Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: Fury on December 27, 2009, 02:46:34 am
-
I couldn't find existing list anywhere, so I'd like people to post here what mistakes Volition did in their tabling that mediavps cannot fix as it would alter gameplay balance.
Few examples:
- GTB Artemis has no engine overclock
- GTB Artemis D.H. is statistically almost identical to GTB Artemis, no speed or maneuverability difference like tech description says.
Thanks in advance.
-
Not sure if this is an example you want, but here I go:
- The GTSG Mjolnir has shield points, but no shield mesh. It also has no weapons to ward off attacking small craft, as its tech description implies otherwise.
-
of course theres the colossus, which didnt have all the missile launchers that the cutscene claimed it does.
-
There's the Lucifer, which I believe is supposed to have three flux cannons, not two, as per the FS1 tech description...
-
Mentu and its beam cannons
-
The Myrmidon and it's ability to carry the Helios and not the Harpoon.
-
Not a tbl error per se, but weird nonetheless:
$Name: SB Nahema
...
$Max Velocity: 19.0, 19.0, 90.0
...
$Max Oclk Speed: 72.0
Watch, as the AI gets hit with the nerfbat!
-
Artemis doesn't overclock?
The Bakha's lack of overclock, and Helios on primaries.
-
Faustus with harpoons/subachs/akhetons all on the same turret.
-
TAG-C not player allowed but it's tech description and assignment in multiplayer mission loadouts says it should have been.
-
Not a tbl error per se, but weird nonetheless:
$Name: SB Nahema
...
$Max Velocity: 19.0, 19.0, 90.0
...
$Max Oclk Speed: 72.0
Watch, as the AI gets hit with the nerfbat!
These kinds of subtle hard to spot errors I'm most interested about.
-
There's differences between Retail loadout specs and Open.
Some examples are the Prometheus R on Retail being 4 Hull damage and 1 Shield damage, on Open however it says 7 : 3.
The Maxim on Retail, 8 : 1, on Open, 7 : 1.
Circe on Retail, 6 Shield damage, on Open, 11 Shield damage.
-
Is that with or without mediavps? There's a known bug (http://www.hard-light.net/mantis/view.php?id=295) in the mediavps tables where those values you see on the weapon select screen have been altered for some reason. The in-game performance, however, is still the same.
-
It's very simple to fix it, it's just a few numbers.
I thought that it was changed to better reflect the weapon preformance.
The difference between specs and preformance must have came from the preformance changing at some point of development and descriptions being not altered.
-
Yeah, maybe, but the point is that that is something the mediavps shouldn't do.
-
Yes! The game should lie to and decieve us... :wtf:
Personally, if the MediaVPs post more accurate weapons data, I'm happy with that. Why should I have to crack open the tables themselves to get proper data on what I want/need to use?
-
....
Because, unless someone can show us (us, in this case, being the FSU team) the relevant math to prove that the new values are more accurate, those things are just needless alterations of the retail data without added benefit.
-
I'll admit, it'd be nice to see it proven that one set of data is more accurate than the other.
-
Why not display the values based on base damage x armor / shield / subsystem factors?
-
That's what CP5670 did in PI for the ships. It was good, but it took me a year to understand which value was what.
-
doesnt anyone else plug the table data into a spreadsheet so that they can compare performance better?
-
all these small annoying errors need fixin'.
-
True but nobody will because it won't be Canon and will magically break gameplay balance.
-
You can feel free to change them in a remix mod or somesuch. Vanilla stays vanilla.
-
Well...I'm more or less referring to actually fixing the ships so they overclock like they should or the D.H. is actually better like it's supposed to be, or the Nahema's odd "underclock."
Because they should instead of staying ****ed up. I can't stand people wanting things to remain the way they are and leave the developers' mistakes alone.
-
Helios Primaries.
You're seriously suggesting not to fix something like that which would probably throw a debug error!?
-
The way I see it if you want Vanilla you should just play Retail, the Upgrade is supposed to be just that, UPRGRADED, REPAIRED, i.e: tabling errors FIXED.
-
but as i think is discussed most tabling errors look to be for balance reasons so it should be the fluff not the tables that get fixed
-
Ships have overclock speeds.
The Artemis (I guess I still need to look into that), and the Bakha do not overclock.
The Nahema becomes SLOWER overclocked.
Tell me they're that way for balance reasons.
The Artemis D.H., a ship you unlock for completing SOC loops, which is supposed to be statistically slightly better than the standard Artemis, has absolutely no changes in flight performance.
This is for balance reasons?
-
It doesn't matter. Changing the Artemis' overclock speed would change mission balance. Changing the Artemis DH's stats would change mission balance. Changing the Nahema's speed would do ungodly things assuming the AI overclocks.
You can feel free to make a mod of your own that adds small tweaks like this - just take the MediaVPs and alter them a bit more. Easy enough.
But even small changes to the vanilla product are dangerous.
-
Wait. I know i'm offtopic, but what's overcolck at all ?
-
It doesn't matter. Changing the Artemis' overclock speed would change mission balance. Changing the Artemis DH's stats would change mission balance. Changing the Nahema's speed would do ungodly things assuming the AI overclocks.
You can feel free to make a mod of your own that adds small tweaks like this - just take the MediaVPs and alter them a bit more. Easy enough.
But even small changes to the vanilla product are dangerous.
Bullcrap.
The changes should be small enough to not impact balance in a serious way. Balance is fluid anyway. A bit too hard for some, a bit too easy for others. As long as it doesn't break a mission, I could care less if a fighter has 10 shield points more or less. Only extreeme or REALLY doubtfull changes should be discouraged.
Setting Naheemas OC speeed a bit higher than the regular? No, it won't do ungodlya things. Frak, I'm playing the FS2 main campaign with drasticly altered tables and any balance difficulty is barely noticable.
-
Wait. I know i'm offtopic, but what's overcolck at all ?
You have max speed a fighter/bomber goes with normal energy levels.
Max overclock speed is how fast you can go if you dump all energy into engines.
-
It doesn't matter. Changing the Artemis' overclock speed would change mission balance. Changing the Artemis DH's stats would change mission balance. Changing the Nahema's speed would do ungodly things assuming the AI overclocks.
You can feel free to make a mod of your own that adds small tweaks like this - just take the MediaVPs and alter them a bit more. Easy enough.
But even small changes to the vanilla product are dangerous.
Bullcrap.
The changes should be small enough to not impact balance in a serious way. Balance is fluid anyway. A bit too hard for some, a bit too easy for others. As long as it doesn't break a mission, I could care less if a fighter has 10 shield points more or less. Only extreeme or REALLY doubtfull changes should be discouraged.
Setting Naheemas OC speeed a bit higher than the regular? No, it won't do ungodlya things. Frak, I'm playing the FS2 main campaign with drasticly altered tables and any balance difficulty is barely noticable.
changing overclocking would change the ability of the player to respond to changes in situation giving more time to react, change the speed the AI closes distance giving the player less time to respond, additionally faster targets are harder to hit.
Yes the changes are subtle but they have the potential to make all the difference on some of the infuriatingly closely balanced mission.
-
Overclocking changes would sure have much effect on the "Forced Entry" mission then...
-
It doesn't matter. Changing the Artemis' overclock speed would change mission balance. Changing the Artemis DH's stats would change mission balance. Changing the Nahema's speed would do ungodly things assuming the AI overclocks.
You can feel free to make a mod of your own that adds small tweaks like this - just take the MediaVPs and alter them a bit more. Easy enough.
But even small changes to the vanilla product are dangerous.
You're really going to stick with the "it changes balance" like it will ruin everything? Like the D.H. even going 5 m/s faster and having 25 extra shield points is suddenly going to make it unstoppable? That makes it statistically better, but it's so subtle that you'll barely even notice. This is "dangerous?"
Sounds like ignorance to me.
-
Some people are just afraid of changes :P
Even if it's for the better.
-
FSU won't intentionally change retail behavior. Those tabling bugs should be fixed, but it's not what FSU is about. Nothing stops people from gathering the bugs, fixing them and distributing the fix as an optional vp file separate from FSU. Correcting fighter/bomber stats is what I intend to do in BP as long as it gets approved by other staffers.
-
So the summery is if some one wants to knock up a set of "fixed" tables that's up to them and I'm sure that no one here will object to it being distributed through the forum lets face it there is obviously a demand for it by the fact we are even having this discussion
-
No, noone will object to someone distributing a fixed version. Just don't expect it to become a part of the mediavps anytime soon.
-
Because of course people would rather have an officially bugged game. :P
-
No, because it's not our job. Providing a common set of high-poly models and hires maps is far easier than providing a set of gameplay alterations.
-
No, because it's not our job.
Ddin't know you were getting paid for the FSU :p
Damn, that be a good job. Where do I sign up? :lol:
-
To get things rolling here is a modified ships.tbl file to replace the original (note this is a .tbl not .tbm)
please download, use and comment. any suggestions for improvements on the changes made or new changes to make shoot them to me.
Please note that this is a little side project to provide a non SCP supported "fix" to table entry's and not to provide the player with a set of "ultimate" fighters so new changes will have to be justifiable. I am also open to suggestions on the weapons table.
edit: Removed Link
edit:
Version 1.0 - Headdie - 30-12-2009
Nahema = switched speeds around so now 72max - 90ocl
Myrmidon = added 10 to each secondary bank cappacity and harpoon compatability
Artemis = changed bomber weight to Light and set ocl to 78 in keeping with average overclock speeds
Artemis D.H. = changed bomber weight to Light set speed to 70 to refect the fact is is supposedly superior and set ocl to 87 in keeping with average overclock speeds and the fact it shares engines with the aries
Bakha = set ocl speed to 78 as like Artemis it was set to 65 with no bonus
Medusa = changed bomber weight to medium to better match speed, hits and cappacity
Sekhmet = changed ocl speed to 70 so there is a meaningfull boost but still below par this is based on the fact that though same cappacity as Ursa it has slightly lighter armour and is newer
-
First of, you should be using tbm's and write in only what's changed. Otherwise there's no hope in keeping any sort of compatibility with existing tbl's and tbm's.
-
It doesn't matter. Changing the Artemis' overclock speed would change mission balance. Changing the Artemis DH's stats would change mission balance. Changing the Nahema's speed would do ungodly things assuming the AI overclocks.
You can feel free to make a mod of your own that adds small tweaks like this - just take the MediaVPs and alter them a bit more. Easy enough.
But even small changes to the vanilla product are dangerous.
You're really going to stick with the "it changes balance" like it will ruin everything? Like the D.H. even going 5 m/s faster and having 25 extra shield points is suddenly going to make it unstoppable? That makes it statistically better, but it's so subtle that you'll barely even notice. This is "dangerous?"
Sounds like ignorance to me.
I'm really disappointed that you're making this argument personal. I thought you were a serving adult?
Even minor balance changes can have a huge effect on missions - not just in the main campaign, but in mods that use the MediaVPs. The Procyon Insurgency, for example, has incredibly difficult and tightly balanced missions. Small changes have massive ripple effects.
We've seen this time and again in the AI code, where incredibly little adjustments have rendered missions more difficult.
Moreover, the argument isn't that these tiny changes will destroy all mission balances forever. It's that there's simply no major benefit to doing them compared to the cost, when you could make your own remix mod that accomplishes the same thing and that will not cause problems for all campaigns ever released that use the mediavps.
Honestly. If you think it's a big deal, why don't you stop insulting me and get to work?
-
I would remove Harpoon compatibility from the Myrmidon, but that's just me.
And hence the reason we don't correct the table errors. Everyone has their own opinion on whether or not something needs corrected.
-
Quite so.
I am still boggling at CommanderZane calling me ignorant. The whole point of this thread is to find these errors so we can correct them in BP. Obviously there's an interest in doing so.
-
And hence the reason we don't correct the table errors. Everyone has their own opinion on whether or not something needs corrected.
Bingo.
And looking at things more generally, every single commercial game release ever has had some sort of bugs or quirks or mistakes associated with it, just by virtue of how game development works. No developer manages to get everything working just how they wanted to, and there's always something that manages to slip through the cracks and confuses/frustrates/delights those who play the finished product. Hell, sometimes these little quirks wind up becoming important aspects of gameplay; just to use one example, the concept of "trichording" in the Descent series was originally an unintended movement bug in the original game, but it's an utterly necessary skill if you want to have any chance of success in multiplayer. We can argue on and on about whether the Myrmidon's weapons loadout or the Nahema's overclock were intended oddities by :v: or just the result of a mistaken copy/paste, but the fact remains that they're part of the fabric of the game as a whole that we've all become accustomed to, and it's not on the FSU team to decide whether or not they deserve to remain.
-
We've seen this time and again in the AI code, where incredibly little adjustments have rendered missions more difficult.
Those are two entirely different things. Last I checked ship Tables changed how they flew and A.I. Tables changed how they act and react.
And looking at things more generally, every single commercial game release ever has had some sort of bugs or quirks or mistakes associated with it, just by virtue of how game development works.
And guess what? Either the developers eventually fix them or the gaming community makes an unofficial patch for it.
The former cannot happen at all at this point and the latter people are simply going to push it aside.
-
No. AI tables and profiles change how they fly.
But here's a table example for you: let's say you've got a user made mission in what we'll call ZaneCampaign. It has a sequence in which a number of Nahemas fly at a vulnerable target that the player must reach first. This mission has been carefully balanced so that the Nahemas, which have good AI and are using smart burners and engine overclocking, will reach the target about 30s after the player, giving the player time to intercept bombs and destroy the bombers if they're good.
With the table changed? The Nahemas now fly faster on overclock, reaching the target significantly more quickly. The mission has just gone from balanced to exasperating.
These kinds of problems could be present in every user-made campaign out there. These campaigns were built and tested with the vanilla tables in mind. Altering them would destroy backwards compatibility.
This is why a remix mod makes far more sense.
-
No. AI tables and profiles change how they fly.
Does it change their speed? Does it change their maneuverability? Does it change their endurance?
No. No. And no. Flying.
Does it however change how much they dodge a pursuing target and how often they adjust their aim? Yes and yes. Acting and reacting.
-
In fact it does change their speed (smart afterburners), their maneuverability (how often they evade, whether they can use off-axis thrust and strafing), and their endurance (energy use multipliers.) It changes how many weapons they can possibly fire.
Yes, yes, and yes.
And reread my last post. You're arguing with shadows. Not only that but you've taken the time to make the debate personal when it regards minor tabling glitches in a computer game. Get a sense of perspective, seriously.
-
ok lets try this again
http://www.mediafire.com/?zo2ynxdnotn (http://www.mediafire.com/?zo2ynxdnotn)
the list of changes is as before but it is now in the form of .tbm and in a mod structure as before download and discuss
edit:
sorry for typoes
-
Might want to make a new thread for it. You'll, of course, get fierce debate over who wants what exactly, which is why the MVPs haven't done this. But it is a good idea.
-
I think that letting the MVPs keeping retail stats and having this kind of side project correcting supposed bugs is a good idea, because it lets people choose between full retail and slightly altered gameplay.
-
And looking at things more generally, every single commercial game release ever has had some sort of bugs or quirks or mistakes associated with it, just by virtue of how game development works.
And guess what? Either the developers eventually fix them or the gaming community makes an unofficial patch for it.
Or, as is far more likely, the people playing the game just live with them and incorporate them into their gameplay. This is especially true for the myriad of games (like all console games before the current generation) for which neither option exists: HAL Laboratory may not have wanted wavedashing in Super Smash Bros. Melee, but there was nothing they could do about it after the game was released, and so it became incorporated into tournament play. But even if certain quirks are technically able to be changed, there's not necessarily any compelling reason why they should be in any sort of widespread unofficial capacity. We all know that the Myrmidon can't carry Harpoons, so we simply decide for ourselves whether or not that negates its other merits; likewise, the fact that the Myrmidon can inexplicably carry Helios bombs allows mission designers to do some fun things with it. Those elements are part of the fabric of the game, and simply whitewashing over them just because certain people unilaterally label them as "bugs" ignores that fact.
-
Full Retail is Retail.
Or, as is far more likely, the people playing the game just live with them and incorporate them into their gameplay.
And how can you incorporate the Artemis D.H.'s lack of in-game improvements while being advertised as being improved in its technical description into the game?
I want a good answer for this.
-
It simply doesn't matter. There are many things we can't 'incorporate' - the fact that the Shivans are supposed to have superior weapons but don't, the Mentu's beams, the Colossus' turret inventory.
The FreeSpace Upgrade Project will not, according to its stated policy, be changing any of this.
You are, of course, free to change the Artemis DH (as Derelict did) in your own mod. In vanilla, the DH will remain a neat reskin of the Artemis.
-
ok set up a separate thread for my little mod http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=67235.0
-
Why can't people discuss things in a civilized manner. :sigh:
-
Full Retail is Retail.
Or, as is far more likely, the people playing the game just live with them and incorporate them into their gameplay.
And how can you incorporate the Artemis D.H.'s lack of in-game improvements while being advertised as being improved in its technical description into the game?
I want a good answer for this.
By "incorporate them into their gameplay," I assume that Mongoose means that people base their decisions off actual game mechanics, not that they give an in-universe explanation for them. So just by knowing about the D.H. and not jumping at chances to fly it over the regular Artemis, you have incorporated its stats into your gameplay.
-
How about the description of the Kaiser that says it was designed to be used on bombers but most of the bombers can't load it. Or the description in FS2 that says the Seth has 6 weapons but it only has 4.
-
By "incorporate them into their gameplay," I assume that Mongoose means that people base their decisions off actual game mechanics, not that they give an in-universe explanation for them. So just by knowing about the D.H. and not jumping at chances to fly it over the regular Artemis, you have incorporated its stats into your gameplay.
Exactly. This conversation doesn't have anything to do with in-universe explanations; it's about how the actual gameplay mechanics manifest themselves to the players. "Incorporating" something like the DH's identical stats would mean, as Qent said, simply acknowledging the fact that it doesn't make a difference which one you fly beyond the aesthetics. Likewise, the player has to realize that the Myrmidon can't use Harpoons, or that the Bakha gets no engine overclock speed boost, and make their ship selections accordingly. These sorts of choices have been part of the FS2 experience since its release, which is why they won't be changed in an "official" release like the MediaVPs; obviously, everyone is completely free to make their own modifications.
-
Why not simply make a fixed set of tables (changes agreed to by the majority of the most experiened modders here) and have them as an optional FSU component?
Best of both worlds...
-
Because, as the discussion here and in the other thread proves, it is far too conttroversial an issue to make any one set of tbl "fixes" even semi-official.
-
Yo guys. How about just fixing everything concerning tech room, display, and everything first ?
And then eventually make less than 5% changes to ensure "mission compatibility".
There's no need to fix everything at once.
Edit: Also look about the Nehema.
If i understood correctly, it don't overclock, right ?
How about downgrading it's standard speed and upgrading a bit overclocked one ?
That would be more fair than just upgrading the overclock.
-
Plz to read thread before posting, kthxbai.
-
Because, as the discussion here and in the other thread proves, it is far too controversial an issue to make any one set of tbl "fixes" even semi-official.
I really don't see the contraversy of fixing the obvious bits.
Adding weapons that a ship was never supposed to have (that we know of) doesn't fall into that category.
-
Nobody can really agree on what the obvious bits are. Though something like having the Helios in allowed primaries is certainly obvious, moving it to allowed secondaries is something that would be very controversial.
-
Personally with its given stats it seems more proficent as an anti-Cruiser / anti-Corvette bomber than an anti-Destroyer bomber, its shelds and hull aren't up to par with the latter bombers and has the speed of the newer former bombers. However since it's forced a loadout of Helios on the Sathanas assault missions...
-
Nobody can really agree on what the obvious bits are. Though something like having the Helios in allowed primaries is certainly obvious, moving it to allowed secondaries is something that would be very controversial.
Bahkas canonically carry Helios in secondaries.
It's not controversial.
Unless of course, you could Bearbaiting and High Noon to be non-canon.
For any other craft, possibly, but it's depicted in the game itself...
-
Those are forced by the mission. The Bakha cannot carry the Helios as a secondary.
Permitting it to carry the Helios would change balance on all missions wherein the Bakha is present but is not meant to be allowed to carry the Helios.
The Bakha is never 'depicted in the game itself' as being able to carry Helios missiles in its secondary loadout. It is depicted as having its secondary loadout forced to Helioses in two missions.
-
It only has to be "forced" because there's a tabling error.
In-universe, there's no such thing as "forcing" secondary capability. It's purely an out-of-universe mechanism. It carries Helios in two missions, therefore it can!
There are no canon missions where the Helios is present but the Bakha is forbidden to carry it. Any campaigns that have this arise can simply use a TBM to do so...
-
The Bakha is never 'depicted in the game itself' as being able to carry Helios missiles in its secondary loadout. It is depicted as having its secondary loadout forced to Helioses in two missions.
Based off this this sentence:
The bomber's speed and maneuverability make it the craft of choice for taking out destroyers and corvettes with multiple flak, AAA, and anti-ship beam turrets.
Wouldn't that say that it would normally be meant to hold the Helios? The table stats do lead me to believe that having that capability wouldn't suit it whereas the description says that it probaby would have that capability.
-
It doesn't matter. There are many fluff descriptions that do not match tables. Even where they are clear errors (as in this case) they cannot be corrected without creating support nightmares.
The purpose of the MediaVPs is to remain as close to retail behavior as possible in every respect.
-
I didn't say anything about changing them, the whole point behind what I said is the Tech Room says one thing but the Tables say otherwise, the thing is, which is correct? As I said before statistically it doesn't have the durability of the bombers that hold the Helios and instead has the speed and manuverability of some of the smaller bombers that hold the Cyclops. It sounds like the Bakha is already fine as it stands with its weapon compatability based purely on the fact that its stats say it would not be suited for lobbing Helios at Destroyers.
-
Well, yes, it would probably create a support nightmare, I guess.
-
I think that Bakha was meant to carry Helios, because of the fact that it had them in "Bearbaiting".
:v: didn't forced loadouts in any other case, plus Helios is assigned to it, but as primary weapon.
I bet that if they had SCP debug builds, they wouldn't have made such error.
-
I didn't say anything about changing them, the whole point behind what I said is the Tech Room says one thing but the Tables say otherwise, the thing is, which is correct? As I said before statistically it doesn't have the durability of the bombers that hold the Helios and instead has the speed and manuverability of some of the smaller bombers that hold the Cyclops. It sounds like the Bakha is already fine as it stands with its weapon compatability based purely on the fact that its stats say it would not be suited for lobbing Helios at Destroyers.
It doesn't matter. The fluff has no effect on gameplay. The tables do.
The purpose of the FreeSpace Upgrade Project is to upgrade retail gameplay, not to alter it. Thus the tables cannot be altered to permit the Bakha to carry Helios warheads.
This would alter the balance of all mods built on retail behavior by allowing the Bakha to carry Helios warheads.
Intended behavior is not an issue here. The simple fact is that the actual retail behavior must be maintained to avoid support hell.
-
I didn't say anything about changing them, the whole point behind what I said is the Tech Room says one thing but the Tables say otherwise, the thing is, which is correct? As I said before statistically it doesn't have the durability of the bombers that hold the Helios and instead has the speed and manuverability of some of the smaller bombers that hold the Cyclops. It sounds like the Bakha is already fine as it stands with its weapon compatability based purely on the fact that its stats say it would not be suited for lobbing Helios at Destroyers.
It doesn't matter. The fluff has no effect on gameplay. The tables do.
The purpose of the FreeSpace Upgrade Project is to upgrade retail gameplay, not to alter it. Thus the tables cannot be altered to permit the Bakha to carry Helios warheads.
This would alter the balance of all mods built on retail behavior by allowing the Bakha to carry Helios warheads.
Intended behavior is not an issue here. The simple fact is that the actual retail behavior must be maintained to avoid support hell.
I'm now saying this for the third time that I believe the Bakha's Tables make it more suited as a lighter bomber i.e.: NOT HAVING HELIOS COMPABILITY, thus AS IT IS WITHOUT HAVING HELIOS ON THE LIST OF USABLE SECONDARIES IT IS GOOD. STATISTICALLY it has the conditions of say a Zeus which is meant to get in the field quickly, lob some Cyclops at a Cruiser and pop it, and go home, NOT as an anti-Destroyer bomber as the Tech Room implies.
Shall I end up repeating this a fourth time?
-
I'll admit I haven't really been reading your posts, yes. I hope the boilerplate got through to you with respect to why the tables will not be altered by the MediaVPs.
The Bakha can canonically carry Helios warheads and is used as an anti-destroyer bomber. Yet, gameplay-wise, it can't carry the Helios unless forced to by the mission loadout.
There is no way to fluff-wrangle about this. The tables and the fiction stand at odds.
What's your point?
-
Based off this this sentence:
The bomber's speed and maneuverability make it the craft of choice for taking out destroyers and corvettes with multiple flak, AAA, and anti-ship beam turrets.
Wouldn't that say that it would normally be meant to hold the Helios? The table stats do lead me to believe that having that capability wouldn't suit it whereas the description says that it probaby would have that capability.
Not really. Bear in mind that ships such as the NTD Uhuru can also fall prey to Cyclops torpedoes, just not as fast.
-
I think the tables as-is work just fine for the retail campaign...
...Now, if you have a mod/work of fiction that doesn't agree with the retail tables, there's nothing from preventing the author with re-writing the tables to "fix" those old errors. The only question is "are the mods reasonable?" Personally, I think you could do A LOT to the Myrmidon and be well recieved for it. For example, I might nix the Helios capability but instead allow the cairrage of the Cyclops under the grounds that fighter's modular configuration allows for the attachment of bomb launchers... or something... Mind you, that would be a fan campaign only.
Also, the GTB Hydra from Derelict is a good example of doing something like this, although they obviously didn't actually change the D.H. itself.
However, here's an idea: You could release a mod which overrides the retail table data with your "fixed" data. Non-invasive, "if you don't like it, can it," everybody's happy...
-
Not really. Bear in mind that ships such as the NTD Uhuru can also fall prey to Cyclops torpedoes, just not as fast.
Another thing I've said before in the last page.
-
However, here's an idea: You could release a mod which overrides the retail table data with your "fixed" data. Non-invasive, "if you don't like it, can it," everybody's happy...
Read the thread, darn it!
-
Nobody can really agree on what the obvious bits are. Though something like having the Helios in allowed primaries is certainly obvious, moving it to allowed secondaries is something that would be very controversial.
If it's a fighter or a čoght bomber - yes.
If it's a heavy bomber - no.
A little bit of common sense is all that's needed.
And I really don't see support hell. Mods use their own set of tables, and given that it's known what changes, even in a worse case scenario, if you want to fix the balance of the mod, all you have to do it is a 5 minute tweak to the tables. How is this really different from fixing missions in FRED because of a new SCP feature casing problems or messing things up? Not the first or the last time some small changes had to me made.
And that's all assuming the changes would have a huge impact on balance. I played a dozen campaigns with a dozen different tables and the impact has always been minimal, so I don't believe even for a second it would be even nearly as drastic as you claim.
Regardless of how and where these fixes are implemented, what needs fixing and how is what we should be discussing.
I say the Mentu needs it's beam cannon ;7
-
Are you just trolling, or really not seeing the problem?
If a mod wants to alter retail gameplay, that's fine, encouraged, even.
If the MediaVPs do the same, it WILL lead to problems. Because suddenly, you are altering the gameplay of EVERY mod in a way that the mods' creators didn't expect when they made that mod.
So, what is more work? Incorporating changes into your mod, so that it plays just like you want it to play, OR altering the one unified resource most mods use, thus creating the need for modders to go through their own work months, if not years after they've released it to see if it doesn't break?
-
+1 to the E.
If you can't see the havoc that would be caused by retroactively adding beams to every Mentu in every campaign ever FREDded, then you are lost!
-
Nobody can really agree on what the obvious bits are. Though something like having the Helios in allowed primaries is certainly obvious, moving it to allowed secondaries is something that would be very controversial.
I'm not sure how controversial it would necessarily be as the Bakha canonically did carry Helios against the SJ Sathanas. Either that or you retcon the Bakhas in Bearbaiting into Sekhmets.
-
+1 to the E.
If you can't see the havoc that would be caused by retroactively adding beams to every Mentu in every campaign ever FREDded, then you are lost!
Well, I'm sure escorting the Hinton might be an even bigger issue if this was done.
-
Nobody can really agree on what the obvious bits are. Though something like having the Helios in allowed primaries is certainly obvious, moving it to allowed secondaries is something that would be very controversial.
I'm not sure how controversial it would necessarily be as the Bakha canonically did carry Helios against the SJ Sathanas. Either that or you retcon the Bakhas in Bearbaiting into Sekhmets.
The fluff is irrelevant. The controversy comes from the gameplay side: the Bakha would now be able to carry Helioses in all user-made missions and campaigns.
-
+1 to the E.
If you can't see the havoc that would be caused by retroactively adding beams to every Mentu in every campaign ever FREDded, then you are lost!
Well, I'm sure escorting the Hinton might be an even bigger issue if this was done.
That Mentuu dies in 5 seconds. Is no threat. I should know. I gave a Mentu a 2 SVas'es and finished the mission without problems.
And yeah..optional tables. Everybody wins.
-
I'm locking this topic, it has become pointless since nobody is actually contributing to original subject but arguing instead.