Archive through January 03, 2009
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E Master SITs:
Older Archives for Turtle to Process:
Archive through January 03, 2009
They were hard to read as data was in different places and it wasn't formatted very consistently. Just my preference perhaps.
Here is the spreadsheet I made: <<< URLs deleted, No Permission given to post SITs online other than by SVC >>>
I also made a little cheat sheet for the Feds, well a few pages actually, but I think it'd help game play quite a bit. I based it on some of the cheat sheets in the captain's logs a while back, but with all the new stuff added and another page to help with construction. If it is well received I could make one per race.
I was also thinking of writing a little cheat sheet type app for my windows mobile mogul phone. This could help when playing the game, but I'm not sure if it'd be worth the time since I have a laptop and the mogul is probably not a popular phone with F&E fans 
Peter:
ADB limits the format as to prevent everyone playing with custom formatted SITs with no quality control. If you can manipulate the format you can also manipulate the internal data; so how does your opponent know he didn't make a mistake during the manipulation where his CWX was left off his custom SITs?
I figured those would get removed, but was hoping it'd be ok if they were only posted here 
Oh well, here is the cheat sheet only though, as I'd like to get feedback on it. Stuff in yellow was unknown or unsure of data at the point I made it:
<<< URL removed as it contains copyrighted material without permission from ADB to post >>>
I completely understand the whole custom formatted/quality control thing, but right now the amount of inconsistencies makes them, for me at least, unreliable compared to the stuff printed in the books. If you make your own SIT's and leave something out, well, that is kind of your fault, if you made a typo and your DN's cost 5 EP and you get away with it, well, its cheating but if unintentional I can see why the whole locking down of the SITs.
The thing is, if somebody wanted to make their own SITs, as I have done, its very easy regardless of any format you could use. Having a "master" in a single location that everybody knows is always official and correct is obviously a necessity.
Right now my excel spreadsheet is 100% accurate based on the PDFs that are online, except I clarified text, made stuff easier to find, and made everything i could consistent with other like entries. Perhaps there is a way to get permission to post an updated copy? I do have the last revision date on each entry, so you can see if it is out of date compared to what is posted online and all.
Just trying to help, and I have some wierd obsession with manipulating large amounts of data and may be a bit useful ;)
I'd more or less assumed that only publishing PDFs was a Copyright & Control measure.
Otoh having the backend data in a database is a different issue; and one worth considering assuming of course that it isn't already! It allows a variety of consistency checking and the ability to change the way the published PDFs are formatted without risking omissions & transcription errors. And special subsets (like vanilla F&E) can easily be created with no risk of inconsistencies.
"They were hard to read as data was in different places "
What does that mean? I don't understand what you are saying. Could you give an example?
Eric,
You can't post copyrighted material on the Internet from ADB without their approval. Please remove it from publication until you get said approval. This includes your cheat sheet as it is derived from copyrighted material.
And you will NOT get permission, Eric.
If you want your sheets to be made available, you have to get the staff to approve it first (and they are busy doing official stuff for publication and will get to checking your stuff when and if they want to) and then if the staff asked me to (and convinces me that your SITs are so useful that I should) I will have it posted on our official website.
"I completely understand the whole custom formatted/quality control thing, but right now the amount of inconsistencies makes them, for me at least, unreliable "
That's what we have the reporting process for on the forum. If there is an error, report it and it will get fixed; you already did this with your earlier post, which will help fix any errors on the lists.
Not sure what you mean about "inconsistencies".
If you are talking about stuff like this:
"Gorn CPF: Conversion cost listed as "—NA—" instead of "None" like other CPF's. - Eric S. Smith
Gorn CPX: Conversion cost listed as "—NA—" instead of "None" like other CPX's. - Eric S. Smith
Federation DIP: Conversion cost listed as "NA" instead of "—NA—" like other DIP's. - Eric S. Smith
Hydran ADM: Factor shows conversion cost as "None", other ADM's show "—NA—" - Eric S. Smith
"
I have to say that things like that don't in any way obfuscate the intention. That can't possibly what's bending your brain, is it?
As for the base conversion costs, Ryan Opel posted the corrections for the next revision in the post shortly before you first.... they'll be rolled into the next revisions. In fact, I believe bases will be in one SIT, as they are the same for everyone; better to have one document than have them duplicated several times where they can become inconsistant.
I'm not sure if those are the correct ones from the base conversion project that we completed.
No, bases won't be in one SIT. The "generic SIT" was discarded years ago and I see no point in making it return. Also, the dates some bases become available to some empires varies, and of course the Fed bases are totally different (due to F111s). And as I said before, it turned out that the base data in CL38 was the WRONG data and that correct data will be posted later.
I want to make it clear. Anybody can do his own SIT for his own amusement. You can carry it around and show it to people. YOU cannot distribute copies by any means EVER without getting ADB Inc. permission (which you WILL NOT get as we don't have time to check your work).
It isn't that the SITs are impossible to read, but having roughly 7% of all the entires (120 out of 1440) not even being able to used in game is quite distracting. The bases are all completely screwed up right now, though its obvious from posts and CL38 (I think that was it) that it is practically fixed. Some comments that should be under the conversion or production columns is in the notes, and when 1 hull having 10 variants its a bit more difficult to go through all the text on each one (especially since the text is often unique) and quickly find the answer your looking for.
Our group just found them hard to use and so I spent some time to revamp them, as I'm sure many groups have done. I find it hard to think I'm a beign a bad ADB fan by posting custom designed SITs or cheat sheets, especially since many can freely be downloaded from this site. SVC stated that to put it on the web it has to be approved by ADB, and ADB will never approve it. I can understand ADB not having time, they wanna make money and updating SITs probably doesn't make much, but to stop fans from producing helpful things to make their games better and more playable I have a hard time understanding.
I'm just trying to assist fellow gamers with many of the hours I've spent helping my local ones. If ADB wants me to stop working on this stuff fine, I'll go spend my time elsewhere with something from another producer, but all I am trying to do is support a game system I love and enjoy.
Perhaps it isn't too much to ask to just have a forum or something similar with "fan made unsupported products" so people like us can upload stuff, and ADB can say "we don't support that at all in any official means", if some particular utility is used by thousands of players it only stands to help their business.
Eric: I own ADB, and I spent a lot of time deciding how to run ADB. I'm not going to change how I run ADB to make one gamer happy. You're the only one having a problem.
The point you cannot grasp is that your SITs are NOT HELPFUL because nobody knows if they are right or wrong, and it's WAY TOO EASY for a player with his own ideas about what is wrong and what is right to confuse everybody. Putting them on a "we don't know if this is right or wrong but somebody did it" website is just stupid and pointless.
We update the SITS continually, and don't need you doing that for us. The ones we do are quite good enough for everybody.
If you intend to violate my company's copyrights then quite frankly ADB, Inc. does not want or need your business.
As I told you. You can use your SITs in your game with your buddies all you want. You CANNOT distribute them in ANY FORM or ANY WAY, not now, and not ever.
Being snarky on my company's BBS is not helping your case.
"but having roughly 7% of all the entires (120 out of 1440) not even being able to used in game is quite distracting"
And which entries would those be?
"and when 1 hull having 10 variants its a bit more difficult to go through all the text on each one (especially since the text is often unique) and quickly find the answer your looking for. "
Why would you not just look at the variant you are intending to build? W/o specifics, it's hard to know what you are talking about.
"Our group just found them hard to use and so I spent some time to revamp them, as I'm sure many groups have done."
Before the recent format change, I would have agreed, but to me, the recent updates by SVC are beautiful, highly functional and useful. As I've metioned, SVC processes the error reports and updates them regularly, so to be honest, a few things here and there are hardly gamestoppers, IMO. They get fixed, and we move on.
I won't comment on the rest as SVC has addressed that; I have nothing to add.
Quote:Michael Lui said:
Hydran LP: ML stated - "Notes: SCS, True CV should be: True PFT Variant of DN. This ship is a DNP like the Lyran DNP as it already has fighters." STRONG: ML needs to cite source of his statement. Without a rule number or source how can the staff make a proper assessment? Without source I cannot recommend a change in status. STRONG 1 Jan 2009
That would be wrong, per SFB rule R9.R4 (the Hydran True Carrier rule), the LP should be on that list (and it probably will in the MSSB), since it has an escort-ship table like every other CV/CVA.
The fact that if it WAS a DN-PFT like the L-DNP/L-BCH, it could ONLY have 2xEscorts like a PFT, instead of upto 4xEscorts being a CVA.
I suspect that all of the staff would veto that idea in a heartbeat.
Thanks, Joe!
Quote:The fact that if it WAS a DN-PFT like the L-DNP/L-BCH, it could ONLY have 2xEscorts like a PFT, instead of up to 4xEscorts being a CVA.
And if the Lyran DNP had been in existence when the LP was created the LP would have had the same classification as the DNP. However, no big deal for me if you don't change it, I'm really only wanting consistency in how things are done as I prefer to escort my DNs with extra escorts. Although I do want the conversion cost changed to 3+0 or 3+6, also for consistency as the Hydrans are not changing the fighter bays in any way whatsoever.
Lui,
The LP is an SCS because it mirrors every other SCS; fighters and PFs, which is a CVA that replaces one sqn of fighters for PFs.
The DNP has no fighters.
The LP would never be classified like the DNP, even if it just was introduced today.
But it doesn't mirror every other SCS. It doesn't replace one squadron of fighters for PFs, it already has the fighters. But like I said, the classification doesn't need to be changed as much as the cost does. Although it would be interesting to see an IC SCS.
Lui,
The LP is derived from the ID. If you convert from a PAL, the fighters have to be converted to "true" carrier fighters. The fighters are NOT hybrid fighters.
ALL SCSs cost 5 EP. There is no reason to the LP to cost less.
What would be the reason for it to cost less than the others?
FWIW, the Hydran PAL to LP conversion cost was hashed out when Advanced Ops was written (when the Romulan ROC and Lyran DNP conversions were set). The staff at that time agreed that 5 + 6 is the correct value.
Reposted here from Q&A per Chuck Strong:
Another ship conversion question:
Can a Lyran DNP be directly converted into an SCS without first de-converting it to the base DN hull?
The latest Lyran sit lists sources of an SCS conversion as DN, CVA, CA and CV, but NOT a DNP.
So, first, is the direct conversion legal?
Two, if it is legal, how much does it cost?
Three, if it is legal, then does such a conversion count ONLY against the Lyran carrier build limit? I think the answer to this third question is 'yes' but I want to make sure.
Thank you.
CSE, technically it should be possible to convert the DNP into the SCS (without being unconverted to the DN) as the conversion would concentrate on the CA portion of the DN.
The cost should be identical to the CA/CV cost as that IS what is being done (and why the CV is converable to the SCS).
And, as it is basically a CA/CV conversion, it would count against the one CV/CVA/SCS per year limit...
Joe:
My original assumption was that all SCS conversions should be 5 EP, but there is one official exception that makes me think that it might be more appropriate for the PAL to LP to be a 3+6 conversion.
Specifically, the Fed CVA to SCS is a 3EP conversion, and is conceptually very similar in nature. In both cases, the ship gains mech-linked assets (PFs or A20s) without changing the number of fighters carried.
Certainly not slam-dunk reasoning, but seems to make sense to me.
Cheers,
Jason
The Fed is an odd case because he gets more fighters, and it was not until AO that F-111s ever really got treated like PFs.
and in any case, the CVA is a heavy carrier; the PAL is just a hybrid ship. So I don't think the comparison works.
If the LP was a hybrid PF tender, then I'd agree on 3 pts. But it's not... it's an SCS.
Hybrid ships that become carriers don't get a discount on the conversion (only credit towards the fighters), so they should not get a discount for becoming an SCS, either.
Now, if we want to introduce a hybrid DNP (or BCP) for the Hydrans, that's another story; I have no objection to that (we can balance it vs. other things); of course, it would be limited to 2 escorts, same as the DNP/BCP.
But the LP is what it is.