, would that in effect reduce inside edge of the planet where it would do that? I know how to use Milkshape, I could experiment this to see if it would work.
I guess the planet would have to be very very very small. I think the weapons are all 'mounted' in the dead-center of the model, and thus why they're marked as "360 degrees" weapons.
That really really really sucks.
- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 05:34:56 am
Encountered a L-DHDW2 LDR ship that had standard Lyran skin, not the black one. Will have to double-check that.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 06:03:15 am
Once it's over, I'll be revisiting this data, and do all changes I find good..
.. after that, a version 2.2 of the shiplist will be released, and we can play with it some. I will probably start a new corrections thread at that point, for a clean slate.
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on May 23, 2003, 07:00:45 am
Personally, I like the armed FRDs. I've tested them in play and enjoyed the extra dimension they add even if stationary. Defenders can use them to intercept drones, distract the enemy, and generally add more firepower to the field. Attackers have to be wary of them, but can attempt captures to even the odds.
The funny thing with the shipyard mission setup is armed FRDs, once captured, will fire at the other FRDs with any weapon that can reach that far -- if there are no closer enemies. They don't do much damage, though.
Other base types would be interesting, but perhaps hard to implement without missions specifically made for them. It would certainly be interesting to see PFs or fighters defending a planet. Since they'd be launched once and never recovered, anyway, they could be based on orbiting platforms.
Another idea I had but never got to work right was to have FRDs launch docked frigates as additional defenders. They can be given PFs or fighters, though.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 23, 2003, 07:22:14 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 07:30:39 am
Quote:
If you (or rather anyone doing a shiplist mod, since FS knows this) would like armed FRDs with impulse, but don't want them to move (because they will act like typical moronic AIs), just make sure they don't have a move cost. This is the default for FRDs already. The impulse is then essentially just additional power. I believe they are supposed to be able to move mainly so they can get from point A to point B, not so they could attack something, though that's exactly what they would do if they could.
Personally, I like the armed FRDs. I've tested them in play and enjoyed the extra dimension they add even if stationary. Defenders can use them to intercept drones, distract the enemy, and generally add more firepower to the field. Attackers have to be wary of them, but can attempt captures to even the odds.
The funny thing with the shipyard mission setup is armed FRDs, once captured, will fire at the other FRDs with any weapon that can reach that far -- if there are no closer enemies. They don't do much damage, though.
Other base types would be interesting, but perhaps hard to implement without missions specifically made for them. It would certainly be interesting to see PFs or fighters defending a planet. Since they'd be launched once and never recovered, anyway, they could be based on orbiting platforms.
Another idea I had but never got to work right was to have FRDs launch docked frigates as additional defenders. They can be given PFs or fighters, though.
Do you know of a shiplist with the equipped FRDs? It would save me time to just use someone else's work. Besides, god knows how many people use Mine.
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 07:33:22 am
Quote:
Now, something that you CAN do is give a planet a UI for a ship but the model of a planet. They then can fire all weapons normally, launch fighters, etc. It's just then the UI thinks it's a ship and tries to pull a death star. Giving it no power to move itself with doesn't fix the problem, as it then attempts to rotate itself to get weapons in arc, which is odd looking to say the least.
It would indeed be interesting.. but would it work with the stock Taldren missions? That has to be a requirement.
Also, a problem, I don't think there would be collision if it's a ship or a base.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 08:02:23 am
idea: should I enter FRDs with the fighter / PF upgrades over time? Yeah, I should.. just like bases.
problem: most missions are hardcoded to use the most basic FRDs..
ie, taken from ShipYard assault code:
Code:
std::string shipyard = "";
eRace race = mGetRace();
switch ( race )
{
case kFederation: shipyard = "F-FRD"; break;
case kKlingon: shipyard = "K-FRD"; break;
case kRomulan: shipyard = "R-FRD"; break;
case kLyran: shipyard = "L-FRD"; break;
case kGorn: shipyard = "G-FRD"; break;
case kHydran: shipyard = "H-FRD"; break;
case kISC: shipyard = "I-FRD"; break;
case kMirak: shipyard = "Z-FRD"; break;
default: shipyard = "O-FRD"; break;
}
In other words, only the basic "FRD"s are used in the standard missions.. .. which makes sense because they're entered as "SPECIAL" in the shiplist. Bleh.
.. adding the other FRDs isn't a problem, but nothing would use them unless scripted for it.. and thus that would only work with custom shiplists with the extra FRDs.. .. double bleh.
idea: should I enter DEFSATs? It would be amusing.. .. maybe use "BOX" for the model.
.. I like the idea already.DEFSATs are usually destroyed on 24 points of damage, no matter the internals. This could be simulated with armor.
ie: DEFSAT has 6 weapon boxes. They would count as 6. There would be ..say.. 2 excess damage hits, and 16 armor hits.
They would have no DAMCON, SENSOR, etc. hits... unless it's absolutely necessary. Then I would simply put the minimum of "1" in the proper fields.
idea: maybe create planets that recieve upgrades (as ground bases)? .. it wouldn't work all the time, but some planets could launch fighters I suppose. PFs for others.. let me check the ground bases SSDs... hmmm... .. small ground fighter base: 6 fighters (4).. medium: 12 fighters (8).. Interesting. ..
problem: how would people/scripts account the BPV used for the use of these bases?
problem: How many such bases should be used per planet? 1?
Post by: jdmckinney on May 23, 2003, 10:22:51 am
I'll upload a .txt file (zipped) with JUST the armed FRDs so you can quickly access them from my webspace.
Post by: jdmckinney on May 23, 2003, 10:49:28 am
Also, I think I did plas-D/plas-F combos on the plasma race FRDs because there are no offensive plas-D in SFC. I think they should have had 2 of those, but I decided on a closest approximation of 1 D and 1 F.
I'll PM you the link.
About the FRDs being called in scripts -- I would suggest the shiplist assign the simplest armed FRDs to the FRD spot (therefore getting called in all missions), and perhaps use FRDx (for whatever designation you want) to do alternate FRDs that a revised shipyard script could take into account. That's probably more a question for you scripters. One problem with the missions themselves are that you (almost?) never get your own race's FRD to defend (or your enemy's own FRD to attack). It sure would be nice if that could be fixed.
Post by: NuclearWessels on May 23, 2003, 11:35:01 am
Quote:
One problem with the missions themselves are that you (almost?) never get your own race's FRD to defend (or your enemy's own FRD to attack). It sure would be nice if that could be fixed.
Getting your own FRD to defend is easily fixed - I should have a recompiled version along with a bunch of other fixes in the next hour or two. Getting the right enemy FRD is more of a pain in the rump, but I'll see what I can do.
dave
Post by: jdmckinney on May 23, 2003, 11:59:43 am
As usual, we are all in your (NW & FS) debt.
Post by: NuclearWessels on May 23, 2003, 01:35:41 pm
Just spend about 10 minutes staring at the current code going ... "That should have worked!?!?"
<whew>
dave
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 23, 2003, 06:17:31 pm
Quote:
It would indeed be interesting.. but would it work with the stock Taldren missions? That has to be a requirement.
Also, a problem, I don't think there would be collision if it's a ship or a base.
-- Luc
I'm sorry, I don't know/remember. The testing that revealed these problems was done long ago, about a year back IIRC. Nuclearwessels could probabally look at it and give you an answer that is correct.
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 07:18:13 pm
However, nothing stops me from adding extra FRDs to the shiplist if anyone wants to work on them.
-- Luc
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 23, 2003, 08:55:08 pm
Post by: FireSoul on May 23, 2003, 10:09:46 pm
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 23, 2003, 11:43:41 pm
As for the cloak, see http://208.57.228.4/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB2&Number=67223&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 about this problem child.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 24, 2003, 10:49:03 pm
I get the feeling that there are errors here, but I don't have the reference material to correct.
Post by: jimmi7769 on May 24, 2003, 11:00:06 pm
Quote:
Next question: Looking through the shiplist, I am once again confused by the term BCH when applied to the roms. What, exactly, is the rom BCH? Other than the KHK, which is literally supposed to replace a destroyed DN, or a KCN, which in SFB is a conjectural design since the klinks could never spare a C7 for any reason. The Firehawk-A is listed as a BCH. Two S torps and two F torps, plus 4 ph-3 and 5 ph-1 don't normally add up to a BCH. I went and checked advanced missions (my rom stuff is limited to this and basic) and it's listed as a CA. However, it also lists the KHK as a CA.
I get the feeling that there are errors here, but I don't have the reference material to correct.
There is much debate over this topic.
In short the Roms only true BCH is the KCR.
In SFB the Novahawk was considered a BCH but it had a working cloak, the SFC one doesn't.
Most Roms consider the KHK a BCH, but I think it's really a step above the other BCH's I mean it's got 6 more power than a C7 and that should just be illeagal.
But, realisticaly, I the the Gorn BCH is superior to the KCR(cause of the lack of offensive D-Racks) so there we are again, the Roms really don't have one.
Post by: Mog on May 24, 2003, 11:30:21 pm
Post by: jimmi7769 on May 25, 2003, 12:41:06 am
Quote:
Mace, having flown the G-BCH and the KCR a lot, in a battle between the 2 I'd go for the KCR. Better power curve, turn rate, and imho, better firing arcs on the ph1s.
Well, it is based on the best ship in the game ;-)
Post by: FireSoul on May 25, 2003, 12:58:46 am
Quote:
Romulan CA R-FHA HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-FHK HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-FFH-A HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-FFH-K HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-RGK HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-RHK NEW_HEAVY_CRUISER
Romulan CA R-NHK HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-KCR HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-KCRF HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-KHK HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Bleh.
.. I think I will change that to:
Quote:
Romulan CA R-FHA NEW_HEAVY_CRUISER
Romulan CA R-FHK NEW_HEAVY_CRUISER
Romulan CA R-FFH-A NEW_HEAVY_CRUISER
Romulan CA R-FFH-K NEW_HEAVY_CRUISER
Romulan CA R-RGK NEW_HEAVY_CRUISER
Romulan CA R-RHK NEW_HEAVY_CRUISER
Romulan CA R-NHK HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-KCR HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-KCRF HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Romulan CA R-KHK HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER
Sounds good?
-- Luc
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 25, 2003, 01:45:40 am
Post by: jdmckinney on May 25, 2003, 10:14:19 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 25, 2003, 10:24:45 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 25, 2003, 11:42:56 am
Someone reported to me that lyran PFs were short-changed by 1 point of power.
Hm. I could always do a check-up..
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 25, 2003, 04:22:17 pm
Quote:
Note to self:
Someone reported to me that lyran PFs were short-changed by 1 point of power.
Hm. I could always do a check-up..
Possibly, but the problem is that the WBP issue has always been problematic, with fighters and PF's. Especially since the introduction date for WBP's is Y180, but this is not reflected in the fighterlist.
Post by: jdmckinney on May 25, 2003, 05:17:24 pm
FFH-A: CA (all other races' CFs are CA in the Tech Wars list, and not restricted)
FFH-K: CA
FHA: CA
FHF: CA
FHK: CA
KCR: BCH
KCRF: BCH
KHK: BCH
NHK: NCA (some other races' cruisers were also put here, since NCA on Tech Wars is more expensive than CA)
RGK: CA
RHK: NCA
SUA: CA
SUK: CA
Hope that helps.
Post by: FireSoul on May 26, 2003, 01:53:55 am
The H-IC is way too powerful as it is, Playing it on TechWars proved it easily, aside from the crap that I've recieved from MadElf about it.
.. looking at the BPV of the ship, it has a EPV of 35 points higher. Increasing the BPV by 35 eems like a good way to help balance the ship a bit.
Request: Nomad, if you read this..
.. please change the IC's hulltype on techwars.. and up the BPV by 35 on the server side's shpilist too, while at it..
It's only 16-17K as it is, and is completely OTT. A ship like that should be priced as a CVA .. which is "DN".
-- Luc
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 26, 2003, 02:16:11 am
There is no listing for "Carriers" on the master ship chart; it lists the fed CVS as a heavy cruiser for example. I say follow this lead.
Post by: FireSoul on May 26, 2003, 02:21:21 am
Quote:
The problem, IMO, is the class listing. What SFC2.NET has done for the last several servers is take all carriers and assign them to the base hull class they come from. That makes the Uhlan a destroyer, a Trooper a Light Cruiser, and the Iron Duke and Chancellor dreadnaughts. It's silly that a Uhlan might have nearly the same cost as an Iron Duke.
There is no listing for "Carriers" on the master ship chart; it lists the fed CVS as a heavy cruiser for example. I say follow this lead.
That should be up to the admin..
.. remember, my shiplist has to remain taldren-like and be compatible with GSA and other forms of play.
-- Luc
Post by: Cleaven on May 26, 2003, 04:56:50 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 26, 2003, 05:04:50 am
There's more to standard multiplayer than SL!
Post by: Cleaven on May 26, 2003, 06:51:43 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 26, 2003, 07:05:24 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."
The ships' status are going to have to remain the same. This shiplist works beautifully with local single-player D2 (I have played a lot of it) and simple multiplayer (many hundreds of hours there). The online D2 servers can also use the shiplist, but their admins will have to adapt it for their uses at their end.
The shiplist will remain like this to support the broadest audience, and my own preferences.
-- Luc
EDIT: The above was about optomizing the shiplist for D2 play, unlike the stock Taldren shiplist.
Post by: jdmckinney on May 26, 2003, 08:01:14 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 26, 2003, 08:07:48 am
HM..
Hm..
Quote:
HEAVY_BATTLECRUISER = 2.5
CARRIER = 2.0
DREADNOUGHT = 3.0
Hm.
You guys might be right after all..
.. should I change all BCHs and higher that are marked as CARRIER to their proper hull classes?
.. But that'll screw up a lot of things elsewhere. I can think of the coopace script on GSA, for instance. I still think it's best to leave it alone for the default shiplist.
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on May 26, 2003, 03:28:33 pm
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 26, 2003, 04:27:15 pm
Post by: FireSoul on May 27, 2003, 12:08:14 am
The IC will be 220. It has 24 fighters, so the BPV will be increased by 48: 268
The IC+ will be 240. It has 24 fighters, so the BPV will be increased by 48: 288
Those BPVs will be in the next shiplist, I would think.
Post by: FireSoul on May 27, 2003, 02:38:49 am
.. now I've posted a bug about it to Taldren.. but..
.. if they don't do anythign about it, should I swallow my own pride and change some phXs to phGs like the Taldren X1 ships had?
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on May 27, 2003, 06:07:43 am
The trouble with PhX and point defense is they can't be set to PD and overloaded at the same time. Apparently the AI chooses power over defense.
Post by: FireSoul on May 27, 2003, 07:13:10 am
We'll see.
Post by: FireSoul on May 29, 2003, 11:57:04 am
.. seems that through testing, G racks don't have enough ammo at all on X ships. B racks it is, I guess... but that's gonna screw up my sanity checkign scripts. I'll have to be careful if there are new xships additions later on.
-- Luc
Post by: Kel on May 29, 2003, 12:40:53 pm
Do you know if the OP D2 server kit is being worked on? If so, by whom? I have some suggestions for SQL compatability.
GDA-Kel
Gorn Dragon Alliance
Post by: Mog on May 29, 2003, 12:56:40 pm
Post by: FireSoul on May 29, 2003, 01:07:15 pm
Post by: Kel on May 29, 2003, 01:12:05 pm
Quote:
I dunno if I have the right to answer any questions about that. :-/
Alright then...don't tell me who is working on it, but can you tell me IF it is being worked on?
If it IS being worked on by some un-named person, would you be in a position to pass along my suggestions for SQL implementation?
GDA-Kel
Gorn Dragon Alliance
Post by: FireSoul on May 29, 2003, 02:25:58 pm
.. as for whether or not there's going to be another patch .. or if there's someone working on OP.. (I don't want to get any false hopes up) .. I know some issues, non-D2, have been looked at. It still doesn't mean that those fixes will be used to create a new patch. Instead, the work could always be shelved. :-/
I think I'm one of the most active testers for SFC:OP at the moment. I will pass along anything you might have to add that might help.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 29, 2003, 03:29:32 pm
.. makes me think that TarMinyatur might be right in giving all X1 ships a pair of phGs.
Explanation:
AI does not use phX for defense. Yet for the Rom and Gorn X1 ships, there are no defensive weapons on the ships at all (with my X1 ships). They've got a bunch of phXs and offensive plasmas.. and that's it.
.. would replacing 2 phX into 2 gatlings on all X1 ships (including hydran to be fair) be too drastic? It is known the AI doesn't hold the phGs back when attakcing. A player can tease an AI to fire its gatling from range 12-14, then fire drones at it.
The feds, miraks and klingons are just about immune from drones with the numerous G racks (and ADDs).
.. but what do we do about the Gorn, Rom, (and ISC?) X1 ships?
Edit:
How about
<FireSoul> then what do you suggest? A sacrifice in plasma power to get plDs?
<FireSoul> ie: 2xGs -> 2xFs + 2xDs?
Edit2:
Doing this would increase the BPV by 3 per G->F+D conversion.
Post by: Mog on May 29, 2003, 03:59:52 pm
Post by: FireSoul on May 29, 2003, 04:13:26 pm
.. besides, I *have* seen the lyrans use their ESGs defensively with OP.. I was impressed.
I think these would be fine for now. Besides, the Lyrans have LDRs (and thus gatlings) and the Hydrans have their fighters in their X1 ships.
Edit: the stock fighters in Hydran X1 ships are type IIIs.
Edit: The lyrans MAY have PFs. (Ints... but it helps)
Post by: FireSoul on May 29, 2003, 05:10:38 pm
.. the triple batteries on the X1 ships are not present on the X2..
.. also, they give triple hull hits on the batteries right now.
I should really change that to single battery per box on SSD. You know.. to make it consistant. I wonder if there's a way to properly calculate a BPV adjustment. Any ideas, people?
-- Luc
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 29, 2003, 05:54:54 pm
Quote:
It has been discovered that X1 ships are indeed unbalanced through test-playing on the TechWars server..
.. makes me think that TarMinyatur might be right in giving all X1 ships a pair of phGs.
Huh? I've never suggested anything to do with X-ships. I've never flown an X-ship nor do I ever really want to
Post by: FireSoul on May 29, 2003, 05:57:36 pm
.. my memory fails me..
..
Post by: Rod O'neal on May 29, 2003, 06:40:48 pm
). In effect increasing the # of internals anyway. If you cut back on the generating power systems to SFB spec then the additional batts. internals don't really matter. I find it makes using x-ships a little more challenging that way too. IMHO
Post by: jdmckinney on May 29, 2003, 06:51:20 pm
On the Plasma, Fs are nearly useless in an X vs. X fight -- they're too fast to hit with Fs because of the limited range and drop-off in damage. Droners don't have that damage reduction, and their drones fly for much longer. Also, I wonder about plasma D BPVs according to SFB, since there they could be used offensively, right? Here they can't.
I also agree that PhG are a tricky issue, because they are so good offensively. I still like the Ph3 as an option, though it has plenty of flaws, too.
What I'd really like to hear is more opinions, especially from players with a lot of flight time. It's all academic until it plays out in a match.
Post by: Rod O'neal on May 29, 2003, 07:01:24 pm
Quote:
I believe you could easily get the PhGs selectable by first selecting all weapons, then deselecting the ones you don't want grouped with them (maybe even all other hardpoints), and then assigning them a hotkey.
Good point. I didn't think of that, because I've never tried it, I guess
.
Post by: FireSoul on May 29, 2003, 08:51:38 pm
Good: defense versus tracking objects
Bad: AI using phGs can be outplayed.. the phGs would not be used for defense, but for offense.
This fix is for the AI, not the player. .. .. so that eliminates the phGs as useful.
Pl-Ds, PlaGs->PLaFs:
Good: defense..
Bad: costless defense for a while... no power needs to be expended on ships that would normally do that.
Bad: X-ships would out-run PLaFs fired at them easily.
Players could abuse this easily.
Well.. maybe I should just leave this alone for now.. I hope that Taldren will heed my request to make the phX defense-capable by default. That would solve everything here.
Post by: TarMinyatur on May 29, 2003, 09:17:25 pm
I think SFC would have been vastly improved had the Ph-3/G chart simply been truncated at range 2 instead of inheriting SFB's woefully ineffective range 3 to 15 shots. I've never fired a Ph-3 from range 3+ in all my years of SFB/SFC. Yet the AI does it like it's going out of style.
Post by: FireSoul on May 29, 2003, 09:23:38 pm
Yeah, I've done it. The 2 ships were coming apart from each other and the down shield was facing me.
... I had to try.. and did sometihng like 2 internals.
Anyways.. yeah.. .. but that's an old argument..
.. fact remains that phGs are useless in such manner at this time.
Post by: MadElf on May 30, 2003, 05:01:04 am
Good: defense..
Bad: costless defense for a while... no power needs to be expended on ships that would normally do that.
Bad: X-ships would out-run PLaFs fired at them easily"
True, but people are also forgetting about the fact that the X1 have R torps instead of M torps, and that's a significant increase in firepower already. I think the G -> F plasma conversion with the makes them much more accurate in overall firepower compared to the origional SFB models. Also, D plasma do run out soon enough, this is just a little bump to the rom/gorn X1, not a big edge. Take note that, for example, the K-DXD had 6 amd 12, and the rom counterpart (same hull, 2 less power) has 0 drone/fighter defenses. A DXD will go through fighter swarms and drone waves like they weren't even there. Guys, try flying a rom or gorn X1 ship in an agent recovery mission vs mirak or klingon ai. Then fly a klingon or mirak through the same mission. You'll see what I mean.
Also true, X ships can out run plasma F. But that doesn't make them useless by any means. Rom/gorn X2 ships are loaded down with tons of F torps, and I always seem to manage to hit people with them anyway, and that's vs the much faster X2 ships, not just the X1.
Post by: FireSoul on May 30, 2003, 05:28:27 am
Other comments?
Post by: jdmckinney on May 30, 2003, 07:49:21 am
I know this is a one-sided look at the Lyran issues. Granted, the others have their own peculiarities, but I think the Lyran situation is worthy of more discussion.
Post by: FireSoul on May 30, 2003, 08:17:08 am
.. the very best solution is to see the phX fixed .. so that AI can use it defensively. (Please Taldren? GO TALDREN!!)
heh
Post by: FireSoul on May 30, 2003, 08:18:49 am
I have found some corrected SSDs available for download from the ADB SFB pages..
.. these are to be considered replacement SSDs. Should I use them?
http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sfin/Reprinted_SSDs.pdf
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on May 30, 2003, 08:33:21 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 30, 2003, 08:42:44 am
and some rear shield differences in the F-CVA..
.. and an error correction for the R-KDR's Emer IMP -> APR.
.. do you have a URL to SSD erratas in text?
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on May 30, 2003, 08:54:31 am
.. crap.. I can't believe I have missed/ignore tihs all along.
Thre are *4* shuttlebay related fields
1- # of shuttlebay boxes
2- launchrate
3- # shuttles BASE. (for stock configuration)
4- # shuttles MAX.
.. in the Z-DD+ bug above, the # shuttles max is 1, instead of 2 despite the baysize of 2. In-game, that meant a single shuttle.
.. so it DOES work. That means I should review ALL fighter-carriers and add all the missing internal hits to the # of shuttlebays! .. that means 40 more for the IC+, for example! That's 80 internals more.
..Crap.. crap crap crap. This is a MUST do.
-- Luc
EDIT: as long as there's 1 bay, all fighters may rearm. That's wrong.. crap.. the old arguments again.
PS. No, I'm not using standard hull. That screws up DAC. Best would be to leave alone unless good arguments come up.
Edit2: Argument via D2 server: .. no bays hits is appropriate balance for fighter regen.
Post by: jdmckinney on May 30, 2003, 09:22:15 am
I saw the Romulan examples you gave here: http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/errata14.html.
The main page for the Errata (broken into subpages by rule numbers), is here: http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/erratoc.html.
Post by: jdmckinney on May 30, 2003, 09:39:52 am
http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/X-shipCL23.pdf
Post by: FireSoul on May 30, 2003, 09:41:39 am
Quote:
If you want to really get confused about Xes, check out the X-errata, which essentially kills any chance OP has at approximating SFB Xes. Since OP depends upon the PhX, and SFB depends more on X-heavy rules like fast-loads (as far as weapons are concerned), we've essentially got the opposite of what SFB Xes should be. It's getting to the point where we might as well throw out all Xes and start from scratch -- meaning there can't be a good translation from SFB if using SFC limitations and SFB SSDs and BPVs.
http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/X-shipCL23.pdf
Yeah.. I know.
... that's why I selectively decided to ignore the CL23 rule changes.. in favor of SFC.
That means also I didn't use the BPVs at the bottom of the errata, there.
Post by: jdmckinney on May 30, 2003, 09:56:08 am
Post by: jdmckinney on May 30, 2003, 09:58:01 am
Post by: Mog on May 30, 2003, 11:41:27 am
Alternatively, with a code change, do as Tar Minyatur suggested (and something that I've posted about several times now), and restrict ph3/G fire to a max of range 2. That way, if a player wants to tease out point defence phasers, he has to go into their effective range and take some damage.. On top of this, I would also recommend that the pd option for phasers to fire on plasma torps be removed too, else the plasma users have an advantage over the other races in that they canlaunch a pseudo to waste pd fire then launch real ones.
Ideally, doing similar (ie range restrictions) to other weapons would improve the ai's fighting capability a lot. Restrict ph1s to range 8.99 max (15.99 if facing a downed shield), fusions to 2.99 etc. By restricting, I don't mean cut off the weapons' ranges, I mean put some sort of If/Then statement in to check range to target , and if the target is outside of those ranges,then to not fire those weapons.
Post by: FireSoul on May 30, 2003, 12:01:45 pm
I know it's not perfect.. But it's just the AI anyways.
My current stand is: I want to wait and see if my request is going to be rejected or not. I don't want to get players used to having some fantastic gatlings on all the xships again if I'm just going to take them away.
anyways.. I would like to hold off on requesting the range changes in AI behaviour at this time. I have done enough requests lately to warrant shutting up for a while until DavidF is more comfortable to hearing about things like this.
Unless someone else wants to ask him, this time?
BTW,.. I agree fully about the AI. Know that.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on May 30, 2003, 07:13:29 pm
Quote:
Note to self:
.. crap.. I can't believe I have missed/ignore tihs all along.
Thre are *4* shuttlebay related fields
1- # of shuttlebay boxes
2- launchrate
3- # shuttles BASE. (for stock configuration)
4- # shuttles MAX.
.. in the Z-DD+ bug above, the # shuttles max is 1, instead of 2 despite the baysize of 2. In-game, that meant a single shuttle.
.. so it DOES work. That means I should review ALL fighter-carriers and add all the missing internal hits to the # of shuttlebays! .. that means 40 more for the IC+, for example! That's 80 internals more.
..Crap.. crap crap crap. This is a MUST do.
-- Luc
EDIT: as long as there's 1 bay, all fighters may rearm. That's wrong.. crap.. the old arguments again.
PS. No, I'm not using standard hull. That screws up DAC. Best would be to leave alone unless good arguments come up.
Edit2: Argument via D2 server: .. no bays hits is appropriate balance for fighter regen.
1. I'm not sure if adding shuttlebay boxes will work. I seem to recall that there is a max number.
2. All fighters rearming on 1 shuttlebay is not as bad as the ability to hit and run the shuttlebay and take it out of commission so that you can't launch fighters at all. I don't have the SSD for the IC, but I'll guarantee it has more than 2 launch tubes. Use cargo or barracks instead of hull if you want to add the internals. Tar I'm sure will point out that SFC has no chance for a chain reaction, but seriously, I can't think of any competent fighter commander that would allow a situation to develop that would trigger one, unless he was totally suprised at fairly close range. In which case it's probabally not your biggest problem anyway.
You COULD rearm 40 fighters with only 1 fighter bay. It would just take a very long time. Also, in a situation with a crippled CVA, the escorts could also rearm the fighters; or at least the hydran and federation could.
Again the long and short of it is that taldren hosed this issue somewhat, just like the decision to not give everyone fighters and PF's.
Post by: FireSoul on May 31, 2003, 07:46:01 am
2xPLaM -> 2xPLaR (upgraded)
2xPLaS -> 2xPLaG (downgraded)
No BPV change.
.. while other ships:
PLaM -> PLaR, +10 BPV
No downgrades (because there aren't as many Rs as Ms)
The question is: Should I leave it like that, with some ships haivng lower BPV but also less firepower, or should I reupgrade their PLaGs to PLaSs with +10BPV each?
Post by: jdmckinney on May 31, 2003, 09:17:15 am
Post by: FireSoul on May 31, 2003, 10:30:19 am
.. I'm waiting to see if my request for defensive-capable (on default) phX will be acknowledged.
*THE* best point concerning plasma I have heard is "if you downgrade it, it can probably be outrun. That's why I feel the downgrades I have already done is in error. I should have increased the BPV instead with the better PlasmaRs.
As for PlasmaD.. well.. killing 12 drones for free per rack seems, ..well, a bit much. The ship has all those ph1s.. oh sorry, phX, to be able to defend itself as well as be offensive. We've already discussed the phGs, so the ups and downs are all said, there.
.. anyways..
Let's wait and see what happens. There's still 1 patch left.
-- Luc
Post by: jimmi7769 on May 31, 2003, 10:32:57 am
They stirred up all kinds of problems in SFB too.
Post by: FireSoul on May 31, 2003, 10:35:53 am
.. they're a lot of fun, too.
-- Luc
Post by: jimmi7769 on May 31, 2003, 10:45:23 am
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 01, 2003, 12:19:42 am
Post by: jimmi7769 on June 01, 2003, 09:13:27 am
Quote:
Just curious. Why don't you use PlaX for PlaM? Also, how do you adjust for the lack of a PlaL in SFC?
Plasma L is an easy one, they are identical to the Plasma G in every way except I think they only take up one option mount space.
Post by: FireSoul on June 01, 2003, 09:48:12 am
As for the PLaX.. it's too damned fast. speed 40? No way I'll use it.
Post by: FireSoul on June 02, 2003, 11:29:30 pm
The FX phasers on the Lyran BBs are actually KFX. (Klingon FX boom arc)
Needs correction/review.
Post by: jdmckinney on June 05, 2003, 09:11:20 am
Quote:
New ships include the Federation GVX, heavy fighter pod, and scout pod; the Klingon heavy fighter resupply pod, PF transport pod, a medium hangar pod; the Kzinti CDX, scout pod, heavy fighter resupply pod, and PF transport pod; the Gorn scout pod, heavy fighter resupply pod, and PF transport pod; the Tholian heavy fighter resupply pack; the Hydran Boar Hunter commando DW, advanced fighter resupply ship, heavy fighter resupply pallet, and PT transport pallet; Lyran scout pod, heavy fighter resupply pod and pallet, PF transport pod and pallet.
...
Battle Group 900 focuses on a published scenario. Anarchist covers Seltorian-vs-Tholian with four SSDs, a complete master ship chart covers all ships published in previous Captain?s Logs, the Klingon Legal System is described in frightening detail.
Post by: jdmckinney on June 05, 2003, 09:29:09 am
I just realized CL26 is NOT the only new product available June 25. Module R10: The New Cruisers is absolutely essential! Check it out:
Quote:
They said it would never be done, but here it is! Module R10 includes variants of the New Heavy Cruisers, giving all of those War Cruiser Variants increased combat power and survival. There are 79 new ships including:
- Federation New Command Cruiser, New Strike Carrier, New Fast Cruiser, New Drone Cruiser, New Survey Cruiser, New Division Control Ship, New Cruiser Leader, New Heavy Fighter Carrier, New Heavy Scout, New Aegis Escort
- Klingon New Heavy Cruiser Leader, New Strike Carrier, New Fast Heavy Cruiser, New Drone Bombardment Cruiser, New Survey Cruiser, New Fast Patrol Tender, New Division Control Ship, New Penal Cruiser, New Heavy Scout Cruiser, New Diplomatic Cruiser, New Escort Cruiser, New Mauler Cruiser, New Commando Cruiser, New Drone Cruiser, and New Stasis Cruiser
- Romulan FireHawk-B carrier, Firehawk-E PF tender, FireHawk-S Scout, RegalHawk-B carrier, RegalHawk-E PF tender, RegalHawk-C Scout, FlameHawk-P true mauler, New Heavy KR, New Heavy KR Scout, New Heavy KR Carrier
- Kzinti New Command Cruiser, New Strike Carrier, New Fast Cruiser, New Scout Cruiser, New Command Cruiser, New Drone Cruiser, New Survey Cruiser, Heavy PF Tender, New Division Control Ship, New Escort Cruiser
- Gorn Fast Medium Cruiser, Medium Survey Cruiser, Medium Fast Patrol Tender, Medium Commando Cruiser, Medium Division Control Ship, Medium Carrier, Medium Scout Cruiser, Heavy Destroyer Dreadnought
- Tholian New Heavy Cruiser and New Photon Cruiser
- Orion Heavy Battle Carrier and Heavy Battle PF Tender
- Hydran New Command Cruisers, New Medium Carrier, New Fast Cruiser, New Survey Cruiser, Medium PF Tender, Division Control Ship, New Tug, Heavy Escort Cruiser, Heavy Scout Carrier
- Andromedan Conqueror (their only three-engined ship!)
- Lyran New Command Cruiser, New Fast Cruiser, New Survey Cruiser, New Heavy PF Tender, New Division Control Ship, and New Mauler Cruiser
- ISC New Heavy Cruiser and New Strike Cruiser
- LDR New Command Cruiser and New Strike Carrier
- Seltorian New Heavy Cruiser and New Strike Carrier
Also included are counters and scenarios.
Post by: FireSoul on June 05, 2003, 09:32:31 am
.. as for copying ships from Captain's Logs.. well.. there's a good reason why I don't do it often: the SSDs given don't cover all races. Because of balance, when a type of ship is released, I want to be able to add all of the race's variants of this ship.
The only exception I have made was to use CL #16's X1 Drone Bombardment ships.
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on June 05, 2003, 09:34:33 am
Post by: FireSoul on June 05, 2003, 09:36:10 am
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on June 05, 2003, 09:46:32 am
I'm just glad I stumbled upon these at the ADB site. I never buy from shops, because the only one nearby doesn't stock the new stuff reliably. I order everything from ADB, and I've never had a problem getting what I want. Anyway, R10 is a BIG DEAL. I wasn't expecting it to be the next major release, so it's a bit of a surprise.
Post by: FireSoul on June 05, 2003, 09:47:36 am
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on June 05, 2003, 11:05:39 am
Direct link to R10 page: Module R10: The New Cruisers
Direct link to CL26 page: Captain's Log 26
Post by: FireSoul on June 05, 2003, 12:18:47 pm
6 gatlings, 4 MIRVs 57 power which means it goes speed 31 and Overloads the 4 dizzies all the time..
Things I can do:
1- "R" designation. I don't want that thing on the D2. Ever.
2- Shipedit itself says that it's 20 BPV *UNDER*priced. .. and that's at LEAST.
.. that ship has no place in the shiplist..why I never noticed it before, nor looked at it closely, I am not sure. But KOTH and KAT be damned, that ship isn't staying as-is. I need opinions.
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on June 05, 2003, 12:24:57 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 05, 2003, 12:26:09 pm
.. based on data, it should come down to maybe .. 190? .. -25BPV. 189 BPV sounds ok?
.. compare with the K-D5D.. it is only at 116 BPV.
Other comparaison:
K-D5L: 133
K-D5X: 197.
It sounds about right from gameplay perspective too.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on June 05, 2003, 12:31:24 pm
Quote:
Without looking closely, I'd say no non-Hydran ship should get 6 gatlings. Also, 4 MIRVs seems excessive. If that were 2 MIRVs and 2 Bs, it would still be plenty of drones in the air (does it have other drones as well?). The power curve is tricky. It seems the Taldren default was perhaps not as far off on power as some thought (myself included). Maybe stepping it down by a couple power boxes at a time and testing on GSA would help to find a sweet spot.
Yeah.. it has 2 C racks as well. ..
.. I am thinking of removing it, and putting in a special mention that that ship has been banned from my shiplist for being OTT. If you aren't happy with that decision, sorry and too bad. I've actually TESTED that ship and found it too much for my liking.
Oh, and no.. I don't cater to fleets who threathen to not use my shiplist. So *nyah*!
Post by: jdmckinney on June 05, 2003, 02:18:02 pm
Post by: DH123 on June 05, 2003, 03:36:58 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 05, 2003, 03:53:59 pm
Post by: jimmi7769 on June 05, 2003, 10:36:41 pm
R6 fast warship
R7 Dreadnaughts at war
R10 new cruisers..............
Were'd R8 and R9 go??
Post by: MadElf on June 05, 2003, 11:11:58 pm
Post by: jdmckinney on June 06, 2003, 11:10:52 am
Post by: FireSoul on June 06, 2003, 11:15:11 am
.. so the until I can pay him back, he'll own them but I'll be able to use them.
So, people, give him your thanks.
-- Luc
Post by: Strafer on June 06, 2003, 11:27:31 am
Quote:
...
So, people, give him your thanks.
-- Luc
Or curses, as these new babies will eventually be on your tail in an asteroid field near you!
Post by: IndyShark on June 08, 2003, 08:39:58 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 08, 2003, 08:45:31 pm
(I tried for 18, bcause it has 12, and has special sensor channels.)
Post by: IndyShark on June 09, 2003, 06:15:26 am
Post by: FireSoul on June 11, 2003, 12:24:44 pm
.. my gut was right! The CAD+ doesn't get a 7th B rack, it's a G-rack! .. the CAD+ and CADR should be updated to use a G-rack, and a ADD. I'll have to adjust the BPV, of course.
-- Luc
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on June 11, 2003, 07:47:32 pm
Quote:
Not to self!
.. my gut was right! The CAD+ doesn't get a 7th B rack, it's a G-rack! .. the CAD+ and CADR should be updated to use a G-rack, and a ADD. I'll have to adjust the BPV, of course.
-- Luc
Interesting...
Post by: Strafer on June 11, 2003, 10:36:12 pm
Quote:
Interesting...
When a woman says that word...
... it's either expensive or hazardous.
Post by: Sethan on June 12, 2003, 04:50:23 pm
Quote:
The Z-CCX2 is way way WAY over the top.
6 gatlings, 4 MIRVs 57 power which means it goes speed 31 and Overloads the 4 dizzies all the time..
Things I can do:
1- "R" designation. I don't want that thing on the D2. Ever.
2- Shipedit itself says that it's 20 BPV *UNDER*priced. .. and that's at LEAST.
.. that ship has no place in the shiplist..why I never noticed it before, nor looked at it closely, I am not sure. But KOTH and KAT be damned, that ship isn't staying as-is. I need opinions.
-- Luc
The real question is how it compares to X2 cruisers of other races. If it is OTT, tone it down or make a reasonable ship from scratch to go in its place. You can't really just remove it, as it would leave a 'hole' in the shiplist for the Mirak (i.e., a place where other races have a ship and the Mirak have nothing comparable).
Post by: Strafer on June 12, 2003, 05:01:44 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 12, 2003, 09:50:01 pm
..
.. ok. I'll be rude. I had a bad day today: my father died.
If you lose with the Z-CCX2 (Taldren's) .. you REALLY SUCK.
Edit: I tested myself against it. I died miserably. Twice. 2 separate tests vs another player. There reallty aren't many ships that can take it on. Seriously! The Mirak X2 are GOOD SHIPS. They have less power, but a crapload of droneracks to take up the room.
-- Luc
Post by: MadElf on June 12, 2003, 11:35:02 pm
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 12, 2003, 11:54:52 pm
Quote:
exactly. The true CCX is present to counter the the other X1s.
..
.. ok. I'll be rude. I had a bad day today: my father died.
If you lose with the Z-CCX2 (Taldren's) .. you REALLY SUCK.
Edit: I tested myself against it. I died miserably. Twice. 2 separate tests vs another player. There reallty aren't many ships that can take it on. Seriously! The Mirak X2 are GOOD SHIPS. They have less power, but a crapload of droneracks to take up the room.
-- Luc
FireSoul, Sorry to hear about your dad. It's one of those very unfortunate facts of life that most of us have to go through. You seem like a strong individual. Hang in there. My condolences to you and your family.
Post by: FireSoul on June 13, 2003, 12:11:22 am
.. it's been.. .. rough.. today.
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on June 13, 2003, 12:33:14 am
Post by: Sethan on June 13, 2003, 01:11:00 am
My condolences, Firesoul.
Post by: IndyShark on June 13, 2003, 09:41:27 am
Post by: Bernard Guignard on June 15, 2003, 08:12:52 am
My deepest condolences on your loss. I know that you will get though this keep the faith and know that you have friends
that you can draw support from.
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 15, 2003, 12:36:15 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 15, 2003, 01:02:46 pm
Post by: Sten on June 15, 2003, 01:15:22 pm
Question for you. In your latest SFB conversion of the shiplist have you given the PFs The power a SFB PF has?
The last shiplist of yours I downloaded all the PF were still shorted in the power department.
May not seem like much but the PFs have enough problems.
For instance the Romulan Starhawk A.
8 Total Warp--->Should be 12
The Lyran PFs are shorted by 1-2 points of power each.
The Gorn PFs are simular to the Lyran PFs short by 1-2 points of power.
Sten
Concerned Lyran Player
Post by: FireSoul on June 15, 2003, 01:25:44 pm
-- Luc
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 15, 2003, 02:00:58 pm
Quote:
Firesoul,
Question for you. In your latest SFB conversion of the shiplist have you given the PFs The power a SFB PF has?
The last shiplist of yours I downloaded all the PF were still shorted in the power department.
May not seem like much but the PFs have enough problems.
For instance the Romulan Starhawk A.
8 Total Warp--->Should be 12
The Lyran PFs are shorted by 1-2 points of power each.
The Gorn PFs are simular to the Lyran PFs short by 1-2 points of power.
Sten
Concerned Lyran Player
Just a couple of thoughts on PFs. You can't really make them like SFB. For one, the plasma PFs in SFB are limited to firing 2 PlaF/turn. Some of the PFs have 5 PlaF on them. That's an 100pt alpha strike. I thought about using a combo of 1 PlaF and the rest PlaI, but that only works on the first turn. The PF would then be limited to 1 PlaI/turn until the PlaF rearmed. Also, they aren't penalized by the 2X damage when packed. I noticed that the Lyran player didn't mention that the PFE is overgunned when compared to the PFL though.
More weapons than a frigate! I'm not trying to start a disagreement here, but I think that the overall balance of weapons and power works pretty well as is. More power would make them too deadly IMO.
Post by: Strafer on June 15, 2003, 02:35:04 pm
At least an attempt to do so was made... Mags? Care to comment?
Post by: FireSoul on June 15, 2003, 03:13:46 pm
Post by: Holocat on June 17, 2003, 02:47:53 am
If so, can't the problem of '2-plas-F-per-turn' SFB rule put into effect by having 2 Plas-I hardpoints, one with 2 weapons, and the other with 3? Theoretically, it *should* fire only and up to 2 plas-F per turn if available.
Of course, the obvious peculiarities of this setup would make the PF fire up to five at other PFs and fighters.
I bet the AI would make this problem worse by using main if there aren't fighters/PFs present; Anyone else see a shotgun hole in this plan?
Would switching the default setting of Main to Defence for Plas-I (how this would be done, I have no clue) help this fix?
Hypothetically working,
Holocat.
Post by: MadElf on June 17, 2003, 04:09:06 am
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 17, 2003, 07:12:06 am
What does happen is that the number of plasmas that come out charged is dependent on how the weapons are arranged on hardpoints. If you put all 5 plasmas on their own hardpoints, they come out all charged at once and are able to be fired. Mounting multiple weapons on the same hardpoint results in having to charge some of them, adding a restriction of a kind at least.
It might be nice to get how it's supposed to be; otherwise, believe me a speed 31 cloaked ship can be hard to stop.
Post by: Strafer on June 17, 2003, 10:58:04 am
Quote:
Dosen't OP still have that Plas-I 'bug' where every Plas-I hardpoint may fire one torpedo at a big target per turn if available?
Yes, because for some odd voodoo magic shooting an Itorp from the left side on an enemy ship with certain drone launcher types will cause the Itorps to stop shooting altogether. It doesn't make any sense at all, but it does it.
Post by: FireSoul on June 17, 2003, 11:20:11 am
So maybe the issue is the lack of power within PFs that has been reported.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on June 17, 2003, 06:12:08 pm
If you can think of better Orion weapon loadouts that are SFB-legal and 100% local empire based, I want to know about it! Please check in my 2.1c shiplist to make sure I don't already have it.
-- Luc
Post by: jimmi7769 on June 17, 2003, 09:09:50 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 17, 2003, 09:40:02 pm
... I meant specific..
like: " a DCR with 2x___ and ____ isn't made for cartel ____."
Post by: Holocat on June 17, 2003, 10:29:54 pm
Any rules to loadouts that you might want to tell us about?
Mar har har and a can of cat treats,
Holocat.
Post by: Strafer on June 17, 2003, 10:51:24 pm
Post by: Holocat on June 17, 2003, 11:09:06 pm
If a ship can have any number of any kind of weapons it wants (provided it falls into the 10% of this 'fleet,' or wherever), isn't that simply a carte blanche for a pirate shipbuilder?
To be specific, what are the limitations for loadouts for each hull class? How many primaries? How many heavies? How much power etc. etc. etc. I don't have an SFB shipbuilder's manual with me so I know precious little on what's legal and what's not.
I guess, to be succinct, I don't really understand the question on loadouts without more information.
Holocat.
Post by: FireSoul on June 18, 2003, 12:49:22 am
Quote:
Usual limitations are that the fleet has 70% local empirical weapons, 20% neighboring weapons and 10% exotic.
I'll allow 70% local zone and 20% operational zone weapons. The 10% I already took up.
I guess to do this you need to know some basic ground rules, and a little about SFB:
1- most weapons take a single option mount. Some weapons take 2 and have to be hull mounted.
ie:
- PLaG
- ESG
- PLaS
- PPD
2- phasers are allowed. None of the taldren pirates have phasers in optionmounts. Let's not go nuts on phaser boats tho.
3- cloak is also allowed, but only a fraction of all pirates had cloak. I'll try to distribute the cloakable ships appropirately.
Post by: FireSoul on June 18, 2003, 12:58:50 am
Quote:
If a ship can have any number of any kind of weapons it wants (provided it falls into the 10% of this 'fleet,' or wherever), isn't that simply a carte blanche for a pirate shipbuilder?
I guess it's more of a question that you'd have to know what's available where and how on which ships. .. I guess this demand mostly goes to people with SFB material.
Here's are online examples: Tournament ship SSDs (ignore the special tournament rules written on it)
T-BR
T-CA
In these examples, you'll notice "OPT" mounts on the wings .. and some in the hull itself, at the front.
The T-CA has 2 hull mounts, together, and 4 wing mounts.
So.. I could put 4 droneracks on the wings, and .. say.. 2 HBs in front. That's one example.
Or.. 4ph1s in wings, 2 photons in front..
or.. (non-tourney rules) .. 2 plaDs, 2plaFs in wings, and 1 PLaS in front. (ohh.. that would be nice. )
.. you get the idea.
I want to know which race, and the loadout you would like to see that I haven't put together.
Localzone is local empire. IE: Prime Industries is Romulan.
Openrational zone is the area working in. IE: Prime functions in Fed and ISC space, as well as within Roluman space itself.
70% of the weapons have to come from Local, 20% from operational zone. Consider the other 10% (from anywhere) already taken.
Oh.. and I already have phaser gunboats.. a few ships from Beastraiders with nothing but gatlings for example. I think I'll be fine and no need for more of THOSE.
-- Luc
Post by: MadElf on June 18, 2003, 01:17:56 am
d match, try and avoid cheese
Post by: FireSoul on June 18, 2003, 01:26:00 am
Post by: MadElf on June 18, 2003, 05:51:11 am
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 18, 2003, 07:17:20 am
Post by: jdmckinney on June 18, 2003, 07:26:55 am
http://www.sfbonline.com/ra03q2.htm
In another case, 2 Orions faced each other in the final match. Granted, these players have good overall track records. Plus, there's something to be said for being able to choose a configuration that suits your style of play. I noticed that of the 5 option mounts on the Orion tournament ship (BR), a PhG is almost always chosen for one (and they are only allowed one in the rules I saw). There are often 2 Ph1s chosen, as well. That would give a player with such a TBR 6 Ph1, 6 Ph3, and 1 PhG plus 2 heavies (hellbore, droB, plasF seem common).
Post by: IndyShark on June 18, 2003, 12:37:16 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 18, 2003, 01:58:41 pm
Quote:
A side note about Orions and phaser boats: I have seen some SFB tournament rundowns that indicate Orion phaser boats can be quite successful. Actually, it's amazing how often some of the SFB Online tournaments have Orions in the later rounds (and also odd how few players choose Fed). For instance, look at the following tournament results and you'll see 3 of the 4 Orions made it to the fourth round (last one shown, still in progress):
http://www.sfbonline.com/ra03q2.htm
In another case, 2 Orions faced each other in the final match. Granted, these players have good overall track records. Plus, there's something to be said for being able to choose a configuration that suits your style of play. I noticed that of the 5 option mounts on the Orion tournament ship (BR), a PhG is almost always chosen for one (and they are only allowed one in the rules I saw). There are often 2 Ph1s chosen, as well. That would give a player with such a TBR 6 Ph1, 6 Ph3, and 1 PhG plus 2 heavies (hellbore, droB, plasF seem common).
I already have added quite a few phaser boats to my shiplist under various races. There aren't any restrictions as to how many phGs you're allowed to have. One of my favorite is the little B-LRg I made. It's in the shiplist since version 2.0.
Quote:
Designation: B-LRg
BPV: 72
3x Phaser 1
3x Phaser G
heh.
-- Luc
Post by: jdmckinney on June 18, 2003, 02:20:44 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 19, 2003, 12:21:03 am
.. what if we were to replace 2 phX by 3 ph1s (or 4 phXs to 6 using ph1s if I have to do it on 2 sides of the ship) to allow PD? I really really don't like the idea of putting gatlings on X1 ships, and ph1s are the closest to phX that are capable of PD on AI.
.. so .. what do you think? Replacing 2phX by 3 ph1s on the F-CX would be replacing the 2 360 degree phX with 3 ph1s. Stuff like that.
Really. What do you think?
-- Luc
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 19, 2003, 12:25:04 am
http://members.aol.com/rocketrod6a/images/opt_mts.jpg
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 19, 2003, 10:11:13 pm
What is up with the D7V and D6V?
Their BPV's are listed as 135 and 147 respectively. The problem is that according to my captian's edition SSD's these are supposed to be the real BPV's of the ships:
D6V BPV: 114, K refit +3, Y175 refit (AMD-6 to AMD-12) +3, UIM refit +5. Total with everything: 125.
D7V BPV: 123, K refit +3, UIM refit +5. Total with everything: 131.
What's up here? The BPV additions for stock fighters figure in, but is it this much? The D6V also has too many fighters; it has only 10 in SFB.
Note: this is in the STOCK shiplist, which is carried over into yours.
Post by: FireSoul on June 19, 2003, 10:56:54 pm
D7V: 123 + 5 for UIM (auto) + 2*8 for fighters = 144 (147 here)
D7VK: +3 = 147 (150 here)
D6V: 114 +5 for UIM (auto) + 2*8 for fighters = 135 (127 here)
D6VK: +3 = 138 (130 here)
D6VR: +3 = 141 (133 here)
The last time I tried to adjust the number of fighters for all the ships at once, people harked at me for quite some time. So I'll leave the number of fighters alone. (D7V would have have 9. D6V would have 7). As for the BPVs, I can correct the values for these if you want.
-- Luc
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 19, 2003, 11:46:41 pm
I see where the numbers come from now, not that I agree with them. Something on the order of 135 seems more like sense, but I won't pester you with it.
Post by: FireSoul on June 19, 2003, 11:52:44 pm
.. well.. let's see. the cost of upgrading fighters in SFC:
8x8BPV - 8x2BPV(base cost) = 64 - 16 = 48 BPV.
147 + 48 = 195BPV.
Post by: FireSoul on June 20, 2003, 01:50:36 am
Had fantasic idea tonight. HDWs could use a new variant. I call it the "M" variant for "Marine Assault".
Let me explain. In in HDW, there are some Non-weapon options NWOs) and a couple of rear-facing weapon options (OPT). There's also a block of APR boxes that can be changed into something else (all boxes to a different type).
ie:
To make a LEGAL commando ship, I had to change all 4 APRs into shuttlebays, 2 NWOs into Cargo and 2 NWOs into barracks. The ship's own Transporter would suffice. The extra shuttles would be ground-assault shuttles and heavy assault shuttles that exist in SFB to take on planets and bases.
The "M" Marine Assault HDW idea would revolve solely on H&R tactics. The NWOs would be 100% transporters, except for when that would be excessive for the number of marines on the ship. the ship's power would be intact.
Here's the result: (Each barracks holds an extra 10 marines, base, onto the ship)
Fed: 6 transporters
Klingon: 6 transporters
Rom: 6 trans
Gorn: 5 trans
Lyran HDWM: 6 Trans
Lyran JGPM: 7 trans, 1 barracks
Hydran HDWM: 6 trans
Hydran LNHM: 6 trans
Mirak: 6 trans, 1 barracks
ISC: 6 trans
and.. get this..
Orion: 9 trans, 3 barracks
This is a LEGAL interpretation of the HDWs. This could OUTCLASS the HDWCs in popularity.
-- Luc
Post by: Holocat on July 02, 2003, 12:15:59 am
romulan( SBH1): 20 marines max / 6 trans = 3 full attacks + 2 extra.
federation(HDW1): 16 marines max / 6 trans = 2(!) attacks + 4 extra.
klingon(HF5C1): 24 marines max / 6 trans = 4 attacks.
ISC (HDDC-1): 24 marines max / 6 trans = 4 attacks.
Mirak (HDW1): 20 marines max / 6 trans = 3 attacks + 2 extra.
Gorn (HBD1): 24 marines max / 5 trans = 4 attacks + 4 extra.
Lyran (HDW-1): 20 marines max / 6 trans = 3 attacks + 2 extra.
Lyran (JPG): 20 marines max + 20 marines max (barrack for the M refit) / 7 trans = 5 attacks + 5 extra.
Hydran (HDW1): 24 marines max / 6 trans = 4 attacks.
Hydran (LNH1): 24 marines max / 6 trans = 4 attacks.
I may not be an ace pilot around here but I have learned a few simple things concerning small ships, which I fly. Firstly, the marine complements on small ships are somewhat small. Because of this, larger ships can easily capture a small ship in only a few turns. The first step in preventing this is to always carry as many marines as possible on small ships. The second is not to waste them in H&R that MAY work but will GUARENTEE that you can easily be captured, due to the larger ship's capacity in both marines and transporters; Marines are precious, and cannot be wasted frivolously. When flying the Federation's HDW series, the three transporters are sufficient for small time H&R. However, with only 16 marines every attack weakens your own complement quickly. I usually avoid the marine varient because the mere 2 transporters make it highly unsuitable for any H&R action, as is usually the case with federation small ships.
Now to be fair, Federation starships (and generally all the starships that can be seen as 'bad' at H&R here) are usually unsuitable for serious H&R/capture actions as a whole, but as you have said before, "as long as it's legal there's nothing wrong with cheese."
By observing how you're juggling systems, there are 4 NWO's in HDW's; One shuttle, one lab, one tractor and one transporter. take the shuttlebay, lab and tractor and install transporters; Can a barracks be added with two transporters instead of three transporters? I am unsure what a barracks can replace and how 'large' it is.
If this is possible, I would suggest that all ships with only three marine attacks available to them be given at least one barrack in exchange for whatever needs to be sacrificed to get it; If the ship is to revolve around H&R, it should be able to do H&R without dropping any more of their pant-equivalents as necessary.
Ok? Complications? Utter crap?
Using marines would be... strange,
Holocat.
annendum: I think that captures between players don't work. To nip that in the bud, AI captures work well enough and there have been aggrements that someone that is about to be captured blow up, or so I hear. If the player vs. player ever does work, however, this is something to be taken into consideration, and should be for player vs. AI or AI vs AI battles. Additionally, the opinions above DO relate well to H&R, a fairly easy task if one dosen't have alot of marines onboard to oppose them.
Post by: FireSoul on July 08, 2003, 12:10:49 pm
Post by: FireSoul on July 08, 2003, 12:14:33 pm
.. There's still a lot of work left to do.. (for example I just flew one of the ships Strafer entered for me, and it didn't have tractorbeams on it at all).. and it could still be some time before a release is ready. Meanwhile, family issues and being a tester for the next OP patch are more important than this shiplist, so although work continues, it progresses much more slowly than past versions.
However... I have managed this:
It took no time at all with the NullSoft NSIS software..
-- Luc
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 10, 2003, 11:34:26 pm
Post by: FireSoul on July 13, 2003, 01:06:20 pm
.. the shiplist is still in devel .. and can't be released until the next OP patch is out. In fact, last night I had a good idea for the TigerHeart Cartel and I'm acting on it today.. (lots of work to do to make it work right).. This could actually make them a harsh enemy to fight against.
.. but for the interested, the shiplist has passed the 4000 ships mark today. Compare with 3729 ships in OP+ 2.1c, and that's what will be coming soon.
-- Luc
Post by: Corbomite on July 13, 2003, 01:09:33 pm
Quote:
.. but for the interested, the shiplist has passed the 4000 ships mark today. Compare with 3729 ships in OP+ 2.1c, and that's what will be coming soon.
-- Luc
Lol! Are you sure our HD won't explode?
Post by: FireSoul on July 13, 2003, 01:19:41 pm
Quote:Quote:
.. but for the interested, the shiplist has passed the 4000 ships mark today. Compare with 3729 ships in OP+ 2.1c, and that's what will be coming soon.
-- Luc
Lol! Are you sure our HD won't explode?
Naah.. that's barely 1.9mb of shiplist textfile..
Post by: quircus on July 13, 2003, 01:29:39 pm
(PLEASE READ MY 'New Shields???' Post, and see if you can help me!!)
)
Post by: FireSoul on July 13, 2003, 01:38:01 pm
Post by: FireSoul on July 13, 2003, 01:39:20 pm
Quote:
(PLEASE READ MY 'New Shields???' Post, and see if you can help me!!)
That's SFC3. I can't help you.
Post by: FireSoul on July 14, 2003, 01:05:00 pm
Thank you Nomad, these FRDs saved me the time needed for me to input them. I'd like to noitfy you of a couple of minor bugs with them:
1- Mirak fighters have a typo: "Z-Vizsla.I" .. not "Z-Viszla.I"
2- ISC needs 6 deckcrews
3- Klingon needs 6 deckcrews
-- Luc
edit:
PS: I had to create FRDs for the local pirate races too, since they have some in the OP shiplist. I just used the local race's configuration, and the race's own fighters/PFs.
Post by: jdmckinney on July 14, 2003, 02:15:31 pm
BTW, any idea what you're going to do with the new F-NCC shields? I'm leaning toward the CLC levels, even if ADB doesn't back that up. Certainly I think the BPV reflects a better ship than the published shields would indicate.
Post by: FireSoul on July 14, 2003, 02:35:25 pm
Quote:
BTW, any idea what you're going to do with the new F-NCC shields? I'm leaning toward the CLC levels, even if ADB doesn't back that up. Certainly I think the BPV reflects a better ship than the published shields would indicate.
I'm going to back ADB, and enter their levels of shields. There's been precedence, btw. The D5X ships have less #1 shields then the D5C/L. (32 < 36)
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on July 14, 2003, 02:53:44 pm
it's better to use the EPV over the BPV when the EPV is higher.. in other words, use the higher of the 2 values (after all the components have all been added up). I've done many corrections, and the ships are more balance because of it.
Example: D5V:
OP 2538: 119 BPV, includes 8 fighters.
OP+ in progress: 131 BPV
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 14, 2003, 06:49:59 pm
Quote:
Luc, I'm glad they were useful as a starting point. I haven't incorporated them fully into my list, since I wasn't sure they would become stock (being only able to use one type of FRD per race at a time in stock scripts). As such, I haven't checked them thoroughly. Thanks for the correction notes.
BTW, any idea what you're going to do with the new F-NCC shields? I'm leaning toward the CLC levels, even if ADB doesn't back that up. Certainly I think the BPV reflects a better ship than the published shields would indicate.
SVC seemed to say on their boards that it might be a mistake but they'd just pull something out later to explain it and make it official. However he also did say that his assistant Petrick was working on the errata file and he'd make that call...and that any such file would not appear until the NEXT captain's log.
Post by: FireSoul on July 14, 2003, 08:27:54 pm
I *do* accept official erratas for this shiplist.. once I have the official material in my hands.
.. yeah.. I'm being a bastard..but to nitpick about 1 ship out of 4000 is quite annoying.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on July 14, 2003, 10:25:06 pm
.. the next shiplist, version 2.2, is now feature-frozen. So for a while, I will be testing my own work with local friends.
Oh.. don't feel bad, it requires the next patch anyways.
The installer is a bzip2-compressed executable file of 244kb in size. (Bzip2 is a lot better than Zip.) I don't think you'll be disappointed.
Now, I have to start on the next part of this shiplist release: the web stuff.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on July 17, 2003, 02:33:20 pm
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 17, 2003, 05:56:18 pm
Quote:
There aren't any models with the OP+ stuff... yet.
So are you planning to use Fleetdock13's SFB based models only, or possibly a mixture of SFB, TMP, etc.
If you are planning to make an OP+ "mod" with appropriate SFB models I am absolutely salivating at this idea.
I am most impressed by your adherance to the spirit of SFB in your OP+ shiplist. Your attention to detail is the best I've seen. Absolutely excellent work.
Post by: FireSoul on July 17, 2003, 06:00:23 pm
-- Luc
Post by: IndyShark on July 17, 2003, 08:22:10 pm
Post by: FireSoul on July 18, 2003, 05:51:56 pm
Quote:
Firesoul, I was surprised to see the F-NDC has a top speed of 29.5. That seems slow for a NCA variant with no photon torpedoes. I know you are very thorough, but is there any chance this is wrong? I enjoy playing Coop Ace with NCD+'s and this one was a surprise. (Not your fault, but damn I wish they added a few more warp points!)
I'm afraid it's accurate. It's got 30 warp, 4 Impulse engines. No APR/AWR. Movement Cost of 1. That means what's missing is taken up by "house keeping".
On the SSD, the AWR was converted to Cargo for drone storage. (50 more drones spaces per cargo box, 4 boxes.)
-- Luc
Post by: KHHJakle on July 18, 2003, 06:33:41 pm
Quote:
Quote:
There aren't any models with the OP+ stuff... yet.
So are you planning to use Fleetdock13's SFB based models only, or possibly a mixture of SFB, TMP, etc.
If you are planning to make an OP+ "mod" with appropriate SFB models I am absolutely salivating at this idea.
I am most impressed by your adherance to the spirit of SFB in your OP+ shiplist. Your attention to detail is the best I've seen. Absolutely excellent work.
Firesoul using Taldren-like models makes sense, even if only for logistical reasons. In order to make the new models fit seamlessly, they have to 'fit' the rest of the games models. To use SFB models for the new ships, lets say the Battle Tugs, they would stick out like sore thumbs. That is unless you replace all those other models with their SFB equivelants too.
You say you salivate at that idea? I was bitten by that same bug after discovering Fleetdock's SFB mods. It took alot of time, but I eventually downloaded all of them and modified Firesouls shiplist to draw on them, to create my own little SFB mod.
It's like 17 MB zipped. This is the strongest case for finding a handful of Taldren like models to fill in for the really different ships (like tugs).
To me, the VARIETY of ship models are really what makes using Fleetdocks models so sweet. Also the fact that the slight variations between different hulls that really showcase the differences between different ships, like NCL's and NCA's. That and I hate the Taldren D5 compared to the ADB(SFB) D5.
At the same time, I have received comments from those who I have shared my mod with (I had to burn it on disks and mail it out) that the models are 'drab' compared to Taldren's. I think Fleetdock's models are actually higher polygon models, but they are SFB based ie TOS based - and I guess you can say that the TOS ENterprise is 'drab' compared to the TMP Enterprise.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Post by: FireSoul on July 18, 2003, 10:51:18 pm
Quote:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Yes.. That why I said I didn't think I could make everyone happy..
.. btw.. I'm up to 23 mb of chosen additional models, zipped.
TEASER ONLY
One thing that I've done is installed "old" style pre-refit ships.
For example:
F-CA -> Old style TOS FCA (FECA)
F-CA+ -> Current SFC FCA
That's just *1* thing out of many many.. please be patient .. I don't intend a release for a while.. maybe a month or more.
-- Luc
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 18, 2003, 11:04:45 pm
Even though you are using Taldren-like models, are you considering using an "SFB style" Texas class CL instead of a DD model for the F-CL class of ships?
Post by: Auron on July 18, 2003, 11:05:57 pm
Quote:Quote:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Yes.. That why I said I didn't think I could make everyone happy..
.. btw.. I'm up to 23 mb of chosen additional models, zipped.
TEASER ONLY
One thing that I've done is installed "old" style pre-refit ships.
For example:
F-CA -> Old style TOS FCA (FECA) L Matter
F-CA+ -> Current SFC FCA
That's just *1* thing out of many many.. please be patient .. I don't intend a release for a while.. maybe a month or more.
-- Luc
Looks good.
Post by: FireSoul on July 18, 2003, 11:10:31 pm
Quote:
O.k. just one more question Firesoul and I'll stop asking questions for a while.
Even though you are using Taldren-like models, are you considering using an "SFB style" Texas class CL instead of a DD model for the F-CL class of ships?
Can you send me a link to the Texas class ship? .. Is that the Daedelus?
Post by: FireSoul on July 18, 2003, 11:12:24 pm
Quote:
F-CA -> Old style TOS FCA (FECA) L Matter
Ha. Ha.
.. uhm.. Federation Early CA. FECA.
.. well.. yes, other races find it to be a big piece of [censored].
-- Luc
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 19, 2003, 09:19:47 am
Quote:
Can you send me a link to the Texas class ship? .. Is that the Daedelus?
No the Texas class Old CL is different from the Daedelus. Check out this link to Fleetdock 13's fed section. Look at the first ship in the "cruisers" section about the middle of the page...that is a good model for it:
http://www.strategyplanet.com/sfc/omega/fleetdock13/
The Daedelus would make a decent substitute for this ship, but the Daedelus is really an "exploration cruiser" more akin to the F-CA or F-GSC for it's time. The Texas class is purely SFB. The Daedalus was never officially incorporated into SFB that I know.
Post by: 3dot14 on July 19, 2003, 10:05:22 pm
Post by: Holocat on July 19, 2003, 10:48:28 pm
I've been goofing around and running from Cleaven on Bonk's OP+ server.
I've also been waiting alllll day for an HDWC1 or 2. (preferably 2).
The shipyard NEVER produces any HDW type other than the third one. HDW3, HDWC3, HDWM3, etc. Dunno if this is a problem with the server, or with the ship list, but i'll post it here and on bonk's server thread just to let everyone know.
You know, just in case anyone other than I ever actually use these things as career ships
Wheee! It works, it works! Now let me out of this drone NCL.
Holocat.
Post by: FireSoul on July 20, 2003, 01:24:39 am
Quote:
Firesoul, do you have any plans for the fighter list? As I understand SFB has quite a few more fighter variants.
I don't intend to add SFB fighter variants as they don't really translate well for all races.
.. .. remember that this has been an expansion of the stock shiplist, from day 1.
Post by: FireSoul on July 20, 2003, 01:25:47 am
Quote:
Here's something odd.
I've been goofing around and running from Cleaven on Bonk's OP+ server.
I've also been waiting alllll day for an HDWC1 or 2. (preferably 2).
The shipyard NEVER produces any HDW type other than the third one. HDW3, HDWC3, HDWM3, etc. Dunno if this is a problem with the server, or with the ship list, but i'll post it here and on bonk's server thread just to let everyone know.
You know, just in case anyone other than I ever actually use these things as career ships
Wheee! It works, it works! Now let me out of this drone NCL.
Holocat.
.. it must be the server and bad odds.
Post by: Corbomite on July 22, 2003, 08:44:43 am
Also, did you have to use the X ship UI for the tugs (noticed it on the Feds)? They were fine before IIRC.
Post by: Strafer on July 22, 2003, 10:57:02 am
Quote:
did you have to use the X ship UI for the tugs (noticed it on the Feds)? They were fine before IIRC.
That's been there for a while, it's the only UI with the necessary # of visible mounts.
Post by: FireSoul on July 22, 2003, 03:11:34 pm
Quote:
FS, the Gorn XCA doesn't show the E-Torps in the selection menu, although they are listed and do appear on the ship in combat.
I don't understand.. ..huh?
Quote:
Also, did you have to use the X ship UI for the tugs (noticed it on the Feds)? They were fine before IIRC.
Lack of mounts.. and only 1 or 2 tugs have that.
Post by: jimmi7769 on July 22, 2003, 04:19:14 pm
I always wondered why the Klingons would put crappy P-2's on such an advanced ship.
Good to know they didn't.
Post by: FireSoul on July 22, 2003, 04:26:35 pm
FA ph2s -> ph1s.
Fix will of course appear in next revision of shiplist... uhh.. mod.. uhh.. whatever.
Post by: Corbomite on July 22, 2003, 04:52:58 pm
Quote:
FS, the Gorn XCA doesn't show the E-Torps in the selection menu, although they are listed and do appear on the ship in combat.
Ok scratch that I just checked again and they were there. I know for a fact they weren't showing up last night though. I played that ship twice and they didn't show on the SSD. Just a loading glitch I guess.
Post by: FireSoul on July 22, 2003, 07:37:26 pm
.. however, I'm afraid it's too late for OP itself.
.. no worries, my OP+ fighterlist will have the right data, in the next version.
-- Luc
Post by: Cmdr. Krotz on July 31, 2003, 03:48:42 pm
...all the DW variants are good though (what's supposed to be the big difference btw DWC and DWL, just curious)
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on July 31, 2003, 04:16:46 pm