Topic: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?

[Kortez]

Quote:
Couple quick shiplist questions, and this seems to be the place to get a good answer  

F-DDG/+  is listed as a drone bombardment ship....why?   It only carries 2 G racks.

Also, should the F-BCG have double drone control?   The BCV, which is  identical weapons wise, has it.

Same question for the F-GSC/CVL.

Thanks  

Feds want everything!
 

[Kortez]

Quote:

Quote:
Doh,  actually Kortez was a Klingon in the GFL and we kidnapped him.  So his change over to the Mirak shiplist has been, well for lack of better words, less then stellar for him.  He just plain thinks the Mirak shiplist sucks.  Unfortunately, I have to agree with him on alot of his points.  But I have always flown Mirak since the game came out and have always managed to overcome.  

Yes, I know...hence my suggestion.  You can take the Klingon out of the Empire, but you can't take the Empire out of the Klingon.  



 

I still smuggle Gath and bloodwine, and my painstick factory has been making money for the longest time.

Blowing up Fluf has a definite attraction ...
 

[Klingon Fanatic]

Any chance this will be ready for the weekend? I am giving my brother a brand new copy of OP and want to give him the latest stuff... Having never played OP or SFB I want to make a good impression on him so I can recruit a new player LOL!

KF  

[FireSoul]

I started last night.. so..
If I go nuts like I usually do, and forego testing .. maybe.
.. if I want to reserve time for testing,.. no.

[FireSoul]

You guys will test this for me..
.. I intend to put this work up tonight.

-- Luc

[KBF-JD]

Firesoul,

I have noticed the G-BTLE is a CA with the same weps at the G-CA, better shields(all around), 5 tractors, and a little less power.

At 78 BPV it is basically the same ship as the CA at 130?  Is this right?

The G-BTs as a rule may need to be looked at.

Thanks,

jd  

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Firesoul,

I have noticed the G-BTLE is a CA with the same weps at the G-CA, better shields(all around), 5 tractors, and a little less power.

At 78 BPV it is basically the same ship as the CA at 130?  Is this right?

The G-BTs as a rule may need to be looked at.

Thanks,

jd  

You might be right.. you definitely might be right. But let's not post in this thread anymore. .. instead, start a new thread.

[FireSoul]

I've been planning the next version of the OP+ shiplist.. but some of the changes needs to be discussed with players.. I probably won't be working on the next shiplist until I'm done playing on Reclamation.. Unless an SFCx admins requests it of me because they'd want it for a soon-to-be upcoming campaign.

EDIT: Oh! .. and any ship with errors, or ships that need corrections, let me know and I will review it. I can't review the entire shiplist for errors so I do it on request.


Here are my raw notes, so far:

Quote:

Z-HDWG is really the Z-HDWE. The Z-HDWG is missing.
F-FFT (Priority Transport Frigate) should be "R"
F-DWT (Priority Transport War Destroyer) should be "R" and should be properly placed.
Add "R-KRCSF"


Review: check for Carriers that don't follow the 2/3rds rule.
  - compare 2/3rds of deckcrews with number of fighters      
    - round down, always.
  - adjust BPVs

Review: Split double-mount (or more) weapons on ships..
  - if 4 photons: photons in pairs
  - Plasmas single per mount
  - if 4 disruptors, disruptors in pairs
  - if 4 HBs, Hellbores in pairs  
  - if 4 fusions, fusions in pairs
- idea taken from TarMinyatur's own work.. but not stolen.
  - need to ask opinion, and give credit.
- ONLY if possible, if there are enough mounts on the ship.

Review: All ships with LWX or RWX mounts should be set to use LS/RS
instead, to avoid the buggy arc LWX. (would lose only 20 degrees of arc)
  - which ships have these arcs should be written to a file for when/if
the arc is fixed in a future patch
  - Some hydrans who are supposed to have LWX/RWX arcs were given RX arcs. Need to adjust.

Review: 3 years was too much for YLA refit overlap. Bring it down to 2.
  - I found that 3 years was too long while playing on Reclamation.

As you can see, some of these items could easily be accepted, while others.. .. well.... they would be contested. I would like to discuss the controversial items:

1- adjusting the # of fighters on ships based on # of deckcrews. (# of deckcrews to be verified, of course)
    - this would be for ALL fighter carriers in the game
    - PFs are based on # of mechlinks.
2- Hydran rear arcs changes/fixes.
3- YLA changes: from 3 years overlap to 2.


I want your opinions.. I want your input.
-- Luc
 

[FireSoul]

perhaps I wasn't clear..

details:
1- 223 fighter-carrying ships would have the number of fighters reduced. 67 ships would gain more fighters.
2- LS/RS is quite different than RAR/RAL or RX arcs.

 

[3dot14]

Why must the fighter number be tied to Deckcrew?

(in SFC2,) Deckcrews are the "relaods" for fighters, right? (2 crew = 1 replacement?) I don't see why the number of reloads should affect the max number of deployment.

I can have a carrier that can only deploy 2 at a time, but holds 12 in reserve going against a carrier that deploys 4 at a time but hold only 6 in reserve. Different battle philosophy for either side... and that's a bit more interesting.

If I misunderstood the deckcrew concept, let me know.




EDIT: Just realized something. The Reload concept is for SFC2EAW. WAS IT EVER PORTED OVER TO OP?

[jimmi7769]

Here are a couple of other things to think about in the next list.

K-DWC has wrong center warp value should be 8 not 6.

K-F5 and K-E4 should have A-Rack not F-Rack.

I don't quite understand the Deck Crews = fighters thing or why you've decided to reduce(or increase) the number of fighters to match the number of deck crews rather than the number of deck crews being adjusted.  Do the deck crews actually do anything other than add to the number of total crew units???

 

[FireSoul]

In SFB, the number of deckcrews are because of fighters. If the ship has 12 fighters, then the ship will also have 12 fighterbays for these fighters.. and 12 deckcrews. The number of deckcrews are directly related to the number of fighters..


.. now in SFC, the number of fighters are "generally" 2/3rds of the number of fighters in SFB. I say generally because that's what the majority of the carriers obey for their limits. .. The minimum notced is 2 fighters. The maximum is 4 * 6 fighters. (H-IC)

 But there are inconsistencies all over the place. Often it's a change by 1 fighter (an error I entered, usually) that is required, sometimes it's a lot more. .. but the number of deckcrews have been usually correct, if they weren't ommited at all (in some cases).

An example:
The Hydran Ranger, H-RN, has 9 fighters in SFB. In SFC, it has been ported over with 8 fighters but still has 9 deckcrews. It really should have 6 fighters, and recieve a BPV recalculation (based on the SFB SSD).



I propose a review of all carriers in SFC, and correcting the number of fighters to match the number of deckcrews * 2/3 ,which are usually correct. This change needs to be discussed and debated. It is an issue of balance, also.


-- Luc


 

[FireSoul]

Quote:

K-DWC has wrong center warp value should be 8 not 6.
K-F5 and K-E4 should have A-Rack not F-Rack.

I will investigate and adjust accordingly, then.

[jdmckinney]

He's saying deck crews per SFB are 1 to 1 ratio with fighters. Taking 2/3 of the deck crew (same as number of fighters) gives the Taldrenized 2/3 fighter loads. It's just easier to verify deck crews from the master ship charts than to find the fighter numbers. Of course, escorts have deck crews and no fighters, though they can't actually use them like in SFB.

Personally, I round to nearest whole number, so if it's 6 and 2/3, then I give 7. If it's 6 and 1/3, I'd give 6 -- but that's just me.

Also, it does get a little fuzzy with "casual" carriers. In some cases, you can have a casual/DW carrier with as many fighters as some larger ones if you don't subject the casuals to the 2/3 rule. It's particularly messy with Hydrans.

I also feel some of the BPVs are low on carriers in the list (partially due to 1 BPV per fighter adjustment on Hydrans?), but I haven't scrutinized it. All fighter races but Hydrans have 2 BPV stock fighters. Hydran Killerbee.I is an equal fighter to the others, but somehow got assigned 1 BPV in the stock ftrlist. I'd raise that to 2 and make the adjustment the same across the board.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
He's saying deck crews per SFB are 1 to 1 ratio with fighters. Taking 2/3 of the deck crew (same as number of fighters) gives the Taldrenized 2/3 fighter loads. It's just easier to verify deck crews from the master ship charts than to find the fighter numbers. Of course, escorts have deck crews and no fighters, though they can't actually use them like in SFB.

Personally, I round to nearest whole number, so if it's 6 and 2/3, then I give 7. If it's 6 and 1/3, I'd give 6 -- but that's just me.

I always rounded down based on observations involving PFs. 5 mechlinks = 3 PFs. Not 4.

Quote:

Also, it does get a little fuzzy with "casual" carriers. In some cases, you can have a casual/DW carrier with as many fighters as some larger ones if you don't subject the casuals to the 2/3 rule. It's particularly messy with Hydrans.

Adjustment is needed there, desparately.

Quote:

I also feel some of the BPVs are low on carriers in the list (partially due to 1 BPV per fighter adjustment on Hydrans?), but I haven't scrutinized it. All fighter races but Hydrans have 2 BPV stock fighters. Hydran Killerbee.I is an equal fighter to the others, but somehow got assigned 1 BPV in the stock ftrlist. I'd raise that to 2 and make the adjustment the same across the board.  

.. .. no. I disagree. I won't be doing that change because hydrans DEPEND on their fighters. I believe the Hydrans have an ok 1-BPV cost for the base fighters.

-- Luc

[jdmckinney]

Heh, several replies popped up before mine.

Anyway, the real contentious issue is casual carriers. In the past, Taldren stock list has treated casual carriers as if they get their full SFB fighter load, though not in all cases. Lowering them to 2/3 would espcially affect Hydrans, the RN being chief among those since it has a fairly high number of fighters without being called a true carrier.

As for YLA overlap, I'd go with no overlap, just to keep the best available and shipyard clutter down. Especially when you get to Y175, when a LOT of ships are upgraded. If you keep 1 or 2 old versions in of a given ship, that's a lot of extra ships for the yards to choose from. I could see more overlap on the non-sweeping refits, like + and B refits, but Y175 is a big one.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Heh, several replies popped up before mine.

Anyway, the real contentious issue is casual carriers. In the past, Taldren stock list has treated casual carriers as if they get their full SFB fighter load, though not in all cases. Lowering them to 2/3 would espcially affect Hydrans, the RN being chief among those since it has a fairly high number of fighters without being called a true carrier.

Right.. hence why I want to discuss it first.

Quote:

As for YLA overlap, I'd go with no overlap, just to keep the best available and shipyard clutter down. Especially when you get to Y175, when a LOT of ships are upgraded. If you keep 1 or 2 old versions in of a given ship, that's a lot of extra ships for the yards to choose from. I could see more overlap on the non-sweeping refits, like + and B refits, but Y175 is a big one.  

I do NOT agree. It doesn't make sense that on January 1st 2275, a whole bunch of ships would just change. I wanted some overlap, and all that on purpose. .. I used 3 years instead of 5.. and I after playing for a while I find that 3 is too much still! (imagine how it'd be with 5).

.. 1 year, I feel, is not enough for a general refit. .. so I want to do 2 years. ..
.. oh.. and this change would be scripted and automated... that's why Y175 refits would be recieving 2 years too. .. and there are also some cases where Y175 refits coincide with another refit (ie: K refit)... so if this was to be different, the ships would have to be split into 3 entries:
- with Y175, no K.
- without Y175, with K
- with both.

....... Bleeach. I don't want to go through that right now.
-- Luc

[jdmckinney]

I still have to disagree with that 1 BPV Hydran fighter approach. So what if they depend on their fighters? They get more of them, they get very GOOD fighters, and -- guess what? -- they have to pay MORE for upgrades in prestige if they start at 1 BPV rather than 2. If they buy a 4 BPV fighter to replace a 1 BPV fighter, that's 3 BPV x cost modifier difference. A Kzinti buying a 4 BPV fighter as an upgrade has to pay 2 BPV x cost modifier. Also, considering almost nobody (players) flies with stock fighters, carrier pilots already get off very easy with BPV matchups. Their actual load is not considered in BPV matching. Worst-case scenario for a Hydran would be what? A 24- or 32-fighter carrier getting an extra 24-32 BPV added to their basic BPV? For a carrier that big, 24-32 BPV is not going to make their lives miserable. A small one adding 6 BPV is also not going to drastically worsen their matchups. It's just simpler to have one standard across the board.

Now, throwing all that out the window, I think campaigns should strive for giving all carriers the best fighters of their availability era with appropriate BPV adjustment. Then they would not get some of the excessively soft matchups they enjoy now. It's too bad fighters and carriers were not dealt with in a more balanced way for D2. It's even more obvious when compared to GSA, where carriers (and droners, and anything that buys supplies) actually DO get their BPV calculated based on current loadout. It's also a shame we don't have a fighters/PFs-for-all system, either. Granted, there are mods to address that, but they are not perfect.

End mini-rant.

Bottom line: I can only argue the points I see. Whichever way FS decides to go, his shiplist will still rock.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
I still have to disagree with that 1 BPV Hydran fighter approach. So what if they depend on their fighters? They get more of them, they get very GOOD fighters, and -- guess what? -- they have to pay MORE for upgrades in prestige if they start at 1 BPV rather than 2. If they buy a 4 BPV fighter to replace a 1 BPV fighter, that's 3 BPV x cost modifier difference. A Kzinti buying a 4 BPV fighter as an upgrade has to pay 2 BPV x cost modifier. Also, considering almost nobody (players) flies with stock fighters, carrier pilots already get off very easy with BPV matchups. Their actual load is not considered in BPV matching. Worst-case scenario for a Hydran would be what? A 24- or 32-fighter carrier getting an extra 24-32 BPV added to their basic BPV? For a carrier that big, 24-32 BPV is not going to make their lives miserable. A small one adding 6 BPV is also not going to drastically worsen their matchups. It's just simpler to have one standard across the board.

Now, throwing all that out the window, I think campaigns should strive for giving all carriers the best fighters of their availability era with appropriate BPV adjustment. Then they would not get some of the excessively soft matchups they enjoy now. It's too bad fighters and carriers were not dealt with in a more balanced way for D2. It's even more obvious when compared to GSA, where carriers (and droners, and anything that buys supplies) actually DO get their BPV calculated based on current loadout. It's also a shame we don't have a fighters/PFs-for-all system, either. Granted, there are mods to address that, but they are not perfect.

End mini-rant.

Bottom line: I can only argue the points I see. Whichever way FS decides to go, his shiplist will still rock.  

I have to go back to a quote for counter that one.

Quote:

"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."

Ok.. next item..

Quote:

Now, throwing all that out the window, I think campaigns should strive for giving all carriers the best fighters of their availability era with appropriate BPV adjustment. Then they would not get some of the excessively soft matchups they enjoy now. It's too bad fighters and carriers were not dealt with in a more balanced way for D2. It's even more obvious when compared to GSA, where carriers (and droners, and anything that buys supplies) actually DO get their BPV calculated based on current loadout. It's also a shame we don't have a fighters/PFs-for-all system, either. Granted, there are mods to address that, but they are not perfect.

This shiplist is not a D2 shiplist. This shiplist is a general-use OP shiplist which started off for use on Local LAN parties, and later on on GSA. The latest adjustments have almost all been D2 adjustments, but doing this change is a nono.

Instead! An Alternative:
Change the OP missions to use its unique "mSetFighters" function. Use MagnumMan's API to help select the fighters. This works well and I have used this extensively in coopace.

[FireSoul]

Quote:

"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."

Of course, by my own "motto" I should leave the fighters alone. Comments?