Topic: Learning from Mistakes . . .

[Dizzy]

A server is more a work of art than a machine.   There are no mistakes . . . only features and flavor.  Just like ice cream.   Lots of flavors, you just might not like them all.

 

[FPF-DieHard]

No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews

Fighter needs some "adjustments."  Check out New Cruiser hell in a week or 2.

[Green]

No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews

Or return full deck crews and stock fighters.

[Hexx]

No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews

Or return full deck crews and stock fighters.

I'd say no  to stock fighters
Keep the megapack upgrades, but only upgrade the weapons load.
Don't upgrade the damage.

I *don't* have a problem with a fighter than dishes out tons of damage.
I *do* have issue with a fighter that an ESG at rng zero or a heavy drone can't kill.

[762_XC]

How the hell can you allow ANY battleships and not allow capital ships to fleet together?

Think about that one for a minute. It's got to be one or the other.

[Kroma BaSyl]

No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews

Or return full deck crews and stock fighters.

I'd say no  to stock fighters
Keep the megapack upgrades, but only upgrade the weapons load.
Don't upgrade the damage.

I *don't* have a problem with a fighter than dishes out tons of damage.
I *do* have issue with a fighter that an ESG at rng zero or a heavy drone can't kill.

I tend to agree.

[Corbomite]

No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews

Or return full deck crews and stock fighters.

I'd say no  to stock fighters
Keep the megapack upgrades, but only upgrade the weapons load.
Don't upgrade the damage.

I *don't* have a problem with a fighter than dishes out tons of damage.
I *do* have issue with a fighter that an ESG at rng zero or a heavy drone can't kill.

I tend to agree.

So you guys are saying all PF's should go? 

[Firehawk]

Actuall when I drafted a fed CV marker I prayed it was a PF tender and not a carrier with A10m because the pf's were easier to kill 

[KBFLordKrueg]

Actuall when I drafted a fed CV marker I prayed it was a PF tender and not a carrier with A10m because the pf's were easier to kill 

Amen to that FH! 

[WarSears]

No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews

This is a great Ideal I would lean to 0 deck crews.

[Kougar_XC]

No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews

Or return full deck crews and stock fighters.

I'd say no  to stock fighters
Keep the megapack upgrades, but only upgrade the weapons load.
Don't upgrade the damage.

I *don't* have a problem with a fighter than dishes out tons of damage.
I *do* have issue with a fighter that an ESG at rng zero or a heavy drone can't kill.

I fully agree with this. SFC ships, however much SFB like, are not built for those kinds of fighters that can take that much damage. I already went into details about that elsewhere...

No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews

This might work, if you absoutely MUST have fighters that require more than a plasma G hit to kill!!

No BBs sounds good to me. Restricting all capitol ships from disengaging might help, but might be unfair in some situations. If there will be DNs, then I may be for this anyway. FFs and CLs should have the right to disengage in any given match however, as I know many players prefer these over the bigger guns. And I have nothing against any ships fleeting together, unless you start involving DNs and BBs in the mix. I bring up my match against three fed players in two BCFfs and a CB against my DNHT here, with the solo DNHT winning with 99% of it's hull.   

[Kroma BaSyl]

No more megapack fighters, unless perhaps if you use ZERO deck crews

Or return full deck crews and stock fighters.

I'd say no  to stock fighters
Keep the megapack upgrades, but only upgrade the weapons load.
Don't upgrade the damage.

I *don't* have a problem with a fighter than dishes out tons of damage.
I *do* have issue with a fighter that an ESG at rng zero or a heavy drone can't kill.

I tend to agree.

So you guys are saying all PF's should go? 

Mega Fighters were way harder to kill than PFs. However that said, I thing the PFs in this campaign need so downward weaking. They either need to be more brittle to compensate for the extra power or have a bit less of it. Hitting a PF with an R torp from range 5 and having it not even slowdown at all was OOT for PFs too.

[Farfarer]

Still like NO Disengage... You can then scrap the "clear the hex" rule for X minutes too.

[FPF-DieHard]

Mega Fighters were way harder to kill than PFs. However that said, I thing the PFs in this campaign need so downward weaking. They either need to be more brittle to compensate for the extra power or have a bit less of it. Hitting a PF with an R torp from range 5 and having it not even slowdown at all was OOT for PFs too.

Internals have already been trimmed from the PFs.  Most of them have 0 hull and only 1 point of ED.

Next rev of this mod will have

1.  Weaker fighters (big nerfing for the Megapacks, they were too tough)
2.  Weaker PF (not sure how many more internals I can trim)

New Cruiser Hell will be the test bed for this and hopefully will be up next weekend.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Still like NO Disengage... You can then scrap the "clear the hex" rule for X minutes too.

A no disengage rule is stupid.

[Kroma BaSyl]

2.  Weaker PF (not sure how many more internals I can trim)

Not sure trimming the internals is necessarily the issue. The main problem was that they could still run speed 31 after being down 3/4 hull.  I understand why you increased power over other internals, but as it stands now even after taking massive damage they can run home to the tender at max speed for a free and unlimited repair. PFs are now just like fighters used to be, no speed degradation with damage and unlimited repair facilities.

Would changing the balance of power systems (e.g. less warp, more APR) or just lowering the total power some make them slow a bit when heavily damaged?

[FPF-DieHard]

2.  Weaker PF (not sure how many more internals I can trim)

Not sure trimming the internals is necessarily the issue. The main problem was that they could still run speed 31 after being down 3/4 hull.  I understand why you increased power over other internals, but as it stands now even after taking massive damage they can run home to the tender at max speed for a free and unlimited repair. PFs are now just like fighters used to be, no speed degradation with damage and unlimited repair facilities.

Would changing the balance of power systems (e.g. less warp, more APR) or just lowering the total power some make them slow a bit when heavily damaged?

The extra power is APR.   Infact, they have less warp than OP+ PFs.

Unless Dizzy or Bonk changed things from when I was doing the shiplist . . .

EDIT:   Just checked.   the power is in APR. 

Is the DAC broken?

One thing I noticed is 3 Type IV drones kill a full PF, OP+ PFs take 4.

[Kroma BaSyl]

2.  Weaker PF (not sure how many more internals I can trim)

Not sure trimming the internals is necessarily the issue. The main problem was that they could still run speed 31 after being down 3/4 hull.  I understand why you increased power over other internals, but as it stands now even after taking massive damage they can run home to the tender at max speed for a free and unlimited repair. PFs are now just like fighters used to be, no speed degradation with damage and unlimited repair facilities.

Would changing the balance of power systems (e.g. less warp, more APR) or just lowering the total power some make them slow a bit when heavily damaged?

The extra power is APR.   Infact, they have less warp than OP+ PFs.

Unless Dizzy or Bonk changed things from when I was doing the shiplist . . .

It may have to do with the way the AI prioritzes power. Just guessing, but maybe when it took a power hit in the past it still tried to load weapons an fly, thus slowing some, now maybe with the extra power it can still do both to an extent.

[762_XC]

Still like NO Disengage... You can then scrap the "clear the hex" rule for X minutes too.

A no disengage rule is stupid.

What Bear said.

[Kougar_XC]

About PFs... weakening their hull anymore would be going to far IMO. I have seen plasma S torps take out my PFs just about every time if at close range.

I assumed that the one time my PFL survived a hit from a close range R (took 34 internals on it) that the only reason it didn't pop immediately was because it took the shot head on. As in the weapons took some of the damage from going to the engines. Not sure if PFs work this way, but I have seen it work with ships. Just put your phasers within the same arcs as the damage you are taking, and they will take some of the hits instead of it all going to your engines.

I actually do think slowing damaged PFs down would be a good idea... couldn't you just tweak their movement cost a little? Isn't it at .10 right now? Would need some very fine tuning as they need to charge going fast speeds, but once they start taking damage then they'll be feeling it... Is that feasible?

And I'm with 762 and Bear... Would you like to be the small guy in a frig or light cruiser that pops on to play an hour once every day or three, and be forced to lose your ship in a completely hopeless match against a BCH? That ship would be a heavy loss to someone like that with very low PP to fall back on. If ships are going to be worth VCs again, then forcing people to play unfair matches is even more absurd.