Topic: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0 (Read 97859 times)

FireSoul · « **Reply #240 on:** September 08, 2003, 11:11:31 am »

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It's not a mistake,Taldren designed it that way. This isn't SFB. Not everything transfers over correctly. This has been said a billion times since this game came out. Julin just told you again. You want a suggestion? Put four more power on the BCV and you won't hear a peep out of anyone. You really think the I-BCV is a match for that L-BCHT you all are flying? If so why is NOBODY flying it? The reason we a re arguing so hard is that The CV class is our BCV. Taldren didn't include one and we'd rather have the CV's than that dog BCV. You beat Bearslayers dred with a BCHT because of another game design some could call a mistake, that being that fighters ignore orders and go after the PF's even when you target the mother ship! You seem to like using that little "mistake" to your advantage plenty.

Oh and fighter missiles do 4 and 8 points each. They are hardly worthless. All races Heavy Fighters are mean. I've had success with all of them. I have also fought pilots who knew how to kill them before they could do anything to them.

Ok. Say I was to add 4 APRs. Tell me which *continuous* 4 boxes to remove? (of same type) That shuttlebay is mighty huge for a variant of a CC. Have it make sense.. something that takes hullspace..

-- Luc

edit:continuous.

Look just answer me this - What did the other races BCH's lose to place 8 fighters (4 PF's) on them? It surely wasn't power. I would happily lose 4 shuttles and consign the BCV to 2 shuts max instead of losing power.

PF Tenders require 4-8 repair boxes for the PFs as well as the necessary mechlinks. The Lyran's BCH was designed with repairs as the default config and would come with PFs as standard.

No can do. 2 of the old shuttlebays themselves have been converted to fighterbays. The APRs have been removed to move the batteries from the centerhull to the right side of the ship. The 6 additional fighterbays were additions to the ship. I guess the designer prefered to keep the batteries (which are very important in SFB) over the APR.

A *similar*-to-SFB conversion would be to replace 2 batteries with fighterbays, convert *4* shuttlebays to fighterbays, and add the oither 6 fighterbays like in the SFB I-BCV above. This ship would have *2* batteries and *2* shuttles. Be careful.
I call it the CCV. How'd that sound to you?

--
I agree that this is a special case, where SFC conversion needed some balance to compete with other BCHs. Would this solve the whole carrier issue ISCs seem to be having in order to compete with BCHs?

To Miraks: The MIRV loadouts would be your balance enhancement.

Julin Eurthyr · « **Reply #245 on:** September 08, 2003, 11:33:00 am »

I checked SFCShadow's hint guide.

The only ISC fighters with Gatlings are the III line. The Writ, Tort and Restitiution III each have one Forward-area Gatling (Usually FH but one's FX). The Caveat assault fighter, instead of having drones and heavy weapons, gets 3 Gatlings, 2 FH and one RX.

For comparison, the Hydran Wasp III Fighter has 2 Gats FH & 2 Fusions FX. I'm tempted to say the RX gat may make up for the 2 Fusions... Fed Raven III, Gat FH, Photon FX (2 rounds), Fighter Dro-1 rack, 4 shots. The additional 2 Gats make up for the photon & drones...

Personally, I think the entire Assault-III line is rediculously overpowered, whether Wasp, Caveat or Basenji. Too bad the double-space restrictions never worked right...

You asked for a recommendation to "fix" the 3 Gat Caveats? Here's a couple, possibly usable to fix the entire "assault" fighter issue, whether feasable or not.

Enforce the double-space fighter rule across the board.
Weaken all the supposedly double space assault fighters to more reasonable single space loadouts, as they are effectively single space fighters.
Make dedicated heavy carriers, with proper heavy fighter loadouts, restrict the assault fighters to those carriers, and remove them from general purchase.
Adjust BPVs for fighters. I admit, the way Fighter ECM works makes phasers more powerful. Any phaser BPV adjustments should be global to all races.
Allow the ISC Phaser-1 pod(s) in lieu of heavy weapons, and adjust the Gatling / remaining phaser loadout to appropriate levels. Once the ISC gets a "heavy weapon" pod (as fighter phasers are rechargable and SFB Ph-1 pods aren't), loadout reduction is appropriate. I'd say 1 Ph-1 in place of 2 drones / heavy weapons on comprable fighters is appropriate due to rechargability. Most ISC fighers would have at most 1 Ph-1, Caveats get 2. My only concern, how would these Ph-1's work in light of the Fighter ECM issue. Also, with a "heavy weapon", reduction to the 2/3rd standard is appropriate.
Allow the ISC (who Taldren has hijacking every one else's technology) to shoplift fighter heavy weapons. Disruptors, Photons, Hellbores, etc. Again, loadout adjustment and fighter count reduction is appropriate.

TOCXOBearslayer · « **Reply #246 on:** September 08, 2003, 11:45:37 am »

Umm.... Am I correct in assuming that some of the ISC fighters should have some heavy weapons in SFB?

If so.... can the DroD be substituted in for it?

I have tested it, and the DroD does work with fighters in OP.

(are DroD even in EaW? I should probably go look)

Julin Eurthyr · « **Reply #247 on:** September 08, 2003, 11:54:59 am »

Yep. SFB ISC FIghters carry heavy weapons.

The "superiority" fighters carry Pl-D, and the "tactical" fighters carry carrier-rechargable Pl-F.

In SFC, there's no "dogfight" plasma to give the appropriate 50% damage reduction to the superiority fighters (as Pl-D is effectively a 50% strength Pl-F in a drone case), and it has been believed that the Dro-D still is plagued by speed issues (ie, Medium Speed Dro-Ds ignore shields) in both EAW and OP.

Julin Eurthyr · « **Reply #249 on:** September 08, 2003, 02:24:11 pm »

That may be a workable idea.

the things about those EPT Dro-Ds would be that they do approx. 2 damage to each shield. If they are somewhat effective (on the order of other fighter weapons), then I'd agree to a re-make of ISC fighters where we get these at appropriate levels (ie, lighter fighters get 1, heavier fighters get 2), with a couple of reloads (2) like fighter drones have.

As far as unique weapons go, this definitely sounds like a workable idea, I may have to try this sometime to see how effective this really is...

Dogmatix! · « **Reply #253 on:** September 08, 2003, 04:09:38 pm »

Funny...I was thinking "44 power" in general as ideal and ended up typing it instead of "42"....corrected.

Julin Eurthyr · « **Reply #255 on:** September 08, 2003, 05:13:04 pm »

I have to go on record as stating that as much as it sucks, the SFB I-BCV does have only 40 power. As such is the nature of the SSD, Firesoul did the right thing in translating it as shown. I have no complaint with that.

If it hasn't already been done, could someone please split the PPDs onto 2 hardpoints on that ship so we could at least shut off the extra PPD when not needed? The nature of the SSD and EA form allows me to charge only 1 PPD at a time and maintain a much more mobile rate of speed. I would also ask the same of the I-CC_, ICVS_, and I-CS_, as those are the only ships without single PPDs for power control. If it isn't done globally (as the twinned hardpoint is Taldren's intent), at least do it to help out the BCV. I thank you for your consideration.

Corbomite · « **Reply #258 on:** September 08, 2003, 06:15:42 pm »

Of all the options presented I like the CCV idea the best.

News:

Topic: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0 (Read 97859 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

FireSoul

jimmi7769

FireSoul

FireSoul

Corbomite

Julin Eurthyr

TOCXOBearslayer

Julin Eurthyr

FireSoul

Julin Eurthyr

Dogmatix!

Dogmatix!

Corbomite

Dogmatix!

FireSoul

Julin Eurthyr

FireSoul

Julin Eurthyr

Corbomite

FireSoul

Topic: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0 (Read 97859 times)