Topic: X-Ship BP proposal

[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?