Topic: OP+ corrections thread

[Cmdr. Krotz]

Hey there FS....pssst, the DWC boom arcs, they're showing as "FX" instead of "KFX", it always seems to slip through the cracks somehow, not this time though   ...all the DW variants are good though (what's supposed to be the big difference btw DWC and DWL, just curious)  

[SPQR Renegade001]

Doesn't the CWarp obstruct the rear fire of the KFX arc?

[FireSoul]

Post your OP+ corrections here.
Please.. no requests of ships that don't exist in SFB.

TarMinyatur: can you repost your data here?


-- Luc

[TarMinyatur]

"I don't mean to be a pain in your Canadian ass, FireSoul, but did you decide not to adopt SFB's HET breakdown numbers? Taldren gave many non-nimble ships a "+66%" bonus. Only truly nimble vessels get two bonuses on their first and second HETs in a scenario. Perhaps you might consider changing these ships...

Vessels (and variants thereof) affected: HET+2/Nimble entry should be 1
H-HN
H-CU
H-CRU
H-EH
H-CVE
K-E4
K-E6
K-F5
K-F6
L-FF
L-MP
L-DW
R-K4
R-K5
R-SKA
R-WB
R-KFR

Now, these vessels simply have base HET% errrors:

F-FFE and F-FFR should be like all F-FF's ("5", meaning 66% base success)
F-DE and F-DER should be like all F-DD's ("4", meaning 50% base success)

Oh yeah, the Z-NCA has a huge BPV error. Taldren lists it at something crazy like 157, the Z-NCA is really only 135! The R-KDR is also overpriced. It should be 137, not 146! The L-DWLP gets a power pack for free as well. It should come in at around 114 with UIM tax."

[TarMinyatur]

RE: MNR and MNV

SFB:
MNR = 390
MNV = 402

Add 32 for KillerBees.

[TarMinyatur]

Here's a good URL http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/sfb/aids/msc.html for people looking for info.
Download the master ship chart zip archive.  

[FireSoul]

It looks like it crashes when the AI enemy is given a ship with more than 12 DC.
crap.

That means OP+ 2.1 and 2.1b are broken. I will have to make a 2.1c, but not tonight.
BE ADVISED!

[FireSoul]

Hey guys..
You have overnight to stuff this thread, for me to work on tomorrow to release 2.1c ..

-- Luc

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Here's a good URL http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/sfb/aids/msc.html for people looking for info.
Download the master ship chart zip archive.  

Oh god..
WOOHOO!

.. Ok.. Now I need to be able to convert this into a usable parseable script-compatible format. With this data, I can work on the nimble ships tomorrow.
It seems I also have to re-split the mounts for the F-CVS .. an error which was reintroduced when I remerged the ship from the pre-2/3rds stuff.

-- Luc

[Cleaven]

I think you should go easy on the play balance stuff (like increasing drone control) until you get the basic stuff like fighters and BPV's and HETs etc. Then when you have your correct SFB OP+ shiplist, head towards play balance and make the OP Deluxe.

Already you are fiddling back and forth, without having achieved the first goal. It may turn out that nobody wants the pure SFB list, and are waiting for the Deluxe version with play balanced X2 ships but that will be a long haul goal for sure.  

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Already you are fiddling back and forth, without having achieved the first goal. It may turn out that nobody wants the pure SFB list, and are waiting for the Deluxe version with play balanced X2 ships but that will be a long haul goal for sure.    

Don't call it fiddling.
Be constructive.
I am already frustrated enough as it is.
SFB is the source material, but it seems people don't care about accuracy that much. They just want more more more.


So at this point I will just do corrections and additions. Be damned, good ideas, because there's no room for you.

-- Luc

[Cleaven]

Okay, don't fiddle. Do the SFB stuff, and accept the changes people point out which  are essentially corrections to the addition/standardisation process.

Don't go into appeasement mode about fighters/drones/bar fridges, as long as the BPV's are correct (for SFC) and the SFB heritage is true.

Once you have achieved your primary goal, read the emails from people threatening never to play again, and the messages written in chicken blood about how you have killed the game or some such. They may occasionally have a valid point to make but they are delusional if they think you are stopping them from using the stock shiplist.  

Then strap yourself in as you consider what you want to achieve in the way of D2 and GSA play balance. In the meantime there will be some very happy people playing with a true SFB shiplist, and will be able to give more reliable input into how the SFB versions really play. Who's to say what the balance will be like after a large scale mod.  


PS - the BPV's for the SFB ships may be the subject of a little debate, but better to be argueing about what the ship is worth then trying to create a "balanced" shiplist straight up.

[TarMinyatur]

I've been looking for typos for about a year on the Shipwrights Project. I've done a Comparator.exe between the OP+ and the 5.01 Shipwrights specs. Accounting for our special tweaks and for your default fighter inclusion costs and OP Plas-I tax, I can narrow down possible typos with some effort. Which I'm doing now.

The tricky issue is differentiating a true typo from a design decision by the Taldren folks (who are now VERY silent, essentially retired). I've also run into some boggling BPV values for SFB ships. Look at the Fed CVA for instance. 150 Combat BPV for that? Gimme a break. Even at the Econ BPV of 172 it's still a bargain.

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Okay, don't fiddle. Do the SFB stuff, and accept the changes people point out which  are essentially corrections to the addition/standardisation process.

Don't go into appeasement mode about fighters/drones/bar fridges, as long as the BPV's are correct (for SFC) and the SFB heritage is true.

Once you have achieved your primary goal, read the emails from people threatening never to play again, and the messages written in chicken blood about how you have killed the game or some such. They may occasionally have a valid point to make but they are delusional if they think you are stopping them from using the stock shiplist.  

Then strap yourself in as you consider what you want to achieve in the way of D2 and GSA play balance. In the meantime there will be some very happy people playing with a true SFB shiplist, and will be able to give more reliable input into how the SFB versions really play. Who's to say what the balance will be like after a large scale mod.  


PS - the BPV's for the SFB ships may be the subject of a little debate, but better to be argueing about what the ship is worth then trying to create a "balanced" shiplist straight up.

So .. THAT's what's this is about. You're pissed that I changed my mind.
Fine.  I'm sick of stuff like this where no one is happy. I'll release 2.1c as promised, with the least possible work included.

Signing off,
-- Luc

 

[TarMinyatur]

FS, I think the silent majority is very pleased with your work as is.

In the end, trust your own judgment.

We are all lucky to benefit from your labour.

[Cleaven]

No, not at all. Haven't even DL'ed it yet. But your time is key to the success of the project. But the original stated objective is being side-stepped. And if you stop now then you have achieved neither a balanced list or an SFB correct list.

I am not alarmed, surprised or distressed about this, because I have gotten used to it. It is the nature of the whole SFC series. Almost, but not quite right. And that's just the way things are. People/designers lose interest, are side-tracked or diverted onto other things by imperatives which make "near enough is good enough" an acceptable state of affairs for something this big (and it is big).  And the truth is that quite often near enough IS good enough.  

[FireSoul]

Quote:
No, not at all. Haven't even DL'ed it yet. But your time is key to the success of the project. But the original stated objective is being side-stepped. And if you stop now then you have achieved neither a balanced list or an SFB correct list.

I am not alarmed, surprised or distressed about this, because I have gotten used to it. It is the nature of the whole SFC series. Almost, but not quite right. And that's just the way things are. People/designers lose interest, are side-tracked or diverted onto other things by imperatives which make "near enough is good enough" an acceptable state of affairs for something this big (and it is big).  And the truth is that quite often near enough IS good enough.    

The original intent WAS sidestepped when I decided to start doing balance changes.

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.

.. that's my true goal. 2.1b was to go towards that but I encountered a fatal flaw which resulted in CTD.
2.1c will correct that flaw.

-- Luc

[FireSoul]

Quote:
"I don't mean to be a pain in your Canadian ass, FireSoul, but did you decide not to adopt SFB's HET breakdown numbers? Taldren gave many non-nimble ships a "+66%" bonus. Only truly nimble vessels get two bonuses on their first and second HETs in a scenario. Perhaps you might consider changing these ships...

Vessels (and variants thereof) affected: HET+2/Nimble entry should be 1
H-HN
H-CU
H-CRU
H-EH
H-CVE
K-E4
K-E6
K-F5
K-F6
L-FF
L-MP
L-DW
R-K4
R-K5
R-SKA
R-WB
R-KFR

Now, these vessels simply have base HET% errrors:

F-FFE and F-FFR should be like all F-FF's ("5", meaning 66% base success)
F-DE and F-DER should be like all F-DD's ("4", meaning 50% base success)

Oh yeah, the Z-NCA has a huge BPV error. Taldren lists it at something crazy like 157, the Z-NCA is really only 135! The R-KDR is also overpriced. It should be 137, not 146! The L-DWLP gets a power pack for free as well. It should come in at around 114 with UIM tax."  

All changes checked and approved.
-- Luc

[FireSoul]

Quote:
RE: MNR and MNV

SFB:
MNR = 390
MNV = 402

Add 32 for KillerBees.

The current prices were:
MNR: 417 -> changed to 422
MNV: 367 -> changed to 434

[FireSoul]

I'm ready to release 2.1c, pending more change requests.