Topic: OP Patch: PF Regeneration (Read 5216 times)

DH123 · « **on:** June 12, 2003, 09:30:32 am »

Any news as to whether or not this is going to be addressed in the next OP patch? As it is now, a PF held together with chewing gum and Duct tape can be picked up by it's tender and be fully repaired and re-armed in 1 game turn (30 seconds at speed 8).

Fighter regeneration has been significatly nerfed (and rigthly so) from the initial relaese and I was wondering if anything is being planned for PFs.

EDIT: Removed the "M" word . . .

Magnum357 · « **Reply #1 on:** June 12, 2003, 07:05:28 pm »

I agree. If I recall, repairing PFs would take hours, maybe even days (depending how badly damaged they are).

FireSoul · « **Reply #2 on:** June 12, 2003, 10:05:24 pm »

not really. While pretty much none of the "casual" PF tenders have the ability to repair in SFB, the full PFTs always were equipped to repair PFs in battle.

.. No. All ships should repair PFs. .. can you imagine SFC if all .. each and every one.. fighters were independant units instead of squads that can regenerate? Repairs would happen only whne a fighter took damage and survived. Dead fighters would never come back.

In light of this, repairing PFs is more of a balance than a quirk.
-- Luc

3dot14 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 12, 2003, 10:59:12 pm »

I wonder if DH is merely asking for PF regen to slow down a bit?

BTW I believe the last EAW patch DOES take into account the condition of the fighter squadron into account. And it imposed a limit to Fighter Regen Amount. PF has no such limit and repairs at the same rate regardless of damage. (I am not sure if this policy if adopted for OP, if it's not, I think it should be.)

Perhaps a similiar policy can be adopted regarding PF's?

Say: 30 internals for every turn, rounded up to half-turns, plus a flat-fee of half turn to goes through the launch prep. i.e. "[number of internal damage/15] / 2 + 0.5" turns delay for PF recovered. (or whatever numbers play testing suggests)
So if the PF is recovered spotless, it's quicker to launch it again. (Have to watch for possible exploits with the "hot launch" rules so that no one uses recover to circumvent PF weapons loading) But if you got it near death, it takes a bit to piece it together again. (Doable but takes a while)

I fully suppoty that ALL PF tenders in SFC should be able to repair the PF's. But how about introducing a similiar penalty for the repair that actually make DAMAGING a PF WORTHWHILE?

That is the problem I have with PF's now, it makes no difference if it's near dead (chewing gum and duck tape) or pretine condition. If makes shooting at PF's useless unless you can kill it, and therefore make PF's bottomless pits as damage sinks.
Is it nerfing it, I am afraid so, a bit. But one has to pay for the damages one incurrs. You lose a fighter, the squad takes longer to prep. You lose a system, you pay for repair parts. And PFs should be no different.

FireSoul · « **Reply #4 on:** June 12, 2003, 11:08:15 pm »

1 turn to fully repair a PF is indeed insanely wrong andI agree with DH's proposal here-above: slow it down if damaged.
.. removing repairs? no.

NannerSlug · « **Reply #5 on:** June 13, 2003, 07:28:27 am »

agreed.

3dot14 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 13, 2003, 11:03:21 am »

no one suggested REMOVING regen. in fact FS, you are the first to say it in this thread.

DH is suggesting to "nerf" it in the fashion of EAW fighter.

So Firesoul and Nanner, any chance to pass this up as a "request"?

Quote:

edit: Just read that FS can't take any more requests to DF... Well, who do I write to request it myself?

BTW I also meant to ask. Is the EAW fighter regen system in OP 2538? (the one involving longer timing to replace fighter, as well as a max regen limit)

Sten · « **Reply #7 on:** June 13, 2003, 11:44:37 am »

Well while we are talking about nerfing the Pseudo Fighters a bit. Yes I could live with a longer recycle time for Pseudo Fighters. It doesn't hurt that much.

How about giving Pseudo Fighters the power they are missing in SFC.

Give each PF 2 more points of power. Bringing them up to SFB standards 12 warp 2 impulse 2 APR.

If you want to nerf the PF further so they die faster remove all the center warp they have now and put it into the L\R warp that way engines will takes hits faster and be closer to SFB.

If we keep the PFE, which I reccommend unless you want to lose virtually every Lyran player in OP.

GIve it the additional power required to charge the 2 extra disruptors and the ESG a normal SFB Pseudo Fighter would not have. Great ideal to balance out the fact that no ship can carry a full flotilla but the PFE is underpowered.

The PFE is already an Illegal ship how about fixing it. A Pseudo Fighter should be able to fly at speed 31 with weapons armed

Sten

jdmckinney · « **Reply #8 on:** June 13, 2003, 11:54:44 am »

Okay, it's Fast Patrol Ship or PF, not "Pseudo Fighter." They are not fighters. I know it's an old SFBism, but it's slang based on misreading the abbreviation.

Maybe if they weren't thought of as big fighters, they would have been done differently in SFC and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Pet peeve. Sorry for the interruption.

Sten · « **Reply #9 on:** June 13, 2003, 12:00:12 pm »

Well I've been calling them Pseudo Fighters since I first got them back in the '80s and I am not about to change now.

PSEUDO FIGHTER

Sten

jimmi7769 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 13, 2003, 12:15:10 pm »

Well, Psuedo Fighters is what they were called in Expansion #2 waaaaayy back in the designers edition. They were changed to Fast patrol ships in the commanders edition I think. Fast patrol ship is a more appropriate name I think.

I bet the Rom/Gorn/ISC wished that Pseudo Plasma were just bigger tougher and more powerful plasmas.

jdmckinney · « **Reply #11 on:** June 13, 2003, 12:29:59 pm »

Heh. Fair enough. You say tomato ...

Still, they are not fighters, not fake fighters, not sort-of fighters, etc. They are small ships with shields and crews (rather than a pilot or two). Of course, they should only have 2 shields, too, but we make our sacrifices.

jdmckinney · « **Reply #13 on:** June 13, 2003, 12:59:30 pm »

Whoops, don't I feel silly?

Imagine what one can learn by simply posting things known to be wrong? Need an answer? Make one up and post it as truth -- someone will surely do you the favor of correcting you.

Thanks.

Sten · « **Reply #14 on:** June 13, 2003, 01:05:13 pm »

Personaly I always liked the term gun boats.

Regardless I want the Gorn, Romulan, and Lyran PFs fixed power wise.

If recycling is about to be nerfed its time to make a comprimise here and fix something thats been broke from the begining.

Sten

DH123 · « **Reply #18 on:** June 13, 2003, 02:55:54 pm »

[quote
The only reason I would not remove any hull or excess damage, is Fighters are not affected by damage as they should be so why bother trying to balance something that cannot be balanced.

For something evil throw MIRVs on a F-14. If you don't overload the control channels of the CVA when they pop they are are murder on the target.

Sten

Actually, fighters are. It's called double internals. Fighters are twice as fast and take just as many points to kill.

Sethan · « **Reply #20 on:** June 13, 2003, 07:10:11 pm »

Damage is also spread across groups for area-effect weapons like mines. In SFB, a single transporter bomb could cripple or kill an entire carrier load of fighters if it was in the right place at the right time. In SFC, a single transporter bomb might kill a single fighter in a squad - if you are lucky.

DH123 · « **Reply #22 on:** June 12, 2003, 09:30:32 am »

Any news as to whether or not this is going to be addressed in the next OP patch? As it is now, a PF held together with chewing gum and Duct tape can be picked up by it's tender and be fully repaired and re-armed in 1 game turn (30 seconds at speed 8).

Fighter regeneration has been significatly nerfed (and rigthly so) from the initial relaese and I was wondering if anything is being planned for PFs.

EDIT: Removed the "M" word . . .

Magnum357 · « **Reply #23 on:** June 12, 2003, 07:05:28 pm »

I agree. If I recall, repairing PFs would take hours, maybe even days (depending how badly damaged they are).

FireSoul · « **Reply #24 on:** June 12, 2003, 10:05:24 pm »

not really. While pretty much none of the "casual" PF tenders have the ability to repair in SFB, the full PFTs always were equipped to repair PFs in battle.

.. No. All ships should repair PFs. .. can you imagine SFC if all .. each and every one.. fighters were independant units instead of squads that can regenerate? Repairs would happen only whne a fighter took damage and survived. Dead fighters would never come back.

In light of this, repairing PFs is more of a balance than a quirk.
-- Luc

3dot14 · « **Reply #25 on:** June 12, 2003, 10:59:12 pm »

I wonder if DH is merely asking for PF regen to slow down a bit?

BTW I believe the last EAW patch DOES take into account the condition of the fighter squadron into account. And it imposed a limit to Fighter Regen Amount. PF has no such limit and repairs at the same rate regardless of damage. (I am not sure if this policy if adopted for OP, if it's not, I think it should be.)

Perhaps a similiar policy can be adopted regarding PF's?

Say: 30 internals for every turn, rounded up to half-turns, plus a flat-fee of half turn to goes through the launch prep. i.e. "[number of internal damage/15] / 2 + 0.5" turns delay for PF recovered. (or whatever numbers play testing suggests)
So if the PF is recovered spotless, it's quicker to launch it again. (Have to watch for possible exploits with the "hot launch" rules so that no one uses recover to circumvent PF weapons loading) But if you got it near death, it takes a bit to piece it together again. (Doable but takes a while)

I fully suppoty that ALL PF tenders in SFC should be able to repair the PF's. But how about introducing a similiar penalty for the repair that actually make DAMAGING a PF WORTHWHILE?

That is the problem I have with PF's now, it makes no difference if it's near dead (chewing gum and duck tape) or pretine condition. If makes shooting at PF's useless unless you can kill it, and therefore make PF's bottomless pits as damage sinks.
Is it nerfing it, I am afraid so, a bit. But one has to pay for the damages one incurrs. You lose a fighter, the squad takes longer to prep. You lose a system, you pay for repair parts. And PFs should be no different.

FireSoul · « **Reply #26 on:** June 12, 2003, 11:08:15 pm »

1 turn to fully repair a PF is indeed insanely wrong andI agree with DH's proposal here-above: slow it down if damaged.
.. removing repairs? no.

NannerSlug · « **Reply #27 on:** June 13, 2003, 07:28:27 am »

agreed.

Sten · « **Reply #29 on:** June 13, 2003, 11:44:37 am »

Well while we are talking about nerfing the Pseudo Fighters a bit. Yes I could live with a longer recycle time for Pseudo Fighters. It doesn't hurt that much.

How about giving Pseudo Fighters the power they are missing in SFC.

Give each PF 2 more points of power. Bringing them up to SFB standards 12 warp 2 impulse 2 APR.

If you want to nerf the PF further so they die faster remove all the center warp they have now and put it into the L\R warp that way engines will takes hits faster and be closer to SFB.

If we keep the PFE, which I reccommend unless you want to lose virtually every Lyran player in OP.

GIve it the additional power required to charge the 2 extra disruptors and the ESG a normal SFB Pseudo Fighter would not have. Great ideal to balance out the fact that no ship can carry a full flotilla but the PFE is underpowered.

The PFE is already an Illegal ship how about fixing it. A Pseudo Fighter should be able to fly at speed 31 with weapons armed

Sten

jdmckinney · « **Reply #30 on:** June 13, 2003, 11:54:44 am »

Okay, it's Fast Patrol Ship or PF, not "Pseudo Fighter." They are not fighters. I know it's an old SFBism, but it's slang based on misreading the abbreviation.

Maybe if they weren't thought of as big fighters, they would have been done differently in SFC and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Pet peeve. Sorry for the interruption.

Sten · « **Reply #31 on:** June 13, 2003, 12:00:12 pm »

Well I've been calling them Pseudo Fighters since I first got them back in the '80s and I am not about to change now.

PSEUDO FIGHTER

Sten

jimmi7769 · « **Reply #32 on:** June 13, 2003, 12:15:10 pm »

Well, Psuedo Fighters is what they were called in Expansion #2 waaaaayy back in the designers edition. They were changed to Fast patrol ships in the commanders edition I think. Fast patrol ship is a more appropriate name I think.

I bet the Rom/Gorn/ISC wished that Pseudo Plasma were just bigger tougher and more powerful plasmas.

jdmckinney · « **Reply #33 on:** June 13, 2003, 12:29:59 pm »

Heh. Fair enough. You say tomato ...

Still, they are not fighters, not fake fighters, not sort-of fighters, etc. They are small ships with shields and crews (rather than a pilot or two). Of course, they should only have 2 shields, too, but we make our sacrifices.

jdmckinney · « **Reply #35 on:** June 13, 2003, 12:59:30 pm »

Whoops, don't I feel silly?

Imagine what one can learn by simply posting things known to be wrong? Need an answer? Make one up and post it as truth -- someone will surely do you the favor of correcting you.

Thanks.

Sten · « **Reply #36 on:** June 13, 2003, 01:05:13 pm »

Personaly I always liked the term gun boats.

Regardless I want the Gorn, Romulan, and Lyran PFs fixed power wise.

If recycling is about to be nerfed its time to make a comprimise here and fix something thats been broke from the begining.

Sten

DH123 · « **Reply #40 on:** June 13, 2003, 02:55:54 pm »

[quote
The only reason I would not remove any hull or excess damage, is Fighters are not affected by damage as they should be so why bother trying to balance something that cannot be balanced.

For something evil throw MIRVs on a F-14. If you don't overload the control channels of the CVA when they pop they are are murder on the target.

Sten

Actually, fighters are. It's called double internals. Fighters are twice as fast and take just as many points to kill.

Sethan · « **Reply #42 on:** June 13, 2003, 07:10:11 pm »

Damage is also spread across groups for area-effect weapons like mines. In SFB, a single transporter bomb could cripple or kill an entire carrier load of fighters if it was in the right place at the right time. In SFC, a single transporter bomb might kill a single fighter in a squad - if you are lucky.

News:

Topic: OP Patch: PF Regeneration (Read 5216 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

DH123

Magnum357

FireSoul

3dot14

FireSoul

NannerSlug

3dot14

Sten

jdmckinney

Sten

jimmi7769

jdmckinney

Scipio_66

jdmckinney

Sten

jimmi7769

DH123

Sten

DH123

The_Infiltrator

Sethan

DH123

DH123

Magnum357

FireSoul

3dot14

FireSoul

NannerSlug

3dot14

Sten

jdmckinney

Sten

jimmi7769

jdmckinney

Scipio_66

jdmckinney

Sten

jimmi7769

DH123

Sten

DH123

The_Infiltrator

Sethan

DH123

Topic: OP Patch: PF Regeneration (Read 5216 times)