Team-Based Custom Fleet Tournament (Submission Starts TODAY)

[DarkenShroud]

Missles get through point defense when used right, even more then flak. I have tested a model with a good amount of point defense, and a model with the same amount of flak. The flak stops the missles better then the point defense. The point defense only stopped half the missles because of slow reload, where the flak stopped almost all of them. Particle guns did the best however, cuz they were more accurate then flak, and faster then point beams. I found a combination of both works the best, but unless you use a ton of particle guns, your not stoppin all the missles that come your way if your foe is built properly. Or you have a ton of well placed flak or point guns, but then you'd have to spend a ton on them. So I really don't see a problem with the current prices, everything has a draw back. Spend to much on defense and your limiting the rest of your ship's capabilites. If the section size change rule is changed, then just make it how the fleet tournies is. 3 size growth max both ways, that would be far less limiting then what has been proposed. And then you don't have people using the smallest sections, and making them 5x2 or 4x3 . They stay small like there supposed to be. If ya want to be flexible with the rules, take to the current rules for section size change, that the fleet tourney is currently using. Its balanced, and not as limiting as whats currently the rule. A good balance as to whats been suggested, no big small sections lol, and not as restricting as what Trash Man proposes. All in all a good rule change suggestion, think thats why its currently the rule for the fleet tourney lol.

heh darn, just suddenly got busy in RL. Can you remove me from Beta team and put me on the bench? I might still play if you happen to need another person

Just make one design and stick with it, only takes like a hour or less (for me anyways) If ya can find a hour to do so, then pimp. You'd be a great loss to our team if ya leave now. Just do alittle here and there, no need to make like 13 designs to choose from, one will surfice.

[TrashMan]

I'm saying that only a few missiles will make it trough

out of 20 missiles 15 will get destroyed by decent PD (of any kind). No other weapon can get so easily intercepted.
You spend a lot of points on missiles, only for someone who spent half as much on PD to stop them all.

I'll spend 60 points on missiles and 30 on defense
You spend 60 points on other weapons and 30 on defense and I'll get CREAMED.

[DarkenShroud]

Does seem to stop half my missles, of course there are more then 30 lol. Everything (for the most part) with pd has been defeated by the few Missile carriers I use. Use more offense if your worried about defense or flak, works for me. Defense shouldn't cost more, then you'd have no chance at defending yourself against the harder things to knock down. Even with a good amount of PD, a sound ship can blast through any defense when your weapons are placed correctly. And you use the proper amount of offense. I wouldn't call 20 missles very effective. Maybe drop the price of missles back down to 2, cuz they are kinda underpowered and do get stopped rather easily. I don't think the problem is with the defense prices, I think the problem is with missles themselves. They cost to much, for what they do. Bring them back down to 2, cuz they are easily taken out. Do not raise the price of PD, theres enough crap thats already priced to high. Beyond what there worth really. So keep PD the same price, just bring the price of missles back to 2, cuz they do suck unless you spend half your points on them and I'm talking 70 - 100 points at 2 points per, 3 points a Missile is absurd you have officially made them almost uselss against anything with good defenses and have made people waste 60 + points at 3 per on them. Last time lol, make them 2 cuz thats what there worth in this setting. I spent 90 points on missles for one of my designs, and it still is only half effective when facing a ship with 30 points of defense. I do agree with trash man thats alittle absurd, but the problem is with Missile pricing not PD pricing. MISSLES SHOULD ONLY BE 2 points, otherwise there worthless get rid of them altogether. :evil: :twisted:

[Sponge]

This is a really long post, so I can catch up with all the replies. You don’t have to read it all, just look for your name.

EDIT: Everything I said I would do in this post is done. If I missed something, let me know.

@EndlessInfinity:
Done!

@Jafo:
Done!

@QwiceNitely:
Done!

@Mr_Wizard:
Sorry you feel that way. Here’s a bit of justification.
No Weapon Limit: Most sections are small enough to only allow a few weapons, and it’s a horrid idea to “put all for eggs in one basket” anyway. I said there was no limit, but they could not touch/overlap. In reading through the voting thread, this seemed a fairly popular option.
Weapon Pricing: In all but two or three cases, I took the price list from the latest revision of the Custom Ship Tournament ruleset, doubled the prices, and adjusted them one (or a couple in some cases) point in favor of one of the ship classes depending on how effective said weapon is at dealing damage in comparison to similar weapons. It’s MUCH less arbitrary than you make it seem, and you’re free to debate any point value you feel needs debating.

@TrashMan:
The scaling rule wasn’t my idea—merely the first section I received that seemed to lower the impact of scaling without completely eliminating it, as I had initially done. I like your method a tad better and so I’ll change it. Honestly, I’d like scaling to be primarily for aesthetic purposes.

On Missile rescaling: They were initially favored to the Battleship when someone suggested they be middle-scaled, as they were “light” weapons. I don’t think they’re light weapons, but they’re really not heavy weapons. I think I might leave this one as-is. Keep in mind Frigates are the middle class, not the lowest.

On PD and Missiles: Point taken. Missile prices will be decreased slightly. I will say what I said earlier, though. This is a team tournament. If you have a missile boat, you better have someone on your team that can lay down a crapload of blaster fire to keep the enemy PD busy.

On Aegis: They’re so expensive, they’re not even worthwhile. Natch made an Aegis ship, and it left him with 20 points to spend on both maneuverability AND weapons. You may be tough to kill, but you’re totally useless when it comes to actual combat. Unless they are more unpopular than I think they are, I think I’ll keep them in.

@DarkenShroud:
Again, scaling rule was Natch’s idea, so all credit goes to him.

On missiles: Point taken, haha. I’ll lower them again, and leave them unfavored so they’re two for every class.

On “theres enough crap thats already priced to high”: PLEASE elaborate. I fail to see how things are priced too high, since there seems to be general consensus in the voting thread. If you want cheap light weapons, then battleship is not for you . However, I really want to hear what you think is too high. At this point, the system is totally open for debate.

@goduranus:
Will do.

[derekiv]

----

[TrashMan]

The core doesn't count as a section, right?

[Admiral Evars]

I've been playtesting, and so far I can't find a way to beat a corvette with pulse spam. Anyone figured out a better way, or is this going to be a close in pulse-fest?

[DarkenShroud]

On “theres enough crap thats already priced to high”: PLEASE elaborate. I fail to see how things are priced too high, since there seems to be general consensus in the voting thread. If you want cheap light weapons, then battleship is not for you . However, I really want to hear what you think is too high. At this point, the system is totally open for debate.

Guess that was kinda a overdone statement, theres only a few things that seem overpriced. Impeder fabers should go for 30, Nano Matrix should be 50, Mega Tac should be 18, the missles are good now, regular blasters aren't all that good, maybe make them 3 cuz a quad blaster to me is worth double a regular one, but thats just me knit picking. Otherwise I really like the set up you have going, Not sure what to make of the section size change rule. Please make sure to post it and make it official if it is to be changed.

-Rule Change: Weapons may no longer touch.

Don't like this to much, smaller sections even when scaling them up twice in both ways really can't fit much as it is. And weapon placements should be able to touch, it creates a sense of realism. And makes them more effective, if your gonna have defense so affordable. If not I guess one space wouldn't make that much of a differnce, except on smaller sections and a slightly differnt accuracy then if they were touching. Let them touch, looks more real (Missile packs for instance) And weapons work far better and have better accuracy if there grouped. Plus they can concentrate there firepower, theres gonna be mass defense out there, maybe even some aegis. Giving weapons any edge possible is in the best interests to the tourney and the ships in question. Simply because defense will prevail more then half the time otherwise.

[derekiv]

wait I'll stay where I am.

[Sponge]

@derekiv:
Okay, you sure? It’s not a problem to move you if you want to be moved.

@TrashMan:
That’s correct.

@Admiral Evars:
Does this warrant a change? My initial thoughts were “Battleships get discounted weapons far more frequently than Corvettes,” so I don’t really know how this plays into the whole system. The LAST thing I want to do is make a class of ship too easy to use, and so if this needs changing, please let me know.

@DarkenShroud:
My take on the impeder platform was that it served the same purpose as the defense platform, and should be a similar price. I think most would agree that it’s dual purpose of drawing enemy fire (the impeder more than the platform, actually, as the impeder can stop some of the shots fired at it, making it last longer) is more beneficial than the blaster fire or the impeder effect. On those grounds, I made it cost quite a bit so people couldn’t just spam them to draw fire. Based on this logic, do you still think the price should be lowered? I think that either way, they won’t be a popular choice. 30 points is still 15% of your total for something that definitely won’t be worth it. I’ll take care of the Nano right now. 50 seems plenty fair. I’ll play around with the megatach, but I think 18 may be a tad low. They’re really, really powerful in groups, and since the bugfix that fixed the problem with their lifetimes, they’re even more deadly. I’ll also take a quick look at the blasters. How do you think the quad blaster compares with the gat blaster?

EDIT: Nano is done and I've lowered the Megatach two points. I'm not sure what to do with the blasters, because lowering them a point would make them cost 1 for Corvettes, and that's not such a good idea. They're only slightly cheaper for battleships, but that gradient increases for the other ships.

[TrashMan]

IMHO, fabricators (both of them) should be dissalowed.

they are cheaper than aegis whoring, since against aeigises you can at least do SOMETHING (fast flankers, plasma, weasels).
Against platfrom-AI bug, you can't do anything.


That said, my first 200 point ship is ready...and it's a tough SOB.

[DarkenShroud]

I'm glad you asked, I have 2 differnt blaster designs as a matter of fact. The gat blaster model spews fire, and is alot harder to defend against with PD. But at the sametime its not nearly as accurate as multiple quads nor do they have 360 fire capability. But in the end they even out, I still think however the points you have 5 and 6 are accurate. Quads are slightly better overall. Impeder fabs are Cheesey I guess, but not nearly as platform fabs. Mega tacs I say lower to 20 then, 5 are worth 100 points. But aren't worth any higher in my opinon.

How do you think the quad blaster compares with the gat blaster?

[Sponge]

IMHO, fabricators (both of them) should be dissalowed.

...

That said, my first 200 point ship is ready...and it's a tough SOB.

I could go for banning both of them. The only real influence they have on the battle is drawing fire while your enemies flank you. Any opinoins from anyone else?

Also, grats on the ship . Remember to keep checking the news section in the first post- I'm listing EVERY change I make to the rules there.

I'm glad you asked, I have 2 differnt blaster designs as a matter of fact. The gat blaster model spews fire, and is alot harder to defend against with PD. But at the sametime its not nearly as accurate as multiple quads nor do they have 360 fire capability. But in the end they even out, I still think however the points you have 5 and 6 are accurate. Quads are slightly better overall. Impeder fabs are Cheesey I guess, but not nearly as platform fabs. Mega tacs I say lower to 20 then, 5 are worth 100 points. But aren't worth any higher in my opinon.

Alright. I've already changed the tachs to 19. That sound fair? As of right now, I'll leave impeders where they are. It seems there are two schools of thought- one states that they should be completely banned, the other that they are not really a problem. What I COULD do is place numerical limits on the fabricators?

[DarkenShroud]

*A voice is heard in Sponge's head* "Allow weapons to touch"

If not all good, but it would help matters in more then one way.

And really wouldn't be hurting anything, exactly the opposite actually.

(More weapons can fit on a frigate design, weapons will be more effective, better accuracy, better looking, etc)

*The voice seems to leave without a trace of its passing*

[Sponge]

*A voice is heard in Sponge's head* "Allow weapons to touch"

If not all good, but it would help matters in more then one way.

And really wouldn't be hurting anything, exactly the opposite actually.

(More weapons can fit on a frigate design, weapons will be more effective, better accuracy, better looking, etc)

*The voice seems to leave without a trace of its passing*

Haha... The reason I added the no-touch was because Mr Wizard cited the absence of a limit on weapons per section as a large contributor to his dropping out. Again, there seem to be two opposite schools of thought on this subject. I'll see what others say.