New Traits for Vorlons & Shadows...

[Balance]

I quite agree. Orks & Eldar anyone? My thought process is this, if Mongoose has already set the precedent of making the First One fleets very different from all the others (different damage, Fighters must be purchased separately, Special Action restrictions, etc), why not take the few extra steps to give these fleets a feeling of uniqueness worthy of the First Ones. I certainly wouldn't advocate doing this sort of thing to any of the younger races' fleets.

Maybe in time a book focusing on the First Ones should be put out containing upgraded rules. didn't AoG do some minis for the weirder First Ones?

I say in time because this may be the kind of thing that is best done after other fleets are fleshed out. Thankfully, Mongoose isn't in the "one army focused on at a time" so we'll see stuff like this before Babylon 5 goes on-line!

 

[B5freak]

Balance wrote:

I say in time because this may be the kind of thing that is best done after other fleets are fleshed out.

If we were talking about creating additional ships for the fleets or making "happy to glad" kinds of changes I'd agree, but we're not. As things stand, the Vorlons are virtually unplayable. Just look at the Wheel of Fire results. The one Vorlon player came in last with 3 Admiralty points. By comparison, the guy who came in second to last had 20! That's a pretty damning indictment and fits in exactly with what many on the forums who've been playing the Vorlons have said.

I mean, how can I look a new player in the eye and say, "Yep, you're sure gonna love that Vorlon fleet you just bought" when I know darned well he's going to get his butt kicked over and over and over again due to no fault of his own other than picking the Vorlons?

I'll freely admit that the majority of Shadow changes are happy to glads, but the Vorlons are in need of genuine help.

 

[Balance]

OK, then... To revise my statement, perhaps a small immediate change, with plans on using that to evaluate for a more massive change down the road?

(Hey, at least it's unlikely that the Vorlon Transports will be radically reimagined and replaced when a new book covers them...)

 

[lastbesthope]

Just think of it as halfway between Boresight and Turret.

Seriously though, it solves a lot of problems simultaneously without forcing drastic changes to the feel of the fleet, weapon loads, Speed, Turn, or Crew Quality. As simple solutions go, it just feels right. Besides, does a 180-degree fire arc really constitute a new rule?

Perhaps not a new rule exactly, but it is an addition to the ruleset.

LBH, I know you don't want to add a new rule (I'm honestly loathe to do it myself), so I can guess what your thoughts are on the Damage Disspators, but keep in mind that they're the equivalent of Self-Repair X. The only exception is that, whereas Vorlons will just keep repairing every turn whether they take damage or not, the Shadows only get the benefit of their Dissipators if someone actually shoots at them. From a theme standpoint, the Shadows really made you feel like you needed to "keep pouring it on Mr. Lenir" in order to kill them.

Well I'm going to be nitpicky here, but if they were 'equivalent' then you could just use 'Self Repair X'. comparable might be a better word. but wither way, it is still a new rule.

Let me make one thing clear, I am not personally against new rules that are needed and put in for a good enough reason. but when I stated that Mongoose were more likley to do a rule change that didn't involve a new rule, it was exactly that. Alex Fennel said as much in the pub after Wheel of Fire, they want to keep the ruleset the way it is as far as possible.

LBH

 

[lastbesthope]

If we were talking about creating additional ships for the fleets or making "happy to glad" kinds of changes I'd agree, but we're not. As things stand, the Vorlons are virtually unplayable. Just look at the Wheel of Fire results. The one Vorlon player came in last with 3 Admiralty points. By comparison, the guy who came in second to last had 20! That's a pretty damning indictment and fits in exactly with what many on the forums who've been playing the Vorlons have said.

Well one player coming last in a tourney, is on it's own not really sufficient evidence to form an opinion, you have other evidence from your own playing obviously, but someone had to be last.

I mean, how can I look a new player in the eye and say, "Yep, you're sure gonna love that Vorlon fleet you just bought" when I know darned well he's going to get his butt kicked over and over and over again due to no fault of his own other than picking the Vorlons?

So don't say it to them :lol: I mean I have been playing ISA since I started in ACTA, back when the WS only had 8 crew, crippled at 4 Damage, and din't even get Adaptive Armour halving crew damage (Yup we're talking pre downloadable updates/RS1 here folks). The ISA were one of the hardest fleets to play, and I was even worse than I am now (And that's pretty bad!) Sometimes you just play what you want to play, whether it is a tacticaly sensible choice or not. Let them play Vorlons if they want to, that's what makes the game fun.

LBH

 

[B5freak]

LBH wrote:

Well I'm going to be nitpicky here, but if they were 'equivalent' then you could just use 'Self Repair X'. comparable might be a better word. but wither way, it is still a new rule.

Actually, 'equivalent' and 'comparable' are synonyms. :wink:
And yes, still a new rule, but not a drastic, game-spanning modification.

LBH wrote:

Let me make one thing clear, I am not personally against new rules that are needed and put in for a good enough reason. but when I stated that Mongoose were more likley to do a rule change that didn't involve a new rule, it was exactly that. Alex Fennel said as much in the pub after Wheel of Fire, they want to keep the ruleset the way it is as far as possible.

Point taken and for the record I agree with the sentiment. It's one reason I've tried to approach the problem from a "tweak the fleetlists" angle rather than a "fix the rules" one.

LBH wrote:

Well one player coming last in a tourney, is on it's own not really sufficient evidence to form an opinion, you have other evidence from your own playing obviously, but someone had to be last.

From a statistical standpoint yes, one guy coming in last isn't that big a deal. My main focus was the disparity between the Admiralty scores of 17th and 18th places.

If we assume that the Admiralty scores are a valid measure of a player's tactical ability and then order them from highest to lowest, we should see a steady downward trend in the numbers, and we do, until we come to our Vorlon friend. The average difference in Admiralty points between any two adjacent players in our list is just over 3, with a standard deviation of only 2.5. The difference between the Vorlon and the next lowest player was 17. Statistically that does bear investigation because you're forced to ask yourself, what are the chances that the one statistical blip in our sample was also the one Vorlon player?

LBH wrote:

So don't say it to them I mean I have been playing ISA since I started in ACTA, back when the WS only had 8 crew, crippled at 4 Damage, and din't even get Adaptive Armour halving crew damage (Yup we're talking pre downloadable updates/RS1 here folks). The ISA were one of the hardest fleets to play, and I was even worse than I am now (And that's pretty bad!) Sometimes you just play what you want to play, whether it is a tacticaly sensible choice or not. Let them play Vorlons if they want to, that's what makes the game fun.

I remember those days and I myself have played armies that others said were unwinnable. Not to invoke the name of that other company, but I bought one army simply because everyone who was anyone said it was unplayable, but I was convinced otherwise (and have subsequently shown them the error of their ways). If the Vorlons had that aspect of, "if I could play a little smarter I could win", I'd agree, but at the moment I and a great many others on this forum just don't see it.

 

[lastbesthope]

If we assume that the Admiralty scores are a valid measure of a player's tactical ability and then order them from highest to lowest, we should see a steady downward trend in the numbers, and we do, until we come to our Vorlon friend.

I feel honour boundd to question that assumption, I mean I came 7th on game won Admiralty points (Lost out on sportsmanship ), and I'm rubbish!

:lol:

LBH

 

[B5freak]

LBH wrote:

I feel honour boundd to question that assumption, I mean I came 7th on game won Admiralty points (Lost out on sportsmanship ), and I'm rubbish!

Funny thing is, that shows up in the numbers as well and actually helps prove that the scores arent truely indicative of just the tactical ability, which was really the point to begin with.

There are two components, the player's tactical ability and the inherent strength or weakness of their chosen fleet. If your assumption that you're a weak player is true, then the only explanation for your relatively high standing is your choice of fleet, ISA. Given that the other three ISA players were in first, second, and fourth positions in the Admiralty ranking, this would also boost the arguement that ISA's strength compensated for your own tactical weakness.

Wheeeeeeee, I really didn't waste those three semesters of advanced logic and deduction!

All in good fun LBH (and you did tee that one right up for me).

 

[Gregor]

Assuming equivalent chance to win - the ISA are a tad tough at the moment, as proved by your own exploits !!

 

[friendlyfire]

Hi guys, I've been whining about the shadows on a different thread- Shadows, Shadows, Shadows- and B5freak directed me to this thread.

I like all the ideas previously mentioned and I'm sure they will help the shadows considerably but here's an idea... can we fix the first ones without adding anything new to the game? Like changing the values and/or traits?

 

[Pauly_D]

Hi guys, I've been whining about the shadows on a different thread- Shadows, Shadows, Shadows- and B5freak directed me to this thread.

I like all the ideas previously mentioned and I'm sure they will help the shadows considerably but here's an idea... can we fix the first ones without adding anything new to the game? Like changing the values and/or traits?

yes its most imporant to try to fix them without needing to add in new rules, new rules should be a last resort and i think theres enough that could be changed without the need for a new rule here and there

 

[emperorpenguin]

on the subject of new rules, can someone with the revised rulebook tell me whether or not the trait "accurate" is in there?

 

[Pauly_D]

on the subject of new rules, can someone with the revised rulebook tell me whether or not the trait "accurate" is in there?

i dont have it but i doubt it as accurate was removed for RS2

 

[Chernobyl]

Its not in SFOS either - so I think its gone. Its was a simple enough game mechanic though - I wouldn't argue against it coming back under the right circumstances.

Chern

 

[emperorpenguin]

it certainly gave the first ones "teeth"

 

[Pauly_D]

it certainly gave the first ones "teeth"

its something that definately needs playtesting, at the moment tho me and my dad are playtesting other options, like bringing giving the Vorlon Heavy Cruiser a proper Lightning Cannon (since that was were ISA got the tech from) and giving the smaller Vorlons a little extra speed

 

[lastbesthope]

the arguement that ISA's strength compensated for your own tactical weakness.

.....

All in good fun LBH (and you did tee that one right up for me).

Hey! It wasn't all the fleet you know :lol:

And the Accurate trait is still in the Revised ACTA book, it's not in SFOS because SFOS only includes additions and changes. Accurate is still in as was so no need to go in SFOS.

I don't think any weapons in SFOS have the trait, but for similar reasons to not adding new rules unnecessarily, you shouldn't get rid of old ones without a reason, unless they cause a contradiction. Accurate doesn't contradict anything, and who knows, they may want it for something in the Future. Imagine how the 'Revised' Owners might kick up if Accurate had been removed from their book 1 and then reinstated in the game later?

LBH

 

[oreso]

the arguement that ISA's strength compensated for your own tactical weakness.

.....

All in good fun LBH (and you did tee that one right up for me).

Hey! It wasn't all the fleet you know :lol:

And the Accurate trait is still in the Revised ACTA book, it's not in SFOS because SFOS only includes additions and changes. Accurate is still in as was so no need to go in SFOS.

I don't think any weapons in SFOS have the trait, but for similar reasons to not adding new rules unnecessarily, you shouldn't get rid of old ones without a reason, unless they cause a contradiction. Accurate doesn't contradict anything, and who knows, they may want it for something in the Future. Imagine how the 'Revised' Owners might kick up if Accurate had been removed from their book 1 and then reinstated in the game later?

LBH

This is kinda silly though. Some new players will attempt to learn a rule that isnt used. No rules should be unnecessary. At best, its just clutter. At worst its confusing (not to flog a dead horse, but didnt you get confused when a player was referring to Accurate and you thought he meant Precise not so long ago?)

 

[Cailet]

Me, Anton and Low Roller had a bit of a chat about this and one of the big ideas tabled was to bring back Accurate in one form or another.

That and boosting damage points, seriously a Vorlon Transport being destroyed in 10 damage rolls on average is really weak, a Tethys is barely weedier than that.

The Destroyer can take about 15 on average. OK so they get Self-repair but that's a drop in the ocean at best.

Transport, 35 Damage, average die roll 3.5, forget Precise, Double Damage Energy mines et al and it comes to ten (35/3.5=10

Destroyer, 50 damage points, 50/3.5=14 with 1 point of damage left so I' being generous with 15 really...

 

[B5freak]

Reinstating Accurate for the Vorlons would definitely remove the need for my suggestion of twin-linking their weapons. Not sure exactly what it would do for the Shadow Cruiser in terms of overall balance, though it could probably be reinstated with no other changes to the ship.

The Shadow Hunter would, I think, be the big question mark. Does it's gun get Accurate, and if so, would that be enough to make the ship worthy of its current Battle rating?

Am I the only one who finds the Fighter Dispersal Tube pretty useless?

What's everybody's thoughts on the first one fighters?