By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Saturday, September 01, 2012 - 08:24 pm: Edit |
"Hard is BOLD."
TWSS
By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Saturday, September 01, 2012 - 08:31 pm: Edit |
I suspect the multiple impulses/battery/transporters/etc was a mistake because those are non adjacent boxes on the SSD. For tractor beams, even though the three tractors each have separate state, the current client is lax about that already and it is not going to get worse (other than for guarding/H&R purposes) by combining them into one SSD box. Same goes for the emergency impulse, as that special rule is used even less than ship separation as a whole (the current DAC does not have any support for emergency impulse and no one has ever complained, not even me).
Ship separation does tend to get used more if catastrophic damage and crew experience are in use. I have actually separated sections three times in my SFB career (and blocked a ship separation with boarding parties once). One of those three was with a Neo-Tholian, but it was more for the sake of doing it than because it actually helped win the battle (it probably made it worse, actually, but there are a few cases where it's the right choice).
Two security boxes is a different story because they are two actual separate security stations, which has a game effect (better die roll modifier, and another control room to fight over in a boarding action). Those shouldn't be combined. Individual bridge/flag/etc boxes should be combined though (assuming the typical case of a ship with one bridge room but multiple boxes in it).
By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Saturday, September 01, 2012 - 08:54 pm: Edit |
I would be OK with shuttles being together if there was a notation on the side (along with the notation of the disruptor-ranges of this ship), stating how many bays the ship has. Otherwise you need to have separate shuttles (although you might have two or whatever sets of shuttles, each is a bay).
Carriers might have other shuttle problems, in that some are "attack fighter ready rack" boxes. Though those problems could be explained away. If anyone whines about not knowing which shuttle box has a ready rack and which box has the attack-fighter-ready-rack, they can be told to look at the dead-tree SSD. H&R of such boxes might be an issue, however.
By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Saturday, September 01, 2012 - 09:08 pm: Edit |
How would you show numer of bays and launch tubes with shuttles and fighters all lumped together one box for the whole ship?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, September 01, 2012 - 09:11 pm: Edit |
I can only assume from the discussion that SFBOL doesn't support (D16.0) in an intuitive way -- or nobody plays with it! -- otherwise the "why not combine separate groups of the same type of boxes" crowd wouldn't be asking.
(Or maybe (D16.0) has changed since I bought Module M a decade and a half ago. If it hasn't, then (D16.54) and maybe half of (D16.8) require keeping track of separate groups of otherwise identical boxes.)
Starbases, assuming they're in SFBOL, will probably work better with multiple entries of similar systems. Likewise, maulers will want to track battery groups separately.
Or maybe not; nothing says SB, maulers, or (D16.0) need to be implemented easily (or at all). I don't really care one way or the other, seeing as I don't use the service. I do find the whole design process interesting, however, in particular the implicit choices that seem to be being made.
By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Saturday, September 01, 2012 - 09:28 pm: Edit |
Good point about mauler battery banks.
Another thing to think about is PA panels, would you need a box for degredation, energy and another for empty capacity. You would still need to be able to track each panel I would think so you know how much power is released when one is destroyed.
By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Saturday, September 01, 2012 - 11:03 pm: Edit |
When it comes to the impulse engines they need to be kept separate otherwise it makes it easier to guard them.
When it comes to PA Panels they will not change each panel will be separate and each panel will still have a degradation/ energy tracks though they will be changed to be summary boxes (i.e. std deg, std energy, reinf. deg, reinf. energy)
Shuttle bays will be kept separate due to chain reaction and launch rules.
When it comes to DamCon, Sensor and Scanner only the greatest value will be shown at any time. The number of these boxes does not matter.
By Francois Lemay (Princeton) on Saturday, September 01, 2012 - 11:28 pm: Edit |
Like Ted, I also buy products when they are released in support of ADB for this great game !!
If SFBOL is shut down, my SFB days are basically over as there is only 1 other player in the Ottawa area that I know of that plays SFB .
And like William, I also prefer to play SFB via SFBOL then FtF now.
Please count me in to help converting to the new SSD look.
Paul, I have a paint program [ came with new computer but not sure if its MS Paint though ] and I am willing to call you if you have the time to show me how to do SSD's.
Cheers
Frank
By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Sunday, September 02, 2012 - 01:20 am: Edit |
"When it comes to DamCon, Sensor and Scanner only the greatest value will be shown at any time. The number of these boxes does not matter."
The number of these boxes does not matter to me, since I only play tournament. For the Dam Con track, how are you supposed to do Emergency Damage Control if you don't have the entire track?
Sensor and Scanner only really matter to the extent you don't want to be surprised. Again, won't matter to me because I have all the relevant tracks memorized for the tournament ships and in any event, if I really need the full SSD, I can go grab them from the web. It would matter to someone who did not have the SSD for a standard game because it would represent the one area of "surprise" every time the track took damage. That might, or might not, be part of the purpose of this change though.
By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Sunday, September 02, 2012 - 01:23 am: Edit |
For DamCon separate boxes do matter. EDR happens frequently and you can't do EDR without a complete DamCon track. Sensor and scanner it also matters, but it matters substantially less. (From a freeloader/pirate perspective separate weapon boxes are a bigger risk than separate damcon boxes).
Separate banks of impulse engines are a good point since they have the special engine guard rule. Only engines have that rule, though - not batteries, tractor beams, etc., nor even shuttlebays.
D16.0 is not supported by the client. It is rarely used and in the event someone does want to use it they are necessarily going to be doing that with the paper boarding party data anyway since those aren't in SFBOL. Even if in use and someone captures, like, two of your three transporters but not the third, then you as the player will just know you can only use one but the others could still be damaged in exactly the same way as usual. The descriptions of which systems are in which sections are all in the paper tables anyway. So unless I'm missing something, D16.0 is not really relevant.
I haven't put much thought into starbase damage. I guess to be totally accurate each docking module would need to have its own sets of boxes, as well as the core, and the funny directional armor. I don't even know if the client supports all the various starbase damage rules as I have never played a starbase scenario. Some other large bases also have special damage rules.
Maulers, yeah. Uh. I guess for best results each battery bank would want to be separate. But for the 99% of ships that aren't maulers, all the batteries on the ship can be combined.
Edit: Paul (S), I've seen you play non-tournament games! Granted, not recently...
By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Sunday, September 02, 2012 - 01:46 am: Edit |
Will,
Yeah, from time to time. But its rare enough to call it "never."
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, September 02, 2012 - 02:48 am: Edit |
You guys do realize that every time you say "but we need these boxes separate" you come closer to ADB saying "Then this doesn't work at all, take down everything but tournament ships until you find something ADB can accept." I am not sure you're not already beyond that point. I really, frankly, don't want the weapons separate and don't think they need to be. I already described a way to handle that.
All I'm hearing from you is "the new SSDs are ok, but we really do need just one more little change, then one more, then one more, then one more", then we're right back to the second generation SSDs that came close to getting SFBOL shut down. It really upset me to see people still talking about "if SFBOL shuts down" because I'm thinking "we're way beyond a point where that is even being thought of. it won't happen." Then I see people pushing for one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, one more box, and, oh, yes, one more box. YOU are begging for trouble. I'm not the only one involved in making the decision of what ADB will accept, but I AM your ONLY friend and advocate. Do not make my job impossible. You have no idea who you're pissing off. I'm feeling tricked, swindled, cheated, and used.
Seriously, guys, you can go look up the track when you decide to use CDR. Ship separation is so rare you don't need to worry about it; if you dump the rear half of the ship then any batteries in it get deducted. Impulse engines? NO. You can put guards in a separate "things guarded" chart like SFBnotOL players do.
So please drop any more bitching and moaning about boxes you want separated. You've already gone farther than ADB can approve. If I come in here tomorrow to find a bunch of outrage, you're liable to find out what "push back" means, and you won't like it. Table this, NOW. I'll talk to Paul about how far back we have to go. You can live with the result. It will be just as functional.
Now, go be creative. Find creative ways to make it work just the same with FEWER boxes and QUIT asking for more. You won't get more so stop arguing for more.
By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Sunday, September 02, 2012 - 04:17 am: Edit |
I think because this latest proposal came from Paul that people tended to think that ADB was ok with it, and were just trying to work out minor details. Like, for impulse engines, we saw that the sample SSD had three different impulse engine boxes and were trying to figure out if that was really needed. My first comment after seeing it was "I thought SVC wanted fewer boxes than that." So I don't think the attitude of the community really reflects SVC's impression. Rather, it was "here is what Paul did, now what has to happen to make that work?"
Quote:Find creative ways to make it work just the same with FEWER boxes
By John Smith (Johnsmith) on Sunday, September 02, 2012 - 04:59 am: Edit |
What about something similar to drop-down menus that list status? For instance, a D7 LWarp box has a "13" in it. Click it, and drop-down has categories for Warp (12), AWR (1), Destroyed (2). This could also be used to show Sensor/Scanner/Damcon tracts, Shuttle/Fighter/Heavy breakdowns, etc.
By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Sunday, September 02, 2012 - 05:02 am: Edit |
That's similar to what I am working on, but I want a functional mockup.
By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Sunday, September 02, 2012 - 07:13 am: Edit |
Just something to mention to all that is concerned:
1) The more that the new Ship Definition is different the previous proposal the more work that I need to do.
2) The more work I need to do, the longer it will take
3) The more work I need to do, the more bugs and more unstable the client will become.
So in all proposals, please keep the above in mind. Because currently, I have 3 nights a week to work on SFB Online, 2 nights are devotes to Star Fleet Warlord and the other two are busy with what is left of my life. (i.e. the Podcast, Church Choir, Knights of Columbus, etc). The days taken up mainly by the job that pays the bills.
By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Sunday, September 02, 2012 - 10:10 am: Edit |
DELEGATE, Paul. Delegate.
THAT is a skill that would really be helpful...on all levels.
By Brendan Lally (Brendan_Lally) on Sunday, September 02, 2012 - 12:12 pm: Edit |
Along with a strong volunteer ethic and watching others' investment of personal time, I really love the sense of compromise and consensus I get when I come to this site.
By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Sunday, September 02, 2012 - 01:05 pm: Edit |
Perhaps a couple 3rd Generation Definitions should get added as soon as possible and then playtested to see if they are buggy and or work the way they should. Maybe even a set of 3rd gen Tourney ships could be done and a 3rd gen playtest tournament could be organized. If the players don't want the Tournament ships converted maybe a war cruiser playtest tourney or something similar could be organized.
By Francois Lemay (Princeton) on Sunday, September 02, 2012 - 02:33 pm: Edit |
From what I've been reading, I don't think we have a choice.
3rd Gen Def's have to work and any bugs has to get fixed, its as simple as that.
If there is anything I can do to help you out Paul, please let me know.
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, September 02, 2012 - 05:29 pm: Edit |
Thanks for working with me. A few points that make things EASIER for Paul and faster for all of us.
Tournament: If it's something tournaments need, don't waste time on it, since the TCs will be the last ships converted.
Ship separation: Forgedabout it. Just combine all of the like type boxes and let the client deduct the ones in the discarded sections.
Guards: Not a reason to divide boxes. If you have to divide Impulse to guard it, you have to divide everything to guard it, and we're not dividing everything. Bad road to try to move down. Just a guarded box chart.
Dropdown menus: Sexy, and I love it, but I don't think Paul does.
By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Sunday, September 02, 2012 - 07:47 pm: Edit |
Sounds we will need to give up on separate boxes. that is fine with me.
Next if which back drop to use for the ships. From the sounds of it people want the color one, is that correct? If so, then Steve will need to do the back drops (i.e. the background image) and then pass it to me to dole out and keep track of.
I am not sure if Steve will be putting in the numbers or not. We will need to work on how to handle refits. Refits are one of the more difficult things to handle because they range from adding weapons, changing weapons, adding shields, etc.
By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Sunday, September 02, 2012 - 08:28 pm: Edit |
My big question (sorry I've slept since this was covered and lost track) is will weapons be separate boxes?
Paul once again I'm willing to volunteer. My skills are pretty basic but I could do old style defs and IF the Fed Com style background is supplied I'm willing to work from there. IF its like the current style background I can do that as well.
By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Sunday, September 02, 2012 - 08:30 pm: Edit |
I'd be happy with the non-FC ship outlines, myself.
By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Sunday, September 02, 2012 - 08:59 pm: Edit |
Ken,
Steve said no. So it is no.
Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |