Topic: X-Ship BP proposal

[Dizzy]

DH and I were working on a method for builds for xships and we never settled on anything. So this is what I came up with...

What say we have the X-ships available for purchase in the 2281 build with 1x 'x-tech' points, adding one more per year. So for 81, you get 1x 'X-tech' BP's in addition to your regular BP's. X-tech BP's can only be spent on X ships and up to half of your regular BP's may be spent on X-ships.

So for example, the Klinks have 4 BP's in 81, they also get 1x X-tech BP's so they could spend no more than 3x BP's total on xships while leaving 2 left for something else like a BC. Then in 83, they get 2 xtrech points and in 85 3 xtech points. Server finishes in 85-86.


Hrmmm. It sounds good to me.

[FPF-DieHard]

I was just going to bug you about this.   One of thos3e things we never finished talking about

PROBLEM:  X-ships are overpriced and not worth building in most cases

Solution:  Give the races additional money to be spent only on X-ships

Why not give every race a total of "XP" points equal to the BP? Set with the following costs:

DDX (Move cost .5)= 1XP or 1 CP
CLX (Move cost .67)= 2XP or 2 BP
CX (Move cost 1)=  3XP or 3 BP
BCHX (only one is the I-CCX)  6 XP or 6 BP


This allows people to build X-ships with BP/CPs if they so desire (no likely in most cases) and means we'll actually get to see these ships in the game.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Why the steep price on the CCX?

I don't see how the I-CCX is as powerful as 2 CXs.  2xPPD, 2xPl-R, 12xPh-1 and 6xPl-I on a CA hull is not as powerful and unbeatable as everyone thinks.

Remember, the I-CC series are BCHs in name only, just to give the ISC something to fight at the BCH level with.  As far as internals, etc., it's not much stronger than the I-CA it's built from.  I think the I-CC gets, as internals over an I-CA, are the 4 APR and 1 PPD...

Now, I'll concede that the I-CCX is a powerful ship, and is worth more than any one given CX, but nowhere near the power of 2 CXs.

I'd recommend a value of 4 points as the cost of the CCX, to reflect its relative power vs. other CXs, while reflecting the fact that it's not a super-ship capable of dusting 2 CXs regularly, and has a hard time against them...

[FPF-DieHard]

Why the steep price on the CCX?

You obviously don't know how to fly it 

The CCX can beat most BBs.   6 points is a bargain.

Don't believe me, I'll show you.

PS.   the CLX is a FRICKING STEAL at 2 points.

[762_XC]

OMG u guys are making my head hurt! Just leave it at BP's please.

[FPF-DieHard]

OMG u guys are making my head hurt! Just leave it at BP's please.

[FPF-DieHard]

OMG u guys are making my head hurt! Just leave it at BP's please.

Nobody will build and X-Chee ., . . uM, I mean, X-ships with the current build system.

It's not THAT complicated and only 1 person per side needs to understand it.

[Hexx]

OMG u guys are making my head hurt! Just leave it at BP's please.

Nobody will build and X-Chee ., . . uM, I mean, X-ships with the current build system.

It's not THAT complicated and only 1 person per side needs to understand it.

Seriously it's not.
Someone else had to originally expalin to DH and Dizzy that the ships would never be built .
Once that got through their thick skulls they cam up with the system that they could both understand.


Bascially it comes down to- do people want the "X" ships in the game?
-Remember they're not the Taldren ones, but ones designed to approximate SFB standards.
With X points some will be built, with BP points they won't.

[FPF-DieHard]

OMG u guys are making my head hurt! Just leave it at BP's please.

Nobody will build and X-Chee ., . . uM, I mean, X-ships with the current build system.

It's not THAT complicated and only 1 person per side needs to understand it.

Seriously it's not.
Someone else had to originally expalin to DH and Dizzy that the ships would never be built .
Once that got through their thick skulls they cam up with the system that they could both understand.


Bascially it comes down to- do people want the "X" ships in the game?
-Remember they're not the Taldren ones, but ones designed to approximate SFB standards.
With X points some will be built, with BP points they won't.

What the fury midget said.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Why the steep price on the CCX?

You obviously don't know how to fly it 

The CCX can beat most BBs. <snip>

And my CCX is BPVed what, 329?  That means it's going to face BBs all day, it's supposed to.  That doesn't change the matter at hand, which is, "Is the I-CCX worth 2 F-CXs, or 2 K-DXs, or 2 R-FHXs etc. etc."

Lets start with a comparison of your F-CX vs. my I-CCX...

Heavy Weapons:
Fed: 6xPhot, 2xDroB, 2xADD.  ISC: 2xPPD, 2xPl-R, 6xPl-I

Phasers:
Fed: 12 Ph-1, 4xFH, 3xLS/RS, 2xAll.  ISC: 12Ph-1, 2xFAL/FAR, 2xFH, 2xLS/RS, 2xAll.

Power: Fed - 46 (+12 from base CC), ISC - 52 (+8 from base CC)

Hull: Fed - 16 in typical 12F 4R config as per CC, ISC - 16 in 8F 8R config.

Shields: Fed 40-32-32-32.  ISC 40-40-32-32.

Gross Internals: Fed - 148 (296 doubled) ISC - 151 (302 doubled)

After all this, I still don't see how my CCX is worth 6 points, while the rest are worth 3.  Again, I say this.  The I-CCX is a BCH in name only.  It's still a CA where it counts, ie, in internals.  What you can do in that ship is, IMO, irrelevant to it's price, cause you can take a BCV or a F-CX and beat BBs with them too...   Actually, this could be the start of a new pricing scheme.  If DH can beat a BB with a ship, then it should be automatically BPVed at least 300 BPV, and be priced in the same range as an average BB for OOB, etc...

Now, once again, why does the I-CCX cost the same as 2 CXs?  I do admit that, among CA-hulled X-ships the I-CCX is probably the best one on the board, and therefore I can settle for a 4 point cost to reflect that, even though it could be considered as unfair, as the Rommie FHX gets 2xR, 2xS, 11 Ph-1s, which just about equals the power and destructive force of the I-CCX...

What would you do?  Bring up the Plasma CXs to near-ISC pricing schemes, or bring the ISC down closer to everyone else?

[Hexx]

Julin may have a point

To be fair all plasma,drone, or fighter using X ships should cost 4x as much as an Xship that doesn't have
one of the systems.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Julin may have a point

To be fair all plasma,drone, or fighter using X ships should cost 4x as much as an Xship that doesn't have
one of the systems.

And the ESG, which as a 100% hit rate, does not have it's damage weaken over time, and ignores cloak can be worth 8x, right...

[FPF-DieHard]

You fly that F-CX, I'll fly the I-CCX.   I will beat you 99 times out of 100.

The only valid test is comabt, whatever BS you spout with charts and graphs is still BS.

can a CVA take 2 BCHs?

Can a BB take 2 CVAs?

The cost is not linear, you pay a premium for increased combat density

[Julin Eurthyr]

Die Hard:

I am not arguing that the CCX is, in all respects, equal to the rest of the CXs.  If I was to do so, I would be asking for a build price identical to the F-CX.  Please show me where I asked for the CX to be a 3 point ship?

I'm saying that the CCX is not worth 2 CXs, and therefore should not be priced that high.  I believe that the CX should be worth 4 points, more than the rest of the CXs, but nowhere near the price of 2.

Let's do this test: You fly the CX, and I need a Fed wingman intimately familiar with the F-CX.  We'll fly the 2 on 1 you say that the CCX is worth.  Do you think you can beat us 50% of the time, as you say these ships are on that equal of a level, price wise.

Personally, I don't think you'll win that many.  Wolfpack tactics, overwhelming firepower, the ability to lose 1 ship while still taking you down and "being ahead" on the price charts all play parts here.

I'm saying the I-CCX should be worth 1 1/3 to 1 1/2 CXs.  Bring me proof that she's worth 1 2/3 CXs, and I'll concede a value of 5, no further arguments.

[Hexx]

Of course the Lyran CCX should actually be worth less, as the lack of stand off firepower hurts it.
Also the ESG is less useful for offence as other Xships can easily maintain speed 31 to avoid getting hit.

Since this is the first (I think) use of the "new" xships on a server why not just have.
Every race gets 1 Xcruiser. ISC get 2. Pirates get 0.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I would go with a price of 5 for the I-CCX OR make the CXs 4 and the I-CCX 6.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Of course the Lyran CCX should actually be worth less, as the lack of stand off firepower hurts it.
Also the ESG is less useful for offence as other Xships can easily maintain speed 31 to avoid getting hit.

Good point, but at least you got disrupters, so make the G-CCX cost even less than the L-CCX.

[Hexx]

Of course the Lyran CCX should actually be worth less, as the lack of stand off firepower hurts it.
Also the ESG is less useful for offence as other Xships can easily maintain speed 31 to avoid getting hit.

Good point, but at least you got disrupters, so make the G-CCX cost even less than the L-CCX.

May as well make the Gorn CCX free since you're all in DNH's anyway... 

[Kroma BaSyl]

Another option is to make a 3 pt I-CCX by dropping the PPDs and the power down to 44. Or drop 1 PPD and one R-torp and the power to 46.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Of course the Lyran CCX should actually be worth less, as the lack of stand off firepower hurts it.
Also the ESG is less useful for offence as other Xships can easily maintain speed 31 to avoid getting hit.

Good point, but at least you got disrupters, so make the G-CCX cost even less than the L-CCX.

May as well make the Gorn CCX free since you're all in DNH's anyway... 

You know Hexx, your not as bad a guy as Jinn keeps PM'ing me about. Great idea.

[FPF-DieHard]

I'm saying the I-CCX should be worth 1 1/3 to 1 1/2 CXs.  Bring me proof that she's worth 1 2/3 CXs, and I'll concede a value of 5, no further arguments.

I fly ISC in PBR.   I know what a squad of ISC X-ships can do to "equal BPV" opponents.

You obviously do not or you are lying.  I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt assume you are simply ignorant.

Does 685 internals to 2 count as proof? 

Third battle:   http://69.115.120.11:9000/images/GDA_Battle_3.rec

I-CCX - FPF-DieHard
I-CSX - Corbomite
I-CLX - FPF-TobinDax

G-CMX
G-HDX
G-HDX

This in D2 terms would be 10 BP versus 7 BP worth of ships.  It was a total slaughter against veteran Gorn Pilots.

[Hexx]

I'm saying the I-CCX should be worth 1 1/3 to 1 1/2 CXs.  Bring me proof that she's worth 1 2/3 CXs, and I'll concede a value of 5, no further arguments.

I fly ISC in PBR.   I know what a squad of ISC X-ships can do to "equal BPV" opponents.

You abviously do not.

"blah blah blah I'm a BB flying git"

Look
You want tor try the Xship conversions do it like
Feds get 1, Mirdan get 1 Gorn get 1
Lyrans Get 1 Roms get 1 Klinks get 1
ISC get 2
That means -for all you mensa candidates- that three Allied Xships would be roughly equal to 2 ISC Xships.

Keep out the CLx's etc. They're more unbalancing anyway.

[Kroma BaSyl]

You obviously do not or you are lying.  I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt assume you are simply ignorant.

Glad to see the Federation credits we spent on sensitivity training are starting to payoff.

[FPF-DieHard]

Keep out the CLx's etc. They're more unbalancing anyway.

That I don't see. With the excepton of the ISC CLX, none of the CL X-ships are any tougher than a BCH.

[Green]

OMG u guys are making my head hurt! Just leave it at BP's please.

Nobody will build and X-Chee ., . . uM, I mean, X-ships with the current build system.

It's not THAT complicated and only 1 person per side needs to understand it.

Yeah, but he's our 1 person.

[FPF-DieHard]

OMG u guys are making my head hurt! Just leave it at BP's please.

Nobody will build and X-Chee ., . . uM, I mean, X-ships with the current build system.

It's not THAT complicated and only 1 person per side needs to understand it.

Yeah, but he's our 1 person.

I can explain it to t00l, I'll use small words and slur my speech so he understands it better.

[Hexx]

Keep out the CLx's etc. They're more unbalancing anyway.

That I don't see. With the excepton of the ISC CLX, none of the CL X-ships are any tougher than a BCH.

D5Xd is  a better deal (for the price)* imho* than a DXD, same with a CLX vs a CX, and the CWLX is a far better deal than the CCX
(with it's stock disrupter arcs....odd )

I say give all the races a CX type ship.
Then make any kill by an Xship worth 1 vp more than it normally would be.
(The race demonstrating "their" superior technology)
Might give people reason to use them rather then the plethora of DN's and BCH's we seem to be heading for.

[FPF-DieHard]

D5Xd is  a better deal (for the price)* imho* than a DXD, same with a CLX vs a CX, and the CWLX is a far better deal than the CCX
(with it's stock disrupter arcs....odd )

No way.   Those 2 mentioned ships are not worth it compared to 2 BP BCHs. 
CWLX = BCHT

Hmmm . . . .

My Idea of the XPs will let you build 2 CLX per build cycle, that is not over-balancing at all and will add some variety to the BCH hoards I expect to see.

[Dizzy]

Doesnt matter about equality, some of these Xships will edge others, but you always roll the dice in a mission on the dyna anyway. So BPV matchups dont matter.

What we need to do is figure out what extra money each empire is gonna get to build these Xships.

[Hexx]

Doesnt matter about equality, some of these Xships will edge others, but you always roll the dice in a mission on the dyna anyway. So BPV matchups dont matter.

What we need to do is figure out what extra money each empire is gonna get to build these Xships.

What we should do is eliminate all the BB's.
However many CP's you put into building a BB you get an equal number of XP to build xcrap.

[KBF-Angel Slayer]

I want a schwinn with ten phasers, speed thirty five, good shields and a wrist rocket slingshot as back up.  

[Kroma BaSyl]

I want a schwinn with ten phasers, speed thirty five, good shields and a wrist rocket slingshot as back up. 

With or without banana seat and sissy bar?

[KBFLordKrueg]

DH and I were working on a method for builds for xships and we never settled on anything. So this is what I came up with...

What say we have the X-ships available for purchase in the 2281 build with 1x 'x-tech' points, adding one more per year. So for 81, you get 1x 'X-tech' BP's in addition to your regular BP's. X-tech BP's can only be spent on X ships and up to half of your regular BP's may be spent on X-ships.

So for example, the Klinks have 4 BP's in 81, they also get 1x X-tech BP's so they could spend no more than 3x BP's total on xships while leaving 2 left for something else like a BC. Then in 83, they get 2 xtrech points and in 85 3 xtech points. Server finishes in 85-86.


Hrmmm. It sounds good to me.

You're just trying to make this even harder on me to try and keep all this stuff figured out, aren't you?
That's fine...

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Leave it at BP's.

Look at the OOB thread, and you'll see there are lots of ships in the docks already.  If people have the points to spend on X ships, they will.  If not they won't

-S'Cipio

[762_XC]

OMG u guys are making my head hurt! Just leave it at BP's please.

Nobody will build and X-Chee ., . . uM, I mean, X-ships with the current build system.

It's not THAT complicated and only 1 person per side needs to understand it.

Yeah, but he's our 1 person.

I can explain it to t00l, I'll use small words and slur my speech so he understands it better.

Wait til I'm drunk.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Leave it at BP's.

Look at the OOB thread, and you'll see there are lots of ships in the docks already.  If people have the points to spend on X ships, they will.  If not they won't

-S'Cipio

I agree

[Hexx]

Leave it at BP's.

Look at the OOB thread, and you'll see there are lots of ships in the docks already.  If people have the points to spend on X ships, they will.  If not they won't

-S'Cipio

I agree

The problem is a  2BP xship is no match for a 2BP BCH.
You'd have to be stupid to buy one
Again it's only a problem if people want to see Xships on teh server.

I'd say the best solutions are
1) Free Xbuilds as I mentioned before
2)Use CP points
3) Give the xships bonus VP for winning in PVP

[Kroma BaSyl]

The problem is a  2BP xship is no match for a 2BP BCH.

Not true.

You'd have to be stupid to buy one

Then don't.

Again it's only a problem if people want to see Xships on teh server.

Even if Xships use BPs they will still be built over DN and BCHs. They are better than the tech they replace, especially when flown in pairs. I'll take 2 CCXs over 2 DNHs anyday.

[Corbomite]

I fly ISC in PBR.   I know what a squad of ISC X-ships can do to "equal BPV" opponents.

They aren't the same ships though. OL Phasers make a huge difference.

[Hexx]

I fly ISC in PBR.   I know what a squad of ISC X-ships can do to "equal BPV" opponents.

They aren't the same ships though. OL Phasers make a huge difference.

No OL phasers on the Xboats

[Corbomite]

I fly ISC in PBR.   I know what a squad of ISC X-ships can do to "equal BPV" opponents.

They aren't the same ships though. OL Phasers make a huge difference.

No OL phasers on the Xboats

Thanks for repeating what I said. I think a guy in the back missed it.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I fly ISC in PBR.   I know what a squad of ISC X-ships can do to "equal BPV" opponents.

They aren't the same ships though. OL Phasers make a huge difference.

But since they have been removed from all X ships the relative combat effectiveness between X ships remains much the same. However 2x points for a Ii-CCX over other CCXs is still to much.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I fly ISC in PBR.   I know what a squad of ISC X-ships can do to "equal BPV" opponents.

They aren't the same ships though. OL Phasers make a huge difference.

No OL phasers on the Xboats

Thanks for repeating what I said. I think a guy in the back missed it.

Hey stop that, you know Lyrans have trouble chewing gum and walking at the same time.

[Hexx]

The Plasma Xships may be better than their BCH counterparts, I don't know
I would suspect having the power to arm,hold, ad chase down soemone would be nice

The Xdroners might be,

The non plasma/droner  xships will lose to their BP equivalnt builds everytime.
(Given equal player skill of course)

If the xships are a great deal for plasma races, then I'd say leave them as BP builds if you want.
(course I'm going to regret saying that I'm guessing)

[Julin Eurthyr]

I'm saying the I-CCX should be worth 1 1/3 to 1 1/2 CXs.  Bring me proof that she's worth 1 2/3 CXs, and I'll concede a value of 5, no further arguments.

I fly ISC in PBR.   I know what a squad of ISC X-ships can do to "equal BPV" opponents.

You obviously do not or you are lying.  I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt assume you are simply ignorant.

Does 685 internals to 2 count as proof? 

Third battle:   http://69.115.120.11:9000/images/GDA_Battle_3.rec

I-CCX - FPF-DieHard
I-CSX - Corbomite
I-CLX - FPF-TobinDax

G-CMX
G-HDX
G-HDX

This in D2 terms would be 10 BP versus 7 BP worth of ships.  It was a total slaughter against veteran Gorn Pilots.

I found 2 fallacies with this argument.  The first has been covered, ie, the fact that you're displaying the OP+ 3.4 X-boats with OL-capable Ph-Xs & Gats in the film, not the pure Ph-1 models on display today.

2: You took a CA and 2 CLs against a CM and 2 HDDs.  I don't care whether it's standard tech or X-tech, the CA / 2xCL force should beat the CM (which is, IIRC, the CW) and 2 HDDs (approx. CW size) ships every time.  The fact that you did it so decisively (only suffering 2 internals) is a testament to your, Corbo's and Dax's skills in the ISC ships.  IIRC, don't the G-HDXs only carry S-torps in their X-configuration, while you had 4 R-torps on the field?

Show me something like that with the pure no overload Ph-1 editions in this shiplist.  Then I'll start to consider your argument as valid.

DH, I'm not being dense.  I do not want an uber-cheddar ship at cheap prices that I can use to dominate the server.  I'm looking at it like this:
Dizzy's CXs are a new design, using solely Ph-1s (no gats / Ph-3s / etc.) and upgraded / upnumbered heavy weapons.  These designs need independant testing to help confirm their base BPVs, nevermind their "BP value".
There are no valid combat tests for these new vessels, yet you insist based on the performance of a different CCX variant that I am "graced" with an uber CA-sized BB on this server.  I am willing to listen to arguments based on the performance of the ship in question, specced out earlier in this thread, not the performance of any other I-CCX, flown by an ace pilot, in an group (show me a player who can accurately judge the effectiveness of a single ship out of a fleet engagement, at such a level where BPV or other pricing schemes can be accurately determined, and I'll be ready to introduce you to the next president of ADB).  Until then, I will stand my ground that while the BPV shows that this ship should be ready to fight BBs all day, and will draw them as their favorite non-X AI draw, I do not think that this vessel is worth 2 CA-hulled X-ships, of which I still have no proof that the CCX can handily fight.

Suffice it to say that I've given my arguments as to why the I-CCX should be a cheaper ship, and you've given yours on why the CCX needs to be a very expensive ship.  I'm willing to let the Admin, Dizzy, read these statements and decide for himself what price he's going to use.  I may complain / appeal, yet the Admin, as always, has the final decision.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I found 2 fallacies with this argument.  The first has been covered, ie, the fact that you're displaying the OP+ 3.4 X-boats with OL-capable Ph-Xs & Gats in the film, not the pure Ph-1 models on display today.

2: You took a CA and 2 CLs against a CM and 2 HDDs.  I don't care whether it's standard tech or X-tech, the CA / 2xCL force should beat the CM (which is, IIRC, the CW) and 2 HDDs (approx. CW size) ships every time.  The fact that you did it so decisively (only suffering 2 internals) is a testament to your, Corbo's and Dax's skills in the ISC ships.  IIRC, don't the G-HDXs only carry S-torps in their X-configuration, while you had 4 R-torps on the field?

The only things your 2 inaccurate fallacies prove is that you not only lack combat experience in the ships, but books smarts as well. HDXs are CWs and have 1 R and 2 Ss, a CM medium Crusier which is Gorn for NCA, thus CA equivalent. As DH stated the total BPV for the 2 fleets were identical, yet the matchup completely unbalanced do to the fact that the ISC ships have both short and long range fire power and the Gorn are largely limited to short. Removing the OL X phasers make these fleets more unbalanced not less.

[FPF-DieHard]

Julin, quit while you are behind 

[Julin Eurthyr]

Kroma:

I'm sorry for the misclassification of your hulls.  Not only do the classifications confuse Gorn Government officials, they confuse idle ISC officers who's not referencing the intelligence manuals (re: SFB R-sections...)

I still don't think the CCX, as written on SG4, is the equal of 2 combined CCXs of any other race.  I've stated my case, and that is all I can do.

[762_XC]

Nor is a battleship equal to two DNH's and a BCH.

Two words: combat density

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Two words: combat density

What does Hexx's decision making in combat have to do with this discussion.....

[Capt Jeff]

<Head explodes>

I would agree with Julin here.

The CCX is not twice the ship.  If other CX's are 3 BP's then the CCX should be 4-5, not 6.

[Corbomite]

As DH stated the total BPV for the 2 fleets were identical, yet the matchup completely unbalanced do to the fact that the ISC ships have both short and long range fire power and the Gorn are largely limited to short.

I don't know what number base system you guys use, but in base ten 748 does not equal 690. TBPV were the same. They decided to buy extra stuff instead of a CA hull. They lost that fight in the selection screen. A difference of 58 points in hull makes a huge difference.

And Julin, the 1st gen ISC X-Ships don't have gats. In fact they have no "point defense" at all.

[Dizzy]

5 and let's settle the issue.

Alliance/Coalition gets:

2281:  1 XBP
2283:  2 XBP's
2285:  3 XBP's

I.S.C. get:

2281:  0 XBP
2283:  1 XBP
2285:  2 XBP

The Alliance and Coalition must distribute their XBP's evenly when possible among their respective empires. The X-tech BP's compliment regular BP's when building X-ships, but can't be spent on anything other than X-ships.

Simple enough?

[Kroma BaSyl]

As DH stated the total BPV for the 2 fleets were identical, yet the matchup completely unbalanced do to the fact that the ISC ships have both short and long range fire power and the Gorn are largely limited to short.

I don't know what number base system you guys use, but in base ten 748 does not equal 690. TBPV were the same. They decided to buy extra stuff instead of a CA hull. They lost that fight in the selection screen. A difference of 58 points in hull makes a huge difference.

Now it is Corb showing his ignorance, what Gorn X-ship combo would you have taken to match the BPV more closely. The problem Corb is the imbalanced X-ships, we took the CA and 2 CLs just like you, but as the hull BPV and results showed they are not an even match. Maybe you need to brush up on the PBR rules if you have bothered to read them at all.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

5 and let's settle the issue.

Alliance/Coalition gets:

2281:  1 XBP
2283:  2 XBP's
2285:  3 XBP's

I.S.C. get:

2281:  0 XBP
2283:  1 XBP
2285:  2 XBP

The Alliance and Coalition must distribute their XBP's evenly when possible among their respective empires. The X-tech BP's compliment regular BP's when building X-ships, but can't be spent on anything other than X-ships.

Simple enough?

As war drags on, the various empires should begin suffering economic exhaustion.  (In Fed and Emppire, this is handled by reducing the economic points your provinces produce.)

It really doesn't make sense for us to start getting *more* points to play with. 

-S'Cipio

[FPF-DieHard]

5 and let's settle the issue.

Alliance/Coalition gets:

2281:  1 XBP
2283:  2 XBP's
2285:  3 XBP's

I.S.C. get:

2281:  0 XBP
2283:  1 XBP
2285:  2 XBP

The Alliance and Coalition must distribute their XBP's evenly when possible among their respective empires. The X-tech BP's compliment regular BP's when building X-ships, but can't be spent on anything other than X-ships.

Simple enough?

As war drags on, the various empires should begin suffering economic exhaustion.  (In Fed and Emppire, this is handled by reducing the economic points your provinces produce.)

It really doesn't make sense for us to start getting *more* points to play with. 

-S'Cipio

Wanderer is a liberal, he simply can raise taxes

[Dizzy]

As war drags on, the various empires should begin suffering economic exhaustion.  (In Fed and Emppire, this is handled by reducing the economic points your provinces produce.)

It really doesn't make sense for us to start getting *more* points to play with. 

-S'Cipio

I agree with you, but this is such a small stimulous package... We are talking a total of 6 extra BP's for X ships from 81 to 85 per Alliance/Coalition. ISC get less. Thats worth 3 CL Xships at most. Not a lot. If you want to burn 3x BP's on a CCX when you can have a BCV or BCT, you might be nuts.

Can you go along peacefully?

[GDA-S'Cipio]

I agree with you, but this is such a small stimulous package... We are talking a total of 6 extra BP's for X ships from 81 to 85 per Alliance/Coalition. ISC get less. Thats worth 3 CL Xships at most. Not a lot. If you want to burn 3x BP's on a CCX when you can have a BCV or BCT, you might be nuts.

Can you go along peacefully?

I still disagree with it.

1)  There are plenty of OOB ships at anchor already.

2)  The current situation mimics the same decision "historical" fleets faced:  should we spend all this money ona  new tech line ship, when we could crank out another couple BCHs instead?

3)  This would be yet another mid-server rule change.

4)  It doesn't fit with the role-playing economic reality you've tried to develop for your server.  The construction of a BB is supposed to put you in the red and seriously mortgage the future of your empire.  Since this is abstracted by spending over large points over several turns, it doesn't make sense to suddenly feed new points toward X ships.  If the empires had such a stimulus package to crank out more points, they'd have been able to use it in BB construction.

-S'Cipio

[FPF-DieHard]

Three type of "money" does fit the F&E production model

BP -   Represents the Capital ship sipyards.

CP -  represents an empires ability to do conversions at starbases

XP -  Represesnt R&D spent on new technology.   

I don't think 2 x Light cruisers or an X-Heavy and DDX per build cycle will throw anything out of whack.

[762_XC]

What S'Cippy said.

[FPF-DieHard]

What S'Cippy said.

Oh come on, you know you want to build me that RNX 

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Three type of "money" does fit the F&E production model

BP -   Represents the Capital ship sipyards.
CP -  represents an empires ability to do conversions at starbases
XP -  Represesnt R&D spent on new technology.   

Three different spending paths, but it all came out of the same pile of money.  If I wanted to do a lot of repairs/conversions in a turn, that meant I had to give up building something in my build schedule.  If I wanted to build my full build schedule, that usually ment the number of crippled shps  and unconverted ships started piling up.

-S'Cipio

[GDA-Agave]

Hey Scipio,

What's the big deal?   With the amount of BP Dizzy is talking about, the Xships will not be taking over the map or anything.    Remember that not everyone wants to go by the specific SFB/F&E guidelines.    I personally like the variety that the few Xships will bring to the server, not that it very probable that I will be able to fly one.   (hint, hint Julin  )

I know SFC Orion pirates is based on SFB/F&E rules and guidelines, but can't we expand from those games some.    I mean, isn't that the beauty of it.  i.e., all the opportunities the admins have to mold the game to their liking.

Now, on the flip side.

I do agree with you Scipio about that this does constitute another mid-server rule change.   I realize the admins may have cut some "idea" corners to get this server up and running for us SFC "crackwhores", but come on guys.   I personally can wait an extra week for you to nail down these type things instead of you adding new stuff as you go along.   Play it as you originally stated the finalized rules.   Anything else, chalk up as good ideas for the next one.

Just my humble thoughts,

Agave

[Dizzy]

I'd like you guys to stop using the appallative 'Mid server rule change' cuz that has such a bad stigma attached to it. And some rule changes are not only needed, i.e., the S-AM restriction, but are welcomed and make sense.

There is no detrimental result to anyone race by changing the rules, er 'making an addition' to the server. Its not intended to balance anything ro screw anyone. All benefit. Now if you dont want it, fine, let the faction leaders decide. Majority rules, 2 out of 3.

Oh, and did I say the ICCX is 5 BP's?

[Kroma BaSyl]

I'd like you guys to stop using the appallative 'Mid server rule change' cuz that has such a bad stigma attached to it. And some rule changes are not only needed, i.e., the S-AM restriction, but are welcomed and make sense.

Then just stop changing the rules. 

XOXOXOXO,
Kroma

PS, the issue isn't being run over with X ships, it is being run over with X ships and DNs.

[KAT J'inn]

How about taking this to the RM Forum.

It's dusty in there.

[FPF-DieHard]

How about taking this to the RM Forum.

It's dusty in there.

Most of us don't have access to that cesspool. 

[KAT J'inn]

How about taking this to the RM Forum.

It's dusty in there.

Most of us don't have access to that cesspool. 

exactly.



<snicker>

[GDA-S'Cipio]

I'd like you guys to stop using the appallative 'Mid server rule change' cuz that has such a bad stigma attached to it.

But it *is* a midserver rule change.  The stigma associated with that honest description arose for a reason.

And some rule changes are not only needed,

This one isn't *needed*, it's just a sudden urge to toss more toys into the pit.

-S'Cipio

[762_XC]

Oh, and did I say the ICCX is 5 BP's?

That is a mid-server rule change, and total bullsh*t. 6 is the number your beta team came up with after extensively playtesting the CCX against multiple opponents. It is also the number you posted at the beginning of the server.

Don't listen to the whining of people who did not even bother showing up on the beta to playtest.

 

[Kroma BaSyl]

Oh, and did I say the ICCX is 5 BP's?

That is a mid-server rule change, and total bullsh*t. 6 is the number your beta team came up with after extensively playtesting the CCX against multiple opponents. It is also the number you posted at the beginning of the server.

Don't listen to the whining of people who did not even bother showing up on the beta to playtest.

 

technically it is a double change, but the right decision. Your testing was seriously flawed as I pointed out to you.

[FPF-DieHard]

technically it is a double change, but the right decision. Your testing was seriously flawed as I pointed out to you.

The only valid test is combat.

[Kroma BaSyl]

technically it is a double change, but the right decision. Your testing was seriously flawed as I pointed out to you.

The only valid test is combat.

Yeah so next time try testing the combat in the correct ships. See Allaince officers forum for details.

[Dizzy]

Okies, fine. No change then whatsoever on this thread. I'm screwed if I do and screwed if I dont. So screw you all who dont like it. NO CHANGE. Server rules are as they were b4 this thread was posted...

It is DH and I's fault we didnt fully flesh this out beforehand, but some X ships will still get built and we will see what happens with them...

Oh, and julin, the ISC CCX is that good. Trust me. It can take down any DN with a little skill. The VP's you'll get when flying it is worth the cost.

[762_XC]

technically it is a double change, but the right decision. Your testing was seriously flawed as I pointed out to you.

The only valid test is combat.

Yeah so next time try testing the combat in the correct ships. See Allaince officers forum for details.

Fallacious. We tested against equivalent BP's. Without coming up with some ludicruosly complicated rock-paper-scissors formula it was the only methodology possible.

I suppose your arbitrarily coming up with a number is somehow better than our actually having tested it?

[Dizzy]

Oh, and Kroma, there is something wrong with ur Sig. It slows WAYYYYYYY down when I scroll past it... Er, I hope that wasnt intentional, yur pic is a little rough on the eyes...

[FPF-DieHard]

technically it is a double change, but the right decision. Your testing was seriously flawed as I pointed out to you.

The only valid test is combat.

Yeah so next time try testing the combat in the correct ships. See Allaince officers forum for details.

You have any ide how many fights we did?   not just the ones listed in that thread.

Again, the costs are not linear.  A CVA can't beat 2 BCH unless the pilots are retarted yet the costs are equal.   I'd love to see an I-BBVZ take on 4 F-DNH, another "equal" BP fight.

You pay a premium for increased Combat density.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Fallacious. We tested against equivalent BP's. Without coming up with some ludicruosly complicated rock-paper-scissors formula it was the only methodology possible.

Ther is nothing complicated about testing the testing the specific ships in question. You tested 2 DNHs against 1 I-CCX, but didn't test 2 CCXs vs it. What is ludicurously complicated is your weak arsed rational, and indirect testing methodolody.

I suppose your arbitrarily coming up with a number is somehow better than our actually having tested it?

If you had actually tested it I would agree, since you didn't you are the one arbitrarily coming up with numbers.

Tell you what, you fly the I-CCX and me and Julin can fly G-CMXs. You beat us I'll conceed the point.

[Kroma BaSyl]

You have any ide how many fights we did?   not just the ones listed in that thread.

And unfortunately not the only one that is relavent here. So all this talk of testing is hot air in this particular case.

[FPF-DieHard]

You have any ide how many fights we did?   not just the ones listed in that thread.

And unfortunately not the only one that is relavent here. So all this talk of testing is hot air in this particular case.

I get your point now.  Comparing X-Ships to Non-Xships is a BS test.

Um, right?

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I'd like you guys to stop using the appallative 'Mid server rule change' cuz that has such a bad stigma attached to it.

But it *is* a midserver rule change.  The stigma associated with that honest description arose for a reason.

And some rule changes are not only needed,

This one isn't *needed*, it's just a sudden urge to toss more toys into the pit.

-S'Cipio

Agreed

[762_XC]

I'll take that bet. Because even if I lose it does not make your point.

I honestly don't remember every single combo we flew. We tried 5 BPs in different combos, we tried 6 and probably 7 too. I'm sorry we did not make a CCX testing log for your review. But do you honestly think if you can come up with two 3 point ships that can beat it that even begins to make a point? For every 6 point combo that can beat a CCX I guarantee I'll come up with at least one that has no chance. The point in testing is not to find something that can beat it every time, it's to find a point zone where it can win about 50% of the time versus varied (and likely) opponents. For us that was 6 BP.

Anyway you did NO testing which means your argument has NO value.

[Kroma BaSyl]

You have any ide how many fights we did?   not just the ones listed in that thread.

And unfortunately not the only one that is relavent here. So all this talk of testing is hot air in this particular case.

I get your point now.  Comparing X-Ships to Non-Xships is a BS test.

Um, right?

exactly.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I'll take that bet. Because even if I lose it does not make your point.

So combat only matters if the results fit your pre-defined results. Man your methodology was more flawed than I thought. That's not testing you were doing it was rationalizing.

I honestly don't remember every single combo we flew. We tried 5 BPs in different combos, we tried 6 and probably 7 too. I'm sorry we did not make a CCX testing log for your review.

There is only one ship here that you are trying to put the primium on. The fact that you didn't test it compaired to the ships in it's class shows me you don't understand the first thing about testing.

But do you honestly think if you can come up with two 3 point ships that can beat it that even begins to make a point? For every 6 point combo that can beat a CCX I guarantee I'll come up with at least one that has no chance. The point in testing is not to find something that can beat it every time, it's to find a point zone where it can win about 50% of the time versus varied (and likely) opponents. For us that was 6 BP.

I used one example, the most extreme in fact, becasue the Gorn CCXs are the worst equipt to fight an I-CCX. Take any other races CCXs vs the I-CCX and the result will be exactly the same. Your other 3 point ships come down to 2 DNH and I am betting there are plenty of DNH combo's that can beat an I-CCX, so the math looks like your 3 point BP ships are coming out even better than 50% win ratio.

Anyway you did NO testing which means your argument has NO value.

Actually I did shiplist testing with DH for this one, mainly with CVAs and plasma fighters. However, you are correct in that just like you I didn't test this particular combo either. Thus your argument has equal value to mine.  Except that since you seem to be unwilling to accept a valid test of the particular ship in question, it would seem you are not to confident in your theory.

[FPF-DieHard]

You have any ide how many fights we did?   not just the ones listed in that thread.

And unfortunately not the only one that is relavent here. So all this talk of testing is hot air in this particular case.

I get your point now.  Comparing X-Ships to Non-Xships is a BS test.

Um, right?

exactly.

More reason to use a third type of "money" for X-ships 

(Just not for this server)

X-ship hell?

[Kroma BaSyl]

More reason to use a third type of "money" for X-ships 

Not necessarily, as Scipio pointed out it goes right along with SFB history to have to make choice about whether you build old or X tech. 

To tell the truth though on this server it hardly matters as there is going to still be more heavy metal than you can shake a stick at with all the DNs and specialty ships already piling up in moth balls.

[FPF-DieHard]

More reason to use a third type of "money" for X-ships 

Not necessarily, as Scipio pointed out it goes right along with SFB history to have to make choice about whether you build old or X tech. 

To tell the truth though on this server it hardly matters as there is going to still be more heavy metal than you can shake a stick at with all the DNs and specialty ships already piling up in moth balls.

But nobody will build any X-ships as they are not worht the price with the exception of the ISC CLX. 

Since we have unlimited BCH hull and they can be converted to Carriers and Tenders, they are too good of a deal to not build.

[Kroma BaSyl]

[
But nobody will build any X-ships as they are not worht the price with the exception of the ISC CLX. 

Since we have unlimited BCH hull and they can be converted to Carriers and Tenders, they are too good of a deal to not build.

Then maybe the BCHs and their upgrades were to cheap. I would take a 3 BP CMX over any G-BCH variant or G-DNH as we already have plenty of those. Besides since the X ships aren't limited by the total number of DNs online at a time they would allow those smart enough to buy them the ability to field more heavy metal simultaneously.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

I'd love to see an I-BBVZ take on 4 F-DNH

Oooh!  I'd love to see that too!

Tonight!

On the server!

In a cage match!


Blade, you up for it?


<gets popcorn>

-S'Cipio

[Kroma BaSyl]

Oh, and Kroma, there is something wrong with ur Sig. It slows WAYYYYYYY down when I scroll past it... Er, I hope that wasnt intentional, yur pic is a little rough on the eyes...

That's is just you libido taking over. I have been known to have that effect on men.

[FPF-Wanderer]

5 and let's settle the issue.

Alliance/Coalition gets:

2281:  1 XBP
2283:  2 XBP's
2285:  3 XBP's

I.S.C. get:

2281:  0 XBP
2283:  1 XBP
2285:  2 XBP

The Alliance and Coalition must distribute their XBP's evenly when possible among their respective empires. The X-tech BP's compliment regular BP's when building X-ships, but can't be spent on anything other than X-ships.

Simple enough?

As war drags on, the various empires should begin suffering economic exhaustion.  (In Fed and Emppire, this is handled by reducing the economic points your provinces produce.)

It really doesn't make sense for us to start getting *more* points to play with. 

-S'Cipio

Wanderer is a liberal, he simply can raise taxes

Only on the top 1%.

[762_XC]

You talk in circles Kroma, but have yet to make a point. You need to run for congress or something.

Sorry you think (assume) our methodology was flawed. That's still only your opinion however.

[762_XC]

So what do we have to do to put this to bed? Get an RM vote or something?

[FPF-DieHard]

So what do we have to do to put this to bed? Get an RM vote or something?

I think Dizzy should make a decision, keep his pimp-hand strong, and no voting.

Our opinions should be known from this "debate."

Democracy is bad.

[Kroma BaSyl]

You talk in circles Kroma, but have yet to make a point. You need to run for congress or something.

I talk in circles? You started out by claiming you had the authority and valued opinion because you did testings, all that crap about combat experience vs looking at the numbers. Then you admit that you can't remeber if you actual tested it, but still insist that since you vaguely recall doing some testing, at some time, on some ships, that had no relavence to the issue at hand, your opinion as an expert witness was more valuable than everyone elses. The only one talking in circles t00l is you.

Coming in claiming to be the authoritative voice due to your combat experience only to admit you had no combat experience in the particular ships seems a bit fishy to me.Your the one claiming expert combat experience as the sole factor in determining ship worth, you also claimed to have done such, but then it was discovered you were just posturing. I really think you may be better suited for politics than I.

Sorry you think (assume) our methodology was flawed. That's still only your opinion however.

Yes my expert opinion. Software quality and testing is actually one of my professional specialties, honed on years of writing FDA regulated clinical testing packages for blood banks. However, it doesn't take an expert to understand that any testing methodology ought to require actual testing in order to not be considered seriously flawed.

[Corbomite]

Now it is Corb showing his ignorance, what Gorn X-ship combo would you have taken to match the BPV more closely. The problem Corb is the imbalanced X-ships, we took the CA and 2 CLs just like you, but as the hull BPV and results showed they are not an even match. Maybe you need to brush up on the PBR rules if you have bothered to read them at all.

I'm not going to even justify that inane crap with a response except to say.....




6-0 Baby!!!


And since you were too chicken to show up and play I don't see how you could possibly know anyrhing about it at all.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Now it is Corb showing his ignorance, what Gorn X-ship combo would you have taken to match the BPV more closely. The problem Corb is the imbalanced X-ships, we took the CA and 2 CLs just like you, but as the hull BPV and results showed they are not an even match. Maybe you need to brush up on the PBR rules if you have bothered to read them at all.

I'm not going to even justify that inane crap with a response except to say.....




6-0 Baby!!!


And since you were too chicken to show up and play I don't see how you could possibly know anyrhing about it at all.

But isn't it a rather hollow victory to be cheesing your way to the finals? <snicker>

[Corbomite]

Exactly the reason we decided to play ISC, to show that the rules do not reflect a fair and balanced playing field for all. I think we have done a good job of it, but I am sure it will be lost on the rest of you.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Exactly the reason we decided to play ISC, to show that the rules do not reflect a fair and balanced playing field for all. I think we have done a good job of it, but I am sure it will be lost on the rest of you.

Your breeching to the choir, brother Corbo.

[Corbomite]

Your breeching to the choir, brother Corbo.

You just stay out of my breeches there sister!

[GDA-S'Cipio]

So what do we have to do to put this to bed? Get an RM vote or something?

Dizzy already gave his answer above:  No change to the rules.

Okies, fine. No change then whatsoever on this thread. I'm screwed if I do and screwed if I dont. So screw you all who dont like it. NO CHANGE. Server rules are as they were b4 this thread was posted...

It is DH and I's fault we didnt fully flesh this out beforehand, but some X ships will still get built and we will see what happens with them...

Oh, and julin, the ISC CCX is that good. Trust me. It can take down any DN with a little skill. The VP's you'll get when flying it is worth the cost.

-S'Cipio

[Corbomite]

Oh, and julin, the ISC CCX is that good. Trust me. It can take down any DN with a little skill. The VP's you'll get when flying it is worth the cost.

Assuming they stick around to let you do so. I have them running away from a CAY.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Okies, fine. No change then whatsoever on this thread. I'm screwed if I do and screwed if I dont. So screw you all who dont like it. NO CHANGE. Server rules are as they were b4 this thread was posted...

So I am to work build plans on the 6+1 BP cycle, with no "XP", instead of the plans I was starting to formulate at work all day?  Isn't this a mid-server rules change on top of a mid-server rules change???

It is DH and I's fault we didnt fully flesh this out beforehand, but some X ships will still get built and we will see what happens with them...

It's impossible for 2 people to test every combination prior to a server launch.  I'm sorry my wife's pregnant, and I saved as many "brownie points" to try to play this server instead of testing for hours on end...  (Baby #3's due in May, so the mood-swings are just getting into full gear)

Oh, and julin, the ISC CCX is that good. Trust me. It can take down any DN with a little skill. The VP's you'll get when flying it is worth the cost.

I have to bow to the community's opinion.  I did take the I-CCX out for a spin on the test server, and tried her out in a handful of missions.  Being a bit of the old-school line ship pilot (ie, not a fan of carriers or X-ships), I felt the ship was somewhat, lacking, especially in light of the hoopla that she's bringing out in this here debate.  Granted, I was drawing, and regularly waxing, AI BBs when I had her, but in a way I expected no less of the ISC's philoshophy as epitimized in the best of the ISC's design line.  Also, when I peeked at her 329 BPV, if that is a true representation of the ship, then it's the "pocket BB", if you want to call our CCZ a "pocket DN"...
As a ranking officer though, I still disagree with the comparison of the I-CCX against any given pair of CXs.
If I'm guessing right, "combat density" is a fancy term which boils down to "how much damage does this ship do at a given range", like, say, range 10 in a head-on pass.  Perhaps combat density also takes into account things like an average of damage over a set of given ranges, or how much it does in various arcs besides forward centerline.  Someone's got to send me a definition of what this means.
Now, a little definition of my own, "staying power".  Let's take the biggest of the typical 2 on 1's mentioned here, say, a BB vs. 2 DNHs.  BB cripples DN #1 before it can shoot for major damage, maybe the DN gets off with a lucky "severe damaging".  DN #2 sneaks up behind the BB, and offloads a full alpha.  The "staying power" of the BB allows it to absorb the somewhat smaller DNH strke with severe damage, but it's not quite crippled.
Try the same in the I-CCX against a pair of the other Plasma CXs, ie, the R-FHX or G-CCX.  Both ships have, as their HW suites, 2xR and 2xS torps...  The ISC does as everyone predicts, and cripples CX 1 before it ever fires a shot.  Without a distraction, this is 2 on 1 after all, CX 2 gets within prime strike range of the I-CCX and returns fire as the I-CCX begins to recharge.  The I-CCXs slight internals advantage (what, not even 10 boxes compared to a F-CX, I'm not popping back that far in this writing) won't be much of a factor here, ie, the I-CCX is just as crippled from CX 2 as CX 1 is crippled by the ISC.  This lack of extra staying power, IMO, is why I was acting the way I have been, and asking for the discount...

As promised, as the Admin has spoken (twice ), I will abide by the price of 6 BP, no matter what I feel the case may be...