Topic: FYI: work in progress: OP+ 4.1

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

It's a problem (DC)if you want other people to play your version and for this to be the new standard. It's not a problem if this is just for yourself. At the end of the day, Corbo's answer will do. He and any server admin can change it if and when we get back to a position of having campaigns again.

[Corbomite]

It's a problem (DC)if you want other people to play your version and for this to be the new standard. It's not a problem if this is just for yourself. At the end of the day, Corbo's answer will do. He and any server admin can change it if and when we get back to a position of having campaigns again.

Exactly. I've changed many things to compensate for the non-pure SFB world of SFC. I think they are fair and balanced as they can be given our play environment, but I have no desire to argue about it until we get a game we all can play again.

[FireSoul]

It's a problem (DC)if you want other people to play your version and for this to be the new standard. It's not a problem if this is just for yourself. At the end of the day, Corbo's answer will do. He and any server admin can change it if and when we get back to a position of having campaigns again.

It's not a new standard if it's basically what OP+ 4.0 already has. It certainly has not been a problem.

There's hardly any change at all to gameplay compared to 4.0.. and what I was being proposed IS a change. I said no.

[Voidwar]

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.

What you have stated is a mischaracterization of my position.

I want the drone control to be sufficient for the ship to use its systems.  Control should equal racks plus six for a scatter, period.

If people launch more drones than that, then I want the oldest drone to disappear, as it does now.  I do not know what you mean by "unable to launch".

[Dizzy]

Voidwar argues like I used to, hehe.

FS, I agree with Corbo that ships that are not designed to be drone chuckers shouldnt have a DC of 12, but should have enough DC to launch all their drones in one salvo. Still maintains balance, but stops it from being annoying as hell. Do what you want, but SG shiplisty will see to it that if a ship has 7 racks it will have a DC of 7.

Voidwar, your argument doesnt take into account ships with 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 racks PLUS a scatter. We'd need DC of anywhere from 7 to 11 in your case. I dont follow your logic and I dont see any sense in your argument. What you are suggesting is to make ships drone bombardment ships when they are not designed as such. What precedent are you using for your argument and how are you proposing to balance it?

@ Lord Saxon: Dude, heh, we have ALWAYS been at disagreement of the stupidest sh*t and make mountains of stink out of it. It's the nature of the way things work in games. I play a tabletop game called warhammer 40k and the codex rules that are released sometimes lead to different interpretations just because of the way they are written that cause fist fights at matches. I'm gonna start calling you Captain Obvious, LS.

[FoaS_XC]

*pokes head in thread* have I heard yelling going on here?

[Corbomite]

*pokes head in thread* have I heard yelling going on here?

No, just the muffled cry of shattered dreams.

[Voidwar]

Voidwar, your argument doesnt take into account ships with 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 racks PLUS a scatter. We'd need DC of anywhere from 7 to 11 in your case.

What makes you think that what I have said, "channels should equal racks plus six", does not fit what you have said there?

Yes , I know, yes they all need them.

I dont follow your logic and I dont see any sense in your argument.

I find that hard to believe.

Ships being able to launch and control all of their drones, plus control a scatterpack's worth of drones ( thats 6 dizzy  ), allows all the ship's systems to function at once, and can still be defeated, by one well timed T-bomb.  Its so obvious and apparent, that I don't see how you can claim not to follow it.

[Dizzy]

Voidwar, your argument doesnt take into account ships with 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 racks PLUS a scatter. We'd need DC of anywhere from 7 to 11 in your case.

What makes you think that what I have said, "channels should equal racks plus six", does not fit what you have said there?

Yes , I know, yes they all need them.

Well, lol, that wont ever happen... lmao.

I dont follow your logic and I dont see any sense in your argument.

I find that hard to believe.

Ships being able to launch and control all of their drones, plus control a scatterpack's worth of drones ( thats 6 dizzy  ), allows all the ship's systems to function at once, and can still be defeated, by one well timed T-bomb.  Its so obvious and apparent, that I don't see how you can claim not to follow it.

I follow it. I'm just not following you. 

[Voidwar]

Well, lol, that wont ever happen... lmao.

LOL YOU won't ever happen.

I follow it. I'm just not following you. 

Then you like things broken, so you should roll your computer down the stairs, and if it comes out right side up call it a six and play the old board game.

You know Dizzy, it might just happen and leave you and yours in the dust.  I am a very active player. 
If drones aren't fixed on this effort, I see very little reason for me to load it up, or play it with others.
If someone else releases another mod, where the drones are fixed, I'd play that, all things being equal.

Making the game better, would be much more awesome, than throwing in a bunch of randomly gernerated pirates that don't work, and also much better, than adding over a hundred useless unusable tugs to the game . . .

[Corbomite]

Void, if you put half as much effort into doing it yourself as you do badgering others to do it, it'd be done already. I have never met two people, let alone the whole player base, who totally agree with anything done to mod this game. To each his own. You can make this shiplist what you would like it to be and play it with all who agree with you. Why do you continue to berate the ones who don't?

[Voidwar]

Void, if you put half as much effort into doing it yourself

Yawn.

I provided feedback.  I never said I was going to do it myself.

If the penalty for providing feedback, is to be challenged to make my own, why should anyone participate in testing or provide feedback ?

As far as effort goes, it took a lot of effort to make firesoul admit the DNM was "stupid", and to shatter that "SFB is always right" garbage, but now that it is shattered, it seems my work has just begun.  Now that he himself has shown that SFB can be departed from, the dike has finally cracked, and now we can get some real progress.

[Corbomite]

Void, if you put half as much effort into doing it yourself

Yawn.

I provided feedback.  I never said I was going to do it myself.

If the penalty for providing feedback, is to be challenged to make my own, why should anyone participate in testing or provide feedback ?

As far as effort goes, it took a lot of effort to make firesoul admit the DNM was "stupid", and to shatter that "SFB is always right" garbage, but now that it is shattered, it seems my work has just begun.  Now that he himself has shown that SFB can be departed from, the dike has finally cracked, and now we can get some real progress.

Hmmm, a superiority complex mixed with total ignorance, lack of respect for others efforts and no desire to take on the task for yourself. People are right to ignore you and I will now join them. Have fun!

[762_XC]

Uh, Corb...that was over the top. 7 days for a personal attack.

[Voidwar]

Hmmm, a superiority complex mixed with total ignorance, lack of respect for others

This sounds a lot like firesoul.

efforts and no desire to take on the task for yourself. People are right to ignore you and I will now join them. Have fun!

Ahh, so your attempt to attack me personally has ended in failure, you didn't have much to contribute to the topic, and now you are going to ignore me ?  Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Further, where do you get your "ignorance" angle ?  What is it you think I don't know ?

Or was that just part of your ad hominem namecalling ?

[762_XC]

I suggest you walk away Void. You've made your opinion here plain. Beating it to death serves no useful purpose.

[Voidwar]

Are you asking me to leave ?  Stop participating ?

I don't know what you are implying.

[Voidwar]

Beating it to death

What you are calling "beating to death", I would characterize as "defending from critique".

No more critiques, and no more defenses will be necessary

[762_XC]

I'm saying stop throwing fuel onto the fire. Ultimately it's Firesoul's mod and his choice what to do with it, no matter who agrees with it or not. Your posting style here, for whatever reason, is confrontational to say the least.

Discussion is fine. Flame-baiting is not. If you can't resolve the situation without doing the latter, then just walk away, or take it to PM's.

[Voidwar]

Discussion is fine. Flame-baiting is not.

I agree.  I came in with my two cents about drones, and got flamed by 4 people.

Ok. Well. Let's take that over then, since you're doing a good job of being a f*ing troll. 

At the risk at estranging myself from the player community, I will not be applying your suggested change. It's not that I don't care, it's that I actually enjoy people having to play within the limits of their ships.
It's called tactics.

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?

I dont follow your logic and I dont see any sense in your argument.

Hmmm, a superiority complex mixed with total ignorance, lack of respect for others efforts and no desire to take on the task for yourself. People are right to ignore you and I will now join them. Have fun!