Topic: OP+ shiplist version 2.1 is ready and up. (Read 9682 times)

FireSoul · « **on:** May 01, 2003, 06:36:39 pm »

I'm making a version 2.1b which is the same as this 2.1 minus the 2/3rds fighters changes. Please wait till I release 2.1b.

.. and I screwed up and deleted the 2.1 site by accident. Oops?
I'm currently writing version 2.1b's site.

anyways.. download 2.1b from here:
http://208.57.228.4/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=78893&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=1

-- Luc

Klingon Fanatic · « **Reply #1 on:** May 01, 2003, 07:08:53 pm »

Thank you Firesoul!

KF

Cleaven · « **Reply #2 on:** May 01, 2003, 07:59:30 pm »

Ta muchly.

Tumulorum Fossor · « **Reply #3 on:** May 01, 2003, 08:05:54 pm »

Hail, Firesoul.

(bow, bow, bow)

[Repeat]

Man, it looks like I picked a good time to revisit the forums!

Time to update!

Hey, any Taldren feedback on new arcs, Firesoul?

-TF

FireSoul · « **Reply #4 on:** May 01, 2003, 08:08:58 pm »

None.
.. well.. they're all working very hard to get something ready for E3. .. so ..

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #5 on:** May 01, 2003, 11:26:24 pm »

I noticed you placed ADDs in Weapons slots(11-25) instead of Heavy Weapon slots(1-10) where they traditionally go. I assume this makes no difference since they require no energy. If so, that's a good way to relieve the often cramped HW slots.

P.S. Take a look at the WVL and VUL+. Those 2xPlas-R hardpoints are screaming for relief and there's two empty HW slots to use. Unfortunately the KVL would need a Condor UI or similar to split its overstuffed 2xPlas-R. It's not aesthetically pleasing but it works.

P.P.S. I suggest you take a look at the I-CVLS and I-CSZ bpvs. These ships have identical weaponry. The CVLS has one less power, gets 6 fighters(12 bpv), and somehow costs 8 less than the CSZ! The CVLS should be about 8 more than the CSZ...not the other way around. The L-NCA vs NCAL bpv is eye-catching too. 2 bpv gets one heck of a refit.

FireSoul · « **Reply #6 on:** May 01, 2003, 11:33:00 pm »

Quote:

I noticed you placed ADDs in Weapons slots(11-25) instead of Heavy Weapon slots(1-10) where they traditionally go. I assume this makes no difference since they require no energy. If so, that's a good way to relieve the often cramped HW slots.

That's right.

Quote:

P.S. Take a look at the WVL and VUL+. Those 2xPlas-R hardpoints are screaming for relief and there's two empty HW slots to use. Unfortunately the KVL would need a Condor UI or similar to split its overstuffed 2xPlas-R. It's not aesthetically pleasing but it works.

I deemed the UI more important in this case, right off the bat. Sorry.
EDIT: .. although.. you're right. I could split the Rs for the WVL and VUL+ without changing the UI.

Quote:

P.P.S. I suggest you take a look at the I-CVLS and I-CSZ bpvs. These ships have identical weaponry. The CVLS has one less power, gets 6 fighters(12 bpv), and somehow costs 8 less than the CSZ! The CVLS should be about 8 more than the CSZ...not the other way around. The L-NCA vs NCAL bpv is eye-catching too. 2 bpv gets one heck of a refit.

Allright, I will check these later. They're essentially going into a "TODO" list for a future release.

-- Luc

Corbomite · « **Reply #7 on:** May 02, 2003, 03:49:00 am »

ISC light carriers get 8 fighters, not 6.

Mog · « **Reply #9 on:** May 02, 2003, 10:23:51 am »

Holocat, ideally you need to use ShipEdit to create new ships. In SFC2, the phasers need to be in the phaser section so that the capacitor knows how much power is need to charge them. If you put phasers into a heavy weapon slot in SFC2, it screws the capacitor up.

Holocat · « **Reply #11 on:** May 02, 2003, 10:30:12 am »

The ship i'm making is using a custom built model with taldren textures, ie: scratch. I still have to convert to .mod, place the dummy objects for damage(?) and hardpoints, center it if not centered properly, and texture it. It's not a new ship in a sense that it's a custom design, like different power or weapons or something. It's a new ship, from the ground up.

Thanks for letting me know about the phaser capacitor thing though; That should save me quite some grief testing.

Speaking of which, I should contact Revenant,

Holocat.

FireSoul · « **Reply #16 on:** May 02, 2003, 12:07:37 pm »

It is indeed my project... but I find it important to ask people's opinions.

Worst case scenario:
- I throw out version 2.1
- I rework from version 2.0, minus 2/3rds change
- I re-release as 2.1b

Since no one told me it was a bad idea, I went ahead with the 2/3rds fighter changes. Now, I have the impression that people think it was a bad idea after all. I need to know if you do or don't want this change to stay.

Corbo obviously thinks not. Anyone else?
-- Luc

IndyShark · « **Reply #18 on:** May 02, 2003, 12:35:28 pm »

Firesoul, I like what you are doing and I think it makes sense. I'd keep it the way it is and keep trying to improve it.

Rondo_GE · « **Reply #21 on:** May 02, 2003, 01:05:15 pm »

Now all we need to do is get some people online to play OP. Still it's a great effort.

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #22 on:** May 02, 2003, 01:07:23 pm »

I like the uniformity of the global 2/3rds fighter conversion rule. However, I think that carriers which would get less than 4 fighters should be exempt. They rely on their fighters proportionally more than carriers with greater numbers. When I see a squadron of 4 fighters it gets my attention. When I see a squadron of 2 fighters I don't worry much. They are easy to pick off before they can return for repair/replacements.

So perhaps it could be:
6+ = 2/3rds rule
5 = 4
4 = 4
3 = 3
2 = 2
1 = 1

This is just a personal preference of course.

Oh yeah, here's an SSD for the L-NCAL.

FireSoul · « **Reply #23 on:** May 02, 2003, 01:19:42 pm »

you do realize that by that SSD, the L-NCAL is worth 169 BPV? (164 + 5 for UIM adjustment)
-- Luc

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #24 on:** May 02, 2003, 01:29:21 pm »

Yeah, that version is a bit pricey at 169 with 2 Ph-3's for padding, 2 less shuttles, and 1 less APR than Taldren's NCAL. Although this ships specs are similar to the rarely flown L-CCH at 170 in SFC2.

BPV isn't a science as we all know.

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #26 on:** May 02, 2003, 01:37:48 pm »

As far as the 2/3 rule goes, I basically agree with it, for balance with the PF races. I do think that small true carriers should keep all their fighters and the Hydran casual carriers should keep all of theirs, because of their racial tendencies.

Holocat · « **Reply #27 on:** May 02, 2003, 01:39:30 pm »

Alright, I talked with firesoul's nerfed comments and it sparked a curiousity in me.

The first thing I did was determine if the ISC were nerfed to the extent where I would believe it. (ie I can kill X with OP+ 2.0 but not 2.1) I'd played the ISC only very, very rarely but I HAD begun to move away from by beloved Federation destroyers and experiment with fighers (thanks to the heavy casual carrier war destroyers). So, in the next hour or so I flew some ISC skirmishes against AI.

My mentality was thus: How much harder does it feel from 2.0 to 2.1 with three (randomly picked) ISC carriers? Secondly, I payed attention to the damage given and damage recieved for the battles (though I didn't chew through them or write them down) and the length of the battle.

From 2.0 to 2.1, I didn't notice any significant changes in battle length, damage recieved, damage dealt, or the 'feel of difficulty.' Some of the carriers have been hit pretty hard, yes, but I found the same ships as opponents were about the same amount of challange for either 2.1 or 2.0.

Also, remember there's a BVP adjustment, so mission matching should be alright (I haven't tested this, though).

So I can't complain. I haven't done any PvP, but if there's an ISC out there willing to have a go with both 2.0 and 2.1, we can test this aspect fairly quickly. I'm also not a ISC player, but I can only really comment on what i've done to see if the changes REALLY are nerfing or not.

Meow,

Holocat.

Fluf · « **Reply #28 on:** May 02, 2003, 01:55:15 pm »

Looks good so far FS. I would be interested in playing this list with the fighter changes. Note the following Kzin ships still need dizzy hardpoints split: CM, CM+, CMX, MCV, MCV+,MTTCVA into 3 hardpoints on the 1,2 and 9 hardpoints. This makes these ships almost flyable. Although the reduction in fighters on the MTTCVA makes it a worthless ship now.

I also have a few questions about the CVA and the SCS. I was under the impression that the SCS was the mother of all ships in the Kzinti Empire and originally had over 30 fighters. As it stands now, the SCS has 4 less fighters, 1 less shuttle and is 1 more BPV over the CVA but does have the 2xAMD12 vs the 2xAMD6 of the CVA. And is the correction from 6 shuttles to 4 on the CVA correct? As it stands now, the SCS would cost more in D2 terms but would have less firepower.
I dont have the SSD's so I am unable to comment on this specifically. But in D2 terms and even GSA terms, this makes the SCS about worthless. I would rather see the deck crews bumped on the SCS and give it 24 fighters with the appropriate BPV adjustment.

Julin Eurthyr · « **Reply #29 on:** May 02, 2003, 02:22:36 pm »

I'll mention this on the ISC fighter debate.

ISC carriers in SFC has basically always broken the 2/3 fighter conversion rule. Taldren deemed fit to give us (ISC) more fighters per squadron as our fighters do not have a "fighter heavy weapon". The exact metnod of determining the "extra" fighters ISC carriers got to offset the lack of a fighter heavy weapon I have forgotten over the years (if it was ever made public...)

Firesoul, I know you are endeavoring to keep your OP+ shipliist true to the spirit of SFC while orienting it more in-line with SFB. How the SFC ISC phaser figher bonus affects your work is, as always, your decision.

I will also mention (for those who may not know), ISC carriers in SFB usually (I won't make a blanket always) operated in groups of 2 Phaser-fighters and 1 Torpedo fighter. So, the usual 12 fighter ISC squadron had: 7 Phaser-fighters (SF), 4 Torpedo fighters (TF), and one EW fighter (based off the SF platform...).

FireSoul · « **Reply #31 on:** May 02, 2003, 02:31:02 pm »

If the 2/3rds rule is too troublesome, know that I have created a shiplist without the 2/3rules included, but the rest of the changes remains in place.
It wouldn't be too much a big deal for me to throw out the 2/3rds idea and continue on without it. Call it "2.1b".

-- Luc

FireSoul · « **Reply #33 on:** May 02, 2003, 02:48:42 pm »

Ok.. What I've seen so far are people who are interested in the 2/3rds idea, but that's about it..
.. then there are the people who are against it.

.. I am currently working on the 2.1b version. It's a lot less aggravation for everyone that way.
Give till tonight because I have to review the hydran BPVs again. .. and there's the fixes noted above in this thread.

-- Luc

jdmckinney · « **Reply #35 on:** May 02, 2003, 03:37:55 pm »

I agree on the SCSes. There is no place for them in SFC, since they are by definition combined fighter/PF carriers. Certainly you could come up with a set number of fighters per PF as a replacement scheme, but what would be the point? The fighter races have plenty of carriers. It only further handicaps PF races.

The only time I'd argue for inclusion of the control ships (in CL25 there are also Division Control Ships -- smaller versions of the same concept) would be in a fighters/PFs-for-all-races mod.

FireSoul · « **Reply #36 on:** May 02, 2003, 04:01:32 pm »

Please close and drop this thread. OP+ 2.1 is no more.
Instead, go to the OP+ 2.1b thread.

-- Luc

FireSoul · « **Reply #37 on:** May 01, 2003, 06:36:39 pm »

I'm making a version 2.1b which is the same as this 2.1 minus the 2/3rds fighters changes. Please wait till I release 2.1b.

.. and I screwed up and deleted the 2.1 site by accident. Oops?
I'm currently writing version 2.1b's site.

anyways.. download 2.1b from here:
http://208.57.228.4/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=78893&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=1

-- Luc

Klingon Fanatic · « **Reply #38 on:** May 01, 2003, 07:08:53 pm »

Thank you Firesoul!

KF

Cleaven · « **Reply #39 on:** May 01, 2003, 07:59:30 pm »

Ta muchly.

Tumulorum Fossor · « **Reply #40 on:** May 01, 2003, 08:05:54 pm »

Hail, Firesoul.

(bow, bow, bow)

[Repeat]

Man, it looks like I picked a good time to revisit the forums!

Time to update!

Hey, any Taldren feedback on new arcs, Firesoul?

-TF

FireSoul · « **Reply #41 on:** May 01, 2003, 08:08:58 pm »

None.
.. well.. they're all working very hard to get something ready for E3. .. so ..

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #42 on:** May 01, 2003, 11:26:24 pm »

I noticed you placed ADDs in Weapons slots(11-25) instead of Heavy Weapon slots(1-10) where they traditionally go. I assume this makes no difference since they require no energy. If so, that's a good way to relieve the often cramped HW slots.

P.S. Take a look at the WVL and VUL+. Those 2xPlas-R hardpoints are screaming for relief and there's two empty HW slots to use. Unfortunately the KVL would need a Condor UI or similar to split its overstuffed 2xPlas-R. It's not aesthetically pleasing but it works.

P.P.S. I suggest you take a look at the I-CVLS and I-CSZ bpvs. These ships have identical weaponry. The CVLS has one less power, gets 6 fighters(12 bpv), and somehow costs 8 less than the CSZ! The CVLS should be about 8 more than the CSZ...not the other way around. The L-NCA vs NCAL bpv is eye-catching too. 2 bpv gets one heck of a refit.

Corbomite · « **Reply #44 on:** May 02, 2003, 03:49:00 am »

ISC light carriers get 8 fighters, not 6.

Mog · « **Reply #46 on:** May 02, 2003, 10:23:51 am »

Holocat, ideally you need to use ShipEdit to create new ships. In SFC2, the phasers need to be in the phaser section so that the capacitor knows how much power is need to charge them. If you put phasers into a heavy weapon slot in SFC2, it screws the capacitor up.

Holocat · « **Reply #48 on:** May 02, 2003, 10:30:12 am »

The ship i'm making is using a custom built model with taldren textures, ie: scratch. I still have to convert to .mod, place the dummy objects for damage(?) and hardpoints, center it if not centered properly, and texture it. It's not a new ship in a sense that it's a custom design, like different power or weapons or something. It's a new ship, from the ground up.

Thanks for letting me know about the phaser capacitor thing though; That should save me quite some grief testing.

Speaking of which, I should contact Revenant,

Holocat.

FireSoul · « **Reply #53 on:** May 02, 2003, 12:07:37 pm »

It is indeed my project... but I find it important to ask people's opinions.

Worst case scenario:
- I throw out version 2.1
- I rework from version 2.0, minus 2/3rds change
- I re-release as 2.1b

Since no one told me it was a bad idea, I went ahead with the 2/3rds fighter changes. Now, I have the impression that people think it was a bad idea after all. I need to know if you do or don't want this change to stay.

Corbo obviously thinks not. Anyone else?
-- Luc

IndyShark · « **Reply #55 on:** May 02, 2003, 12:35:28 pm »

Firesoul, I like what you are doing and I think it makes sense. I'd keep it the way it is and keep trying to improve it.

Rondo_GE · « **Reply #58 on:** May 02, 2003, 01:05:15 pm »

Now all we need to do is get some people online to play OP. Still it's a great effort.

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #59 on:** May 02, 2003, 01:07:23 pm »

I like the uniformity of the global 2/3rds fighter conversion rule. However, I think that carriers which would get less than 4 fighters should be exempt. They rely on their fighters proportionally more than carriers with greater numbers. When I see a squadron of 4 fighters it gets my attention. When I see a squadron of 2 fighters I don't worry much. They are easy to pick off before they can return for repair/replacements.

So perhaps it could be:
6+ = 2/3rds rule
5 = 4
4 = 4
3 = 3
2 = 2
1 = 1

This is just a personal preference of course.

Oh yeah, here's an SSD for the L-NCAL.

FireSoul · « **Reply #60 on:** May 02, 2003, 01:19:42 pm »

you do realize that by that SSD, the L-NCAL is worth 169 BPV? (164 + 5 for UIM adjustment)
-- Luc

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #61 on:** May 02, 2003, 01:29:21 pm »

Yeah, that version is a bit pricey at 169 with 2 Ph-3's for padding, 2 less shuttles, and 1 less APR than Taldren's NCAL. Although this ships specs are similar to the rarely flown L-CCH at 170 in SFC2.

BPV isn't a science as we all know.

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #63 on:** May 02, 2003, 01:37:48 pm »

As far as the 2/3 rule goes, I basically agree with it, for balance with the PF races. I do think that small true carriers should keep all their fighters and the Hydran casual carriers should keep all of theirs, because of their racial tendencies.

Holocat · « **Reply #64 on:** May 02, 2003, 01:39:30 pm »

Alright, I talked with firesoul's nerfed comments and it sparked a curiousity in me.

The first thing I did was determine if the ISC were nerfed to the extent where I would believe it. (ie I can kill X with OP+ 2.0 but not 2.1) I'd played the ISC only very, very rarely but I HAD begun to move away from by beloved Federation destroyers and experiment with fighers (thanks to the heavy casual carrier war destroyers). So, in the next hour or so I flew some ISC skirmishes against AI.

My mentality was thus: How much harder does it feel from 2.0 to 2.1 with three (randomly picked) ISC carriers? Secondly, I payed attention to the damage given and damage recieved for the battles (though I didn't chew through them or write them down) and the length of the battle.

From 2.0 to 2.1, I didn't notice any significant changes in battle length, damage recieved, damage dealt, or the 'feel of difficulty.' Some of the carriers have been hit pretty hard, yes, but I found the same ships as opponents were about the same amount of challange for either 2.1 or 2.0.

Also, remember there's a BVP adjustment, so mission matching should be alright (I haven't tested this, though).

So I can't complain. I haven't done any PvP, but if there's an ISC out there willing to have a go with both 2.0 and 2.1, we can test this aspect fairly quickly. I'm also not a ISC player, but I can only really comment on what i've done to see if the changes REALLY are nerfing or not.

Meow,

Holocat.

Fluf · « **Reply #65 on:** May 02, 2003, 01:55:15 pm »

Looks good so far FS. I would be interested in playing this list with the fighter changes. Note the following Kzin ships still need dizzy hardpoints split: CM, CM+, CMX, MCV, MCV+,MTTCVA into 3 hardpoints on the 1,2 and 9 hardpoints. This makes these ships almost flyable. Although the reduction in fighters on the MTTCVA makes it a worthless ship now.

I also have a few questions about the CVA and the SCS. I was under the impression that the SCS was the mother of all ships in the Kzinti Empire and originally had over 30 fighters. As it stands now, the SCS has 4 less fighters, 1 less shuttle and is 1 more BPV over the CVA but does have the 2xAMD12 vs the 2xAMD6 of the CVA. And is the correction from 6 shuttles to 4 on the CVA correct? As it stands now, the SCS would cost more in D2 terms but would have less firepower.
I dont have the SSD's so I am unable to comment on this specifically. But in D2 terms and even GSA terms, this makes the SCS about worthless. I would rather see the deck crews bumped on the SCS and give it 24 fighters with the appropriate BPV adjustment.

Julin Eurthyr · « **Reply #66 on:** May 02, 2003, 02:22:36 pm »

I'll mention this on the ISC fighter debate.

ISC carriers in SFC has basically always broken the 2/3 fighter conversion rule. Taldren deemed fit to give us (ISC) more fighters per squadron as our fighters do not have a "fighter heavy weapon". The exact metnod of determining the "extra" fighters ISC carriers got to offset the lack of a fighter heavy weapon I have forgotten over the years (if it was ever made public...)

Firesoul, I know you are endeavoring to keep your OP+ shipliist true to the spirit of SFC while orienting it more in-line with SFB. How the SFC ISC phaser figher bonus affects your work is, as always, your decision.

I will also mention (for those who may not know), ISC carriers in SFB usually (I won't make a blanket always) operated in groups of 2 Phaser-fighters and 1 Torpedo fighter. So, the usual 12 fighter ISC squadron had: 7 Phaser-fighters (SF), 4 Torpedo fighters (TF), and one EW fighter (based off the SF platform...).

FireSoul · « **Reply #68 on:** May 02, 2003, 02:31:02 pm »

If the 2/3rds rule is too troublesome, know that I have created a shiplist without the 2/3rules included, but the rest of the changes remains in place.
It wouldn't be too much a big deal for me to throw out the 2/3rds idea and continue on without it. Call it "2.1b".

-- Luc

FireSoul · « **Reply #70 on:** May 02, 2003, 02:48:42 pm »

Ok.. What I've seen so far are people who are interested in the 2/3rds idea, but that's about it..
.. then there are the people who are against it.

.. I am currently working on the 2.1b version. It's a lot less aggravation for everyone that way.
Give till tonight because I have to review the hydran BPVs again. .. and there's the fixes noted above in this thread.

-- Luc

jdmckinney · « **Reply #72 on:** May 02, 2003, 03:37:55 pm »

I agree on the SCSes. There is no place for them in SFC, since they are by definition combined fighter/PF carriers. Certainly you could come up with a set number of fighters per PF as a replacement scheme, but what would be the point? The fighter races have plenty of carriers. It only further handicaps PF races.

The only time I'd argue for inclusion of the control ships (in CL25 there are also Division Control Ships -- smaller versions of the same concept) would be in a fighters/PFs-for-all-races mod.

FireSoul · « **Reply #73 on:** May 02, 2003, 04:01:32 pm »

Please close and drop this thread. OP+ 2.1 is no more.
Instead, go to the OP+ 2.1b thread.

-- Luc

News:

Topic: OP+ shiplist version 2.1 is ready and up. (Read 9682 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

FireSoul

Klingon Fanatic

Cleaven

Tumulorum Fossor

FireSoul

TarMinyatur

FireSoul

Corbomite

Holocat

Mog

FireSoul

Holocat

FireSoul

FireSoul

FireSoul

Corbomite

FireSoul

TarMinyatur

IndyShark

FireSoul

FireSoul

Rondo_GE

TarMinyatur

FireSoul

TarMinyatur

FireSoul

Rod O'neal

Holocat

Fluf

Julin Eurthyr

FireSoul

FireSoul

Corbomite

FireSoul

jimmi7769

jdmckinney

FireSoul

FireSoul

Klingon Fanatic

Cleaven

Tumulorum Fossor

FireSoul

TarMinyatur

FireSoul

Corbomite

Holocat

Mog

FireSoul

Holocat

FireSoul

FireSoul

FireSoul

Corbomite

FireSoul

TarMinyatur

IndyShark

FireSoul

FireSoul

Rondo_GE

TarMinyatur

FireSoul

TarMinyatur

FireSoul

Rod O'neal

Holocat

Fluf

Julin Eurthyr

FireSoul

FireSoul

Corbomite

FireSoul

jimmi7769

jdmckinney

FireSoul

Topic: OP+ shiplist version 2.1 is ready and up. (Read 9682 times)