Topic: The PPD Rule

[KHH Jakle]

Here's Phaser's recommendation:

would like the PPD rule tweaked further for ex....the lead ship could only carry 2 PPD's as its limit while the other 2 ships may carry a single PPD totaling the max 4 PPD's or the lead ship may carry all 4 PPD's and the other's would not have none.Most of the time the TBPV prolyy wont be high enough to field all 4 PPD's but at least it may bring in more ISC fleets.Last cycle we had a new ISC fleet join up and as they put it the PPD rule nerfs the ISC race thus causing them to drop out early.We the InterStellar Centurions  didn't have any trouble with the PPD rule as we found out, but it did make for some long borring plasma ballet's...

The other alternative is the original, which restricted PPD's as deployed on the 'Lead' ship (no limit) plus an additional ISC ship that carried only 1 PPD (the CM I think is the only ship that fit this decriptions)

State your preference...

[FPF-DieHard]

I have no problem with a 3 ships fleet fielding 4 PPDs.  Then again, we might go ISC next cycle 

[Mutilator]

Yeah I think that is acceptable as well. I could even live with six if x2 ships are brought into play.

[FPF-DieHard]

Yeah I think that is acceptable as well. I could even live with six if x2 ships are brought into play.

Please leave the 2X crap dead and buried where it belongs 

[762_XC]

PUHLEASE, X1 is bad enough.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I have no problem with a 3 ships fleet fielding 4 PPDs.  Then again, we might go ISC next cycle 

Ditto on the first sentence. When hell freezes over on the second.

[Corbomite]

The other alternative is the original, which restricted PPD's as deployed on the 'Lead' ship (no limit) plus an additional ISC ship that carried only 1 PPD (the CM I think is the only ship that fit this decriptions)

The CAP-Y-Z can be used as well.


I would rather change the rule entirely and do it by size classes, but barring that I would leave it the same as it was. As I said to the GFL in another forum here - Get off the PPD crutch and learn how to fly ISC. I was coming up with killer fleets under the PBR rules. (If anyone thinks I am talking out my ass just ask anyone who knows me how well I fly ISC. Those ships make it really easy to look good.)

[Corbomite]

I didn't have time to elaborate earlier so...


I would like to see PPD deployment a little looser in configuration choice not so much numbers. I think it should be scaled by the size of the commanding ship, but not restricted to that ship. This would allow for more imaginative fleet formations for the ISC. For example:


If the largest ship in the fleet is of CL(CM) class, then one PPD is allowed for a fleet of three.

If the largest ship in the fleet is of CA class, then two PPD's are allowed for a fleet of three.

If the largest ship in the fleet is of CC class, then three PPD's are allowed for a fleet of three.

If the largest ship in the fleet is of DN(BB) class, then four PPD's are allowed for a fleet of three.


If we allow the ISC to selectively place the PPD's where they like instead of just the Command ship they can use the Strike Cruiser more and not have to waste it on a Command slot for example (DNT, CSZ, CLZ comes to mind). Scaling it makes sense as larger fleet configs would be more prone to the heavier firepower as per SFB doctrine. Its not really that complicated as you only have to identify what size class you are in by your largest ship and follow the guidelines.

[Mutilator]

I think Corbomite's idea  is the way to go. Looks logical and fair plus, should be easy to remember and apply to ship selection.

[[ISC]Phaser]

i dissagree,that basically is worse then the existing rule imo,concidering that the last 3 cycles we had to fly nothing but cl's cause of the tbpv ranges and they were mostly early to mid era matches..i still prefer my idea on the ppd rule..and no we ISC dont need the ppd's to win as we have proven..i would just like to see more ISC fleets join up i think with the current ppd rule and the one carbomite suggest that they will stop any more ISC fleets from comming in as most think the rule hurts the race..

p.s corbomite this comment you made... (If anyone thinks I am talking out my ass just ask anyone who knows me how well I fly ISC. Those ships make it really easy to look good.)  i think ur talking out of your ass, is there any chance you can meet us for some 3v3's so you can show us just how good those ships make ya look..ISC vs ISC  sound good to you??

[Kroma BaSyl]

I think Corbomite's idea  is the way to go. Looks logical and fair plus, should be easy to remember and apply to ship selection.

4 PPD limit on a 3 ship fleet is easier to remember IMO.

Phaser, if you really got the balls fly him 1v1. My money is on Corb.

And Corb congrats for finally admitting it's the ship (CCZ) not the man. That took a lot of courage. <snicker>

There, I believe I have insulted everyone, my work is done here.

Love,
Kroma

[762_XC]

I like Corb's idea. 4 PPD's in a DN based fleet is fine, but in a CL fleet is too much.

Get off the PPD crutch and learn how to fly ISC.

I coudn't agree more. If Gorn can win without any PPD's, ISC fleets sure don't need them on every ship.

[[ISC]Phaser]

I think Corbomite's idea  is the way to go. Looks logical and fair plus, should be easy to remember and apply to ship selection.

4 PPD limit on a 3 ship fleet is easier to remember IMO.

Phaser, if you really got the balls fly him 1v1. My money is on Corb.

And Corb congrats for finally admitting it's the ship (CCZ) not the man. That took a lot of courage. <snicker>

There, I believe I have insulted everyone, my work is done here.

Love,
Kroma

i do have the balls have him look me up ..

[Corbomite]

Phaser I have played you before, back when you were flying with FreddyZ123. We have had at least half a dozen games together, none of which I got my ass handed to me. My side won a few and we lost a few. The fact that we won is notable in itself because you guys always flew as a fleet in those games and matched up all the oddballs together who never flew with each other before. My schedule is tied up until Sunday and I'm not really a fan of grudge matches, but if you insist I can meet you some time then. I don't see how it will solve this PPD issue, but if it will make you feel better...


And Kroma, I never mentioned a CCZ. That's your particular cross to bear not mine. I'll be happy to kick yer scaly tutu wearing hide in any ISC ship. 


Four PPD's can strip the shields off of a CA or lower in no time at all. It is unfair to subjugate opposing fleets of those sizes to have to deal with that much firepower, especially when its going to be backed up by plasma. ISC ships are designed to be better than everyone else's and I think you are just going to have to deal with some limits to be deemed fair and competitive.

[FPF-DieHard]

And Kroma, I never mentioned a CCZ. That's your particular cross to bear not mine. I'll be happy to kick yer scaly tutu wearing hide in any ISC ship. 

I can feel the love on GW4 Teamspeak Already 

[Kroma BaSyl]

I can feel the love on GW4 Teamspeak Already 

Just keep your hands to yourself Mr. I'm not that kind of Gorn.

[KBF-Butcher]

Yo corbomite i think nobody give a dam to ask anyone how good ISC pilot u r.
How much of a good pilot is anyone or his fleet has the chance to prove it in the battlefield and in no way by gloating in any forum.
I respect your opinion about the ppd rule since everyone has his opinion and the right to post it and im sure it ll be considered as it already did.
However statements like "ISC ships are designed to be better than everyone else's and I think you are just going to have to deal with some limits to be deemed fair and competitive" is completely wrong and ofcourse i take it as a joke.
There r obviously many different terms in any league where every single race has its best ships.
The mirak frigates in very low mid bpv the c7  BCF and BCHP at 180-200 the Lyran - FED - GORN  DNH at 260-270 these are only some examples that comes to my mind.No need to remind ya the "broken" hydran g2.
All races have their disadvantages and advantages depending the bpv era and the race of the enemy ship.
So its the team play and the skill of the pilots that fly the ships and not the ships that give u the win.
If there is one race that has just  a little advantage just cause has ships very competitive at most terms this would be feds in both games(EAW and OP).
As for your dam ppd s i ll tell u what ;join GSA this weekend and show us if u r able to fire more than ONCE the 4ppd flying the I-XCA against the Lyran Klig or Fed XCA(u choose)  ill fly and c how good your 2 S torps  will back up your ass  before  your ship will be destroyed.I hope u got my general point on this.

I suggest u back up your statements with actions.ISC will wait for ya in GSA.
respects

(forgive me about my english grammar and vocabulary; im a Greek)

[KHH Jakle]

Whole lot o' chest puffing and no point 

[Corbomite]

First off we won't be flying X2 ships in this league so that is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Second, me beating you (or Phaser) or you beating me won't prove a damn thing. This type of third grade attitude is what kept me out of SL and GZ in the first place. You people's scrotums are wound so tight you've forgotten how to have fun.

Third, ISC ships are designed to be better and that is reflected in their BPV's. They are usually a size class lower for the same cost. Their power curves in Early and Mid Eras is incredible and by the time late rolls around the weapons suite catches up so you have real energy maintenance to do (oh horror!). This also means less hull and shields most times, but that is made up for in maneuverability and good firing arcs.

Fourth, our fleet has pretty much decided to go ISC in this first go around so I am arguing to limit myself because know what four PPD's will do to smaller and mid sized ships and quite frankly that will be boring.

Fifth, if the only thing you guys will respond to is me wiping the floor with you or something then we can set it up. If that is how to earn your respect then so be it, but you will have to earn mine too. I will play you one at a time and you must beat me first in a plasma to plasma ship fight (if you can't handle plasma you don't deserve a PPD). If you win, then we will fight with PPD's. You may name the ship (same for both) and the era that we fly. We can use ships with PPD's as long as both parties promise to turn them off and not use them at all. I get to name the terrain if any. Medium map size.

Almost forgot...

Sixth, if I win we use my rule! 

[KBF-Butcher]

First of all i dont give a dam about the 4th ppd rule , cause i dont think it will actually change anything.
I wrote that i respect your opinion and pointed out that it ll be considered as it already did.
I just disagreed with your statement that ISC ships are designed to be better and stated my arguements.

The x2 ships r not irrelevant at all , i picked them just because the I-XCA has the dam 4 ppd and wanted to show u that u would be able to use them just once  against races as fed klig and lyran .I didnt intend to personally challenge u to a fight on 1v1 so i can proove that i m better pilot from u ,but to show u that (not just in theory)  the plasma cant back up the isc ship  as much as u think and that in most cases  u wont be able to fire your ppd more than once.

If u dont like the x2 ships then feel free to choose the bpv.
All im saying is if u havent found a tactic or u dont have the skill yet to overcome ISC ships that might have  lead u to the conclusion that  "ISC are designed to be better" ,which to my opinion is definetely wrong.

Im glad FPF decided to go ISC cause this way u ll find out better what i mean when u ll get toasted by FSD or by hydran races with 14hornet2.Then u might reconsider your opinion .

As for the plasma vs plasma match    im always open to good challenges and im looking forward to have fun flying against u or against your fleet in 3v3 matches (fun or league).

Im a gsa freak u ll find me most of the time there.

Respects

[Kroma BaSyl]

All im saying is if u havent found a tactic or u dont have the skill yet to overcome ISC ships that might have  lead u to the conclusion that  "ISC are designed to be better" ,which to my opinion is definetely wrong.

Well the source (SFB) and the ship specs disagree with you. As Corb pointed out the BPVs of your ships largely reflect the superiority on a class by class basis. ISC like all races matchup better against some races (Gorn or Rom) than others (Hydran), which is typical. For the most part though they tend to come out ahead when compared to most races given their long and short range punch.

[Mutilator]

This all seems counter productive. Threads like this have driven many players away over the years. Let's keep the threads civil and the ball busting for the battlefields. Perhaps a new thread with a couple of proposals. Get one fleet member to give their fleets stand on the issue and the majority become the rule for at least our initial cycle. It could certainly be looked at for fairness for any cycles that may follow it.

I concur with all that the X2 ships should be left out of the mix. If we go with Corbomite's idea perhaps we will have to adjust high end BPV upward to get more variety in for those races. Speaking as a Lyran that's just a bad idea  but something we could live with for a cycle to see if it would be required.

My personal feeling would be 4 PPD's between three ships. As many have pointed out already the TBPV should help limit the amount of PPDs the ISC could get anyway. As many have stated those ships tend to cost more anyway. Believe me I know the pain of having a hull class below for the same BPV. It's just a cross we Lyrans have to bear.  

[Corbomite]

Hydrans are, by nature, one of the ISC's hardest foes. They also can have a hard time with good Lyrans.

I never said they were unstopable. Just ask Kroma how many times I've told people to learn some tactics. I can stop ISC ships just fine, especially with another ISC ship, but I don't want to debate that. The discussion here is whether the PPD needs to be on a leash and how best to make it fair.


EDIT:

You can get four PPD's for 284 (254 if you can master the DN). Most of the BPV's I saw could accomodate that if you wanted them that bad.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Just ask Kroma how many times I've told people to learn some tactics.

Of course he always seems to be typing that in chat just before blowing up my G-BCH up in his CCZ. 

[Slider]

Guys

I would respectfully suggest you just ignore Phaser & Co. They had their chance to bringit, against SoV and they didnt. Now they come here and show their teeth completely out of disdane and disrespect for the people of this community. Huge Egos on that team, I think they are making up for small Peepees, if you know what i mean.

Respectfully submitted.

*Lights Match, lets it drop*

[KBF-Butcher]

The only one i see here showing disrespect for the people of this community is obvious u Legendary by insulting phaser, ISC and posting to people to go die.All of these in your first 2 posts in the PBA forum.Its obvious this is the only thing u r capable to offer in this new league.
Well i guess in these forums anyone can post what ever he likes! So what would be your 3rd post Legendary???
Let me guess any racial remarks???

[Slider]

na

I just hate jerks that badmouth leagues my friends run like Morph did, or loud mouth panzy pilots like Phaser who hides behind his fleets skirt. Oh wait when I challenged his fleet he got an instant case of amnesia.

Now hes in here doing the same crap....makeing challenges, talking about balls he obviously lacks.

Why are you here challenging people who are nice enough to invite you to have space in their forums...Sorry Butcher Im not sure my comments are intended at you as a player...however your "leader" needs to check his ego at the door.

[KHH Jakle]

The discussion here is whether the PPD needs to be on a leash and how best to make it fair.

The PPD's will have a leash - The Rule is already there.  You all just need to determine what exactly it is.  PBR v 1.03 (which also includes a change to Fast Cruisers) is simply waiting for this to be defined.

Mut - you might want to consider taking what is useful from this thread (I think there are 3 different concepts - Jakle's original, Phaser's and Corbo's) and making a new one.  If you don't do it, I will at some point...but I'd rather somebody else do it.

Let everybody bitch and rant about it in here - but simply post their preference in the new thread.

Vote early and often

[Toast]

I dont know were or who or how the pissin match started but it outta stop, to many post to scroll threw, i think us gz refugees need to tone it down were guest here on this site and some of the post i have skimmed threw dont look good, we may turn away some d.net players who may wanna try this pbr stuff out with us, and they should feel welcome to walk in not feel like there walking into ww3, not that i didn't almost choke on my beer laughing at sliders pee pee comment (u still call it Ur pee pee man???) LMFAO..............ANYWAYS CHEERS!!!!!!!

[2Hot2Handle]

Dude have you meet Legendary ??????

It is just a pee pee u know as in wee wee pee pee.

Green is also known for premature droneing !!!!!!!!

Payne still has plasma dreams .....

Ronin on the other hand is rather old and his plasma launcher just doesnt work like it used to.

 

Oh as so no one misunderstands all the players mentioned here are my fleet mates and friends and this is strictly a joke. This in no way is meant to slander bash or demean any or all involved or who are reading this post.

Thank you for your understanding in this matter. =SoV= Legal Team " Here to keep you safe in the shadows"

[FPF-DieHard]

Bump.  After flying ISC for 1/2 a cycle, I believe this can be revisited.

[GDA-Kel]

Bump.  After flying ISC for 1/2 a cycle, I believe this can be revisited.

So you believe the current rule is not balanced?  What other option do you propose in leu of the current 4 PPD max per squadron rule? 

On another note, I hope this is not at all related to your (FPF) handing us (GDA) our lunch in our last match.  In the two games you won, you flew flawlessly and we did not.  From a competitive standpoint, those two games were the Marianas Turkey Shoot all over again.  However, it had as much to do with how both teams flew as what ships were flown IMHO. 

Of course, I do not know how competitive your other matches have been.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

LOL... look at the only undefeated teams.

Our only losses have been to ISC fleets.

SOV won only 1 out of 5 battles at equal BPV. 

And we got lucky on that one.

Another thing that needs to be addressed is the exploitation of a bug.

You have fighters closing in?  No problem, just drop an admin shuttle.  Guess what the fighters go after now?

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

I just learned something new! Bug or tactic though?

[Kroma BaSyl]

I just learned something new! Bug or tactic though?

Tactic. It ain't a bug, just the target priortity.

[FPF-DieHard]

Bump.  After flying ISC for 1/2 a cycle, I believe this can be revisited.

So you believe the current rule is not balanced?  What other option do you propose in leu of the current 4 PPD max per squadron rule? 

On another note, I hope this is not at all related to your (FPF) handing us (GDA) our lunch in our last match.  In the two games you won, you flew flawlessly and we did not.  From a competitive standpoint, those two games were the Marianas Turkey Shoot all over again.  However, it had as much to do with how both teams flew as what ships were flown IMHO. 

Of course, I do not know how competitive your other matches have been.

One PPD ship per 3, last cycle had it right.  The ISC plasma ships are great so anyone bitching about getting nerfed is full of sh*t.  This is escpecially true with many of the new editions in OP+ 4, have you seen the War Cruiser and the CATZ yet?

I flew the CLY in the second battle and I think I scored the most damage on you guys by being a real sneaky bastard with my S-torps. 

645 to 2 internals in the 750 advaced match.  I'm sorry, we're not THAT good 

[FPF-DieHard]

I just learned something new! Bug or tactic though?

Tactic. It ain't a bug, just the target priortity.

Consider it a tactic.  A cheap tactic, but still a tactic.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I just learned something new! Bug or tactic though?

Tactic. It ain't a bug, just the target priortity.

Consider it a tactic.  A cheap tactic, but still a tactic.

Yes a tacky tactic, kind of like any tactic that involves launching of fighters. <snicker>

[FPF-Bach]

I just learned something new! Bug or tactic though?

Tactic. It ain't a bug, just the target priortity.

Consider it a tactic.  A cheap tactic, but still a tactic.

Kinda like tractoring somebody and pushing them off the map, a legal tactic.

[FPF-Bach]

LOL... look at the only undefeated teams.

Our only losses have been to ISC fleets.

SOV won only 1 out of 5 battles at equal BPV. 

And we got lucky on that one.

Another thing that needs to be addressed is the exploitation of a bug.

You have fighters closing in?  No problem, just drop an admin shuttle.  Guess what the fighters go after now?

As far as our matches I wouldn't consider PPD a deciding factor at all as you can't shoot PPD to the rear and we were being chased for the most part.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

And we were eating plasma the entire match.

If we stayed our distance, we would have been PPD'd to death.

Pick our poison, eh?

As for the shuttle bug.  It is a common cheesy tactic that we have run into.

Fighters are hard enough to control without having them waste their heavy weapons shot on a  shuttle instead of the enemy ship. 

[FPF-DieHard]

As far as our matches I wouldn't consider PPD a deciding factor at all as you can't shoot PPD to the rear and we were being chased for the most part.

That's my point.  ISC plasma ships kick-ass.  Every battle we won with more than one PPD ship we still would have one.  The fights we lost had more than one PPD ship.

[762_XC]

Bug exploits are considered tactics now?

Funny, we used to call that cheating.

Kinda like running the border to avoid fighters?

[762_XC]

I just learned something new! Bug or tactic though?

Tactic. It ain't a bug, just the target priortity.

Do you really think Taldren intended to have fighters unload a full salvo of heavy weapons on a single admin? 

[Kroma BaSyl]

Bug exploits are considered tactics now?

If it were a bug, which it ain't.

Funny, we used to call that cheating.

Kinda like running the border to avoid fighters?

Kinda, but not quite.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Jeez, you're good at yank t00l's chain.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I just learned something new! Bug or tactic though?

Tactic. It ain't a bug, just the target priortity.

Do you really think Taldren intended to have fighters unload a full salvo of heavy weapons on a single admin? 

The AI does all sorts of stupid stuff, so I don't like having to have rules for every occurance. I find it hard to craft a rule that doesn't limit valid uses of admin shuttles and SSs for those of us that need those in our bag for dealing with other unexpected game interactions, like lack of plasma bolts. However, I do agree that it is a cheesy tactic, and won't do it intentionally for the sole purpose of distracting fighter AI (GSA play it is still fair game).

[Kroma BaSyl]

Jeez, you're good at yank t00l's chain.

Me and DH were using that "tactic" against you 2 when we were doing that SG4 testing. We were so hoping to get t00l to blow. <snicker>

[762_XC]

The AI does indeed do all kinds of stupid stuff, but this is beyond stupid.

It should be completely obvious that it IS a bug. We all know that in the second to last patch for OP, Taldren coded fighters to shoot heavy weapons at each other. Obviously the way the code works an admin shuttle is treated as a fighter, even though it is almost completely harmless. This was an unintended side-effect of the fighter-vs-fighter patch. Stop being deliberately obtuse, you fighter-hater.

To you this may seem like a minor "feature" (since you don't want to call it a bug, which it clearly is) but it actuality it is an easy cheat to get fighters off your ass when you really need it. Needless to say some races are more badly affected by this than others; one race in particular which depends on fighters.

P.S. I'm glad that YOU feel that it is cheesy enough that YOU will not do it, but I know of at least one PBR fleet who will actually buy more admins just for purposes of exploiting this bug.

[Mutilator]

Geebus then what about when an enemy castles and launches every admin shuttle it has to take up damage from an ESG hit. I would perfer my ESG take a bite of the mothership then be wasted on four admin shuttles or are you ready for this... mines...Oh my I got to stop or I am going to make myself weepy 


Muhahaha 

[Kroma BaSyl]

The AI does indeed do all kinds of stupid stuff, but this is beyond stupid.

It should be completely obvious that it IS a bug. We all know that in the second to last patch for OP, Taldren coded fighters to shoot heavy weapons at each other. Obviously the way the code works an admin shuttle is treated as a fighter, even though it is almost completely harmless. This was an unintended side-effect of the fighter-vs-fighter patch. Stop being deliberately obtuse, you fighter-hater.

To you this may seem like a minor "feature" (since you don't want to call it a bug, which it clearly is) but it actuality it is an easy cheat to get fighters off your ass when you really need it. Needless to say some races are more badly affected by this than others; one race in particular which depends on fighters.

P.S. I'm glad that YOU feel that it is cheesy enough that YOU will not do it, but I know of at least one PBR fleet who will actually buy more admins just for purposes of exploiting this bug.

Sorry 762, but when the AI was to stupid to allow plasma PFs to fire their F torps at fighters I don't recall you calling for a rule against launching fighters in response to PFs.  I just don't think a rule should be created to address this AI behavior. Where do you draw the line? Can I dump a single throw away INT to distract them? Can I launch a shuttle swarm? Can I launch a SS at a fighter group or chasing carrier? No, I don't like restricting shuttle launches.

You could however develop and prepare counter tactics.  Just a thought.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Geebus then what about when an enemy castles and launches every admin shuttle it has to take up damage from an ESG hit. I would perfer my ESG take a bite of the mothership then be wasted on four admin shuttles or are you ready for this... mines...Oh my I got to stop or I am going to make myself weepy 


Muhahaha 

LOL, I always do that. That one was standard SFB too. I like to tractor the admin shuttle out front if necessary. <snicker>

[762_XC]

The AI does indeed do all kinds of stupid stuff, but this is beyond stupid.

It should be completely obvious that it IS a bug. We all know that in the second to last patch for OP, Taldren coded fighters to shoot heavy weapons at each other. Obviously the way the code works an admin shuttle is treated as a fighter, even though it is almost completely harmless. This was an unintended side-effect of the fighter-vs-fighter patch. Stop being deliberately obtuse, you fighter-hater.

To you this may seem like a minor "feature" (since you don't want to call it a bug, which it clearly is) but it actuality it is an easy cheat to get fighters off your ass when you really need it. Needless to say some races are more badly affected by this than others; one race in particular which depends on fighters.

P.S. I'm glad that YOU feel that it is cheesy enough that YOU will not do it, but I know of at least one PBR fleet who will actually buy more admins just for purposes of exploiting this bug.

Sorry 762, but when the AI was to stupid to allow plasma PFs to fire their F torps at fighters I don't recall you calling for a rule against launching fighters in response to PFs.  I just don't think a rule should be created to address this AI behavior. Where do you draw the line? Can I dump a single throw away INT to distract them? Can I launch a shuttle swarm? Can I launch a SS at a fighter group or chasing carrier? No, I don't like restricting shuttle launches.

You could however develop and prepare counter tactics.  Just a thought.

That makes no sense. PF's launching F-torps at fighters seems pretty smart to me. It's certainly not wasted firepower like it is with an admin.

Pssst...Kroma...you WANT to key on the fighters. Trust me on this.

Counter tactics...hmmm....fly only Tartars I guess. 

[Kroma BaSyl]

That makes no sense. PF's launching F-torps at fighters seems pretty smart to me. It's certainly not wasted firepower like it is with an admin.

Pssst...Kroma...you WANT to key on the fighters. Trust me on this.

Counter tactics...hmmm....fly only Tartars I guess. 

No silly, when they wouldn't fire their torps at them and would hang around getting raped by the fighters while the carrier went ignored. It was bad AI behavoir with the previous patch and you didn't have a problem with it, since it favored you. That would have been to hard to litigate as is this.

Make sure you fly in F11 and be ready with the phasers to target shuttle when your fighters are inbound. Tactics. It does require you to hit more than the launch fighter key though.

[762_XC]

That makes no sense. PF's launching F-torps at fighters seems pretty smart to me. It's certainly not wasted firepower like it is with an admin.

Pssst...Kroma...you WANT to key on the fighters. Trust me on this.

Counter tactics...hmmm....fly only Tartars I guess. 

No silly, when they wouldn't fire their torps at them and would hang around getting raped by the fighters while the carrier went ignored. It was bad AI behavoir with the previous patch and you didn't have a problem with it, since it favored you. That would have been to hard to litigate as is this.

Make sure you fly in F11 and be ready with the phasers to target shuttle when your fighters are inbound. Tactics. It does require you to hit more than the launch fighter key though.

So that's what you came up with for "tactics"?

Now I know you're just arguing for argument's sake. Admit you're wrong already, fighter hater.

[Kroma BaSyl]

So that's what you came up with for "tactics"?

Yeah sorry, I know how tough it is to  actually fly your own ship, I should have thought of something within your reach.

Now I know you're just arguing for argument's sake. Admit you're wrong already, fighter hater.

No I am a PPD hater, and that is what this thread is really about, hating the PPD. Now back on topic.

[762_XC]

Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.

[deadmansix]

I just learned something new! Bug or tactic though?

Tactic. It ain't a bug, just the target priortity.

thats just it ADMIN shuttles should not be a target priorty it should be the target you set.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I just learned something new! Bug or tactic though?

Tactic. It ain't a bug, just the target priortity.

thats just it ADMIN shuttles should not be a target priorty it should be the target you set.

I agree, but that is no different than the fact that the fighters/PFs target other fighters/PF as a priority over their set target as well. Thus I don't think a rule ought to be created for this particular target priority un-intended consequence anymore than any other.

[Mutilator]

thats just it ADMIN shuttles should not be a target priority it should be the target you set.

Perhaps fighter pilots are actually smarter then they are given credit for. I recall reading in my manual somewhere that it said nothing good can ever come out of a shuttle launched by an enemy kill it. Perhaps the pilots read this too. If a drone using race dropped one peoples natural instinct is to scream out a warning of scatter pack and try to kill it; and nothing is sweeter then over running with ESG's at range zero and dropping two fat SS on a hull, then again if I get them out at range zero not much hope for fighters shooting them down muhahahah

[FPF-Bach]

The problem I see here is that the fighters most likely don't know the differance between a scatter pack, a suicide or an admin shuttle.  So your can't make it differentiate betweem them...therefore the shuttles either go after all fighter and shuttle sized targets or disregard them completely.  I'd just assume have the scatter packs shot down for me...

[Kroma BaSyl]

The problem I see here is that the fighters most likely don't know the differance between a scatter pack, a suicide or an admin shuttle.  So your can't make it differentiate betweem them...therefore the shuttles either go after all fighter and shuttle sized targets or disregard them completely.  I'd just assume have the scatter packs shot down for me...

Actually, that isn't really even the problem. It probably should target all shuttles equally, and as a priority for targeting. What is a problem is that the dumb AI will waste the full alpha strike from a fighter group on a target that only requires a single phaser or 2 to kill. If the fighter AI could be patched to only fire enough weapons to kill it's new target (the shuttle) it would be cool IMO. The fighter AI should basically treat a shuttle like it was a drone, which is to say a PD target. This also goes for the way the AI fires on fighter groups, since an alpha from another fighter or PF is also largely wasted against a fighter group since a single volley can only ever kill a single fighter in the group. Thus the AI sould also be patched to Miazi (sp?) fighter groups.

[762_XC]

I just learned something new! Bug or tactic though?

Tactic. It ain't a bug, just the target priortity.

thats just it ADMIN shuttles should not be a target priorty it should be the target you set.

I agree, but that is no different than the fact that the fighters/PFs target other fighters/PF as a priority over their set target as well. Thus I don't think a rule ought to be created for this particular target priority un-intended consequence anymore than any other.

There are three huge reasons it's different:

1) Admin shuttles are harmless and should be ignored
2) Admin shuttles cost 1 BPV
3) At least one fleet is already exploiting this bug to nullify a major part of Hydrans' firepower

This HAS to be addressed.

[FPF-Bach]

I just learned something new! Bug or tactic though?

Tactic. It ain't a bug, just the target priortity.

thats just it ADMIN shuttles should not be a target priorty it should be the target you set.

I agree, but that is no different than the fact that the fighters/PFs target other fighters/PF as a priority over their set target as well. Thus I don't think a rule ought to be created for this particular target priority un-intended consequence anymore than any other.

There are three huge reasons it's different:

1) Admin shuttles are harmless and should be ignored
2) Admin shuttles cost 1 BPV
3) At least one fleet is already exploiting this bug to nullify a major part of Hydrans' firepower

This HAS to be addressed.

Yes, but the real question is, out there in space is there a map edge you can actually be pushed off?  Didn't think so, this bug should be fixed as well.

[FPF-DieHard]

Question:   is there ANY reason to EVER launch an admin shuttle in combat for any reason OTHER that to distract AI?

[Green]

Yes, but the real question is, out there in space is there a map edge you can actually be pushed off?  Didn't think so, this bug should be fixed as well.

Shuttles are fighters (crappy fighters I admit) but I doubt the code can be changed to adjust fire on them w/o also adjusting fire on all fighters.  As for me, I'd like to keep a nice alpha going on a Caveat III squadron, so I really wouldn't want to see a change in the code (if ever possible).  Shuttles are a tactic that need to be overcome by a different tactic.  Not necessarily a rule change.

As for being dragged off of a map and thrown out of the game <cough> Bach <cough> ... there already is a tactic.  Its called "repel" <snicker>

[762_XC]

Question:   is there ANY reason to EVER launch an admin shuttle in combat for any reason OTHER that to distract AI?

Only one, which I have seen used maybe a half dozen times in my entire SFC career: to soak up ESG.

[762_XC]

I just learned something new! Bug or tactic though?

Tactic. It ain't a bug, just the target priortity.

thats just it ADMIN shuttles should not be a target priorty it should be the target you set.

I agree, but that is no different than the fact that the fighters/PFs target other fighters/PF as a priority over their set target as well. Thus I don't think a rule ought to be created for this particular target priority un-intended consequence anymore than any other.

There are three huge reasons it's different:

1) Admin shuttles are harmless and should be ignored
2) Admin shuttles cost 1 BPV
3) At least one fleet is already exploiting this bug to nullify a major part of Hydrans' firepower

This HAS to be addressed.

Yes, but the real question is, out there in space is there a map edge you can actually be pushed off?  Didn't think so, this bug should be fixed as well.

So propose a rule to make it illegal for next cycle.

You might want to do it in a new thread though, so it gets the discussion it deserves.

[Nomad]

Question:   is there ANY reason to EVER launch an admin shuttle in combat for any reason OTHER that to distract AI?

Yes, you can use it to draw out Plasma I. (If you set plasma I to defensive)


Yes it sucks that the fighters shoot at the admin shuttle. But putting a rule againt it is making this league too complicated. Just live with it.

[762_XC]

Question:   is there ANY reason to EVER launch an admin shuttle in combat for any reason OTHER that to distract AI?

Yes, you can use it to draw out Plasma I. (If you set plasma I to defensive)

Also a bug exploit, and should be banned every bit as much.

Yes it sucks that the fighters shoot at the admin shuttle. But putting a rule againt it is making this league too complicated.

No it isn't.

Just live with it.

No.

[Hexx]

Actually I've used admin shuttles to soak up enemy fire as the player doesn't know if it's a SS
or not, so he shoots it or (if I'm really lucky) veers off a bit and stops shooting up my ship.
I've also dropped a regular admin shuttle out first so it gets shot and lets a SS get through.

[FPF-Bach]

Yes, but the real question is, out there in space is there a map edge you can actually be pushed off?  Didn't think so, this bug should be fixed as well.

Shuttles are fighters (crappy fighters I admit) but I doubt the code can be changed to adjust fire on them w/o also adjusting fire on all fighters.  As for me, I'd like to keep a nice alpha going on a Caveat III squadron, so I really wouldn't want to see a change in the code (if ever possible).  Shuttles are a tactic that need to be overcome by a different tactic.  Not necessarily a rule change.

As for being dragged off of a map and thrown out of the game <cough> Bach <cough> ... there already is a tactic.  Its called "repel" <snicker>

Bastard 

[Dfly]

Question:   is there ANY reason to EVER launch an admin shuttle in combat for any reason OTHER that to distract AI?

Yes, you can use it to draw out Plasma I. (If you set plasma I to defensive)

Also a bug exploit, and should be banned every bit as much.

Yes it sucks that the fighters shoot at the admin shuttle. But putting a rule againt it is making this league too complicated.

No it isn't.

I agree in part that yes it seems like a waste of firepower for a fighter group to take out a shuttle, but in no way do I beleive it is  a BUG.  A bug in a game implies that there is a part of the game that works not just to some advantage(or else PPD would be elliminated as an example) but it works contrary to the actual setup and rules of the actual game.  There is no rule that says you cant use too many weapons to kill something(such as alphastriking your opponent with no hull and 4 power left), so no actual rule broken.  To ban what you suggest is like saying we should be banning perhaps sp shuttles, as they are dangerous if they get to break before being destroyed.

TSC uses admin shuttles and has seen them used against us in many occasions.  We have had them launched vs us when we are in hot persuit.  The enemy hopes we waste phasers on them, thus using up our phasers and power while saving his butt.  He also hopes that we may think it an SS and try to sidestep it if we dont shoot.  By the same token, fleets would drop and admin in hopes of it tying up a fighter group if only for a few seconds.  I know we would if we had to just to give us a bit of time to finish loading weapons or whatever was needed.  We have used admins to help take off some of the sting of the ESG overrun, and while having the admin out there long enough ahead of time, we actually get a few phaser3 shots at the incoming ship to boot.  Dont forget they actually can be WW and a WW can stop an alpha strike of plasmas.  Talk about overkill, and 3 turns to reload the plasmas too. So the thought of banning shuttle use because they draw firepower well, seems like cutting off your arm because you have a sliver in your finger, just a tad overkill. 

Just live with it.

No.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Question:   is there ANY reason to EVER launch an admin shuttle in combat for any reason OTHER that to distract AI?

Only one, which I have seen used maybe a half dozen times in my entire SFC career: to soak up ESG.

#2 for point defense against drones.
#3 to cause a chasing opponet to break chase for fear it is a SS.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Shuttles are fighters (crappy fighters I admit) but I doubt the code can be changed to adjust fire on them w/o also adjusting fire on all fighters.  As for me, I'd like to keep a nice alpha going on a Caveat III squadron, so I really wouldn't want to see a change in the code (if ever possible). 

You are correct that they are simply treated as fighters, and that any "quick" code change would end up effecting the AIs reaction to both the shuttles and fighters. However, I would prefer that the AI not unload an alpha at a fighter group anymore than at a shuttle. If the AI could be changed to only fire the appropriate amount of weapons at the fighter that would be better. Fighter groups require volleys to kill as alpha strikes only ever kill a single fighter in the group regardless of the total damage they do.

[Nomad]

Question:   is there ANY reason to EVER launch an admin shuttle in combat for any reason OTHER that to distract AI?

Yes, you can use it to draw out Plasma I. (If you set plasma I to defensive)

Also a bug exploit, and should be banned every bit as much.

Yes it sucks that the fighters shoot at the admin shuttle. But putting a rule againt it is making this league too complicated.

No it isn't.

Just live with it.

No.

Admin shuttle is considered a fighter.
Defensive plasma I fires automatically at fighters.

If you don't want the plasma I to fire don't set it as defensive.

I don't see the bug here.
The system is working exactly as documented.

[FPF-Bach]

Fighter groups require volleys to kill as alpha strikes only ever kill a single fighter in the group regardless of the total damage they do.

I thought this was fixed in a patch and that damage now rolls over to each fighter in line...?

Can somebody verify this..

[KBF-Butcher]

I dont think it worths a reply at this "bug exploit" ,and i find all these a waste of time.
I think its time to draw a line here and agree to let the league as it is.No more rules change and new regulations that will make the league more complicated than it already is.
This tactic was always legal in gsa cause is just a tactic like many other similar shuttle tactics.
And most of all none ever claimed this tactic cheese.

U guys r able to bring(using PBR), in mid for example, ship combos with amazing firepower :
2 DG+:4hellbores 2phaserg 2phaser1 4phaser2 and 43power!!!,each
+ 1 LGE+(dread):3hell 2fussion 7phaser1
+ 14hornet2!!!  
And when u loose u come and claim the shuttle tactic cheese??? then i feel like i already missed GT...

[Kroma BaSyl]

Fighter groups require volleys to kill as alpha strikes only ever kill a single fighter in the group regardless of the total damage they do.

I thought this was fixed in a patch and that damage now rolls over to each fighter in line...?

Can somebody verify this..

I will test it out tonight to verify.

[KHH Jakle]

Bump.  After flying ISC for 1/2 a cycle, I believe this can be revisited.

So you believe the current rule is not balanced?  What other option do you propose in leu of the current 4 PPD max per squadron rule? 

On another note, I hope this is not at all related to your (FPF) handing us (GDA) our lunch in our last match.  In the two games you won, you flew flawlessly and we did not.  From a competitive standpoint, those two games were the Marianas Turkey Shoot all over again.  However, it had as much to do with how both teams flew as what ships were flown IMHO. 

Of course, I do not know how competitive your other matches have been.

One PPD ship per 3, last cycle had it right.  The ISC plasma ships are great so anyone bitching about getting nerfed is full of sh*t.  This is escpecially true with many of the new editions in OP+ 4, have you seen the War Cruiser and the CATZ yet?

I flew the CLY in the second battle and I think I scored the most damage on you guys by being a real sneaky bastard with my S-torps. 

645 to 2 internals in the 750 advaced match.  I'm sorry, we're not THAT good 

You guys need to get back to the topic an make a whole new thread about shuttle use issues.

DH's was the first to bring up revisiting this, and the last to post an opinion on it (above)

[FPF-DieHard]

U guys r able to bring(using PBR), in mid for example, ship combos with amazing firepower :
2 DG+:4hellbores 2phaserg 2phaser1 4phaser2 and 43power!!!,each
+ 1 LGE+(dread):3hell 2fussion 7phaser1
+ 14hornet2!!!  
And when u loose u come and claim the shuttle tactic cheese??? then i feel like i already missed GT...

They had an ID and 2 MKE for 28 hornets against us 

And yes, I used the shuttle "tactic"   

[Kroma BaSyl]

And yes, I used the shuttle "tactic"   

We already knew you were a cheeser froggy.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Admin shuttle is considered a fighter.
Defensive plasma I fires automatically at fighters.

If you don't want the plasma I to fire don't set it as defensive.

I don't see the bug here.
The system is working exactly as documented.

The discussion is not about I torps.

But about using a flaw in the AI logic as a way to escape fighters.

IE explioting a known bug.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Admin shuttle is considered a fighter.
Defensive plasma I fires automatically at fighters.

If you don't want the plasma I to fire don't set it as defensive.

I don't see the bug here.
The system is working exactly as documented.

The discussion is not about I torps.

But about using a flaw in the AI logic as a way to escape fighters.

IE explioting a known bug.

Problem is, one man's "known bug" is another man's "known AI interaction".

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

I dont think it worths a reply at this "bug exploit" ,and i find all these a waste of time.
I think its time to draw a line here and agree to let the league as it is.No more rules change and new regulations that will make the league more complicated than it already is.
This tactic was always legal in gsa cause is just a tactic like many other similar shuttle tactics.
And most of all none ever claimed this tactic cheese.

U guys r able to bring(using PBR), in mid for example, ship combos with amazing firepower :
2 DG+:4hellbores 2phaserg 2phaser1 4phaser2 and 43power!!!,each
+ 1 LGE+(dread):3hell 2fussion 7phaser1
+ 14hornet2!!! 
And when u loose u come and claim the shuttle tactic cheese??? then i feel like i already missed GT...

Oh, I see, now that your cheese is best, Mr PPD, you don't want a rule change?

PPD rule needs to go back to 1 ship with PPD. Period.

As for your lame attempt at exposing our 'awesome firepower'... consider what you would counter with at that BPV....

CCZ, CAZ, CAZ

4 PPD, 6 PlasS, 18 PlasI, 24 Ph1, 18 ph3.

And the power to run at 31 all day tossing those S torps over your shoulder. 

So the Hornets are NEVER gonna get in firing range b/c their max spd is 27. 

Anyways, I need a laugh, so tell me.  What Hydran LIGHT dread is gonna take on a CCZ without fighters?

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Admin shuttle is considered a fighter.
Defensive plasma I fires automatically at fighters.

If you don't want the plasma I to fire don't set it as defensive.

I don't see the bug here.
The system is working exactly as documented.

The discussion is not about I torps.

But about using a flaw in the AI logic as a way to escape fighters.

IE explioting a known bug.

Problem is, one man's "known bug" is another man's "known AI interaction".

Yeah, right... so we are back to exploiting bugs, eh?

[FPF-DieHard]

Don't fall for it Bear!!! 

[Kroma BaSyl]

Admin shuttle is considered a fighter.
Defensive plasma I fires automatically at fighters.

If you don't want the plasma I to fire don't set it as defensive.

I don't see the bug here.
The system is working exactly as documented.

The discussion is not about I torps.

But about using a flaw in the AI logic as a way to escape fighters.

IE explioting a known bug.

Problem is, one man's "known bug" is another man's "known AI interaction".

Yeah, right... so we are back to exploiting bugs, eh?

It ain't a bug. That's the point.

Kroma,

PS, STFU DH, I almost got him going, a couple more post and I bet 762 has a stroke too.

[FPF-DieHard]

PS, STFU DH, I almost got him going, a couple more post and I bet 762 has a stroke too.

Nah, He'll stroke when he sees how many CCY the ISC can build on Slave girls 

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

PS, STFU DH, I almost got him going, a couple more post and I bet 762 has a stroke too.

Like i was gonna 'get going' over a cross dressing lizard like you!!!

[762_XC]

You don't need to bait me any more Kroma. There isn't much point in trying to convince those who haven't figured out how to deal with fighters using legitimate tactics, who will of course fight tooth and nail for their ability to continue to exploit this bug. I doubt anyone who doesn't fly Hydran will cry, because fighters are scary and probably in many people's minds deserve to be nerfed. Never mind that Hydrans are not a viable race without them.

The fact that this even needs to be discussed is pure bullcrap. Rest assured if this were a bug which affected photons or (god forbid!) PPD we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

And Butcher: 

[FPF-DieHard]

Give me large maps and I'll gladly endorse this 

[Kroma BaSyl]

Give me large maps and I'll gladly endorse this 

Give me small and I'll do the same.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I do have a serious question though. Do you consider launching a SS at a fighter group to be an exploit too?

[762_XC]

I do have a serious question though. Do you consider launching a SS at a fighter group to be an exploit too?

Yes, but one I can live with. At least then it costs you a mine to make your Super Duper Fighter Decoy.

[FPF-DieHard]

I do have a serious question though. Do you consider launching a SS at a fighter group to be an exploit too?

Nope, the BPV of it costing a mine is worth it.

[Dfly]

I do have a serious question though. Do you consider launching a SS at a fighter group to be an exploit too?

Yes, but one I can live with. At least then it costs you a mine to make your Super Duper Fighter Decoy.

So you mean to say as long as it costs someone at least one mine, you dont mind us using your so called bug exploit?

[762_XC]

I can live with it because asking for a rule to ban suicide shuttles would be unfair. Since admins have almost no tactical use other than as Super Duper Fighter Decoys, they are a different story.

[KBF-Butcher]

I dont think it worths a reply at this "bug exploit" ,and i find all these a waste of time.
I think its time to draw a line here and agree to let the league as it is.No more rules change and new regulations that will make the league more complicated than it already is.
This tactic was always legal in gsa cause is just a tactic like many other similar shuttle tactics.
And most of all none ever claimed this tactic cheese.

U guys r able to bring(using PBR), in mid for example, ship combos with amazing firepower :
2 DG+:4hellbores 2phaserg 2phaser1 4phaser2 and 43power!!!,each
+ 1 LGE+(dread):3hell 2fussion 7phaser1
+ 14hornet2!!!
And when u loose u come and claim the shuttle tactic cheese??? then i feel like i already missed GT...

Oh, I see, now that your cheese is best, Mr PPD, you don't want a rule change?

PPD rule needs to go back to 1 ship with PPD. Period.

As for your lame attempt at exposing our 'awesome firepower'... consider what you would counter with at that BPV....

CCZ, CAZ, CAZ

4 PPD, 6 PlasS, 18 PlasI, 24 Ph1, 18 ph3.

And the power to run at 31 all day tossing those S torps over your shoulder.

So the Hornets are NEVER gonna get in firing range b/c their max spd is 27.

Anyways, I need a laugh, so tell me. What Hydran LIGHT dread is gonna take on a CCZ without fighters?

ok,what happened here ,lol.
The ship combo u describe above CCZ, CAZ, CAZ  (4 PPD, 6 PlasS, 18 PlasI, 24 Ph1, 18 ph3) are late era ships and not mid.  
The hydran ship combo though  i took for example is in mid era.(for late era cheese hydran ship combo please check Diehard post lol)
I guess it looked too good (or too cheese) for mid  ah??  
As for the ship combo with CCZ CAZ CAZ(which isnot the appropriate) in late era u can bring more than 20hornet 3 !!! and they can run 31

Its funny u said u need a laugh but on the contrary i  


Finally u claimed i dont want a rule changed.But there isnt any legal tactics rules so they can be changed to illegal in these league.
This shuttle tactic issue  is something the majority of the fleets votes , that r gonna participate in next cycle , will decide.
And its exactly what happened with the PPD rule change for the current cycle.
This way is what all fleets agreed to handle rules changes.

[Kroma BaSyl]

And its exactly what happened with the PPD rule change for the current cycle.
This way is what all fleets agreed to handle rules changes.

Exactly, and that is the real point of this thread. Voting on the PPD issue for next cycle, now that the current rule has been shown inadequet.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

ok,what happened here ,lol.
The ship combo u describe above CCZ, CAZ, CAZ  (4 PPD, 6 PlasS, 18 PlasI, 24 Ph1, 18 ph3) are late era ships and not mid. 
The hydran ship combo though  i took for example is in mid era.(for late era cheese hydran ship combo please check Diehard post lol)
I guess it looked too good (or too cheese) for mid  ah?? 
As for the ship combo with CCZ CAZ CAZ(which isnot the appropriate) in late era u can bring more than 20hornet 3 !!! and they can run 31

Its funny u said u need a laugh but on the contrary i 


Finally u claimed i dont want a rule changed.But there isnt any legal tactics rules so they can be changed to illegal in these league.
This shuttle tactic issue  is something the majority of the fleets votes , that r gonna participate in next cycle , will decide.
And its exactly what happened with the PPD rule change for the current cycle.
This way is what all fleets agreed to handle rules changes.

OH, NO!!!.... Mid era...

so you just use CCY, CAY, CAY....still running around at 31...  just no PlasI. Oh, the suffering you must go thru....

And Hornets NEVER get to reach spd 31.  27 is max spd for HII's & HIII's.  Look at the shiplist some time.

And not that it would matter to you... but about 1/3 of our fire power is in our ships.  And you want to negate using bugs?

Thanks, remind me to return the favor some time.

I just hope you don't threaten to leave when the PPD rule is changed.

I will be waiting with my violin to coddle your whine.

[Kroma BaSyl]

ok,what happened here ,lol.
The ship combo u describe above CCZ, CAZ, CAZ  (4 PPD, 6 PlasS, 18 PlasI, 24 Ph1, 18 ph3) are late era ships and not mid. 
The hydran ship combo though  i took for example is in mid era.(for late era cheese hydran ship combo please check Diehard post lol)
I guess it looked too good (or too cheese) for mid  ah?? 
As for the ship combo with CCZ CAZ CAZ(which isnot the appropriate) in late era u can bring more than 20hornet 3 !!! and they can run 31

Its funny u said u need a laugh but on the contrary i 


Finally u claimed i dont want a rule changed.But there isnt any legal tactics rules so they can be changed to illegal in these league.
This shuttle tactic issue  is something the majority of the fleets votes , that r gonna participate in next cycle , will decide.
And its exactly what happened with the PPD rule change for the current cycle.
This way is what all fleets agreed to handle rules changes.

OH, NO!!!.... Mid era...

so you just use CCY, CAY, CAY....still running around at 31...  just no PlasI. Oh, the suffering you must go thru....

And Hornets NEVER get to reach spd 31.  27 is max spd for HII's & HIII's.  Look at the shiplist some time.

And not that it would matter to you... but about 1/3 of our fire power is in our ships.  And you want to negate using bugs?

Thanks, remind me to return the favor some time.

I just hope you don't threaten to leave when the PPD rule is changed.

I will be waiting with my violin to coddle your whine.

Now that's the spirite. I love you guys.

[[ISC]Phaser]

I just hope you don't threaten to leave when the PPD rule is changed.

I will be waiting with my violin to coddle your whine.

Bear just so ya know, we ISC have won the GZ championship  with the old rule in place and yes we bitched about it and we tossed around the idea about leaving the league,but it was "ronin" that changed my mind about it as he put it to me in a post "what would be better then to show u can still whoop ass with the change" so we adapted and over came.If the PPD rule goes back to what it was then so be it thats why we have votes!!! As far as the admin shuttle thing that yall been arguing about i remember way back in the  mplayer days that most players used the same admin tactic in sfc2, in fact it was taught to me when i joined a fleet for the first time as the best way to distract fighters..A few cycles ago when PBR was born ,we all agreed that all taboo tactics for example .."hitting and running sensors" were now legal  and there were a few more taboo tactics listed ...i dont recall the use of admin shuttles to distract fighters as a taboo tactic.. mabe its just because u and the other guy who are calling it a bug are just used to flying on the d2 and that tactic didn't get used or it never occured to ya to try it, as for me and many others we have all see it before.I do think the more rules we add the more undesirable this league will become, trick here is to keep it simple...

[KBF-Butcher]

U r right Hornets3 cant go speed 31 but yellow jackets3 can ,and they cost less

Let me explain somethings here.U guys brough up an issue and telling us all how we should fight against your cheese fighters and if we dont do that we use cheese tactics ,with a very arrogant manner.
U didnt just proposed it and then request from the fleets to vote for it but instead u guys demand it like it must happened right now and attacking to those that r against it calling them they use cheese and exploit bugs.
U post in this thread gloating about your record of wins and excused your 2 losses blame it on the ppd and in a "bug exploit".
So that means u r all so good pilots than the rest ,and u should win all your matches but unfortunately this didnt happened cause of the ppd rule and the so called bug exploit.
U call cheese the ISC fleets and guys who use this shuttle tactic when u bring in a match 28hornets!!!


As for the PPD rule i stated from the begining that  its actually not so big deal.

1)early era: no ppd here so nothing changes
2)mid era: Here is the only era that gives isc a little more advandage with the ppd rule as it stands now.This doesnt happen cause of the ability to take 2 more ships with 1 ppd each  but cause  of the shoulder mounted S plasma(CAY) which  dont require to risk and turn much your ship to fire them when been chased .Even if u have only 2 ppd (CCY) in one ship the opponent will still have to chase and then the ppds must be closed.This is what happened against SoV where we just licked their shields using s plasma torps and thats why the game lasted 50min.
3)late era: here if the bpv is high the best coice is to take one big ship with 4ppd .So nothing changes here either.
If then the bpv isnot high enough then its better to take 1 ccz with 2 ppd and the rest 2 should be fast ships having only plasma torps.CAZ in most(or maybe in all) cases doesnt worth to take it cause there r better faster ships and more powerfull with plasma only torps that r much better when been chased.
4)advance era:Here is much better to take R torps than ppd if u just have one ship with ppd.so nothing changes here either.

All above are the reasons why most fleets  vote for the rule to change in this cycle.They didnt actually care cause they didnt see any big difference.

[Corbomite]

...And the power to run at 31 all day tossing those S torps over your shoulder.

So what's so special about the ISC for this?  I'll do the same thing as a Rom or Gorn. What tactic would you use as a slow charging plasma race against a faster charging force that can ruin one ship per pass... and then launch fighters? If you are going to damn me for trying to stay alive then I can't really worry about a programing mishap that effects everyone. At least it doesn't cost your race power and three turns to re-arm when it happens to you. You complain about not having control over the AI when the bug affects a system on ISC ships that can't be controlled. Everyone else can switch their PD on and off at will. The ISC must lose three turns and power to be able to not "waste" it on a shuttle. This is the price for having a dual use weapon. The way I look at it, they will eventually run out of shuttles. My job is to stay alive until then to use whatever I need at that point.

[762_XC]

...And the power to run at 31 all day tossing those S torps over your shoulder.

So what's so special about the ISC for this?

The ability to combine this with a devastating long-range weapon. That is what forces the chase in the first place.

Rom and Gorn don't even remotely have the capability to force a chase, or the power curve to counter it as well as the ISC heavies can.

[Corbomite]

...And the power to run at 31 all day tossing those S torps over your shoulder.

So what's so special about the ISC for this?

The ability to combine this with a devastating long-range weapon. That is what forces the chase in the first place.

Rom and Gorn don't even remotely have the capability to force a chase, or the power curve to counter it as well as the ISC heavies can.

I'm sorry. The office for silly excuses is next door. In our first fight with SoV we had one PPD for the entire fleet. What exactly was "forcing you to chase" us? ISC Heavies <chuckle>. Its the Light Cruisers you should be worried about. I suppose I'm going to have to list the Rom and Gorn ships that can do the same thing?

[KBF-Butcher]

...And the power to run at 31 all day tossing those S torps over your shoulder.

So what's so special about the ISC for this?

The ability to combine this with a devastating long-range weapon. That is what forces the chase in the first place.

Rom and Gorn don't even remotely have the capability to force a chase, or the power curve to counter it as well as the ISC heavies can.

I'm sorry. The office for silly excuses is next door. In our first fight with SoV we had one PPD for the entire fleet. What exactly was "forcing you to chase" us? ISC Heavies . Its the Light Cruisers you should be worried about. I suppose I'm going to have to list the Rom and Gorn ships that can do the same thing?

at 339 mid im really impressed how u guys managed to afford to take 1 ship with ppd + 2 lights !!!
At least 1 light should be crap  so why they should worry about ???So u propably took 1 frigate(DD)
So let me guess u took CMP,CL,DD.
What a deadly combo with long range weopons,that is forcing a fleet to chase them !!! ...when the fleet has hellbores 

ahm oh no let me guess its the cheese ppd rule again that needs to be changed!

[Corbomite]

Ummm, no Butcher you are confusing images. We took a CAY  +  2x DDW for that fight. I was pointing out that the CL's have a much better power curve than the CA's (the CC's are in a class by themselves and do have a good power curve).

And the PPD rule does need changing.

[762_XC]

...And the power to run at 31 all day tossing those S torps over your shoulder.

So what's so special about the ISC for this?

The ability to combine this with a devastating long-range weapon. That is what forces the chase in the first place.

Rom and Gorn don't even remotely have the capability to force a chase, or the power curve to counter it as well as the ISC heavies can.

I'm sorry. The office for silly excuses is next door. In our first fight with SoV we had one PPD for the entire fleet. What exactly was "forcing you to chase" us? ISC Heavies <chuckle>. Its the Light Cruisers you should be worried about. I suppose I'm going to have to list the Rom and Gorn ships that can do the same thing?

I wasn't there for that one. With only 1 PPD, I probably would not have chosen to chase. When you have 4 PPD however, chase becomes the only available tactic to counter it. Maybe Feds have other options, but that's about it.

And yes, please list all the Rom and Gorn ships that have the long range firepower to make a saber dance unviable.

[KBF-Butcher]

Ummm, no Butcher you are confusing images. We took a CAY  +  2x DDW for that fight. I was pointing out that the CL's have a much better power curve than the CA's (the CC's are in a class by themselves and do have a good power curve).

And the PPD rule does need changing.

yeah i agree the cc have a good power curve but they r restricted.

As for the ppd rule tell me something that will cause a disadvantage in isc ship selection if u change the ppd rule to what it was; besides in high bpv mid era terms where u can take a combo with CCY CAY CAY and there what it really makes the difference is the  shoulder mounted S plasma and not the extra ppd wich u r forced to close it anyway cause ull be chased.


The ppd is already restricted and u r wasting your time with details that doesnt make any difference.
As for the only 2 undefeated fleets that r in the first place in the 2 quadrands and r both ISC fleets all i have to say is that when the previous cycle was cancelled FPF flying feds and ISC flying with the old ppd rule had also the first place of the 2 quadrants.
We r just in the begining anyway and u FPF should consider that things r much different in the playoffs where fleets practice their games and make sure they have their best pilots available.Other fleets and people that played in the first 2 cycles know what i mean

[Corbomite]

If you use the rule I stated on the first page of this thread, the details make a difference in that size class will also dictate what you can take, i.e. the CCZ  +  2x CAZ combo would be illegal (as well as 2x CMZ). You would need a dred for that choice of support ships and then it would limit what dred you could get, i.e. no BB's or dreds with 4 PPD's. You couldn't mix a CS with a CC at all etc....

[FPF-DieHard]

Hmmm, give all the PPD ships a command rating.   problem solved   

[Corbomite]

Hmmm, give all the PPD ships a command rating.   problem solved   

The choice of where to put your flag should not be dependent on a weapons system.

[KBF-Butcher]

If you use the rule I stated on the first page of this thread, the details make a difference in that size class will also dictate what you can take, i.e. the CCZ  +  2x CAZ combo would be illegal (as well as 2x CMZ). You would need a dred for that choice of support ships and then it would limit what dred you could get, i.e. no BB's or dreds with 4 PPD's. You couldn't mix a CS with a CC at all etc....

There is a better combo than  the CCZ  +  2x CAZ .At the same cost u can take CCZ +2 other faster ships with no ppd  but better when been chased.

[Corbomite]

Usefulness of ships is subjective and depends on pilot skill and you're not always being chased. Besides, the smartest fleet pick isn't the discussion here, the amount of fair PPD's is.

[KBF-Butcher]

yeah, all im saying is that it doesnt make any difference.

[Corbomite]

To whom?

[Slider]

Game rules are made to level the playing field between players or address faulty code within the game.

*What you have to weigh in each case is how it affects balance, and will a rule addressing the issue, level the playing field and/or bring *the  "game environment" back to what the original intent (spirit of the game) should be.

1.Was it in the spirit of the game for All fighters to to shoot heavy weapons at a target which is incapable of harming them and in fact gets a -2 ecm to hit? I think not. At the very least a handshake rule is in order here.

I think the same logic should be used by the league administrators concerning PPDs. What is or was the proper formations of these battle groups based on their assumed production capabilities. Should you limit the appearence of ships (all races) once used in a battle simulating a real theater of operations.

Ive never met a great Hydran pilot who out of fustration would gladly turn in all his fighters for equitable armed ships. There was once a strong outcry against fighters yet an even stronger outcry for Hydrans not to have New ships beefed up to make up for not having fighters. Cant win I guess.

You will always find someone arguing for their own inequity (and sometimes hidden interests) .

 Unfortunately since the very beginning you have people who seek to be fair and those who say they are. Case in point.

-When SFC2 came out everyon loved Miraks with their 6x heavy drone loads scatter packs...

-Then one patch later everyone moved to Hydrans. There was a surge of Cavs and Bars, of course publically the Hydrans denied this, however they fed other races steady diets of Bar light cruisers that could win most bpvs up to 180. It took the actually forums posts of one Hydran fleet explaining how to exploit bugs to its players, to convice the league to take action.
-
A patch or 2 after that you had AMD and all the Hydrans decided they had nothing to prove and left the league egos intact. (GT included.) [Sound famliar?]
-
ISC players flew around with broken I torps, always arguing that it was everyone else's poor skills that resulted in their loses not some bug. However one particularly infamous fleet started losing games left and right once the crutch of the I-torps was removed.


Conclusion: Games that stand the test of time do so based on the merit of their rules not on the appeasement of players. Make solid fair rule and despite the ups and downs of population the game, as did its SFB predecessor, will stand.

Respectfully submitted.

Legendary aka Slider

[KHH Jakle]

Something to think about regarding the PPD rule.

When I was originally putting PBR together, there was not PPD rule.  I was more focused on restricting the command ships and getting carriers and escorts properly handled.

Now, using the Feds as the standard, it seemed perfectly normal to see a CC, CA, CA squadron.  Very historical.

Then as I went through the other races, the ISC caught my eye.  They also had a CC, CA, CA combo, but as refits move along that combo becomes incredibly powerful.  Relative to a CC+, CA+, CA+, the ISC CCZ, CAZ, CAZ is just too powerful, and is well equipped to overpower most other races combinations at similar BPV.

I had half a mind to put the CA's in the command bucket for the ISC as well, but I didn't like that as it was artificial. 

But then the PPD rule came along and neatly corrected the issue.  Both the original PPD rule - which limited an ISC squadron of 3 ships to only the PPD's on the 'Lead' ship and one additional PPD on another ship (which is how I interpret the actual SFB rule) and the follow up rule which simply limited them to a single PPD armed ship neatly dealt with this unbalancing issue - and it wasn't contrived or made up.  It was like everything else in PBR - a translation of what was standard in SFB for ship formations.

The '4 PPD' rule however - which is made up - essentially eliminates any truly palpable PPD restriction.  I am unable to really analyze what this means across the spectrum, but the bottom line for me is that when the CCZ, CAZ, CAZ combo became legal again, I KNEW crap was going to break down. 

Considering the the old rule seemed to have virtually no ill effect on the overall competetive performance on the ISC using fleets (which if they were truly any good, it shouldn't have anyway), the fact that it was changed strikes me as being changed for no good reason.  I'll take the blame for simply allowing people to vote on that one.

I recommend that it be taken back to the original rule for next cycle. 

On a side note:  the ISC are always going to be a bit of a pain, as they just don't fit the way the other races do.  SFC is enough of SFB that the ISC's ship designs, which were supposed to be better than anything the rest of the galactic powers could muster, has been translated well. 

While a CC of the other races would be fairly well suited to leading a squadron as small as 3 ships, an ISC CC would more likely be leading an middle weight  fleet of 5 - 8 ships.  When you get down to 3 ship formations, a CA would probably be the biggest ship you'd find in a formation that size.  More likely, it would be a CL or CS. 

Hell, if you recall that scenario I wrote up, the SFB scenario clearly defines a Patrol Echelon (aka a 3 ship squadron) as a CS, DD, FF.  What's the TBPV of that, 370?

I guess what I am basically trying to say, is that ISC are an odd bunch to balance, even with PBR, unless you all want to make the TBPV cap around 400, then you'll start getting some realistic, balanced ISC squadrons to fight against.  If you don't want to do that, then look to see what other tools you have....

[Corbomite]

I recommend that it be taken back to the original rule for next cycle.

So you're saying that where the ability to get 4 PPD's is bad, the ability to get 5 fixes everything?

[GE-Raven]

Here is an oddball idea that I am sure you will all hate.  Could the total number of PPD be a function of total BPV?  Like 1 PPD per 150 BPV (rounded up?) of total bpv?

This would make a 600 BPV battle a  4 PPD possible battle while 650 could be 5... etc...

Actual numbers and break points would certainly be negotiable to unified agreement, but it seems pretty straight-forward to me.

GE-Raven

[TraumaTech]

I guess what I am basically trying to say, is that ISC are an odd bunch to balance, even with PBR, unless you all want to make the TBPV cap around 400, then you'll start getting some realistic, balanced ISC squadrons to fight against.  If you don't want to do that, then look to see what other tools you have....

O M G               <----- once remembers a similar discussion somewhere's about minimum tbpv's       THIS should be good...i was enjoying the debate      

[KHH Jakle]

I recommend that it be taken back to the original rule for next cycle.

So you're saying that where the ability to get 4 PPD's is bad, the ability to get 5 fixes everything?

In a way, yeah that's what I am saying.  The other proven workable alternative is to isolate it to a single ship period.

[Corbomite]

I recommend that it be taken back to the original rule for next cycle.

So you're saying that where the ability to get 4 PPD's is bad, the ability to get 5 fixes everything?

In a way, yeah that's what I am saying. 

I'm afraid I can't follow that logic.

The other proven workable alternative is to isolate it to a single ship period.

Isolating it to a single ship limits fleet configuration ability too much. I still say my rule fits all the conditions that are being tossed about to fix the problem.

It limits the total number of PPD's to 4 and makes sure smaller caliber fleets cannot get too many PPD's for their size and composition. The original rule would allow for 3 PPD's in a CL sized fleet and 5 in a dred size fleet. Mine would allow for 1 and 4 respectively. The original rule would allow for 3 PPD's in a CA sized fleet. Mine would allow for 2. This allows for imaginative fleet options,  doesn't restrict the use of any one ship or ship type and limits PPD deployment.

This addresses all of the reasonable concerns put forth that I know of, so I ask, what's the problem with it?

[Nomad]

I recommend that it be taken back to the original rule for next cycle.

So you're saying that where the ability to get 4 PPD's is bad, the ability to get 5 fixes everything?

To get 5 PPD's you going to have to take an ISC dred. ISC dreds don't really scare me.


I have to agree with Jackle. I think we should go back the orginal PPD rule.

[Corbomite]

To get 5 PPD's you going to have to take an ISC dred. ISC dreds don't really scare me.

I suppose you yawn at an ISC BB too? With the right support, ISC dreds are fine. If I had an extra PPD's slot they would be more than fine. I'm glad you don't lose any sleep over this, but it must be important to a good number of people  or this thread wouldn't exist.

[KHH Jakle]

To get 5 PPD's you going to have to take an ISC dred. ISC dreds don't really scare me.

I suppose you yawn at an ISC BB too? With the right support, ISC dreds are fine. If I had an extra PPD's slot they would be more than fine. I'm glad you don't lose any sleep over this, but it must be important to a good number of people  or this thread wouldn't exist.

I don't think he was saying they weren't fine.  Just no more terrifying than anyone elses DN. 

Bottom line for me is that the the original rule was SFB compliant.  That's all the logic I need. 

It's not arbitrary or contrived and no body can ever be accussed of trying to secretly push their own agenda.

[Corbomite]

No, its just OK that you openly push yours and claim to hold the final trump card. What happened to "I'm just here to put up what everybody votes on, not make policy"?

Well I give up. Now that the situtation is clear I can tell this will never be fair.

[Slider]

Sure it can be fair. Here are 3 options.

Remove the Race per fleet option and require everyone fly each race at least once per cycle and that matchups same race. So game are say 370 med TBPV both sides Hydran or Klingon or Lyran etc. This tests pilot skils and ship selection but does not allow for race based advantages. You cycle through the races to make it fair to everyone.

OR

You alot per cycle that each team has the use of a race a set amount of times that they can use as they choose. So like pitching in baseball you have to figure out what your going to fly against a certain team and plan accordingly.

2 matches with ISC ships
2 matches with Hydran ships
2 matches with Feds
etc.

you can even break it down to the individual game based on a 3 game race allotment if you have such patience for accounting. Now that would be really cool now that i thunk about it.

Finally and my favorite if not serious is:
Everyone flying against an ISC fleet can fly ISC ships against them. Cant go wrong if both sides use the same ships. Makes rules alot easier if not boring allowing the Empire ships, which have similar era technology available to fight each other and not having to worry about a race designed by the creator to be more advanced than everyone else.

 (Not that anyone has complained at all about ISC having arsenals of Phaser 1s in Early era for example. Not really the point but i just thought id mention it.)

But yes it can be FAIR.

Dont you agree?



Disclaimer: Legendary is not a pbr administrator. All comments and suggestions are property and owned wholey by Legendary.

This message si brought to you by
Slider Interstellar Rules Inc.
Writings tomorows rules today.

[KHH Jakle]

No, its just OK that you openly push yours and claim to hold the final trump card. What happened to "I'm just here to put up what everybody votes on, not make policy"?

Well I give up. Now that the situtation is clear I can tell this will never be fair.

My agenda is to have PBR be compliant to SFB's S8 where reasonable.  I allowed the rule change based on a vote, and now I regret it.

I don't believe I ever said that I'm here to just put up what people vote for in PBR.  Matter of fact, I said from the beginning that I was the final arbiter on PBR.  I am always ready to make changes that make it compliant with SFB - whether it be an S8 interpretation, or ways to better translate SFB historical flavor to 3v3 matches. 

I already make allowances - such as allowing DN hulls to be used (they shouldn't be in 3 ship squadrons).  But I lend a skeptical eye on things people just make up because THEY think it's fair.  It's always debatable, then someone get's screwed and said 'X' fleet wanted the change to make things better for themselves.  But if you can do some homework and lay out why your idea makes sense from a SFB point of view, then it gains a hell of a lot more wait

Look, you guys can vote all you want - with your feet.  You don't like PBR as it stands, copy what you like, make your own lists and rules and post them where ever you want and give it a catchy name you like.  I told DIF Josh of CUGS the same thing, and I can't stand those goofballs.

All that being said - I haven't even really read your idea yet.  Been too busy defending myself.  I'll look at it more closely when I get a chance.  I am sure you'll over look that comment but take it for what it's worth

[FPF-DieHard]

Look, you guys can vote all you want - with your feet.  You don't like PBR as it stands, copy what you like, make your own lists and rules and post them where ever you want and give it a catchy name you like.  I told DIF Josh of CUGS the same thing, and I can't stand those goofballs.

+1 Karma for keeping your pimp-hand strong (even if I don't agree with you).

Now about that retarded fast cruiser rule . . . .   

[Corbomite]

But if you can do some homework and lay out why your idea makes sense from a SFB point of view, then it gains a hell of a lot more wait

I already did that five pages ago, but since you admit you haven't even considered my idea before telling me I'm trying to secretly pass my "agenda" and that I have no clue, I won't bother reiterating it again.

[KBF-Butcher]

Yo Corbo u insisted and supported so  much  your ppd rule option and u gave me the impression u might be right.However ,i already stated that personally i beleive any PPD rule option we applicate it really doesnt make any big difference.
We used once the CCZ CAZ CAZ combo and after we really regret it i dont think we gonna use it again.
The amount of PPD isnt the case so 3 ISC ships gonna win a game.
There r ways and tactics to win any isc combo no matter what race u fly(sometimes the terms screw a race and othertimes favour it).
Phaser just proposed for the rule to be changed (4ppd max at any of the 3 ships) cause he beleived the simplier the better in a league that is already too complicated and most fleets agreed and voted this rule.
Ofcourse we can do another vote for next cycle and decide if we r going for a change again ,but its too early for it as we have almost 2 more months for the playoffs.
However could you please make a post where u describe concentrated your ppd rule option with out etc... this time.

[FPF-Bach]

Yo Corbo u insisted and supported so  much  your ppd rule option and u gave me the impression u might be right.However ,i already stated that personally i beleive any PPD rule option we applicate it really doesnt make any big difference.
We used once the CCZ CAZ CAZ combo and after we really regret it i dont think we gonna use it again.
The amount of PPD isnt the case so 3 ISC ships gonna win a game.
There r ways and tactics to win any isc combo no matter what race u fly(sometimes the terms screw a race and othertimes favour it).
Phaser just proposed for the rule to be changed (4ppd max at any of the 3 ships) cause he beleived the simplier the better in a league that is already too complicated and most fleets agreed and voted this rule.
Ofcourse we can do another vote for next cycle and decide if we r going for a change again ,but its too early for it as we have almost 2 more months for the playoffs.
However could you please make a post where u describe concentrated your ppd rule option with out etc... this time.

Corbomite's PPD rule idea is somewhere at the begining of this thread just waiting for all of you to actually read it vs saying he has his own agenda.  His rule would most likely tone down the ISC not help them.  The idea he proposed was for the good of the ENTIRE league NOT the ISC.

[Slider]

I like Corbomites PPD idea. I liked it when I read it the first time and I like it now. Im sure im not looking at this from all combos and angles, but I dont see it as too restrictive..

Sorry if you took any of my comments the wrong way bud, I do like your suggestion. Pretty sure its in line with what Jakle has in mind, if not there is a middle ground.

Legend

[2Hot2Handle]

OK sorry to get off topic here but what the hell happened to Legendary ?

Who neutered the cat ?

Bahhh I should give u a -1 just for being so damn nice all the sudden.

 

[Corbomite]

Im glad FPF decided to go ISC cause this way u ll find out better what i mean when u ll get toasted by FSD or by hydran races with 14hornet2.Then u might reconsider your opinion .

Sorry to take this out of context Butcher, but I found it a bit funny considering we are now 5-0 with a primary team consisting of one ISC vet and four ISC n00bs.

(BTW, we beat the Hydrans when they had 28 Hornets and we beat the Lyrans in Late Era using Mid Era ships.)

[KBF-Butcher]

Im glad FPF decided to go ISC cause this way u ll find out better what i mean when u ll get toasted by FSD or by hydran races with 14hornet2.Then u might reconsider your opinion .

Sorry to take this out of context Butcher, but I found it a bit funny considering we are now 5-0 with a primary team consisting of one ISC vet and four ISC n00bs.

(BTW, we beat the Hydrans when they had 28 Hornets and we beat the Lyrans in Late Era using Mid Era ships.)

Congradulations Corbo!!!

[KHH Jakle]

But if you can do some homework and lay out why your idea makes sense from a SFB point of view, then it gains a hell of a lot more wait

I already did that five pages ago, but since you admit you haven't even considered my idea before telling me I'm trying to secretly pass my "agenda" and that I have no clue, I won't bother reiterating it again.

My sincerest apologies if you took my 'agenda' comments being directed squarly at you.  They were not directed at anybody.  I was making a general statement, based on my prior experience.

I'll read your idea.

[KHH Jakle]

I didn't have time to elaborate earlier so...


I would like to see PPD deployment a little looser in configuration choice not so much numbers. I think it should be scaled by the size of the commanding ship, but not restricted to that ship. This would allow for more imaginative fleet formations for the ISC. For example:


If the largest ship in the fleet is of CL(CM) class, then one PPD is allowed for a fleet of three.

If the largest ship in the fleet is of CA class, then two PPD's are allowed for a fleet of three.

If the largest ship in the fleet is of CC class, then three PPD's are allowed for a fleet of three.

If the largest ship in the fleet is of DN(BB) class, then four PPD's are allowed for a fleet of three.


If we allow the ISC to selectively place the PPD's where they like instead of just the Command ship they can use the Strike Cruiser more and not have to waste it on a Command slot for example (DNT, CSZ, CLZ comes to mind). Scaling it makes sense as larger fleet configs would be more prone to the heavier firepower as per SFB doctrine. Its not really that complicated as you only have to identify what size class you are in by your largest ship and follow the guidelines.

The way I read this....this just sounds like another way of saying the original rule.  Not exactly, but close enough.

I know my method of translating things might make perfect sense to me, but to others it is clear as mud.  So if this is clear, to everybody, more so than:

"Limited to the PPD's on the Lead Ship plus 1 PPD on a 2nd ship"

I am totally cool with this format.  Sorry for not reading it sooner.  What can I say - I've been busy with other things.

[Corbomite]

It is similar and in the spirit of the original rule (which is what you want I believe), but has significant differences. Since the ISC have no Command Variants below the CC class, the SFB rule leaves things too loose at the lower end. I explained that earlier, but will post it again for expediency:



It (my rule) limits the total number of PPD's to 4 and makes sure smaller caliber fleets cannot get too many PPD's for their size and composition. The original rule would allow for 3 PPD's in a CL sized fleet and 5 in a dred sized fleet. Mine would allow for 1 and 4 respectively. The original rule would allow for 3 PPD's in a CA sized fleet. Mine would allow for 2. This allows for imaginative fleet options,  doesn't restrict the use of any one ship or ship type and limits PPD deployment.



At the CC level is where they meet, allowing 3 PPD's for a fleet of three.

I believe this rule with a lowering of average TBPV's (averaging 425 - 475ish) will make it more challenging for the ISC and more fair for everyone else.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I didn't have time to elaborate earlier so...


I would like to see PPD deployment a little looser in configuration choice not so much numbers. I think it should be scaled by the size of the commanding ship, but not restricted to that ship. This would allow for more imaginative fleet formations for the ISC. For example:


If the largest ship in the fleet is of CL(CM) class, then one PPD is allowed for a fleet of three.

If the largest ship in the fleet is of CA class, then two PPD's are allowed for a fleet of three.

If the largest ship in the fleet is of CC class, then three PPD's are allowed for a fleet of three.

If the largest ship in the fleet is of DN(BB) class, then four PPD's are allowed for a fleet of three.


If we allow the ISC to selectively place the PPD's where they like instead of just the Command ship they can use the Strike Cruiser more and not have to waste it on a Command slot for example (DNT, CSZ, CLZ comes to mind). Scaling it makes sense as larger fleet configs would be more prone to the heavier firepower as per SFB doctrine. Its not really that complicated as you only have to identify what size class you are in by your largest ship and follow the guidelines.

The way I read this....this just sounds like another way of saying the original rule.  Not exactly, but close enough.

My thinking exactly, Corbo's rule is fine but the original rule was simpler and gave you pretty much the same results.

[Corbomite]