Kenneth, see Vorlon's X2 page for the ships that people have submitted.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 09:51 pm: Edit

Jeff the biggest problem is I will have to work up a few std protocols since SFBOL currently doesn't support much of the 2x terminology. As well as a few work arounds.

IE: I will have to define P5's as P4's in the ship def.

But all in all if everything goes properly then there should'nt be any problem getting a number done this week. But I'm only going to take the time to do it. If there is some interest in using SFBOL to PT these ships. AFAIK I'm the only regular SFBOL player participating much in these discussions.

Each ship.def takes about 15-20 min to do. IF the box size is correct. If not each takes a couple of hours for me to rebuild.

BTW: Not all the ships submitted are on Vorlons page. But thanks for the link anyway.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 10:26 pm: Edit

Lots of half-baked SSDs have been posted for comment but the ones that make Vorlon's page are usually fully fleshed out.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 11:46 pm: Edit

There's a few reasons I would suggest PBEM over SFBOL

• A lot of the X2 posters are not SFBOL players. I, for one, don't have much interest in tournament ships, so I never subscribed.

• PBEM gives both players a chance to really think through these X2 ships, making it easier to find hidden strengths or hidden gamebreakers.

• It's easier to keep better records of the playtesting with PBEM. Everyone can follow along, and PBEM games can be archived on a web page.

• Not everyone may use the standard 16 box format. Personally, I used the tournament downloads as templates in MS Paint for mine, but I've seen at least two different icons for the Special Bridge.

• SFBOL is probably customized to handle the rules and systems that are already in the game. Like you said, you have to fool SFBOL into thinking the ph-5 are ph-4s. And I would not be surprised if Range 8 was hard-coded into SFBOL. Some of my proposals have Range 10 OLs. While some may disagree on the desirability of that particular idea, it is much easier to playtest it with PBEM than SFBOL.

By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:14 am: Edit

Jeff, SFBOL isn't tournament only anymore. You might want to download the latest client and take a peek.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 08:57 am: Edit

Jeff,

Going point by point.

1. There are currently over 3000 ship def's in SFBOL. So it isn't just Tourney any more. And more are being added every week.

2. PBEM will also be useable for testing. But a single battle will take 2-3 months. In that time I could have played the same battle on SFBOL easily a dozen times. Meaning the bugs will be shaken out quicker.

3. The Log function and simply simply doing a cut and paste of the chat area dialog can handle all record keeping. As well as a saved game option. So that matches your PBEM record keeping.

4. As to the 16x16 pixel box size format. Thats the ONLY way the SFBOL Client can handle graphical SSD's. Special Bridge can be done as Scout sensors etc etc. Meaning I can convert existing 16x16 SSD's easier. But for others at a different size. I can still do it. But I basically have to rebuild the SSD.

5. As to range 8 vs 10. The client doesn't do that for you. You do it yourself. What I was talking about was the labelling for damage purposes. There's no P5 in sfbol so there's no way to tell the cvlient it's a P5. And the fact that most of the 2x Weapons charts are not applicable. I would use existing P1 and such tables as much as possible. But I would leave the 2X only type tables on the SSD. Usually there are NO Tablels (other than TM) on the SSD.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 09:27 am: Edit

Mike R.

A quick question. The MFS boxes on your fed XCA SSD. Are those Multi Function System? IE: the "New" NWO.

Other than checking that I got your Fed SSD 2xca SSD.def done in about 15 min.

I'll probably try to do your other since they fit the 16x16 box size before I do other ppl's.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 09:35 am: Edit

Yes, that's what it is. To use it (the way I intended), it can be any system the ship currently has that is not a weapon or power. And, it can't be a system with external functions, like a shuttle or probe. I'll need to update the Klingon BC with this system, too, for a fair playtest. I'll email it to John and he can replace the existing one with it.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 09:54 am: Edit

Thanks I got another done already. But that will be it for now. I gotta go rent The Two Towers

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 11:01 am: Edit

Mike, if your MFS is adopted, I still think that NWO has a place on the X2 ship. Probably connected to the shuttle bay. That would allow for flexability in way the MFS cannot handle. Say a cruiser would have two MFS in the forward hull (or portion) and two NWO connected to the shuttle bay in the rear.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Tos, On the Fed XCM. Are the AWR and Flag refits done seperately? Which comes first etc etc.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 05:03 pm: Edit

They are independent of each other. Either can be done in either order.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 08:24 pm: Edit

You know, If in X2 some way was figured out to beam Probes into place with the transporter then the MFS could build a probe and us it's transportor function to beam the probe into location and thus avoid the need to have a probe hatch attached to the MFX would be skipped.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 08:37 pm: Edit

John, I sent you an updated copy of the the Klingon XBC. Post it at your leisure.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 02:52 am: Edit

Posted.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:37 pm: Edit

Batteries. I know we've talked about 'em alot. But one thing we haven't really addressed yet is something other than batteries that could be used to increase reserver power. In P6, Steve mentions that X2 will likely have more reserve power, but that it may be acheived by something other than batteries, specifically "special purpose capacitors". I thought about this, and can't really figure out a way to make a non-weapon capacitor that really isn't just a battery by another name. For example, a warp power capacitor that stores warp energy, which could be used for sudden speed changes, HET's, or power to weapons. How is that any different, really, than a battery? I like the idea of special capacitors, but how would they work?

By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:53 pm: Edit

I don't know the development timeline of SFB very well, but was P6 released before/during/after the current incarnation of various modules?

No, that's a bad way to ask the question. We've already got phaser caps, batteries, esg caps...what else?

I guess this is the drive for adding photon freezers and plasma canisters and disruptor capacitors. Provides a lot of early punch at the cost of the ability to keep it up.

If every system gets some kind of capacitor, batteries wouldn't need to be 3 points each.

By Mark Norman (Mnorman) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:58 pm: Edit

I got the idea that the capacitors would be tied to a particular use, rather than a particular power type, so you might have a warp movement capacitor, which could allow an unplotted accelaration, but nothing else, or a maneuvre capacitor, which would power HETs, EM or TACs, but nothing else. Similarly transporters or tractor beams might get their own cpaacitors.

However, I do agree that most of these are just more batteries by another name, and so might work with GW level batteries, but with the larget batteries of X-ships, they are probably too much.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 06:59 pm: Edit

While I think it's good that MikeR is taking SVC ideas and running with them, I think SVC was thinking out loud rather than setting the parameters for X2.

I tend to want to stay away from widespread use of capacitors or we'll end up with little EA and much reserve power use.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 07:16 pm: Edit

My though, such as it is, is to maybe replace some of the batteries with capacitors. Have to see how it works out.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 07:23 pm: Edit

I think the X2 batteries themselves could be used to "bank warp movement energy." They already do that but the power reverts to warp non-movement energy at the end of the turn. What if the movement power could roll over to the next turn?

Let's say you burn one point of power in the batteries to roll over any remaining movement power in the battery to the next turn. This would be accounted for during the (8A) Repair Stage of the Record Keeping Phase right after moving reserve power to phaser capacitors.

This puts a clock on holding reserve movement power but lets you hold reserve warp to the next turn.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 08:25 pm: Edit

I'm working on a shield proposal. Roughly it is a specific reinforcement field that you allocate the previous turn.

Allocate energy one turn 1 EA and it functions during turn 2. You can allocate each turn but the result is use the followig turn each time.

Fortunately, it functions independantly of shields. I think it will be leaky and transparent to shields for reason I'll put in the proposal.

Really makes you think ahead.

I put this here because it is sort of a Unusual Reserve or Capacitor Type as mentioned above.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 09:58 pm: Edit

What if we say that positron flywheel development had some influence on X2 to provide basically the POSITRON POSTPONMENT SYSTEM.


You can simply generate upto ten movement points of warp power more than you use during the EA of one turn and on the next turn you can use up to that amount of power in excess of your power total.
You can feed the flywheel and drain it at the same time so you have to make a big choice. The power can be any type.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 12:20 pm: Edit

The POSITRON POSTPONMENT SYSTEM sounds like a great deal, but it runs the risk of materially altering the game balance...

IIRC the Positronic Flywheel BPV adjustment was a base 50% of the ships BPV.

Look at it another way, if a X2 CA is 315 BPV, the Positron Fly wheel adjustment is approximately 157 BPV...if the POSITRON POSTPONEMENT SYSTEM is similar in value or if it must be purchased INADDITION to the Positronic Flywheel, you'll end up with a very expensive ship with material advantages in combating over X1 and GW ships...but the potential of a boring X2 vs X2 duel at the same time.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 07:59 pm: Edit

Yeah, I wasn't in anyway implying a need to purchase the positron flywheel.

I'm not sure, what would 10 points of BTTY ( which this effectively is ) cost the ship in BPV?