Oracle Priority Level.

[Silvereye]

I was going to suggest that you might be playing an In Service limited game, but since they were both put into service in 2216. It kind of makes you wonder why the Oracle was actually built if they had the super tech at the time, or if Mongoose slipped up with another copy 'n' paste job in SFOS.

You can also ask the same question of why take an Orestes over an Omega.

 

[emperorpenguin]

I was going to suggest that you might be playing an In Service limited game, but since they were both put into service in 2216. It kind of makes you wonder why the Oracle was actually built if they had the super tech at the time, or if Mongoose slipped up with another copy 'n' paste job in SFOS.

You can also ask the same question of why take an Orestes over an Omega.

yes that's an error, it should be 2261

 

[Obsidian]

You can also ask the same question of why take an Orestes over an Omega.

Every now and again I take a good hard look at the Orestes and ask this exact question. About the only thing I can come up with is that it's forward weaponary is a bit more powerful than the Omega's. Two SAP Beam weapons with 3 AD each, one with Double Damage and a Railgun with AP and Double Damage. Are these better than the 4 Beam, SAP, DD and 10 Twin-Linked AD on an Omega? I can't be sure.

Gotta run the two of them through their paces in my combat sim and see which one does the most damage at optimal range.

 

[Nomad]

What would set the Orestes apart, in its role as a planetary defence monitor, would be to give it the ability to use 'All Stop and Pivot' and still shoot, so long as it was in a gravity well.

Give it some fluff about it being related to the low - powered engines?

 

[MongooseMatt]

Hi guys,

We examine each and every suggestion made on these boards - just because we don't say anything, it doesn't mean we are not listening!

Balance in CTA is not the same as in many other games, as we have introduced many finesse fleets and ships. We committed a lot of time to playtesting SFoS and, by and large, I believe we have the balance right.

What we have _not_ done is ensure that every ship is suitable for every player at every skill level - and that is something we are giving a great deal of thought to.

I believe that, in perhaps 6 months time, most players will have found their own 'balance' within the game. They may not necessarily express a preference for all ships equally (never going to happen with this many ships in the game anyway) but they will be able to take any fleet they have some experience with and expect a reasonable chance of victory.

However, and this is the crunch - different players will end up having different fleet compositions with the same race. One may find Oracles work for him, for example, while another may consider them weak and prefer going full bore on front line warships.

Now, I don't actually have a problem with that. It is, partially at least, the intention of the fleet lists. A problem only pops up when _everyone_ agrees a ship is too powerful or too weak.

The biggest factor for us, at the moment, is whether to continue with this idea of 'finesse' fleets or make them more mainstream.

Food for thought. . .

 

[B5freak]

Matt,

Thank you very much for your response. It is heartening to know that you're still out there. Could you share your thoughts on which fleets you consider to be 'finesse' fleets? It could be that we're overlaying too much of our own impressions of how the fleets should play from previous source material and misinterpreting the intent of the fleet.

Maybe a discussion of which fleets you expect to be difficult to win with, 'advanced player' fleets if you will, and a few comments on their strengths and weakness from a design perspective would help re-direct players away from "how do I beat fleet A" and more toward, "how do I win with my fleet". As my store's resident ACTA "guru", I know it would be a big help for me when directing people towards beginner fleets.

Again, thank you very much.

 

[Chernobyl]

I've always thought that dated games were more interesting. When you have your options a little more limited, you have to make harder choices and perhaps learn a different approach to your fleet.

Chern

 

[lastbesthope]

Since SFoS came out however, all I or pretty much any of the other "dissenters" have recieved in response to our calls for a review of some of the fleets is, "the fleets are balanced", "play some more and you'll figure it out", "quit whining", and worst of all, silence. Yes, Matt put out the S&P article on how to fight Minbari, an effort I for one was grateful for, but the fundamental problem has remained.

Well I know you may be dissapointed in SOFS, but nothing to stop people playing using SFOS rules set, but with pre SFOS ship stas, especially with the online ship viewers (See my www button below)

LBH

 

[Pauly_D]

I think that although most of the fleet lists are pretty much balanced now, there are a few ships which i dont think fit in anywhere now except if its a special scenario with in-service dates. The Oracle i do think has no place anymore, it does the same job as another ship (this is why i am glad mongoose hasnt gone down the lots of varients ideas that AOG did) you only need 1 ship to do a specific job within the fleet, if 2 ships do the same job then one is better than the other and there is no need for it. the Delphi beats the Oracle on everything except firepower but scouts shouldnt be bought for firepower, the rest of the fleet covers that. Also Earth are the only young race not to have a Skirmish level scout

 

[B5freak]

LBH,

If we have to resort to some using old rules, some using new rules, and some using wacky house rules then we've already lost the battle. Instead of a single, unified community, we'll have people all over the place with respect to rules, which will make any kind of large scale organization like that required for GenCon/Origins-level events next to impossible.

 

[lastbesthope]

LBH,

If we have to resort to some using old rules, some using new rules, and some using wacky house rules then we've already lost the battle. Instead of a single, unified community, we'll have people all over the place with respect to rules, which will make any kind of large scale organization like that required for GenCon/Origins-level events next to impossible.

ANd this is different from the D&D community which still has people playing using all the different variant rules, how.

I am merely suggesting defining a rules standard to suit your players. Obvioulsy tourneys will likely define the most up to date standards, but most people play most games with frineds.

First rule of any game, make it fun, if that means house rulings agreed by a group, then do it.

LBH

 

[homerun]

I think some are listening there probably is some debate on the problem itself as well. We all know that EA has the biggest porblem but fixing I agree is complex. I do hope Mongoose does reassure you they have responsive on most of my questions, however I do have to agree that being cautious in reacting to what is said on a forum can be dangerous. What is said here can often influence things considerably. I think at the very least your concerns are catching the attention of other players.

I think a lot of them think its close to or basically balanced with some problems and they are willing to test them out a while in the market. Now I may disagree there is a lot of things that I like in the current rule sthat I wouldn't want to lose the feel from. Its a tough standpoint from a design standpoint because everyhting you do affects another.

If mongoose gave too much of a response then people would give up trying to play with the limitations and merely wait for a new rules set. That may give a sense that the game is completely broken which I don't think it is. That I think would cripple business.

Thats not what you are asking for but i can see why they'd be cautious. You have obviously done a lot of things to further this issue and play with it. I think you are more afraid of what will happen should Mongoose not reassure people that they are working on things. I have faith based on my past experience with them but that doesn't mean others will and thats one thing to worry about.

I have always respected your contributions on this board, keep up the good work.

Also I would like to have a talk with your cnetauri player, he definitely can be beaten as othe rbattle reports have shown. If you like you can point him to my article on the primus it pretty much sums up the weaknesses of the centauri. Uber beaminess is great and could be something they adjust later but they do have weaknesses. I hop eyou get the responses you are hoping for.

I can completely agree with and understand the "lets not do anything hasty" attitude. What I can't understand is complete non-engagement on the issue. I want to keep playing, my local group wants to keep playing, and we're willing to wait while fixes are examined, but we need some indication that Mongoose is doing something.

Even if all Matt did was put up a post saying, "We understand problems have arisen with the new fleet lists and are looking into the situation", that would go a long way towards defusing this situation and restoring faith in Mongoose's commitment to listening to its fan base.

 

[homerun]

I agreed with this although I have said in the past oracle as they are have a role to play as a scout choice there is more of choice and need at skirmish. A reduction in firepower is defeinitely amicable to this. Its nice to have a well armed scout but not at the expense of its primary role and due to its limited survivability it generally won't last long at raid. I can understand the reasoning for scouts but thats why we rather have punchless scouts that are cheaper. I still can see what they were going for a scout that can fight a bit to support since the dlephi only hides in the corner however its ust too risky and not worthwhile enough to do this. The addition of scout already gives it an advantage that precludes the use of guns enough to make her worthwhile. At least in my opinion. I think it has its uses but it is something relatviely small that can be done to complete the EA as a fleet. The tools are there but there still is one clear option and that is the delphi.

I think that although most of the fleet lists are pretty much balanced now, there are a few ships which i dont think fit in anywhere now except if its a special scenario with in-service dates. The Oracle i do think has no place anymore, it does the same job as another ship (this is why i am glad mongoose hasnt gone down the lots of varients ideas that AOG did) you only need 1 ship to do a specific job within the fleet, if 2 ships do the same job then one is better than the other and there is no need for it. the Delphi beats the Oracle on everything except firepower but scouts shouldnt be bought for firepower, the rest of the fleet covers that. Also Earth are the only young race not to have a Skirmish level scout

 

[Silvereye]

We examine each and every suggestion made on these boards - just because we don't say anything, it doesn't mean we are not listening!

Balance in CTA is not the same as in many other games, as we have introduced many finesse fleets and ships. We committed a lot of time to playtesting SFoS and, by and large, I believe we have the balance right.

What we have _not_ done is ensure that every ship is suitable for every player at every skill level - and that is something we are giving a great deal of thought to.

Always good to know, and thats probably why I like ACTA so much, there are very few ships that directly compare with each other. Which gives you plenty of scope to taylor a fleet to your style of play, or to neutralise a particular enemy sdvantage.

The biggest factor for us, at the moment, is whether to continue with this idea of 'finesse' fleets or make them more mainstream.

I would, hands down, go for keeping the finesse elements, they add so much more depth and oppertunity to the game. While no-brainer mainstream ships are useful when you are learning the game, they can get a bit dull after a short time when Ship A from one race and Ship B from another just have differently named guns. If I wanted to play games like that I would never have stopped playing Battlefleet Gothic.

 

[B5freak]

Silvereye wrote:

I would, hands down, go for keeping the finesse elements, they add so much more depth and oppertunity to the game. While no-brainer mainstream ships are useful when you are learning the game, they can get a bit dull after a short time when Ship A from one race and Ship B from another just have differently named guns. If I wanted to play games like that I would never have stopped playing Battlefleet Gothic.

I also agree that I'd like to keep a finesse aspect to the game. The question is, who's a 'finesse' fleet. I could easily see making the League races finesse fleets, or even the Shadows and Vorlons. All evidence however points to EA being the lead candidate for finesse fleet status. With EA being one of the most 'iconic' fleets from the show and therefore one of the first fleets new players tend to gravitate towards, I have to really wonder what the thought process was there.

If the Minbari were intended as the 'finesse' fleet, well, I think one of my Minbari players summed that up pretty well:

Taking 3 sharlins to the table really isn't finesse. It's the equivalent of banging your opponents minis with a hammer and saying "You have no legal models, I win!"

 

[Matt]

i do support that each fleet shud have each own feel do i do not think that nned to come at the cost off balance or that it need to make diffrent fleets hard to play then oters

the feel will just be diffrent not harder

 

[Obsidian]

All evidence however points to EA being the lead candidate for finesse fleet status.

Well.... In this case, the EA is the victim of an overall game balancing item that was mostly proposed and pushed by us, the players.

As Matt Sprange has mentioned, each fleet has their own individual play item that makes them different from the others. Minbari have Stealth, Narn have E-mines, and the Centauri have hordes of good lower level ships. The EA's gimmick was, and still is, fighters.

In the original printings it was pretty obvious that while the EA ships didn't match up pound for pound with ships from other fleets, they made up for it with hordes of fighters on their ships. It was fun to watch your opponent sweat over attacking the big ships or swatting the gnats and the battle for fighter superiority took up a big part of the game. Many people considered them the achilles heel of many fleets. Lose fighter superiority and you could be in for a rough ride. Then it all changed...

People sat down and came to the realization that due to the game mechanics it was much more effective to take a fleet made up purely of fighters than to bother with capital ships. The worst example of this was the 180 flights of Thunderbolts that an ISA player could field in a 5 point war level game. Why was this bad? First off, fighters move last so you get to watch your opponent manuever all his ships and then you swarm them at will. Secondly, when fighters were nominated to fire, they all fired at the same time. This meant that the ISA player got to roll nearly 900 AD without an answering shot from the oppossing player. Finally, the old rules of 6-5 and 6-6 insta-death criticals were around. Nothing more frustrating than watching your pristine Bin'Tak/Warlock/Octurion get taken out by a single hit from a Thunderbolt's gatling cannon.

For these, and other reasons a change was demanded of how fighters work. They were too strong and had to be stopped! Mongoose dutifully listened to our feedback and begin tweaking the rules. With SFoS, they suceeeded in making fighters no longer the single most powerful thing in the game. Wing sizes were reduced, stats were lessened, fighters were forced to fire after all capital ships, precise was removed and insta-death criticals were no longer possible.

Trouble is, all this tweaking effectively gutted the strong point of the EA.

 

[Scimitar]

I thought the EA's gimmick was to strap interceptors onto anything larger than an escape pod?

 

[Balance]

I thought the EA's gimmick was to strap interceptors onto anything larger than an escape pod?

I'm sure they're working on the escape pods, too.

 

[Tal Hawkins]

I thought the EA's gimmick was to strap interceptors onto anything larger than an escape pod?

Unforunately that gimmick is destroyed by the easy mode Minbari who use nothing but beam weapons. (Yes I know there are a few small exceptions)