Topic: OP+ corrections thread  (Read 70329 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Holocat

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #240 on: July 02, 2003, 12:15:59 am »
Could at least a single barraks be added instead of a transporter?  I checked the shiplist with ship edit and a few of these HDWs will have a hard time maintaining an attack using marines with the realitivly small complements on board.

romulan( SBH1): 20 marines max / 6 trans = 3 full attacks + 2 extra.

federation(HDW1): 16 marines max / 6 trans = 2(!) attacks + 4 extra.

klingon(HF5C1): 24 marines max / 6 trans = 4 attacks.

ISC (HDDC-1): 24 marines max / 6 trans = 4 attacks.

Mirak (HDW1): 20 marines max / 6 trans = 3 attacks + 2 extra.

Gorn (HBD1): 24 marines max / 5 trans = 4 attacks + 4 extra.

Lyran (HDW-1): 20 marines max / 6 trans = 3 attacks + 2 extra.

Lyran (JPG): 20 marines max + 20 marines max (barrack for the M refit) / 7 trans = 5 attacks + 5 extra.

Hydran (HDW1): 24 marines max / 6 trans = 4 attacks.

Hydran (LNH1): 24 marines max / 6 trans = 4 attacks.


I may not be an ace pilot around here but I have learned a few simple things concerning small ships, which I fly.  Firstly, the marine complements on small ships are somewhat small.  Because of this, larger ships can easily capture a small ship in only a few turns.  The first step in preventing this is to always carry as many marines as possible on small ships.  The second is not to waste them in H&R that MAY work but will GUARENTEE that you can easily be captured, due to the larger ship's capacity in both marines and transporters;  Marines are precious, and cannot be wasted frivolously.  When flying the Federation's HDW series, the three transporters are sufficient for small time H&R.  However, with only 16 marines every attack weakens your own complement quickly.  I usually avoid the marine varient because the mere 2 transporters make it highly unsuitable for any H&R action, as is usually the case with federation small ships.

Now to be fair, Federation starships (and generally all the starships that can be seen as 'bad' at H&R here) are usually unsuitable for serious H&R/capture actions as a whole, but as you have said before, "as long as it's legal there's nothing wrong with cheese."

By observing how you're juggling systems, there are 4 NWO's in HDW's;  One shuttle, one lab, one tractor and one transporter.  take the shuttlebay, lab and tractor and install transporters;  Can a barracks be added with two transporters instead of three transporters?  I am unsure what a barracks can replace and how 'large' it is.  

If this is possible, I would suggest that all ships with only three marine attacks available to them be given at least one barrack in exchange for whatever needs to be sacrificed to get it;  If the ship is to revolve around H&R, it should be able to do H&R without dropping any more of their pant-equivalents as necessary.

Ok?  Complications?  Utter crap?  

Using marines would be... strange,

Holocat.

annendum:  I think that captures between players don't work.  To nip that in the bud, AI captures work well enough and there have been aggrements that someone that is about to be captured blow up, or so I hear.  If the player vs. player ever does work, however, this is something to be taken into consideration, and should be for player vs. AI or AI vs AI battles.  Additionally, the opinions above DO relate well to H&R, a fairly easy task if one dosen't have alot of marines onboard to oppose them.

« Last Edit: July 02, 2003, 12:28:11 am by Holocat »

FireSoul

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #241 on: July 08, 2003, 12:10:49 pm »
Thanks Holo.. But I want the maximum crunch with marines over more marines overall.

FireSoul

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #242 on: July 08, 2003, 12:14:33 pm »
Just letting everybody know that the shiplist hasn't been dropped off the face of the earth. In fact, I want to tease you a bit...

.. There's still a lot of work left to do.. (for example I just flew one of the ships Strafer entered for me, and it didn't have tractorbeams on it at all).. and it could still be some time before a release is ready. Meanwhile, family issues and being a tester for the next OP patch are more important than this shiplist, so although work continues, it progresses much more slowly than past versions.

However... I have managed this:
 


It took no time at all with the NullSoft NSIS software..
-- Luc

The_Infiltrator

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #243 on: July 10, 2003, 11:34:26 pm »
I've noticed something; the D5V is really a D5VK. I assume it should have a Y175 intro date or thereabouts, with a D5V being out at the normal time.

FireSoul

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #244 on: July 13, 2003, 01:06:20 pm »
D5V fixed. BPV increased because it was way way too low, too.



.. the shiplist is still in devel .. and can't be released until the next OP patch is out. In fact, last night I had a good idea for the TigerHeart Cartel and I'm acting on it today.. (lots of work to do to make it work right).. This could actually make them a harsh enemy to fight against.

.. but for the interested, the shiplist has passed the 4000 ships mark today. Compare with 3729 ships in OP+ 2.1c, and that's what will be coming soon.


-- Luc
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 pm by FireSoul »

Corbomite

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #245 on: July 13, 2003, 01:09:33 pm »
Quote:


.. but for the interested, the shiplist has passed the 4000 ships mark today. Compare with 3729 ships in OP+ 2.1c, and that's what will be coming soon.


-- Luc  




Lol! Are you sure our HD won't explode?

FireSoul

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #246 on: July 13, 2003, 01:19:41 pm »
Quote:

Quote:


.. but for the interested, the shiplist has passed the 4000 ships mark today. Compare with 3729 ships in OP+ 2.1c, and that's what will be coming soon.


-- Luc  




Lol! Are you sure our HD won't explode?  




Naah.. that's barely 1.9mb of shiplist textfile..

quircus

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #247 on: July 13, 2003, 01:29:39 pm »
I think he was referring to the Models etc.

(PLEASE READ MY 'New Shields???' Post, and see if you can help me!!) )

FireSoul

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #248 on: July 13, 2003, 01:38:01 pm »
There aren't any models with the OP+ stuff... yet.

FireSoul

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #249 on: July 13, 2003, 01:39:20 pm »
Quote:


(PLEASE READ MY 'New Shields???' Post, and see if you can help me!!) )  




That's SFC3. I can't help you.

FireSoul

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #250 on: July 14, 2003, 01:05:00 pm »
Screenshot:   Hellooooooooooooo FRDs!


Thank you Nomad, these FRDs saved me the time needed for me to input them. I'd like to noitfy you of a couple of minor bugs with them:
1- Mirak fighters have a typo: "Z-Vizsla.I"  .. not "Z-Viszla.I"
2- ISC needs 6 deckcrews
3- Klingon needs 6 deckcrews
 
-- Luc



edit:
PS: I had to create FRDs for the local pirate races too, since they have some in the OP shiplist. I just used the local race's configuration, and the race's own fighters/PFs.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2003, 01:08:31 pm by FireSoul »

jdmckinney

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #251 on: July 14, 2003, 02:15:31 pm »
Luc, I'm glad they were useful as a starting point. I haven't incorporated them fully into my list, since I wasn't sure they would become stock (being only able to use one type of FRD per race at a time in stock scripts). As such, I haven't checked them thoroughly. Thanks for the correction notes.

BTW, any idea what you're going to do with the new F-NCC shields? I'm leaning toward the CLC levels, even if ADB doesn't back that up. Certainly I think the BPV reflects a better ship than the published shields would indicate.

FireSoul

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #252 on: July 14, 2003, 02:35:25 pm »
Quote:


BTW, any idea what you're going to do with the new F-NCC shields? I'm leaning toward the CLC levels, even if ADB doesn't back that up. Certainly I think the BPV reflects a better ship than the published shields would indicate.  




I'm going to back ADB, and enter their levels of shields. There's been precedence, btw. The D5X ships have less #1 shields then the D5C/L. (32 < 36)

-- Luc

FireSoul

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #253 on: July 14, 2003, 02:53:44 pm »
btw, nomad:

it's better to use the EPV over the BPV when the EPV is higher.. in other words, use the higher of the 2 values (after all the components have all been added up). I've done many corrections, and the ships are more balance because of it.

Example: D5V:
OP 2538: 119 BPV, includes 8 fighters.
OP+ in progress: 131 BPV

The_Infiltrator

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #254 on: July 14, 2003, 06:49:59 pm »
Quote:

Luc, I'm glad they were useful as a starting point. I haven't incorporated them fully into my list, since I wasn't sure they would become stock (being only able to use one type of FRD per race at a time in stock scripts). As such, I haven't checked them thoroughly. Thanks for the correction notes.

BTW, any idea what you're going to do with the new F-NCC shields? I'm leaning toward the CLC levels, even if ADB doesn't back that up. Certainly I think the BPV reflects a better ship than the published shields would indicate.  





SVC seemed to say on their boards that it might be a mistake but they'd just pull something out later to explain it and make it official. However he also did say that his assistant Petrick was working on the errata file and he'd make that call...and that any such file would not appear until the NEXT captain's log.

FireSoul

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #255 on: July 14, 2003, 08:27:54 pm »
That's fine.
I *do* accept official erratas for this shiplist.. once I have the official material in my hands.


.. yeah.. I'm being a bastard..but to nitpick about 1 ship out of 4000 is  quite annoying.

-- Luc
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 pm by FireSoul »

FireSoul

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #256 on: July 14, 2003, 10:25:06 pm »
OK!

.. the next shiplist, version 2.2, is now feature-frozen.  So for a while, I will be testing my own work with local friends.
Oh.. don't feel bad, it requires the next patch anyways.  

The installer is a bzip2-compressed executable file of 244kb in size. (Bzip2 is a lot better than Zip.) I don't think you'll be disappointed.


Now, I have to start on the next part of this shiplist release: the web stuff.
-- Luc
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 pm by FireSoul »

FireSoul

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #257 on: July 17, 2003, 02:33:20 pm »
The patch 25410 is up now.. .. so I can release OP+ 2.2. Now to write the post.

Mr. Hypergol

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #258 on: July 17, 2003, 05:56:18 pm »
 
Quote:

There aren't any models with the OP+ stuff... yet.  




So are you planning to use Fleetdock13's SFB based models only, or possibly a mixture of SFB, TMP, etc.

If you are planning to make an OP+ "mod" with appropriate SFB models I am absolutely salivating at this idea.

I am most impressed by your adherance to the spirit of SFB in your OP+ shiplist.  Your attention to detail is the best I've seen.  Absolutely excellent work.  

FireSoul

  • Guest
Re: OP+ corrections thread
« Reply #259 on: July 17, 2003, 06:00:23 pm »
I'm probably going to stick to taldren-like models if I use them. it's all a question of doing the work, and what's involved when using all sorts of models from people.

-- Luc