EA players, justified complaints, or blinkered whiners

  • Thread starter Thread starter H
  • Start date Start date

H

Cosmic Mongoose
Sure, i expect to get flamed for this,
but seriously, lets take a minute to look at the facts.

The EA fleet did get split into 3 era's, which has pissed some people off. However, it is worth noting that even this means that in each era, they still have more choices than some of the other fleets out there.
in the early era, they have a low priority bias, this moves up a tad in thrid age, then in the crusade era, they have upgraded so much, they haven't much in the low priorities. This has been debated and bandied about quite a lot, and it seems that a lot of people understand the meaning behind this. . . apart from it seems, the EA players, who are demanding more ships.

Now then, other fleets have some serious shortcomings. The Brakiri have no patrol ship or scout, the drazi are forward firing only, the minbari are boned at low priorities, as are the shadows and Vorlons, the Narn have Poor raid and battle choices, the Dilgar have minimal beams and so on. Yet players of these races, generally see it as their weakness, suck it up, and move on.

Time after time, when each book appears, it seems that the EA get cool stuff, eg upgraded starfuries and T-Bolts, yet then we get the whines.
the EA have the most ships (allbeit split into 3) the best overall fighters, the most fighters on ships, the biggest baddest carrier, shadowtech ships, Sheridan, 2 Armageddon ships (only the Shadows can match this), while at the same time other races get piddled on, Nerfing of E-Mines, The worst armageddon ship in history for the minbari, the change of fighter rules wrecks vree, the Avioki reverting back to the bobbins SFOS one instead of tourney version. And again, their is a small bit of outcry against the nerfing of such things, and then it is drowned out by every other post being about the EA need this, this EA ship needs this, what should we do to make EA better etc.

Are EA players so insecure in themselves that only by covering every angle, every priority with as many ships as possible do they feel they can win, or is the EA fleet so badly designed, with inferior ships available, that they really do deserve some love?

Let the flaming begin.
 
hiffano said:
The worst armageddon ship in history for the minbari,

Dunno. Has to be positively horrendous then to be even worse than Nemesis...

Are EA players so insecure in themselves that only by covering every angle, every priority with as many ships as possible do they feel they can win, or is the EA fleet so badly designed, with inferior ships available, that they really do deserve some love?

Well. Answer is: We are humans :lol: You aren't all that objective when it's your favourite fleet. Add to that the little fact that EA fleet is iconic fleet from the show(only minbari's and white star fleet could seriously compete with EA on THE iconic fleet title)...Well I would estimate lots of grief comes from this little human failing.
 
Well I dont think the Earth lists have a big problem in any of the cases. I like all three however:

2 Armageddon ships: That's all well and good but one of those ships has been taken away from the War level where it was the only really good choice EA (in any era) had at that level.

Command Varients are, frankly a joke. That's not just EA I'm refering to though, the Command G'Quan for example also smokes monkey pole to put it mildly (pardon my Klatchian ;))

And then we have the 'Biggest Baddest Carrier': Have you ever tried to USE a Posseidon? Or fought against one? The things a damned liability (which is a shame cos I really like it). Sure its got a load of fighters and its command ability is useful BUT:

Even with the new fighter rules 16 flights of fighters still dont even come close to inflicting the kind of damage against enemy ships most war level ships can and though it LOOKS tough on paper with its staggering number of hits and bucket of interceptors it's hull 4 seriously lets it down (remember its a WAR level choice so your opponent will have some serious firepower for its cost to lay into it....).

I do however agree that there is too much whining that the EA dont have enough stuff.

For my part all I ever REALLY wanted for the EA since Armageddon was:

Put the Warlock back to War

Nerf the Saggitarius (which was finally done :D)

I wouldn't MIND if the Posseidon was made SLIGHTLY tougher but I CAN live with it.

(incidentally as I've mentioned before I also think that Armageddon ships in general should be incredibly rare outside of the first ones but thats not really specific to the EA)
 
I suspect the main reason that the Crusade list has provoked so much protest is that Earth Lasers are Boresights, so to have any chance of using them you need initiative sinks, which, in campaign play, need to have a little utility, as you my need to use them in low PL games, something the Assault Hyperion sadly lacks.

After all against the 'Big Three' or Narn, Centauri and Minbari Earth will at best be equal on initiative, mostly at a disadvantage which makes using boresights harder.

I can go with the 'If they've moved everything up a PL why is there not an upgraded Hyperion equivalent?' argument as well.

I know some folks will argue it's a balance thing, but it does make Crusade era very limited in the classic 5pt Raid.
 
hiffano said:
Sure, i expect to get flamed for this,
Let the flaming begin.

flamethrowernm3.jpg
 
Nope gotta disagree, I have absolutely no problem with the crusade list being top heavy, sure it forces you to try and play larger games but so does the Minbari list. And the Vorlon List and the Shadow list. Etc etc.

The problem is that for a list that is clearly weighted towards higher pls they hamstrung this by stripping out the one really good war choice we had. Put the Warlock back and I'll be happy as a clam :)

ps. ROFL @ Burger

pps. You will note Hiffano, though that the reponses from the EA lot so far have been quite measured and well thought out and not flamey at all. We're a far less whiney bunch than the 'Z0mg th3 Mi1bar1 n33dz 2 b3 t3h Ub3r!!!!! 1111one11one!!!!' crowd or the 'Lion of the galaxy means we should win everything by default' lot ;)
 
I guess I cant really complain anymore as I came second with an early era EA fleet at MoW and lots of hull 4 ships.
 
Yes but those hull 4 ships we're skrimish if I'm not mistaken, when its your big shiny War level carrier its another matter entirely ;)

I still think the Posseidon CAN have its uses, theyre just not that great ;)
 
one of em was raid, thank you very much!!! :lol:

And early EA dont even have a war choice and only 1 battle choice

And centauri have over 20 ships to pick from and lots of them have beams, that arent boresighted, why cant EA have that? snigger snigger
 
Locutus9956 said:
pps. You will note Hiffano, though that the reponses from the EA lot so far have been quite measured and well thought out and not flamey at all. We're a far less whiney bunch than the 'Z0mg th3 Mi1bar1 n33dz 2 b3 t3h Ub3r!!!!! 1111one11one!!!!' crowd or the 'Lion of the galaxy means we should win everything by default' lot ;)

Well, I suppose it IS a schoolday! :twisted:
 
Are EA players whining or raising legitimate complaints?

The answer is yes.

1. Warlock
2. Campaign problem- balancing priority level and resource points
3. Fleet split
4. Nemesis
5. Answer

1. Mongoose took the BEST EA ship, and only effective war level choice and made it one of the worst EA ships, removing the only good war level choice.

If you had asked me two days ago I wold have argued that hands down the old warlock was about right, and the changes in Armageddon to the Warlock were unnecessary.

Yesterday I spent some time crunching numbers; when you look at average damage against hull 4/5/6, damage per resource point and ability to kill oneself (your hull points v. damage); the Old Warlock is one of the best ships in the EA fleet.

For example, the classic egg shell armed with a hammer that we call the Hyperion has an average damage per resource point of 1.26 against hull 4 [assumes crits only generate 1 damage, loose estimate, not in 95% confidence ratio. ie lazy stats, not real statistics. Also assume all weapons in the most powerful arc in range and on target; boresight ships take a big hit when you factor out the boresight...].

the old warlock had a ratio of 2.12; and the new one has a ratio of 1.45.

The next highest EA ship is the Nemesis with a 1.3; Omega has a 1.05 and the marathon has a 1.2.

I was surprised by the number crunching- I honestly thought the new warlock sucked more... I see why Mongoose changed the Warlock, from a resource-effectiveness standpoint it was TWICE as effective then an omega.

From a pure damage per priority level point of view it goes Hyperion, chronos, old warlock, marathon, omega, new warlock.

My person viewpoint is that the omega is slightly under gunned for a battle, so having a warlock be more effective then an omega per resource point is not a problem for me.

I can see why Mongoose changed the warlock to still be a on paper effective ship, but more in line with the with the rest of the EA fleet... the new warlock appears on paper to be one of the most effective EA ships from a resource point of view....

Which leads to a general campaign system problem and priority level problem...

---

I can see why Mongoose changed the warlock, but they went to far. It should have stayed at War, and perhaps lost some dice on the railgun and/or missile racks.

2. Resource points and ship balance is whacked. Since for each priority level you can get 2 lower level ships, one would expect resource costs to double every time you increase a level.

the actual progression is 5 10 15 20 25 40
One would expect 5 10 20 40 80 160

Higher level ships get to much of a resource point discount, screwing up the paper effectiveness.

Damage per one battle worth of that ship, or hull points per battle level is a better measure of the ship's effectiveness on paper. From that standpoint, the new warlock is three times LESS effective then a hyperion, half as effective as an omega or marathon and half as effective as the old warlock.

Mongoose should have ships of a higher priority level be about twice as effective as ships below them. The good choices for each fleet generally follow that rule- why do EA players like Hyperions, Omegas, marathons and the old warlock?

Because they are the most effective ships at their priority level.

V 2.0 should change the campaign rules significantly. Current system sets up a tension between effectiveness, and resources.

3. Fleet Split. Yes, the EA gets alot of love from Mongoose. However with the split, they should be getting three times the attention of any other race; with three lists they should count as three, not one.

As three separate lists, some lists are fairly well balanced (early), some are ok (dawn of third age) and some are flawed (Crusade).

Considering the new toys EA gets at crusade, making the list have some flaws makes sense. Tactically EA players may need initiative sinks, and have a tough time with boresighting at crusade... but that is ok.

We would like a good skirmish alternative then a hyperion AC, but it is still an effective ship.

4. Nemesis has one of the worst Damage per battle point ratios in the EA list.

===

Overall?

Are the EA players whining to much about the warlock changes? Yes! The old one was to effective for its cost, by any real measure.

Are the EA players justified in complaining? Yes!
1. Mongoose took the best EA ship and made it the worst; removed the only effective War choice (the others are abysmal from a resource or damage pov). Give anyone something good and then nerfing it will make people upset. The Saggie went from being good, to far to good and back to good. Hitting things with a nerf bat is necessary sometimes- the problem with the current system is that there is not much granularity between changes- changing a priority is a HUGE change in power.

2. The old EA list had many options, and probably benefited from more then its fair share of attention... the new EA lists are a bit lacking. Dawn of the third age is much weaker then the early list, and Crusade has significant problems with lack of initiative sinks and high priority levels. Crusade is trying to out Minbar the Minbari... with less effective ships.

Divide the level of attention the new EA lists are getting by three, and the EA is not getting that much attention.
 
well you dont need to complain about the posiedon cos as matt stated on saturday carriers are going to be sexy :lol:
looking at the 3rd age list saturday the posiedon is actually now well worthy of being war level. earthers rejoice.
 
Back
Top