A G'Vrahn thread!**now with added poll!**

[H]

I just noticed the Octurion has 6... i thought it had 8 at least. poor octurion

 

[katadder]

and its one of the shortest range beams, but it makes up for it when it finally crawls into range of the other secondaries.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

and its one of the shortest range beams, but it makes up for it when it finally crawls into range of the other secondaries.

Yours maybe, mine didn't. It routinely failed to impress over the weekend with all those dice of ion and matter cannons... :?

 

[GhostRecon]

ok Firstly, it's Tyre, trust me, I'm english, my people with a healthy mix of picts, normans, saxons and vikings, and probably roman influence developed the language, so also note Colour has a U in it! :twisted:

Ah, but see, here in "The States" we speak "American." You can tell because we do spell Tyre as Tire and Colour as Color, and generally make you Brits want to smack us with a English Dictionary =P

secondly. IF the G'Vrahn was a key component that a change or removal crippled the narn fleet, I would say Gool GR i see what you mean, BUT, IF you removed this, the best warship in the game, how would the dynamic of the fleet change, well, you could take the Bin'Tak, probably the 4th best warship in the game, you would have to accept it is slower, and less maneuvreable, and probably a little less shooty at range. Meaning perhaps you used different tactics and different support choices. however none of the other ships would need any balancing. IF however the G'Vrahn happened to ba a primary raid choice, I would be more concerned. As the ship is top end and used rarely certainly if you are involved in tourneys at raid, it's not as big a deal. this one chip being at an extreme to either end of the fleet is less likely to have an overall impact than a major change to a raid or skirmish choice. That is the Beauty of this problem in some ways, it does not require a complete overhaul like the Gaim for instance, it requires, if anything in fact, a minor tweak, which could be as simple as changing it's mines to one shot. How would this affect balance of the fleet? you might consider taking an extra Dag'kar instead of a Var'Nic maybe.
I think we want the same thing out of all this, we are just approching it from very different angles!

Absolutely we want the same thing, I am simply trying to advise caution, to point out that various arguments used throughout the entirety of this thread were relatively threadbare in justifying a "nerf" to the G'vrahn (In the beginning, using the Liati as a foil or comparison, for example), ultimately: to carefully consider every balance change.

And, most important of all, to provide clear, empirical, and factual data and analysis of what the actual problem(s) is(are), and the best possible solutions. I hear alot of "If" such as "If we did this, then this other thing would totally happen."

I don't hear alot of "Well, I played 50 games, the Narn won B number of games, and the G'vrahn killed majority X number of ships out of the total Y. Compare this to the 50 games I played with Narn using the Bin'Tak, where the Narn won C number of games, the Bin'Tak killing K number of ships out of total Y. Using this as a control, we played a further 50 games with changes to each ship, with the following results, D. Based on these tests, we can conclude that the G'vrahn is [Broken/Not-Broken] and that Tweaks [Worked/Didn't Work] and that the Bin'Tak [Isn't a Viable Choice without fixes/Is a viable choice without fixes] and with the proposed tweaks the Bin'Tak [is a better choice/isn't]." Play the Narn in 50 games using the same exact fleet, against a player with relatively equal skill levels (This, of course, is impossible to empirically count for, so the best indicator is play against someone whom you play regularly, not some wet-behind the ears newb...) and back up statement with fact.

People readily dismiss boresight as being a deciding factor; what if it was? What if a fix was enacted, and things were not so bad? Part of the reason nobody choses a Bin'Tak is because its main long ranged weapon is a boresighted beam, and the Bin'Tak is a 1x45 lumbering ship, so it simply won't get that much use with its beam weapon. What if a fix was enacted? Would it perform better? People dismiss it, but where is the proof in that dismissal? You can't just say "Oh I played a couple games and it wasn't that big of a factor." Because I can retort just as easily "I played a couple games against the G'vrahn, and it wasn't that big of a factor." Where is my proof? Just as equally, where is yours?

Drop some cold, hard, empirical fact on the table, and end the "If"s.

 

[Burger]

The trouble with that is nobody has the time to play 50 games with a G'Vrahn, and 50 games with a Bin'Tak, to see which does better.

Asking for emperical evidence just leads to people saying "My mate's Sharlin got 23 hits with its front beam, its broken!!1111!!oneone!!"

 

[GhostRecon]

The trouble with that is nobody has the time to play 50 games with a G'Vrahn, and 50 games with a Bin'Tak, to see which does better.

Asking for emperical evidence just leads to people saying "My mate's Sharlin got 23 hits with its front beam, its broken!!1111!!oneone!!"

Thus the requirement of 50 trials, or some suitably high number of trials. Empirical proof, statisical proof =P

One game can't prove a thing, but if you can prove it over 50, then few people can argue your point.

 

[katadder]

lumbering really doesnt effect your ability to boresight if 2 ships you compare both have one turn and one is lumbering the other isnt.
and burger is right no one has the time for that. however if most people think the g'vrahn is over the top including narn players and can see it is so much better than a bin'tak that the bin'tak never gets used then you have to start looking at why.
the whys - the g'vrahn has 2 turns, it has interceptors, it has longer ranged secondaries, it has a reloading e-mine and it has more AD on its longer ranged mag gun, it has better command and anti-fighter, it has an adv jump engine and it has a flight computer.
what does the bin'tak get to balance this out? 5 more dam/crew (which at 80 damage is nothing anyway), twice the dice in secondaries although at a shorter range, and a rear beam.
so thats 9 things the g'vrahn has better than the bin'tak and effectively 4 the bin'tak has better than the g'vrahn although 5 d/c could be classed as 1 thing better as most things do 1 of each per hit, and whilst the increased secondaries are better if the g'vrahn is 9" away as they pass each other the g'vrahn wins that so really 2.5 things better than a g'vrahn v 9. these are ships in the same PL and not only that but in the same fleet. i know which ship i would take.

if you were to change the e-mines and get rid of the interceptors the g'vrahn is still an awesome ship but that brings it down to 7 things better v 5 (or 3.5 if you agree with my other bits) which is closing the gap and leaves the narns with 2 very good war level ships to choose from but not such a significant gap between them.

 

[dag'karlove]

I'm going to propose a collective decision on this at my local club; and house rule it. As we have all now, thoroughly discussed, those of us that are in favour of a tweak I think that tweak should include swapping the emines between the G'Vrahn and Bin'Tak; and perhaps dropping the interceptors to 2 instead of 4. Fairly minor changes really. If this gets the majority vote in our club, I think we could get some playtesting done, and see how [if at all] these changes impact the G'Vrahn.

As we all say, it may inspire the narn players to use the Bin'Tak for tactical reasons, as opposed to being forced to use it by peer pressure.

Just Out of Curiosity why are we trying to decide for the narn players (of which i am one) what we should use and what we shouldnt. I dont think we need to be making choices for anyone but ourselves and if teh narn players arent complaining one way or another then who are we a s a collective to tell us what to do.

 

[katadder]

thing is even narn players know its overpowered and is the 1st choice over a bin'tak 99% of the time.
its not trying to make you choose a ship, its trying to give a respectable choice between the 2 big guns.

 

[dag'karlove]

Then my suggestion to you all is Take a poll and ask the narn players which they'd rather take and if they see a problem or if they think its overpowered. Im a narn player and i choose all the time to use a bintak. And yes alot of teh non Narn players on this forum are the ones raising the stink. I have a 17 point armageddon narn fleet. 4.5 of those points are bintaks and Gvrahns.

 

[dag'karlove]

and by the way I dont think the ship is ovepowered. I think its tough but not overpowered.

 

[katadder]

so having 9 points better than a generous 4 (and thats really generous 5d/c etc) on an already good warship doesnt make it a much better choice than a bin'tak?

btw we all know its overpowered, its just trying to create a viable choice.

 

[Enalut]

katadder
"btw we all know its overpowered, its just trying to create a viable choice."


Overpowered compared to what???

1 Bin Tak?
2 G'Quans?
3 VarNic's and a DagKar?
1 Fireraptor??
2 Liati's

WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR COMPARISON?????

And no--we don't "know" its overpowered--the running consensus (36 to 22) has a slight edge to it not being overpowered. Granted the majority appears silent based on this thread, but do not let the sounds of the ranting get to carried away.


Before you continue to spout "received" or "accepted" "wisdom", please explain what the basis is for deciding something is appropriately powered.

As A Narn Player I do not think it is overpowered compared to what else I could field in its place (granted that involves going down 2 levels). It is overpowered compared to the relatively weak Battle and other War choices

 

[katadder]

overpowered compared to a bin'tak which is the non-alternate at the same level in the same fleet (and which i did mention as compared to in my previous rather short post), if you read the post where i compared them the g'vrahn has a 9- generous 4 advantage over the bin'tak.
overpowered compared to every war choice in any other fleet.

You cannot compare to things in PLs down as far as you like to go as thats a whole other issue, 2 ships or 4 ships of a lower PL in any fleet can usually beat their own fleets or any others war choices. (thats the swarm issue in case you miss the obvious again).

the bin'tak is a viable war choice if there was no g'vrahn and is probably about 4th on the current scale of war ships. however given the choice if a narn player wants more chance at victory he will take a g'vrahn.

and btw its 36-33 on the votes. so nearly 50% want some sort of change as well.

I also play narn, so does hiffano, so do quite a few people i have spoken to in person and on here and much as we love the bin'tak for looks the g'vrahn is just soo much better.

 

[Enalut]

katadder,

I am sorry if my previous post came across as too personal (after reading it again I believe I worded it too accusatorially (Sp???) ).

I understand that I am making refrence to the "swam" problem, but I do not htink that it is something to be just dismissed. The problem is that if you are goign to directly pyramid the points as Mongoose has apparentyly decieded, then it would follow that a larger ship should carry roughly 2X the firepower of the smaller ship (and probably roughly 2X the"defences). I understand that there are several other factors that enter the calculus, but as I have said several times already, it is a matter of perspective.

I am arguing for a War Lvl Ship to be roughly equal (or at least arguably equal to) 2 battle ships and 4 raid ships. Given that perspective, The G'Vrahn is not overpowered.

If however, your perspective is that a ships of a certain level should be compared and balanced agaisnt other ships of that same level then I would accept that it is more likely that the G'Vrahn is overpowered (but I still do not accept that premise given its weak secondaries). My point is that the role the Bin Tak performs is not as effective as the role the G'Vrahn does.

All things beign equal a spier will destroy other ships much faster than a brawler. Thus, the sniper is the much more effective than the bralwer. As such, the Brawler should be balanced by possessing more raw firepower than the Sniper--hence my arguments for increasign teh numbr and effctiveness (range) of the Bin tak's secondaries.

Thus, the Bin Tak is as you put it a non-alternative chjoice, because by the very nature of its mission (brawler) it is not as effective as the sniper.

 

[David Anla Shok']

ok Firstly, it's Tyre, trust me, I'm english, my people with a healthy mix of picts, normans, saxons and vikings, and probably roman influence developed the language, so also note Colour has a U in it! :twisted:

Well done for standing up in the defence of the English language! You are a man of honour sir. Somebody write this man a cheque! (No offence to our american cousins of course....)

Regards,

Dave

None taken. We have had no problem with the language since removing "U" from it. 0


"love to stay, must go, love, love, kiss ,kiss"

 

[Hans Olo]

Well let´s talk about the G`Quan then
It´s funny if someone mentions that the G´Quan is a bit weak for it`s priority level and most of the players would rather take a G`Lan, then there is no problem.
But now that the G`Vran seems to be a bit though nearly 50% want a change to make the Bin `Tak a viable choice again.
So this is looking like as long as a ship is relative weak most of the "opponent" fleet commanders want it to stay that way, but if there appears a though ship everyone wants a tweak.
Sorry but that attitude is a bit irritating for me.
Just leave it where it is right now or make the Bin`Tak better, the Narns already have weak Battle choices leave them at least their war ships.
Or talk about all the unbalanced ships this game suffers from, and how to balance every fleet across every priority level and the priority levels to each other. That's the only way these discussions will ever end!

 

[Ripple]

Underpowered ships rarely leave a bad taste in the mouth of the opponent, and so don't drive folks away from the game, as long as you aren't forced to use them. This is why the Fireraptor, desperately in need of a boost, won't get upgraded. You aren't forced to use it, or play against it. The Narn players can force the issue by taking the G'Vrahn.

(I also happen to like taking a G'Quan hull, even though I think it needs a bit of help.)

Ripple

 

[Misiolak]

btw we all know its overpowered, its just trying to create a viable choice.

This line is so... wrong and arogant, especially when you look at poll results.

Why do some (mostly centauri) players want so much to bring the G'Vrahn down to Bin'Tak and G'Quan league? So at high prority levels Narn have one nice ship and so many weak ones. And you insist on comaring G'Vrahn to Bin'Tak, just to (not to be shy of words) nerf it.

Especialy Centauri players look silly voting for the nerf, with their Demos and Liati.

Again, look at poll - majority has spoken: Leave the ship alone.

Edit: And yes, I am saying that Bin'Tak is a weak choice. But that is Bin'Tak problem, not G'Vrahn.

 

[Misiolak]

Another thing:

To all those who say that you can't compare ships downwards:
You can.
If you feel that big ships are losing to swarms, why nerf the big ships?
Maybe G'Vrahn is a step in right direction, where by taking big ships you don't have to fight uphill battle.