Topic: Planning OP+ shiplist 2.1 .. controversial?

[jdmckinney]

Personally, I do all my adjustments by hand, so it's just a matter of time and effort to specialize the overlaps rather than using one guideline that I don't feel fits all cases. Then again, I've not released a fully edited list because it takes so long. As far as the Y175 refit goes, anything being NEWLY PRODUCED from a shipyard would have the refit installed -- even on day 1. That's because they start building in the refits before the ship is finished in anticipation of the new standard. In D2 terms, you can't upgrade ships like in SFC1, so you have to buy new ships. Again, it's a shame D2 doesn't have the refit option.

The trouble comes in where you see AIs being created for missions. Certainly not all ships in the field would have time to get back to dock for refits the first day of a refit year. Then again, they'd certainly have some dock time at some point during the year (argument for 1 year overlap). However, isn't one of the D2 problems that AI can be very weak? Why not give them the better ships and avoid having them get out-of-date versions? Any player ships in the field would reflect captains who had not gotten back for refits yet, since your D7B doesn't just turn into a D7K overnight (visions of Cinderella).

Again, this is all subjective. These are arguments from one side, and I'm sure there are at least as many from the other sides.

Keep up the good work.

PS: I'm still a little confused on that 2/3 rounding down you mentioned. In the case of a ship with 5 fighters or 5 mech links, 2/3 is 3 and 1/3, or rounded to 3. But, a ship with 10 fighters (hypothetical) would get 6 and 2/3, or round up to 7 rather than down to 6. What you're saying is that latter example would result in a 6? Just trying to understand your approach.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
PS: I'm still a little confused on that 2/3 rounding down you mentioned. In the case of a ship with 5 fighters or 5 mech links, 2/3 is 3 and 1/3, or rounded to 3. But, a ship with 10 fighters (hypothetical) would get 6 and 2/3, or round up to 7 rather than down to 6. What you're saying is that latter example would result in a 6? Just trying to understand your approach.  

10 * 2/3 = 20 / 3 = 6.66 = 6 fighters
5 * 2/3 = 10 / 3 = 3.33 = 3.

.. In this case, it's not too late to adjust to round to nearest whole number throughout the shiplist. Let's see...
Heh! .. Rounding to closest integer:
162 ships would have less fighters
102 ships would have more.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Personally, I do all my adjustments by hand, so it's just a matter of time and effort to specialize the overlaps rather than using one guideline that I don't feel fits all cases.

My sanity's at stake.
If someone else wants to do a review, I'd be happy to double check the differences.

-- Luc

[jdmckinney]

Following Taldren's example is all well and good. However, they did include errors in their lists. Is it not possible the 1 BPV Hydran fighters are an error? Even if it's not an error, one must always be careful not to be mindless in following the leader (not that you are). Certainly I'd hate to see the real errors that have been identified in the list being left in just because Taldren put them there. For me, this starts to get close to the slippery slope of Nannerism, where every error or imbalance can be rationalized based on the stock game, and modders are essentially all blasphemers. (Yes, this is an intended sensationalist interpretation to make a point. No specific offense is meant to Nanner -- I just like how his name reads as a term for this phenomenon.)

As for the missions, well that only affects people who use the custom missions, and I'm still not clear on whether the scripts really do have the ability to calculate BPVs based on current loadout. Assigning fighters by era (is that what happens?) works OK for AIs, but do player ships get assigned fighters by era and then have their BPV for matching adjusted appropriately? If not, the matching problem remains. What about droners, commando ships, etc.? Do they also get assigned BPVs based on loadout, or is this not an available option? I'd love to have it work so that everyone gets the BPV they should based on what they have in their hand.

[jdmckinney]

Oh, and point taken about the list being for general use. There are always going to be problems in determining what to do because of the different ways in which the solo campaign/D2 and skirmish/GSA work. Again, I think it's a shame they are so different in the matching approach. At some point, you just have to pick one method and stick with it, knowing you can't please everyone.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Following Taldren's example is all well and good. However, they did include errors in their lists. Is it not possible the 1 BPV Hydran fighters are an error? Even if it's not an error, one must always be careful not to be mindless in following the leader (not that you are). Certainly I'd hate to see the real errors that have been identified in the list being left in just because Taldren put them there. For me, this starts to get close to the slippery slope of Nannerism, where every error or imbalance can be rationalized based on the stock game, and modders are essentially all blasphemers. (Yes, this is an intended sensationalist interpretation to make a point. No specific offense is meant to Nanner -- I just like how his name reads as a term for this phenomenon.)

I've played against killerbee-1s and I find them easy kills..

Quote:

As for the missions, well that only affects people who use the custom missions, and I'm still not clear on whether the scripts really do have the ability to calculate BPVs based on current loadout. Assigning fighters by era (is that what happens?) works OK for AIs, but do player ships get assigned fighters by era and then have their BPV for matching adjusted appropriately? If not, the matching problem remains. What about droners, commando ships, etc.? Do they also get assigned BPVs based on loadout, or is this not an available option? I'd love to have it work so that everyone gets the BPV they should based on what they have in their hand.  

Well...
- through scripting, it's not possible to evaluate the fighters on a player ship. There is no mGetFighters or mGetShuttles for that matter.
- It *IS* possible to find out the drone loadout of a ship, but the mSetDrones is broken. The mSetFighters function does not work when assigning new fighters to a player ship. I tried that one. However, it is possible to calculate the BPV of the changed fighters based on: new_fighter_cost - stock_fighter_cost * # of fighters.
- detection and setting the number of marines, tbombs and spare parts works.. but it's difficult for the script to guess the value of each item.


.. anyways.. it is wrong to include improved fighters within ships... There's more to SFC life than the D2.
Can we get back to the topics I asked about? We can discuss other issues for future revisions of the shiplist.

-- Luc

[TarMinyatur]

As others have stated, the 2/3rds rule seems to apply only to most true carriers. I suggest permitting casual carriers to carry 100% of SFB levels unless they have more than 8 which would be capped at 8 (only the RN comes to mind). It's an admittedly arbitrary cut-off which naturally creates exceptions to the 2/3rds rule. However, reducing a casual carrier's load to 2/3rds would be a substantial penalty since fighter effectiveness is not linearly proportional to quantity.

I also wonder what the OP+ shiplist does to address the lack of fighter boxes in SFC. The IC is missing some 40 internals (actually 80 with SFC's doubled internals). SFC's "fighter bays" cannot absorb damage.  

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Oh, and point taken about the list being for general use. There are always going to be problems in determining what to do because of the different ways in which the solo campaign/D2 and skirmish/GSA work. Again, I think it's a shame they are so different in the matching approach. At some point, you just have to pick one method and stick with it, knowing you can't please everyone.  

.. thanks for understanding!! .. this was a major issue in the beginning of the shiplist and I had to make a decision way back when.
-- Luc

[jdmckinney]

Quote:

I've played against killerbee-1s and I find them easy kills..

Of course. But, so are Hawk.I, Vizsla.I, Swift.I, and Restitution.I. As far as I can tell, they have the same stats: damage, speed, weapons, BPV. Only the Killerbee.I, with 1 BPV, has any different value for those fields. It is the same fighter as a Hawk.I except it looks different and is 1 BPV less. All I'm saying is there is no logical reason based on capability for these to be different in BPV. If there's a Taldren balance or flavoring decision behind it, that's another matter.

[FireSoul]

Quote:

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.  

.. just checked. I will do  the changes to the K-F5 and K-E4.
.. but the K-DWC ..I can't find it in my books. Where is it? Does it exist? I have the D5W..
Is it a Taldren-invented ship? Explain why I should increase its warp if it's not a real SFB ship?

-- Luc

[FireSoul]

Quote:

Quote:

I've played against killerbee-1s and I find them easy kills..

Of course. But, so are Hawk.I, Vizsla.I, Swift.I, and Restitution.I. As far as I can tell, they have the same stats: damage, speed, weapons, BPV. Only the Killerbee.I, with 1 BPV, has any different value for those fields. It is the same fighter as a Hawk.I except it looks different and is 1 BPV less. All I'm saying is there is no logical reason based on capability for these to be different in BPV. If there's a Taldren balance or flavoring decision behind it, that's another matter.  

I PM'd DavidF.
-- Luc

[jdmckinney]

I seem to recall the NCCs are all non-standard ships. They were either created by SFB players or published somewhere outside of the mainline modules. Or, they were created by Taldren, though I somehow doubt that. Were they in an earlier edition of SFB and never published in Captain's? I find that odd if true.

Anyway, can someone point to an online SSD from a fan site? I seem to remember at least one site that had such ships.

[3dot14]

Quote:
Anyway, can someone point to an online SSD from a fan site? I seem to remember at least one site that had such ships.  

http://www.mninter.net/~phdship/03klnships.htm

(I can't thank Nannerslug enough for introducing me to this link...)

[FireSoul]

Ok.. I will increase the centerwarp by 2 and recalculate the BPV.

[SPQR Renegade001]

Any thoughts on changing the UI on the PFs to a ship UI?
That allows both players to see the loadout, arming and damage status of the PF, and allows the owner to actually select weapons groups when flying it directly. A big bonus for both players, without actually changing anything. GFF, LFF & RLN are the UIs that I've used.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Any thoughts on changing the UI on the PFs to a ship UI?
That allows both players to see the loadout, arming and damage status of the PF, and allows the owner to actually select weapons groups when flying it directly. A big bonus for both players, without actually changing anything. GFF, LFF & RLN are the UIs that I've used.  

..uhh.. OP sees all the weapons on a PF just fine... and I did all the adjustments there using the Lyran UI already.
-- Luc

[IndyShark]

Firesoul, I love the PHD website! Is there any chance we can add some of their ships? I especially like the new ships and captured ships.  

[SPQR Renegade001]

 

One of the features of OP over EAW, eh? Cool.  

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Firesoul, I love the PHD website! Is there any chance we can add some of their ships? I especially like the new ships and captured ships.  

.. sorry..
.. It's not within my charter.

ADB approves ships sent to them.. and balances them out BPV-wise.
.. I take these official ships which are all balanced and good.

-- Luc

[FireSoul]

Quote:
 
One of the features of OP over EAW, eh? Cool.  

One of the lesser ones, yes..