Taldrenites > General Starfleet Command Forum
OP - Define "cheese" please
troycheek:
Quote:
.. it's yet another reason why I started enhancing the shiplist with additional SFB material: the rules have changed, the cheese are different.. and quite numerous.. numerous enough to dilute the issue that there might be a balance issue.
--- End quote ---
That reminds me that I downloaded your shiplist but have yet to install it. I think I've got a note here reminding me to experient with batch files so that I can shift back and forth between yours and the old.
Quote:
oh well, it takes a TRUE player to be able to play all sides well.
--- End quote ---
I can't play all sides well, but I can play all sides. I've played and won the single-player campaigns of SFC1, EAW, and OP with all available races. That's one thing I liked hearing about SFC3, having the play all three races to get the whole story.
Troy
Whiplash:
I think its really a combination of things. Also, as tactics develop, what gets called cheese changes.
For example, the Mirak carriers armed with the mirv drone fighters. The fighters happen to have unlimited drones. This makes it a tough battle for the other guy, perhaps unreasonably so. People call this cheese because the ship is very strong, and because it exploits the (purposely done) unlimited drones of those fighters.
The Rom SPZ used to be called cheese. Nowadays, I don't even see many people flying it. 120 points of close-in plasma was thought to be cheesy purely because it was so strong. Then people started flying ships heavily armed with phasers and the SPZ started losing a lot. Now its not called cheese any more.
Any ship whose BPV is lower than it "should" be is likely to get called cheese.
Any ship that exploits some odd programming bug or feature to powerful advantage is going to get called cheese.
Any ship flown with a new and very powerful tactic may also get seen as cheese, but that may change as tactics change.
W.
troycheek:
Quote:
I Any ship whose BPV is lower than it "should" be is likely to get called cheese.
--- End quote ---
Reminds me that back in the days of SFCv1 there were some complaints about the BPV for certain ships - too high or too low based on how the ship used to play under SFB vs how it played under SFCv1 (due to changes made to the ship or whatever). One of the suggested improvements was a dynamic BPV.
Dynamic BPV in that every time a ship is on the winning side of a battle, its BPV goes up 1. Any time it's on the losing side, its BPV goes down 1. If two ships went head to head 50 times and one always won, the winner's BPV would be 50 points higher while the loser's would be 50 points lower. Which is roughly how the original SFB BPVs were determined - lots of trial and error and playtesting.
Theory being that sooner or later, the cheese ships would be so expensive in terms of BPV that nobody would be able to afford them and everybody would be playing the "good" ships which were balanced against each other and, since they'd win and lose pretty much evenly, stay near their original BPV. In practice, I'm sure that there'd be people complaining anyway.
Troy
Whiplash:
I like this idea (though its definitely not SFB ) I would add the restriction that this would only happen in 2-player, and the BPV would go up only when the base value of the ship is lower than the one it beat.
To be perfect, you'd also have to include player skill, but I don't think this can be done. Perhaps if the other conditions are true and both players vote yes to increasing it, then it could be done. That way, a conscientious better player would vote no because he thought it was skill. Cheese players would always vote yes, though, if they wanted to see the ship go up in value. Too complicated.
W.
762:
Cheese is anything that can't be countered on equal terms.
OP has many good examples:
The ultimate: I-XCB
Any ship with more than 2 G2's
Any ship with more than 1 ESG lance (especially that cheesy Tigerheart CL)
Most of the LDR ships, especially that 1 frig (4 gats at 80 BPV)
K-D5E and AD5; F-NEC and NAC
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version