Topic: The PPD Rule

[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....