Topic: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0

[The_Infiltrator]

Quote:

Quote:
Another thing FS, how about possibly adding SFB bases? WIth all the module configurations (or as many as possible). Leave the current ones and let people decide what they want.  

Not.. very practical. The only time I know I will encounter a Base is in D2, and it's different at very mission. Refits are good, but variance tends to make things screwy. Also, the Taldren bases have been made differently: a bit stronger.

.. probably to compensate for missing minefields.


I'd like to add X1 versions of bases, but I would need to understand the Taldren style first. (Gats on bases.. yuck)
Think: BSX.. and BTX... scary?  

FS, reconsider please. There ARE other venues than GZ and D2 play. Bases would be a welcome addition.

[The_Infiltrator]

Quote:
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.
  

 

Your post has several problems with it.

First, none of the L3 fighters are double space. If it was you'd have a dual gatling, hellbore and fusion armed hydran fighter. Second, the wasp you list above is actually very close to the Stinger-X. However, the stinger X is available sooner than the wasp III, can go speed 31 while performing erratic manuvers and with 2 ECM pods. Third there is no such animal as a phaser-1 pod. There is a single shot phaser-3 pod.  Fourth SFB style ECM for fighters is much more powerful and useful than SFC fighter ECM.

The real problems with fighters are the way that heavy weapons in general for them are implimented. Unfortunately, there's no fix for this, just like there's no way to get a true SCS in the game.

[AdmiralFrey_XC]

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.

Didn't someone mention something to me just the other day about over reacting?

Quote:
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.

Doggy does have a point. Something I was reminded of recently as well : if you ask for feedback, don't get mad if it's not what you wanted to hear.

Quote:


This thread is for corrections from SFB materials.  

Luc, making this offhand statement is what gives everyone the impression you could care less about the feedback unless it's feedback you agree with. How could you make this statement in regards to the current discussion focal, which is that - GASP - once again it's proven that SFB to SFC direct ports just....don't.....work.....100%, which is why there's a big balloo about the ISC Fighters, as well as a couple other things... lol


Luc, you've done some fantastic work, there's no doubting that, but may I suggest you take a step back, and just make sure you're where you want to be right now regarding SFC?

EDIT : bold looked stupid, fixed it.

Regards,

[FireSoul]

I may be overreacting for now.. but remember that I've been on this since April '02 and maybe it's time to think about a wrappup. However, there's still material to cover and things to tweak.

[AdmiralFrey_XC]

Now that's the Firesoul I know !!

Let me know if you need any help testing out the "new material".

 

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:
Now that's the Firesoul I know !!

Let me know if you need any help testing out the "new material".

 

Thanks, Frey.  I appreciated your previous (to this one) post.  


In addtion, I'm more that interested in helping test these changes/tweaks, as I have been all along.  That interest, as well as my appreciation for the OP+ project and all of FireSoul's hard work has never wavered.

[Rogue]

Quote:
I may be overreacting for now.. but remember that I've been on this since April '02 and maybe it's time to think about a wrappup. However, there's still material to cover and things to tweak.  

Well, I've never offerd a word of critcism and have only bugged you when I thought I may know of something that may interest you. I speak as a fan and supporter of your project. All of this will wind down someday... and all we will have are the archived projets people like yourself have worked so hard on. I wouldn't be surprised if I find myself flying a campaign with your spec list a decade from now. I kid you not.

And, disturbingly, I havn't been able to make SFC work on my new big, bad WinXP pro machine yet. This is what keeps me on my old rig.

[TarMinyatur]

Quote:

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

I can't be totally impartial. I'd resist adding even more armor to any fighter or giving the ISC DroD. ISC fighters are not inferior. The 2/3 ratio should be applied consistently.

I believe that SFC has undergone an unfortunate arms race especially in the fighter department. The impetus behind it is poor fighter AI (which is now better than it has ever been--no borderphobia, minimum speed set to 20, stopping bug eliminated), the multiplayer AMD echo bug (which has been fixed, no longer echoes damage by number of clients), and the damage allocation process for squadrons (which has been adjusted to allow a lot of overkill). We now have these changes that improve fighter effectiveness but have not reconsidered the initial fighter specs to see if they are still appropriate. I realize that fighters have limited regeneration, but this is often inconsequential if your fighters have more firepower than a Battleship and cost similar to an  FF. Even the AI's inability to fire Ph-3's wisely doesn't matter when the fighters can fly at speed 27+.  Naturally, the only opponents you see are those that field a lot of missiles to exploit the AI's lack of self-preservation or you'll see escorts(G-rack/Plas-D) or a few super-ships. Understandably, it would be suicide to take a ship that can't outrun fighters or has poor PD. So you get boring combat consisting of BCH's, CWL's, DWL's, Escorts, and Carriers. There are hundreds of other ships to fly but the vast majority of them gather dust because of this arms race. Campaigns can mitigate this problem somewhat. My focus is on GSA play.

My main point is: What do we gain from of CV's, Escorts, and PFT's? Do they make the game any more fun for either side? Do they add tactical depth?

I think we would be better off without them. They are used because of the escalating arms race that started with EAW, continued to OP, and is furthered by the OP+ refit. More ship selection ironically leads to less variety.

This is all opinion. I'll read any criticism but I'm done with this thread and this forum outside of bug reports and mechanical info.

[Mog]

I fully agree with you Tar. You summed up the majority of D2 ship choices perfectly Too much emphasis on attrition units imo.

[DH123]

Quote:
I fully agree with you Tar. You summed up the majority of D2 ship choices perfectly Too much emphasis on attrition units imo.  

Which is why I miss Early Era so much . . .    

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:

Quote:
I fully agree with you Tar. You summed up the majority of D2 ship choices perfectly Too much emphasis on attrition units imo.  

Which is why I miss Early Era so much . . .    

But the Roms and Klingons tend not to...


 

[jimmi7769]

Make everyone start in Snipe A's and we'll see how much people like early.

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:
Make everyone start in Snipe A's and we'll see how much people like early.  

*wince*



Although not as bad, a stock F5 never seemed like a dream vacation to Raisa, either...

[DH123]

Quote:

Quote:
Make everyone start in Snipe A's and we'll see how much people like early.  

*wince*



Although not as bad, a stock F5 never seemed like a dream vacation to Raisa, either...  

Stock F-DD with Evil Dave missions on AOTK.  Beat that!  

[Dogmatix!]

I thought I just did.  Did you miss the F5 part?



 

[FireSoul]

Guys.. guys..
.. take it to the D2 forums. At some point I'm going to review all the data here and will have to reread all of this, so don't make it more difficult for me.. .. please?

[Carrie]

Now that I'm back on the forums after an absence, and have started playing the current version of OP+ 3.0, I'd just like to thank you, Firesoul. With the new classes and models, (especially adding the new patch) I've had my best gaming experience since reinstalling OP on the new patch that I've had in months, diddling with a few other games that were supposedly 'better' just for being newer. OP+ has, by far, the best replayability even in single player, of any game I know. And OP+ is a whole lot of the reason why. I'll be looking forward to the next release with neato models, of course ... But until then, I'm a happy SFCer (and old SFBer) tonight.  You're the best

Carrie

PS:

Not to be annjoying, but on a fed mission I was playing tonight, a C7V and D6DR were for some reason using what you mentioned as the Cartel skin (reddish gray, with crescent sitting on pole), while listed as being Klingon....

Also, I noticed that the MD5 is still using a different colored version of the original D5 Taldren skin, instead of the miniature D7 one like the others? And for note...  the E3Y is supposed to be the Bird of Prey from ST III, in theory, it's a Taldren added ship, and right now is on a skin from the pack that looks nothing like it

[FireSoul]

Quote:

Not to be annjoying, but on a fed mission I was playing tonight, a C7V and D6DR were for some reason using what you mentioned as the Cartel skin (reddish gray, with crescent sitting on pole), while listed as being Klingon....

Also, I noticed that the MD5 is still using a different colored version of the original D5 Taldren skin, instead of the miniature D7 one like the others? And for note...  the E3Y is supposed to be the Bird of Prey from ST III, in theory, it's a Taldren added ship, and right now is on a skin from the pack that looks nothing like it

Most of the issues here have already been fixed. I spent a LOT of time after 3.0 was released, months ago on this. I swtiched the KD6 model back, that's the only difference. Back to green it goes.
 

[FireSoul]

Now, I'm going to be clear on some matters that have gotten some people all worked up:

- I'm not going to include the I-CCV I commented on previously in any OP+ I release.
- I'm not going to include any R-KCRP I described that could be created, "based on SFB's K-C7S", on the SS2 chat.

These ships are to be included into D2 shiplists by the admins themselves.



However, I am going to do a limited-distribution test release with various changes of my own:
- SFB-based MIRV-equipped ships, mostly miraks
- less fighters on ISC carriers (like everyone), but more armour on the fighters themselves.


.. and the possible next ships: a few X1 ships I would create myself.
So far, the X1 ships have been the only exception I have applied to include non-official SFB material ships to my list. A few of these ships came from Captain's logs, which is usually a nono. Now, I am thinking we need a few more.

A list:

- F-NCLX: The Federation needs a NCL-based X1 ship. It would have 30 warps, 4 photons, and nice shields. All phasers become phX.
- H-TRX and H-HRX: The Hydrans also need a CL-sized X1 ship. These would also have 30 warps and improved shields. The TR has no fighters but has HBs. The HR has fighters, but only fusions. # of heavy weapons would be increased to 3 (from 2) on each.
- I-NCAX/NCSX: The ISC needs a CA-sized X1 ship. Although the I-NCA are slow modifications of I-CL/CS, the X1 conversion would do a *perfect* CA-sized X1 ship.  

I-NCA explanation:
Historically, pockets of isolated ISC space, isolated but not yet conquered, have upgraded their CLs and CSs to "system cruisers". Slow with a movement cost of 1, a subdeck has been installed with 1 more heavy weapon, and 8 APRs. The ship has only 24 warps, but was about CA-sized.
A X1 conversion of these ships would make them about right. The warps would be increased to 32, and the ship would have enough power to move right.


I find there's a need for these ships, to fill in gaps in classes that other races currently have occupied. Also, the ISC needs a CA-cost xship.

 
Edit: I-CMX didn't cut it. Not big enough.

[Dogmatix!]

I look forward to the next release.  Looks to be a good one, all things considered.


Does anyone know off-hand if specific pointers are being added for the various Fred BCHs or should I try and search through this thread to see if I can find the answer myself?


Thanks in advance...