Taldrenites > General Starfleet Command Forum
OP - Define "cheese" please
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
troycheek:
Quote:
Cheese is anything that can't be countered on equal terms.
OP has many good examples:
The ultimate: I-XCB
--- End quote ---
I might agree except that I routinely lose in the I-XCB to good Fed players whose ships, I believe, have low BPV than mine.
I don't have enough experience with the other ships you mention to have an opinion one way or another.
Troy
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version