[CP5670]

The only reason I objected to that is because as far as I could tell, the only justification on the other side was "I don't like that number, it should be 3!" Plus I was board, and debates are fun when you board.

Well, I think "I don't like the number" is a much better excuse than "multiplayer missions are meant for gameplay unlike singleplayer ones." I mean, hey, at least you're being honest about it.

[TrashMan]

The basic problem is, though, that they may not (probably didn't in fact) have the capablity to really keep their newer ships in service. A few major actions and they would have run out of Hecate parts and start having to jury-rig. Big ships, being more complex then little ones, take poorly to that kind of thing; if the NTF still had any Hecates in service by month 18 when FS2 starts, at best they would be one step ahead of being cannibalized for parts, and their performance badly degraded.

What makes you think that none of those systems can produce the necesarry spare parts?

[NGTM-1R]

What makes you think that none of those systems can produce the necesarry spare parts?

Probably the fact the NTF had no Hecates in evidence in the main campaign. Also the fact it's new; we only saw a grand total of two on the GTVA side. Polaris is an important, but not a core, system. Intial construction probably took place in Beta Aquilae or near there (Ribos, Antares? Maybe Vega?), and the first factories for production of those parts would of course be there as well. Polaris is pretty far out in the boonies for Terran space, really. This is not. however, to say that Polaris did not have the industrial capablity. It probably did. But it would have had to retool (and take the thing apart to reverse engineer the parts) and that would also inhibit its ability to keep the majority of its destroyer force, composed of Orions, active.

From a logistical standpoint, the NTF fought a war they couldn't win. They probably started the war as well-equipped as any GTVA unit, but by the time of FS2 they've fallen back almost entirely on ships from the Great War era. Even if they could maintain or build newer ships, they could not keep up with the pace of losses and damage for those craft in combat. That's why you're dealing with all these Lokis and Hercs. They don't have much else.

[aldo_14]

Oki now here is where i go balistic ! You guis treat every twich and inonsitenci in the FS singleplayer as canon that is not to be disputed and yet when something doesnt agree with you or you think it highly unlikely you make it se-canon or whatever. If its V made or aproved then its cannon i dont care what theyr goal was. Aldo and several other members of the forum beat that into mi head . Then if you can say that things like these should be semi-canon or something like that then i can say the same for the Sobek numbers motivating that Volition maibe just wanted to add some more drama to the story and a sence of complete failure and remorse over the failed mission.

See where i'm gooing?

He's right you know.... When the point suits you that all that comes out of your mouths is "[V] said so! Canon it must be! Ramen!".. and when it doesn't suit your tastes that you start with the "maby it was a mistake" Or "[V] didn't pay attention"..

Hell, I'm copying this thread to show it down the throat of anyone who acuses me of trying to twist FS canon to his whim!

Yes.

Obviously, we're not beating hard enough.

Dodgily formatted qoute aside, I have said no such thing beyond suggesting that multiplayer may not be a good canonical source and listing reasons.  AFAIK you're pretty much the only person suggesting the main campaign - the story - made mistakes.

[TrashMan]

Yes, I did say that there may have been mistakes in the main campaign...  becosue tehre was logical reason for me to suspect that.

Name one game that was bug-free and where everything was perfect anyway...

[IceFire]

The intercept mission for multiplayer added the Corsica later on to make the mission harder.  IT was hard enough during the FS2 beta but it got easier when everything was balanced properly in the retail so they just dropped it in.  Probably chose the Hecate to make it more difficult for the bombers (better flak and AAA beam protection).  I wouldn't count it as being accurate in any way.

The NTF seemed to have of FS1 ships which, combined with the Operation Templar campaign, leads me to believe that most of the new generation of ships were slowly coming online in the last 24 months after the rebellion had started or just before.  Perhaps the NTF rebellion spurred new designs on to try and overcome the rebels.  I suspect that the GTVA fleets were somewhat diminished prior to the rebellion thus the success the NTF experienced.  So my feeling is that most of the NTF fleet were repaired, scavenged, or salvaged and put back together again.  They used of Loki's and Hercules Mark I and Medusas...probably available as active or mothballed after The Great War in large quantities.  So I'll bet that while maybe they were producing new ships they were probably salvaging parts from three or four junked or mothballed types to create one good one.

[CP5670]

The intercept mission for multiplayer added the Corsica later on to make the mission harder.  IT was hard enough during the FS2 beta but it got easier when everything was balanced properly in the retail so they just dropped it in.  Probably chose the Hecate to make it more difficult for the bombers (better flak and AAA beam protection).  I wouldn't count it as being accurate in any way.

That doesn't make any sense. You could also argue that, for example, the Beleth was added into Bearbaiting to make the mission harder, so its existence is not "accurate." Besides, the NTF having a Hecate is really no more implausible than the Sobek 6000 number or a host of other things in the main campaign. You can certainly think of reasons why they might have one or two, even if it seems a little counterintuitive on the surface of it.

[AlphaOne]

Aldo you just dont like that you and other people around here got cought when you were twisting the facts of the game to suit yourself. Thats all. Its pretty simple if you actualy want to look at it its all canon or none of it cannon make up your mind!

Sure there may be ridiculosu things like having a BFG mounted on a cruiser for instance(just an exagerated example doesnt actualy exist) where you have to let go of the canon.

[aldo_14]

Aldo you just dont like that you and other people around here got cought when you were twisting the facts of the game to suit yourself. Thats all. Its pretty simple if you actualy want to look at it its all canon or none of it cannon make up your mind!

Sure there may be ridiculosu things like having a BFG mounted on a cruiser for instance(just an exagerated example doesnt actualy exist) where you have to let go of the canon.

Please explain what facts I 'twisted', if you're going to throw round allegations like that.

Yes, I did say that there may have been mistakes in the main campaign...  becosue tehre was logical reason for me to suspect that.

Name one game that was bug-free and where everything was perfect anyway...

Mario Kart?  In any case, as i'm sure you are aware, a programmatic bug is vastly, vastly different - on a different paradigm in fact - to an error in text (including config and tbl files) that is proof-read multiple times during testing and quite probably written well in advance before the mission is made.  Particularly vis-a-vis the Sobek one, where the same value is repeated (alone and as an addition) twice, which indicates it definately wasn't a mistype when the mission was made.

[AlphaOne]

what you mean like taking Sobek number as canon beacuse it is in the game no matter how ridiculous it sounds (the number that is) yet saing that its semi-canon or non canon that the NTF had Hecates??? 

[aldo_14]

what you mean like taking Sobek number as canon beacuse it is in the game no matter how ridiculous it sounds (the number that is) yet saing that its semi-canon or non canon that the NTF had Hecates??? 

Suggesting, actually.

Let's look at the quote in question;

If you include the multiplayer briefings.

I'm inclined to treat the multiplayer missions as not canon, or maybe semi-canon, due to the number of inconsistencies and cans of worms involved.

That'd be my inclination. Particularly as IIRC Volition used to give approval to fan-missions for MP, which would mean they were more or less allowing fanon-as-canon if MP missions were canon, and I doubt that would be their likely intent.

Definitions of  inclination on the Web:
   * an attitude of mind especially one that favors one alternative over others; "he had an inclination to give up too easily"; "a tendency to be too strict"

Hmm.  So you're talking out your arse, sunshine.  I said absolutely nothing along the lines that it was explicitly non-canon, just that I'd tend to regard it that way for a number of well documented reasons.  Note that I didn't say to anyone 'oh, that's too many Hecates'.  Moreso, we have a clear deliniation between multiplayer and singleplayer in terms of story importance, something which someone else suggested before I made any sort of comment.  And even then I didn't draw conclusions.

You know why?  Because I know how stupid it sounds, when you flat out decide something must be wrong because it sounds wrong to you.

[AlphaOne]

Now was the last phrase suposed to be a direct sugestion to mi Sobek debate? Cuz if it is then well its just mi PERSONAL OPINION STATED THERE. Never said it should be the way i want it.

Also i think that if everyone agreed with the arguemnts posted abaut fanon-as-canon and semi-canon then you wouldnt be poiting out the fact that you and other members of the forums were just giving sugestions.

To make it short if the balled rolled down your way then you wouldnt be sugesting it you would in the end enforcing it. Mi english tiping and spelling mai be bad which is in fact the reason i cant come up with elaborate ideas and arguements but dont think for a second that i dont understand most of time the finer points of peoples posts arguements and counterarguements.

[aldo_14]

Now was the last phrase suposed to be a direct sugestion to mi Sobek debate? Cuz if it is then well its just mi PERSONAL OPINION STATED THERE. Never said it should be the way i want it.

I never said anything about anyone in particulars' opinion.  If you happen to think that applies to you....well, that's your choice.

Also i think that if everyone agreed with the arguemnts posted abaut fanon-as-canon and semi-canon then you wouldnt be poiting out the fact that you and other members of the forums were just giving sugestions.

Why the hell do you think I said they were suggestions?  The issue of mp briefings has nothing to do, in any case, with the canonicity of the main campaign, because it is the story.  The entire suggestion is whether MP lives on that same plane, and i left that entirely open to decision.

To make it short if the balled rolled down your way then you wouldnt be sugesting it you would in the end enforcing it. Mi english tiping and spelling mai be bad which is in fact the reason i cant come up with elaborate ideas and arguements but dont think for a second that i dont understand most of time the finer points of peoples posts arguements and counterarguements.

 'the balled rolled' (sic) down my way right there, and guess what - I didn't.  I didn't say, 'oh, I disagree with these Hecate numbers, they must be a mistake!!11one', I said, 'perhaps MP isn't intended as canon' and left it open. In fact, I even added a counterpoint piece of support for the GTVA having more destroyers than perhaps the main campaign indicated.

[AlphaOne]

Never said nothing about the number of destroyers since i happen to agree that there must of been more destroyers or ship of a diferent class then mentioned in the main campaign.

God I love debates. Can you guess why?

[aldo_14]

Never said nothing about the number of destroyers since i happen to agree that there must of been more destroyers or ship of a diferent class then mentioned in the main campaign.

Never said you did.  what's your point, caller?

[AlphaOne]

The point was that at least to me it seems that some of the mebers around here seem to be very hard tough on things like cannon and personal ideas about one thing or another which refers to the FS main campaign yet when some of these facts tend to not match what you think is cannon you then tend to be somehow turn it around or at least give the impression that some things should not be taken as canon.


I have a feeling i'm giving another spelling hurt to someone.

[aldo_14]

The point was that at least to me it seems that some of the mebers around here seem to be very hard tough on things like cannon and personal ideas about one thing or another which refers to the FS main campaign yet when some of these facts tend to not match what you think is cannon you then tend to be somehow turn it around or at least give the impression that some things should not be taken as canon.


I have a feeling i'm giving another spelling hurt to someone.

There are people, myself included, who object to saying canon is 'a mistake' because it doesn't suit some persons' agenda.   

However, that is a seperate issue from the multiplayer missions, because these are effectively a seperate game - you don't take, say, Call of Duty multiplayer to be representative of the actual war 'story' of the game, nor do you regard RTS skirmish multiplayer as indicating the same.

Canon is absolute for single player.  That much is obvious and self-evidence.  The question is, should multiplayer be held to the same level, given that it has a rather different purpose to a story-telling main campaign?  Note that none of this is at the stage cherry picking bits to reject from multiplayer, as with the aforementioned likes of, say, 'the Sobek can't have 6000 crew' or 'the maxim is a mistake'.  It's 'does this match with singleplayer, and is it even intended to, or is it just a piece of standalone fun'.

[Flipside]

I've always held the opinion that as long as there is nothing blatantly contradicting what we already know, then it's not a problem. My own opinion is that the NTF is made entirely of captured ships, there's a possibility that they might have captured a shipyard somewhere in their home systems, but if they did, it was no doubt dedicated to producing smaller ships like fighters and bombers to maintain supply. I expect they would have been very hard pushed to produce even a single cruiser.

As for Hecates, as long as Canon doesn't say that 'Only the GTVA had them', then theres no reason why the NTF didn't, however, even then, you can make excuses like 'Command didn't want to make public the loss of such a new and dangerous ship'.

It IS a game first, and a story second, but with a good story, you can put just about anything in the game that doesn't vastly contradict canon. Ship with 50 beam cannon = Bad, Hecate in the hands of NTF = Meh.

[CP5670]

However, that is a seperate issue from the multiplayer missions, because these are effectively a seperate game - you don't take, say, Call of Duty multiplayer to be representative of the actual war 'story' of the game, nor do you regard RTS skirmish multiplayer as indicating the same.

Canon is absolute for single player.  That much is obvious and self-evidence.  The question is, should multiplayer be held to the same level, given that it has a rather different purpose to a story-telling main campaign?  Note that none of this is at the stage cherry picking bits to reject from multiplayer, as with the aforementioned likes of, say, 'the Sobek can't have 6000 crew' or 'the maxim is a mistake'.  It's 'does this match with singleplayer, and is it even intended to, or is it just a piece of standalone fun'.

Why does it have a "rather different purpose" from the main campaign? I still don't see where any of this is coming from. Any story fault you can find with the Volition MP missions has a counterpart with the SP campaign missions, and in any case, there is nothing that even remotely contradicts events in the SP campaign. This "focus on gameplay" argument is nonsense since that's also equally true of the campaign missions. You could make a case for that with the tech room descriptions or reference bible, but the SP campaign is not primarily "story telling" any more than the multiplayer missions are.

As for the other games, most of them don't have co-op modes. The ones that have specially designed co-op maps usually complement the SP story and often have detailed plots to go with them, like SCCT for example. FS2 is in the same category with its co-op missions.

This is the first time I've seen anyone suggesting that the Volition MP missions are not canon and it seems a bit strange coming from otherwise hardline canon supporters. There used to be all kinds of debates over story-related issues at the FRED Zone forums a few years ago (and even at the VBB, to a lesser extent) where the MP story events were fully accounted for. The thought that multiplayer isn't canon would have been absurd back then, and I'm not sure why so many people think differently now.

[aldo_14]

However, that is a seperate issue from the multiplayer missions, because these are effectively a seperate game - you don't take, say, Call of Duty multiplayer to be representative of the actual war 'story' of the game, nor do you regard RTS skirmish multiplayer as indicating the same.

Canon is absolute for single player.  That much is obvious and self-evidence.  The question is, should multiplayer be held to the same level, given that it has a rather different purpose to a story-telling main campaign?  Note that none of this is at the stage cherry picking bits to reject from multiplayer, as with the aforementioned likes of, say, 'the Sobek can't have 6000 crew' or 'the maxim is a mistake'.  It's 'does this match with singleplayer, and is it even intended to, or is it just a piece of standalone fun'.

Why does it have a "rather different purpose" from the main campaign? I still don't see where any of this is coming from. Any story fault you can find with the Volition MP missions has a counterpart with the SP campaign missions, and in any case, there is nothing that even remotely contradicts events in the SP campaign. This "focus on gameplay" argument is nonsense since that's also equally true of the campaign missions. You could make a case for that with the tech room descriptions or reference bible, but the SP campaign is not primarily "story telling" any more than the multiplayer missions are.

As for the other games, most of them don't have co-op modes. The ones that have specially designed co-op maps usually complement the SP story, and some even have detailed backstories to go with them, like SCCT for example. FS2 is in the same category with its co-op missions.

This is the first time I've seen anyone suggesting that the Volition MP missions are not canon and it seems a bit strange coming from otherwise hardline canon supporters. There used to be all kinds of debates over story-related issues at the FRED Zone forums a few years ago (and even at the VBB, to a lesser extent) where the MP story events were fully accounted for. The thought that multiplayer isn't canon would have been absurd back then, and I'm not sure why so many people think differently now.

Because the multiplayer section has the purpose of, well, multiplayer enjoyment; it's not predicative of prior knowledge in the same way as singleplayer missions are.  And the singleplayer is set up to tell the storyline; that's the whole purpose of playing it! 

Due to the simple fact that the player is so dominant in singleplayer, i.e. alpha one syndrome, the (co-op) multiplayer requires a different setup to balance it.  It might not be realistic or desired within the context of singleplayer to have xx NTF warships in a certain place (as it contradicts, say, the realistic NTF size), but it might be necessary for multiplayer to be the right difficulty for >1 humans.

And also, because it's multiplayer, it may be that designers do stuff not possible due to story constraints.   For example, maybe they would have liked to have the player fighting a Hecate in SP, but the storyline made that infeasible; but why not shove it into MP?

I think it's (canon status of MP) worthy of consideration at the very least.