Topic: FYI: work in progress: OP+ 4.1

[762_XC]

Gentlemen. Keep it civil please.

[Astarte]

If you have been following the development of this mod, you will have realized that it is closely based on SFB material.

The books of which are sitting not three feet from me.

So for you to come in and claim changes based on a personal opinion and state that you do not care for what SFB has to say on the topic indicates a disrespect for the basis of this mod.

These modifications and limits are not just pulled out of thin air.  They are documented.  There are limitations in the game itself that were explained to you and you were told why your suggestion would not work.  It was already rejected.

You came back with an inflamed response that called into question the merits of everything the mod is built on.  You really think you didn't deserve being called a troll? (I will grant that the expletive might have been excessive)

--------

You asked if your skills were questioned, I would turn that around on you.

The question remains, do YOU question your skills as a pilot?

Is this change so daunting to you that you cannot overcome the challenge it poses to you?  Can you not master this ship in its pure design and make it your bitch?

[FireSoul]

Gentlemen. Keep it civil please.

Awwwwwww...

.. okay.

[LordSaxon]

A fresh reminder of why this community has about 10 people playing the game.

[Voidwar]

So for you to come in and claim changes based on a personal opinion and state that you do not care for what SFB has to say on the topic indicates a disrespect for the basis of this mod.

What did SFB say about the DNM ?  6 or 7 ?  If sfb said 6, then why is firesoul saying he plans to bump it ?

Don't tell me that some people's ideas can depart from sfb and other people's can't, as that answer won't hold water.

These modifications and limits are not just pulled out of thin air.  They are documented.  There are limitations in the game itself that were explained to you and you were told why your suggestion would not work.  It was already rejected.

Vague hogwash.  12 control channels on a DNH WILL work.  Don't choose to leave something broken, and then try to get me to believe it was unfixable.

You came back with an inflamed response that called into question the merits of everything the mod is built on.  You really think you didn't deserve being called a troll? (I will grant that the expletive might have been excessive)

Claiming "this is the way it was in sfb" is not some trump card that ends all discussion.  IF it was, then what about that DNM ?  Was sfb wrong or was firesoul ?  SFB and this computer game are two different things.  If you want to make this computer game, into a decades old board game, then roll your computer down the stairs and if it comes out right side up, call it a six.

Drone control should be racks plus six, for the obvious, in game, real, gaming-experience reasons I stated.  Oh, are you all sad because I ignored your SFB trump card ?  Tuff.  I play the game online allatime.  If you want players, then fix stuff.  Don't look down your snooty nose and tell me your boardgame reasons for choosing not to fix it.  I'll laugh and tell you my real gaming reasons why it was uninstalled.

You asked if your skills were questioned, I would turn that around on you.

You can do that, by playing me online.

Is this change so daunting

Change ?  I think we are talking about a refusal to change, aren't we ?

[FireSoul]

oi.

What did SFB say about the DNM ?  6 or 7 ?  If sfb said 6, then why is firesoul saying he plans to bump it ?

C10K and DNM: I made acknowledged that their SFB design was .. indeed.. stupid. These will be the only 2 ships (and their refits) that will get more drone control for +3 BPV. I am taking full responsibility for this exception and in no way should be applied to other ships.

Vague hogwash.  12 control channels on a DNH WILL work.  Don't choose to leave something broken, and then try to get me to believe it was unfixable.

It's not broken. I don't even need to explain further, but I am typing this extra text because you like explanations in detail.

Claiming "this is the way it was in sfb" is not some trump card that ends all discussion.

Please refer to the 10-year old quote.. motto really, for OP+:
http://klingon.pet.dhs.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=OP%2B_Introduction

"Let's add what's missing from SFB. .. but let's do it as if we were Taldren so that we can preserve the good feel of the game. Its style must match Taldren's, as if it was an extension and continuation of their work."

If anything, I am following THAT guideline.



VoidWar, the answer is 'no'.

[Corbomite]

Void, Firesoul stated many years ago that the OP+ project was specifically designed and intended to place into the shiplist as many SFB ships as could be placed using the limitations and parameters of SFB as a guide. He is not interested in "fixing" anything or being swayed by anyone's view of what the shiplist should look like. He uses the one and only actual source for information pertaining to the ships he ports: SFB. He does this because he knows there are racial and playstyle differences that have caused much strife in the past and led to many people leaving the game and flat out hatred between many people - over a game. Anything he does to appease one group will cause ire in some other(s). He has also given permission to modify his work any way people please, to make the ships what they would like them to be and play how they like. All he asks is that it is not called OP+. Over all this philosophy works and is appreciated by players who see what he is trying to do.

[Voidwar]

C10K and DNM: I made acknowledged that their SFB design was .. indeed.. stupid. These will be the only 2 ships (and their refits) that will get more drone control for +3 BPV. I am taking full responsibility for this exception and in no way should be applied to other ships.

This reveals it all.

SFB might be wrong, but only in the places firesoul says, and if lowly Voidwar says sfb is wrong, sfb resumes its role as an unassailable trump card.

Inconsistancy.

It's not broken. I don't even need to explain further, but I am typing this extra text because you like explanations in detail.

Your god complex is showing.  ( your extra text didn't contain any relevant details btw )

VoidWar, the answer is 'no'.

I say "no" to your mod then, don't need to play it , don't need to continue play-testin it, or helping anyone else test it.

I was trying to help, talking with you, and firetroll, and adding ideas to an ongoing beta.

You started calling me names.

Go ahead, draw your line in the sand,  you will find it is a circle around your feet.

[Voidwar]

Void, Firesoul stated many years ago that the OP+ project was specifically designed and intended to place into the shiplist as many SFB ships as could be placed using the limitations and parameters of SFB as a guide. He is not interested in "fixing" anything

What he just stated about the FED DNM, completely undoes your argument.

[knightstorm]

C10K and DNM: I made acknowledged that their SFB design was .. indeed.. stupid. These will be the only 2 ships (and their refits) that will get more drone control for +3 BPV. I am taking full responsibility for this exception and in no way should be applied to other ships.

This reveals it all.

SFB might be wrong, but only in the places firesoul says, and if lowly Voidwar says sfb is wrong, sfb resumes its role as an unassailable trump card.

Inconsistancy.

Void, he's talking about ships that are incapable of using their full armament due to a feature of SFB that never made it to SFC.  Its completely different than what you're asking for.

[FireSoul]

Voidwar, the answer is still 'no'.

[Corbomite]

Void, Firesoul stated many years ago that the OP+ project was specifically designed and intended to place into the shiplist as many SFB ships as could be placed using the limitations and parameters of SFB as a guide. He is not interested in "fixing" anything

What he just stated about the FED DNM, completely undoes your argument.

Void, he's talking about ships that are incapable of using their full armament due to a feature of SFB that never made it to SFC.  Its completely different than what you're asking for.

^^^ This.

[Voidwar]

Void, he's talking about ships that are incapable of using their full armament due to a feature of SFB that never made it to SFC.  Its completely different than what you're asking for.

No, its not.  SFB had 6 channels for 7 racks, and firesoul just admitted that was stupid, and he's going to change it.

So, if firesoul thinks its stupid, that puts it up for grabs, but if someone else thinks its stupid, then they have disagreed with SFB and are instantly wrong.

Inconsistancy, just like I said.

[Corbomite]

Void, he's talking about ships that are incapable of using their full armament due to a feature of SFB that never made it to SFC.  Its completely different than what you're asking for.

No, its not.  SFB had 6 channels for 7 racks, and firesoul just admitted that was stupid, and he's going to change it.

So, if firesoul thinks its stupid, that puts it up for grabs, but if someone else thinks its stupid, then they have disagreed with SFB and are instantly wrong.

Inconsistancy, just like I said.

No, you are asking for double drone control for all ships with 6 or less Racks:

All ships, need to have control channels at least equal to their racks, plus six, to control a scatter.

If I understand FS right, he will give certain ships with 7+ Racks 7 DC etc....

[Voidwar]

If I understand FS right, he will give certain ships with 7+ Racks 7 DC etc....

Do you think this makes a difference ?

If he changes one thing, this means changes are allowed, and this whole "SFB is always right" crap, is out the window.

If SFB is always right, why wasn't it right about the DNM ?

[knightstorm]

If I understand FS right, he will give certain ships with 7+ Racks 7 DC etc....

Do you think this makes a difference ?

If he changes one thing, this means changes are allowed, and this whole "SFB is always right" crap, is out the window.

If SFB is always right, why wasn't it right about the DNM ?

Because the DNM relies on the feature of SFB that allows it to transfer drones to its escort's control channels.  A feature that SFC can't replicate.

[FireSoul]

Void, he's talking about ships that are incapable of using their full armament due to a feature of SFB that never made it to SFC.  Its completely different than what you're asking for.

No, its not.  SFB had 6 channels for 7 racks, and firesoul just admitted that was stupid, and he's going to change it.

So, if firesoul thinks its stupid, that puts it up for grabs, but if someone else thinks its stupid, then they have disagreed with SFB and are instantly wrong.

Inconsistancy, just like I said.

No, you are asking for double drone control for all ships with 6 or less Racks:

All ships, need to have control channels at least equal to their racks, plus six, to control a scatter.

If I understand FS right, he will give certain ships with 7+ Racks 7 DC etc....

I gave the following ships 12 DC, double drone control. Note: I increased the BPV by 3. This is in an unreleased shiplist revision. It was my choice to do so, after having written a 'systematic' check to detect all issues.

# ship F-DNM: drone control (6) is less than # drones. ( 7 )
# ship F-DNMx: drone control (6) is less than # drones. ( 7 )
# ship K-C10K: drone control (6) is less than # drones. ( 8 )
# ship K-C10x: drone control (6) is less than # drones. ( 9 )

It's not like this is the first time I've taken steps to resolve an annoyance. The Planets' weapons loadouts is a good example. I can even provide multiple other instances of my ... inconsistency.

wait! that means I'm consistent!


Now, please please drop the matter of the drone control!

-- FS

[Voidwar]

Because the DNM relies on the feature of SFB that allows it to transfer drones to its escort's control channels.  A feature that SFC can't replicate.

You know what SFC can do ?  Up the drone control channels and solve the problem.

Now that you realize that "solved", is better than "sfb", stop being stubborn and solve the rest.

[FireSoul]

Because the DNM relies on the feature of SFB that allows it to transfer drones to its escort's control channels.  A feature that SFC can't replicate.

You know what SFC can do ?  Up the drone control channels and solve the problem.

Now that you realize that "solved", is better than "sfb", stop being stubborn and solve the rest.

Ok. Let's see.
*thinks*
No. I actually like it the way it is. I *want* people to be unable to launch drones when their fire control limits are reached.

This is not a problem.

[Corbomite]

I gave the following ships 12 DC, double drone control. Note: I increased the BPV by 3. This is in an unreleased shiplist revision. It was my choice to do so, after having written a 'systematic' check to detect all issues.

# ship F-DNM: drone control (6) is less than # drones. ( 7 )
# ship F-DNMx: drone control (6) is less than # drones. ( 7 )
# ship K-C10K: drone control (6) is less than # drones. ( 8 )
# ship K-C10x: drone control (6) is less than # drones. ( 9 )

It's not like this is the first time I've taken steps to resolve an annoyance. The Planets' weapons loadouts is a good example. I can even provide multiple other instances of my ... inconsistency.

wait! that means I'm consistent!


Now, please please drop the matter of the drone control!

-- FS

I don't agree with this. I think they should have DC equal to their rack numbers, but it's your mod and easily changed in my own shiplist.