[Fury]

Why can't people discuss things in a civilized manner.

[Qent]

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.

[Macfie]

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.

[Mongoose]

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.

[TrashMan]

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...

[The E]

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.

[Firartix]

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.

[The E]

Plz to read thread before posting, kthxbai.

[TrashMan]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Commander Zane]

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...

[Droid803]

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...

[General Battuta]

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.

[Droid803]

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...

[Commander Zane]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Commander Zane]

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.

[Droid803]

Well, yes, it would probably create a support nightmare, I guess.

[Dragon]

I think that Bakha was meant to carry Helios, because of the fact that it had them in "Bearbaiting".
  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.

[General Battuta]

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.