Topic: restricted ships  (Read 12849 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Gook

  • Catbert
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 405
  • Gender: Male
restricted ships
« on: August 07, 2004, 10:58:28 am »
Something which came out of the other threads was the question of restricted ships.

As I understand it Commando, Escorts and Tugs are restricted.  Some say this is to stop PP farmers (Commando), not sure why escorts are or tugs other than the later take up room in the yards for more "desirable" ships.

On the question of PP farming, well I can't say it bothers me (opinion), but it does restrict out some ships which may aid some races in the "flipping" war. Can this be reconsidered?

So far as the Escorts are concerned I'm not sure why.

Tugs take up space, but then in a world with an OOB they would, and just might make the "desirable" ships rarer (as many should be if you want OOBs). Everyone who wants one will get one eventually of course, but may have to wait a bit longer and if lost may have to wait again.

So what is the "raison d'etre" behind the restrictions and should it be reconsidered.

Linked to this is the fleet position, many in the fleet thread would not mind flleets with CnC, but if escorts are restricted out you can't have a CV with it's legitimate escorts.

Thoughts please.

KAT-Gook, OBS,OoW,MTA,SoK.
KAT-Fleet
Kzinti Hegemony

The God of War hates those who hesitate
.....Eurypides



Offline GDA-S'Cipio

  • Brucimus Maximus
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 5749
  • Gender: Male
  • If I took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy.
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2004, 02:23:58 pm »

So far as the Escorts are concerned I'm not sure why.

Game logic.  Escorts put a lot of ultra-expensive hardware on a small hull, which makes them highly desireable to players -- often for both hex flipping AND PvP roles.

In the source material it made sense to put that much expensive hardware on a fragile hull because their job was to protect a valuable fleet asset.  In this game, where fleet assets and escorts fly around by themselves, it starts to look a lot less like logical design and a lot more like cheese.

Escorts in SFC  break down the willing suspension of disbelief and make the game experience less enjoyable.

At least that's the story on  the Western side.  On the eastern side, where plas-D doesn't get the offensive power it is supposed to have, escorts just suck and so no one misses them.

-S'Cipio
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."  - James Madison (chief author of the Constitution)

-----------------------------------------
Gorn Dragon Alliance member
Gorn Dragon Templar
Coulda' used a little more cowbell
-----------------------------------------


Offline Green

  • I'm not a
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3004
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2004, 02:34:17 pm »
IF player fleets are allowed, then escorts could go unrestricted and controlled by OOB.  "You can only have an escort in your fleet if you have a carrier as the flagship for your fleet.  See rule X.x for a list of approved escorts and the carriers they can fly with."

I don't mind servers w/ player fleets (2 or even 3-ship fleets) and have gladly played on them.
I don't mind servers that only allow 1 ship per player and have gladly played on them too.

Player fleets allowed or not allowed really doesn't matter to me, I'd play on either, my guess is many others would too.

Offline KAT J'inn

  • CFO - Kzinti War Machine, Inc.
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2294
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2004, 02:50:12 pm »
Well I was going to start a thread on this subject but looky here . .  .



Escorts . . .  General War 3 - 6.

How about unrestricting all the escorts??    What say you??

Since we have the disengagement rule would it be so bad?


 . . .

Also,  Laflin is overseas and can't play so I really think we should allow the NEC+  <ooooh I'm going to hell for that one. Man, I need a smoke after that!>


Offline GDA-S'Cipio

  • Brucimus Maximus
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 5749
  • Gender: Male
  • If I took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy.
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2004, 02:58:44 pm »
Well I was going to start a thread on this subject but looky here . .  .



Escorts . . .  General War 3 - 6.

How about unrestricting all the escorts??    What say you??

Since we have the disengagement rule would it be so bad?


With solo ships, I'd really really rather not.  When one of those monsters loaded with AMD and gatlings and drones bounces a line ship out of the hex we may find that the disengagement rule exacerbates the escort problem rather than fixing it.

Things will get worse as the Romulans get into the war.  The G-rack got split into two systems while the plas-D got neutered by being defense only.  Fed escorts will be much more useful against the pointy ears than the Roms will be against the Feds.  Besides, some of those gatling escorts are just plain mean.

-S'Cipio
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."  - James Madison (chief author of the Constitution)

-----------------------------------------
Gorn Dragon Alliance member
Gorn Dragon Templar
Coulda' used a little more cowbell
-----------------------------------------


Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2004, 03:01:18 pm »
Solo escorts are cheese.   This game does not need more cheese, it needs less.

A fair and balanced shiplist for D2 needs MORE ships removed, not more OTT crap added.
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline KBF-Crim

  • 1st Deacon ,Church of Taldren
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12271
  • Gender: Male
  • Crim,son of Rus'l
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2004, 03:18:30 pm »
Solo escorts are cheese.   This game does not need more cheese, it needs less.

A fair and balanced shiplist for D2 needs MORE ships removed, not more OTT crap added.
:banghead:

Offline Gook

  • Catbert
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 405
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2004, 04:17:14 pm »
Solo escorts are cheese.   This game does not need more cheese, it needs less.

A fair and balanced shiplist for D2 needs MORE ships removed, not more OTT crap added.

Not entirely sure I understand why this is.

BCHs for example would be more complex to build, more costly and a lot rarer than cheap hulled FF/DD/CL E's regardless of the "systems" in them.

The usual wet navy comparisons show very few BCs (real ones what we call BCHs) and lots of "Escorts" whether they be AA, AS, or GP.

Anyhow in the average single player game, mano a mano, the BCH or even CC shouldn't have a problem, its only us dumb cheesy droners who really need fear all those ADDs and PGs.

Variety is the spice and all that.

What about Commando ships?

Tugs well there are rather a lot, say they were pared down to TUG-A, BT and CVT?
KAT-Gook, OBS,OoW,MTA,SoK.
KAT-Fleet
Kzinti Hegemony

The God of War hates those who hesitate
.....Eurypides



Offline Laflin

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2004, 04:22:23 pm »
Well I was going to start a thread on this subject but looky here . .  .



Escorts . . .  General War 3 - 6.

How about unrestricting all the escorts??    What say you??

Since we have the disengagement rule would it be so bad?


 . . .

Also,  Laflin is overseas and can't play so I really think we should allow the NEC+  <ooooh I'm going to hell for that one. Man, I need a smoke after that!>



You, Sir, are a furry Bastard! <spoken in a Harry Mudd voice> ;D  As far as escorts being cheese, I disagree <surprise>, but I always flew 'em close in, giving plenty of opportunities to kill me.  The mediocre power, turn rates and especially the crappy HET% IMO more than balanced out any supposed "cheese" factor.  DH, ask any of the old Klinks how cheesily I flew the F-NEC when I did fly it, back when only 2 of the 4 gats fired.  The power consumption should be even worse now that that bug has been taken care of.

Offline Father Ted

  • Starfleet Chaplain-Recalled to Active Duty
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1356
  • Next to Ted Williams in the freezer
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2004, 05:12:55 pm »
Well I was going to start a thread on this subject but looky here . .  .



Escorts . . .  General War 3 - 6.

How about unrestricting all the escorts??    What say you??

Since we have the disengagement rule would it be so bad?


 . . .

Also,  Laflin is overseas and can't play so I really think we should allow the NEC+  <ooooh I'm going to hell for that one. Man, I need a smoke after that!>



J'inn you bastard! I paid you enough to sneak the F-NEC+ in while nobody was looking. What's this turning around and announcing it on the forums? I want my money back!!! ;)

Captain: USS Majestik Moose NCC-1712


"Live as brave men; and if fortune is adverse, front its blows with brave hearts." -Cicero
"Superman wears Jack Bauer jammies."-Anonymous
"Better to fight for something than live for nothing." -George S. Patton

Offline C-Los

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 436
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2004, 06:34:15 pm »
I've always found that, the more "TOYS" I have to play with, the more "FUN" I have !!

   MHO....... :brickwall:
C-Los, Commanding Officer U.S.S. Scorpion




"Life is short, have fun and enjoy !"

Offline KBF-Dogmatix_XC

  • Pimpmaster General
  • XenoCorp® Member
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 401
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2004, 07:28:41 pm »
Solo escorts are cheese.   This game does not need more cheese, it needs less.

A fair and balanced shiplist for D2 needs MORE ships removed, not more OTT crap added.



Err...is this why you're trying so hard to get PFs into the game?   heheh...not enough drones, rfighters and PFs in the game?   ;)



Just givin' ya a hard time, DH. 
Dogmatix, XC, KBF
yo' aj, Klingon Black Fleet
Director, XenoCorp Tactics and Strategy Division
DGA Board of Directors
SFC2.Net Administrator

Offline Julin Eurthyr

  • Veltrassi Ambassador at Large
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Gender: Male
  • Back in Exile due to Win 7 - ISC RM/Strat Com.
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2004, 07:51:15 pm »
Escorts:

The Klink / Mirak escorts (uber-AMD boats that kill a drone ship) aren't extremely bad, except against say a Mirak or another drone boat...

The Fed Gatling-phaser using escorts, with like 4 Ph-G and 5 drones (almost enough to make them a flying-scatterpack) are what I remember starting this whole anti-escort stuff first...

I believe the rationale for restricting Federation ship-gatling phasers to the escorts only is due to the cost to procure one and the hencefore limited supply of Gats were best used in an anti-fighter / anti-drone carrier defense role, not as an offensive weapon for an escort to pounce on and gut line cruisers repeatedly...

Now, I'm not adverse to letting gatling-phaser escorts actually escort the carriers they're supposed to.  People want to fly an escort, fine.  Just make it a rule that while in an escort, they can't initiate a single mission, and must strive at all times to be drafted by the carrier they're escorting.  But as long as they can be flown solo, out of their limited purpose, the sheer volume of Gatling phaser firepower available (on a par with a pair of cheesy Caveat IIIs), is somewhat, at least still IMO, unbalancing, and would need a BPV / cost increase to say BCH or so if flown solo.  Adjustable in the future, but I think we tried CWs at CA prices and it wasn't painful enough to deter frequent use a couple of servers ago...

AKA: Koloth Kinshaya - Lord of the House Kinshaya in the Klingon Empire
S'Leth - Romulan Admiral
Some anonymous strongman in Prime Industries

Offline Rod ONeal

  • D.Net Beta Tester
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3592
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2004, 07:54:45 pm »
Solo escorts are cheese.   This game does not need more cheese, it needs less.

A fair and balanced shiplist for D2 needs MORE ships removed, not more OTT crap added.

Not entirely sure I understand why this is.

BCHs for example would be more complex to build, more costly and a lot rarer than cheap hulled FF/DD/CL E's regardless of the "systems" in them.

The usual wet navy comparisons show very few BCs (real ones what we call BCHs) and lots of "Escorts" whether they be AA, AS, or GP.

Anyhow in the average single player game, mano a mano, the BCH or even CC shouldn't have a problem, its only us dumb cheesy droners who really need fear all those ADDs and PGs.

Variety is the spice and all that.

What about Commando ships?

Tugs well there are rather a lot, say they were pared down to TUG-A, BT and CVT?


There's a couple of reasons not too many were built. 1, They are specialized ships. They are not as well rounded as the standard designs. 2, Some of their systems are more expensive and/or just more limited. Ship Ph-G's are not standard equipment for any races except the Hydrans (and LDR). The Aegis system (not represented in SFC) is a much more advanced (expensive) sensor and targeting system (Allows for targeting up to 4X/Impulse instead of only once like regular line ships.) There's also the extra personnel and equipment to service ftrs (Again, not represented in SFC.). 3, They weren't the only variants needed. Scouts, Drone ships, command variants, carriers, etc... were also needed. There simply would not have been enough hulls and parts to build all of the escorts that some people want to use. IIRC only 1 F-NEC was built as an escort for the CVA Napoleon.
If Romulans aren't cowards, then why do they taste like chicken?

Offline KBF-Dogmatix_XC

  • Pimpmaster General
  • XenoCorp® Member
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 401
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2004, 07:55:03 pm »
I think restricting escorts makes more sense than restricting tugs and commando ships.  Heck...I don't get the commando ship thing at all...never have.


Dogmatix, XC, KBF
yo' aj, Klingon Black Fleet
Director, XenoCorp Tactics and Strategy Division
DGA Board of Directors
SFC2.Net Administrator

Offline Julin Eurthyr

  • Veltrassi Ambassador at Large
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Gender: Male
  • Back in Exile due to Win 7 - ISC RM/Strat Com.
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2004, 08:31:51 pm »
From what I remember, the Commando ship issue was 2-fold:

1.  Commando ship steals AI ally, then uses ally against player
2.  Commando ship captures player's ship out from underneath them, then uses the player's own ship against the AI to finish the mission

Basically, too many people were having their ship captured out from underneath them before their weapons had a chance to blow up the commando ship...

(they also used cheesy excuses like the commando ship's time in such interesting missions as convoy raid, the stereotypical PP-farming mission to help them get restricted...)

AKA: Koloth Kinshaya - Lord of the House Kinshaya in the Klingon Empire
S'Leth - Romulan Admiral
Some anonymous strongman in Prime Industries

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2004, 08:47:58 pm »
Solo escorts are cheese.   This game does not need more cheese, it needs less.

A fair and balanced shiplist for D2 needs MORE ships removed, not more OTT crap added.



Err...is this why you're trying so hard to get PFs into the game?   heheh...not enough drones, rfighters and PFs in the game?   ;)



Just givin' ya a hard time, DH. 

Got me there, guitly.   I'll stay out of this one  ;D
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline KBF-Dogmatix_XC

  • Pimpmaster General
  • XenoCorp® Member
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 401
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2004, 09:02:06 pm »
From what I remember, the Commando ship issue was 2-fold:

1.  Commando ship steals AI ally, then uses ally against player
2.  Commando ship captures player's ship out from underneath them, then uses the player's own ship against the AI to finish the mission

Basically, too many people were having their ship captured out from underneath them before their weapons had a chance to blow up the commando ship...

(they also used cheesy excuses like the commando ship's time in such interesting missions as convoy raid, the stereotypical PP-farming mission to help them get restricted...)



Awwww...some poor commando ship picked on some player silly enough to get within transporter distance (and allow the commando ship to survive)?

  :D


I still don't get the fuss.  I gotta be honest...if i'm flying just about anything of realtively equal class to a D6G, I'm glad that guy has a D6G, cuz he's gonna die.  Of course, the D6G isn't a very impressive commando ship.  Other races have better. 

AI capturing happens anyway...the absence of commando ships doesn't do much to prevent that.  In fact, player capturing happens anyway...heheh.


Dogmatix, XC, KBF
yo' aj, Klingon Black Fleet
Director, XenoCorp Tactics and Strategy Division
DGA Board of Directors
SFC2.Net Administrator

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2004, 09:08:27 pm »
Yeah Doggy, I was wondering how the Commando ship got their shields down in the first place.  ;)

Offline KBF-Dogmatix_XC

  • Pimpmaster General
  • XenoCorp® Member
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 401
  • Gender: Male
Re: restricted ships
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2004, 09:27:09 pm »
My point exactly...  :D


Dogmatix, XC, KBF
yo' aj, Klingon Black Fleet
Director, XenoCorp Tactics and Strategy Division
DGA Board of Directors
SFC2.Net Administrator