3rd Custom Ships Fleet Tournament Voting Thread [Updated]

[TrashMan]

Says on the updated rules that weapon arcs can now be extended upto 135....What more can you ask for without being picky lol?

200°-240° arcs.. ya know, like WW2 battleships had.

Granted, this would only be useful against really fast ships or in fleet tourneys..in 1-on-1 fights it always ends up all forwards facing firepower anyway.

Let's fact it, even with 200° arc, due to the stupidity of the broadside AI (Th15, fix this please) your forward guns don't fire at all.

[Mr_Wizard]

I wouldnt go much more that 135 for balance reasons. I mean, Frigate has to serve a purpose, if the firing arcs are too wide, then Frigates have to be faster in order to flank, a lot faster. Just through some testing, even a ship with a speed of 4.40 (and turning 1.8 ) has some trouble flanking fast enough to avoid much fire from a slow (.50spd .50turn) gunship with 180 degree arcs.

So 135, while not strictly "historically accurate" portrayal of turreted weapons, it provides balance amongst the ship classes, and makes Frigates more useful; while still ensuring that 1 Battleship is still too much for 1 frigate.

EDIT: And also, due to a Dieterling bug that Captain Trek found (that allows it to sometimes jump overan entire map) I think they should be "Restricted due to Bug." If your designing a ship that uses it, just stick a Nano on it until it gets fixed

[TrashMan]

Frigates already are very powerful ships. Check the several last tournaments.
Their speed and agility makes them hard to hit even when the turrets CAN track them.

Besides, we have more types of tournaments that only 1-on-1. Large turret coverage has it's uses there.

Aditionally, you would have to PAY for fire arc increase, thus having LESS turrets. A fair trade.

I recommend:
default 90° - 0 extra points
150° - 1 extra point
220° - 2 extra points

Or you can go even more detailed and make a +1 point for every 45° increase.
This would only pay off on bigger, more expensive turrets then..or not.

[Mr_Wizard]

Hmm. I like the 1 point every 45°, then it goes 1 point: 135°; 2 points: 180°. Not to mention it won't Cap you, it will allow for a " USS Monitor" like ship, that could have a turret with 360°, but very expensive(+6 points).
I like it, actually.

[DarkenShroud]

*flirts with test designs, in anticapation for the upcoming fleet tourney. Many explosions follow, Admiral Hexannon Elexin looks on pleased with the results thus far*

[_Ti__]

Im quite satisfied with the last rules update. However, in the section scale question, I think it would be easier just to set a rule where no section can be scaled larger than 5 squares in the shipmaker. It would be more flexible and easier to judge, I think. Section 26, for example, is just a little bigger than 5x2 squares. Of course we could not alow 5x5 sections, so the limit could be 5x2, 4x3, and so on. also nothing smaller than 1, besides de default ones, which cannot be scaled down.

[DarkenShroud]

Section size rule is easy to follow and understand, and I think much easier to judge as well. Allowing any section to be made to that size would create exploiting problems with certain sections being used for defensive purposes. I like the way it stands right now, simple and cuts down on the cheese. If the idea is to be taken to though, I will show you what I mean :twisted:

[goduranus]

... reads the new rules

I found a heinous strategy!

:twisted:


Edit:

-Weapons or modules cannot be connected off the core.

I don't like this rule though. Not for any particular reason, just that I usually connect 1-2 weapons off of the core.

[EndlessInfinity]

-Weapons or modules cannot be connected off the core.

Yeah, I'm not sure what to think about this one - I do like it, but it's kinda limiting with frigates, where every bit of space helps.

[CmdPrompt]

In order to make the entire tournament process easier, I made an uploader for tournament ships. I'm still working on it, but it can be seen here:
http://muon.us/bsf/uploader/

The output is a .html file that gives you a nice formatted view of the entry.
I still need to add the pointing for each thing.

What I'll set up is a way to submit to a particular tournament, so everything will be under:

http://muon.us/bsf/uploader/uploads/<Tournament Name>/<User Name>

Which makes archiving this stuff 203420340x easier.

[Mr_Wizard]

I think my favorite rule here is the stacking rule:

-Sections may overlap other sections within reason. No more than 25% can be covered by another section.

Because as I read an played around with the old ships from previous tournies, I couldn't help but sniffle my nose how they stacked pieces and then used deflectors to shield many pieces at once. It also helps to encourage ships with more personality. I mean just look at the Mothership Assault fleets!

[goduranus]

I wish map sizes could be bigger, like 4000x4000. Small maps really favor battleships, as frigates will bounce into corners and get destroyed.

edit: are component limits per fleet or per ship?

[CmdPrompt]

They're currently per ship, but there might be per fleet rules tacked on above them, probably something like three times the current value, to prevent things like Lancet, Frosch Guns, and Pod Launchers from being too powerful.

[Anarki]

There shouldn't be fixed limits on items (except frosch guns) - it should be an incremental point cost (ex. first booster costs 4, second costs 4 + 4, third costs 4 + 8, etc.)

[goduranus]

There shouldn't be fixed limits on items (except frosch guns) - it should be an incremental point cost (ex. first booster costs 4, second costs 4 + 4, third costs 4 + 8, etc.)

I always disliked the incremental costs, it makes things too complicated, and it isn't very naturalistic either.