Topic: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0

[Julin Eurthyr]

Quote:
Julin...I am well aware that the I-BCV as presented in FS' list is as accurate to SFB as it can be (assuming the fighter loadout conversion).  That doesn't make it any less fo a dog, though...heheh.



Whatever...as I said, anything a campaign design group doesn't like will get changed, anyway.

The ISC needs at least one dog ship to make up for our quality everywhere else...

I look at it this way.  With the dual hardpoints, you can fly it just like a CAZ with fighters and extra padding on the PPD, you can fly it as a slower CCZ with fighters, or do what all good carriers are supposed to do, castle and let the fighters kill the enemy...

We always could beg for a fully powered BCV and treat it like the CAAZ, with a 1.25 move cost due to all the extra stuff...  

On my other concern:

Until positive word comes back on fighter testing for the Dro-D equipped ISC fighters, I believe that we are stuck with the current Phaser fighters.  Are the plans still calling for a fighter cutback, or do we keep the ISC-special fighter ratios due to the phaser fighters?  As I shown in my previous post, on our best fighter, we get gatlings in lieu of a fighter heavy weapon or a drone rack's worth of drone shots.  While heavy weapons or drones are nearly just as effective outside AMD range (4) as they are at range 0, gatlings are not.  Gatlings also do not deplete AMD racks to allow unmolested fighter strikes.  We need the extra one to two squadrons to deplete enough AMD letting the remaining fighter groups in.  Fighters we must replace at cost / waste repairs on while drones reload for free.

[Karnak]

The ISC needs a I-BCV-class ship that can compete with the L-BCHT without too many sacrifices made.  As Corbomite pointed out, most other races get BCV ship conversion without any sacrifices on power so there's no reason that the ISC should be the first in trading power boxes for fighter-bays for such conversions; especially, when all other ISC weapons suck up power.

The I-CCV ship looks like a fair compromise.  

[FireSoul]

Quote:

Quote:
Julin...I am well aware that the I-BCV as presented in FS' list is as accurate to SFB as it can be (assuming the fighter loadout conversion).  That doesn't make it any less fo a dog, though...heheh.



Whatever...as I said, anything a campaign design group doesn't like will get changed, anyway.

The ISC needs at least one dog ship to make up for our quality everywhere else...

I look at it this way.  With the dual hardpoints, you can fly it just like a CAZ with fighters and extra padding on the PPD, you can fly it as a slower CCZ with fighters, or do what all good carriers are supposed to do, castle and let the fighters kill the enemy...

We always could beg for a fully powered BCV and treat it like the CAAZ, with a 1.25 move cost due to all the extra stuff...  

On my other concern:

Until positive word comes back on fighter testing for the Dro-D equipped ISC fighters, I believe that we are stuck with the current Phaser fighters.  Are the plans still calling for a fighter cutback, or do we keep the ISC-special fighter ratios due to the phaser fighters?  As I shown in my previous post, on our best fighter, we get gatlings in lieu of a fighter heavy weapon or a drone rack's worth of drone shots.  While heavy weapons or drones are nearly just as effective outside AMD range (4) as they are at range 0, gatlings are not.  Gatlings also do not deplete AMD racks to allow unmolested fighter strikes.  We need the extra one to two squadrons to deplete enough AMD letting the remaining fighter groups in.  Fighters we must replace at cost / waste repairs on while drones reload for free.  

Increasing the fighter HPs seems like a good suggestion. It increases survivability by a lot. That should compensate for the lack of heavy weapons: add armor.

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:

Quote:

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

I'm in agreement.  

Glad to hear it, because that carrier will still have its weaknesses:
.. having only 2 shuttlebays on a carrier will really hurt you..  

Naturally, I didn't say it was the best solution, nor did I say it wouldn't have its weaknesses.  I did say that it seemed to be the best solution posted so far.  Is there a better one?  Possibly.


 

[Dogmatix!]

True enough, Julin.  You can fly the I-BCV like a lot of things...except a BCV.    This was given as a reason why so many ISC captains opt for the CVs when they are available and thus why so many weren't happy with the proposed fighter loadout change.


I'm still not sure that will ever get adopted for D2 play, but an improved BCV for the ISC and perhaps making their fighters more durable might make a little more likely.  As good as those CAveat-III's are, I still buck at the prospect of losing them when ships explode.  It's just another reason I stay in a line ship even though flying something else would give me faster missions and (apparently) frighten people unduly.  



 

[FireSoul]

ok..


here's what I am going to do about ISC issues.
1- file the I-CCV idea for later. Try the mountpoint splits first on the ISC ships. I don't want to add my own creation in the shiplist at this time. I want to fight the modified BCV for a while first, and see how better it is.
2- implement the fighter loadout corrections on unequal ISC carriers
3- Increase the # hull on all fighters except Reclamation.Is (stock) and Caveat.IIIs (doesn't need it by far. The gatlings easily lower a shield at range 14.99.)

 

[jimmi7769]

Quote:
Caveat.IIIs (doesn't need it by far. The gatlings easily lower a shield at range 14.99.)

 

This is ridiculous.  If you shoot a thousand P-3s from fighters at a ship with a shift of 2(4 ecm) then they should do 0 damage.  No chance to hit at all 0 0 0 0   A shield (with ecm protection) should never drop from P-3's at range 15 no matter how many are fired.   How is this happening??????

Also, if you don't add points to the cav 3's then it's moot as that's all they use.

[Corbomite]

Fighters have 2 ECCM. You'd need 6 ECM to get a 2 shift.

[jimmi7769]

Quote:
Fighters have 2 ECCM. You'd need 6 ECM to get a 2 shift.  

Yes, but I'd really only need 3 to get a shift of 1 which is all you need to get no damage out of a phaser 3 at range 15.

I just said 4 as this is the norm for most players which would end up being 2 due to the fighters 2 eccm that leave us with 2 ecm and a shift of 1.  You show me the dice it takes to roll a 1 on when you have to add 1 to the roll.

I used to play SFB with this guy that always seemed to do too much damage.  We caught him one time doing more damage in a Fed CA that was possible at that range.  Talk about your magic photons.  Maybe he was using those magic dice too.

[Mog]

Agree with jimmi on the ph3 damage being impossible outside range 8 through a +1 shift. Looks like the fighters ignore ECM bug is back (or never went away).

As for an I-BCV with 44 power. The CCZ itself will beat any BCV, been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Put 8 Caveat IIIs on it and it will take a BB to stop it in 1v1. The CCZ is half of why I don't play ISC anymore - too easy to win with it. Cav IIIs are the other half - again they make it too easy.

 

[FireSoul]

Quote:

Quote:
Caveat.IIIs (doesn't need it by far. The gatlings easily lower a shield at range 14.99.)

 

This is ridiculous.  If you shoot a thousand P-3s from fighters at a ship with a shift of 2(4 ecm) then they should do 0 damage.  No chance to hit at all 0 0 0 0   A shield (with ecm protection) should never drop from P-3's at range 15 no matter how many are fired.   How is this happening??????

Also, if you don't add points to the cav 3's then it's moot as that's all they use.  

Fine. It's the ph2s that slow you down at range 15. I'll add the hull to the Cav.IIIs.
 

[FireSoul]

This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.

[Corbomite]

When it comes down to it you can do what you want. All we are trying to get across is that you just can't plop ships from SFB into SFC and expect it all to work out. Case in point, that BCHT you like to fly is so OTT it gives cheese a bad name...

[Karnak]

Quote:
ok..


here's what I am going to do about ISC issues.
1- file the I-CCV idea for later. Try the mountpoint splits first on the ISC ships. I don't want to add my own creation in the shiplist at this time. I want to fight the modified BCV for a while first, and see how better it is.
2- implement the fighter loadout corrections on unequal ISC carriers
3- Increase the # hull on all fighters except Reclamation.Is (stock) and Caveat.IIIs (doesn't need it by far. The gatlings easily lower a shield at range 14.99.)

 

I would do the I-CCV idea now cuz the server admins will probably do it on their own for your shiplist when they use it in a campaign if you don't; especially, after they read the last 10 or so posts in this thread regarding ISC ship changes and the ISC veteran pilots' reactions to them.

[TOCXOBearslayer]

Quote:
This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.  

Quote:
When it comes down to it you can do what you want. All we are trying to get across is that you just can't plop ships from SFB into SFC and expect it all to work out. Case in point, that BCHT you like to fly is so OTT it gives cheese a bad name...  

Actually, that is why the ADMINS must adjust the shiplist for the servers.  FS stated from the start, his goal was to bring as many SFB ships into the shiplist as possible.  He also stated that the admins should limit the ships as they see fit.

All in all, I don't think the BCHT is way OTT.  But when you have to face one after another, after another, after another.... You're gonna lose eventually.

IMO, if we are gonna do an OOB, then all hull sizes larger or outside of normal heavy line crusiers have to be on an OOB also.

FS, you are doing a great job with the OP+ shiplist.  

[jimmi7769]

Quote:
This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.  

This is easily understandable.

Can't win for losing.

I for one have nothing really bad to say about the shiplist, but then again I am an SFB'er....

[TarMinyatur]

Quote:
This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.  

At least you get feedback. I hear people say that Shipwrights 8.13 sucks, is broken, doesn't work, etc., but nobody tells me why. It is frustrating. I'm just about finished trying to enhance the game for a largely apathetic or empire-centric player pool.

http://www.webspace4me.net/~tarminyatur/sw.html

[FireSoul]

Quote:

Quote:
This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.  

At least you get feedback. I hear people say that Shipwrights 8.13 sucks, is broken, doesn't work, etc., but nobody tells me why. It is frustrating. I'm just about finished trying to enhance the game for a largely apathetic or empire-centric player pool.

http://www.webspace4me.net/~tarminyatur/sw.html  

What's your impartial opinion on these ISC changes that MAY happen, Tar?
-- Luc

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:
This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.  

Heaven forbid someone should comment on something you say and *gasp* not agree with you.


Silly me...I thought that part of the reason for this thread (and these fora as a whole) was to discuss issues relating this this project and anything else relating to the SFC family of games.


If you have such a problem with people commenting, I can't for the life of me see why you would post your intentions publicly and constantly (and in my opionion wholly appropriately because it's a wonderful thing) crow about your project.


I can't speak for others, but my involvement in this thread has been to try to help and/or ask perfectly valid questions.  Every time I do, you get a little arrogant/snippy.  If you don't want questions or opinions from anyone, please state it as being such next time and we'll all (or at least I will) keep our mouths shut.

[FireSoul]

Quote:

Quote:
This may be the last OP+ that I do. I have not enjoyed working on it lately, mostly because there's always someone bitching at me that there's something wrong with the shiplist.

I am downright aggravated with some of you guys.  

Heaven forbid someone should comment on something you say and *gasp* not agree with you.


Silly me...I thought that part of the reason for this thread (and these fora as a whole) was to discuss issues relating this this project and anything else relating to the SFC family of games.


If you have such a problem with people commenting, I can't for the life of me see why you would post your intentions publicly and constantly (and in my opionion wholly appropriately because it's a wonderful thing) crow about your project.


I can't speak for others, but my involvement in this thread has been to try to help and/or ask perfectly valid questions.  Every time I do, you get a little arrogant/snippy.  If you don't want questions or opinions from anyone, please state it as being such next time and we'll all (or at least I will) keep our mouths shut.


 

This thread is for corrections from SFB materials.