Progress on 2e

Greg Smith said:
Hash said:
...any more insight any has into that that you want to / are able to share for comment?

Matt has promised an article about the changes in next month's S&P. I am hesitant to reveal any more than he has already commented upon. Of course since I'm coming to your tourney in a couple of weeks, you could get me drunk afterwards nd I'll spill everything. :D

Hash : Here Greg have a pint...
Greg : It comes in pints!?

:lol:

LBH
 
Burger said:
If any of these things are introduced, you need to increase stealth scores. The stealth system is actually fairly balanced am I think, its just frustrating that you eithe rbreak it or don't. They are 2 totally different things. Most of the suggestions involve giving the attacker some kind of freebie in the case he doesn't make his stealth roll... well to maintain balance there has to be a bit of swing the other way, too.

The Armageddon range modifiers effectively reduced all stealth by 1, unless you were between 8" and 10" away. This change was balanced by increasing Minbari's damage and crew values back up to SFOS levels and allowing their variants. So, what boost would the Minbari get to balance this SA?

Something like weapons don't fire when you fail your stealth rolls. That way slow-loading ships aren't screwed nearly as bad by stealth.

Dave
 
Davesaint said:
Something like weapons don't fire when you fail your stealth rolls. That way slow-loading ships aren't screwed nearly as bad by stealth.

Dave

that can be balance affecting though. Take an Avioki for example. It would be sick with that firepower every turn, but every second turn is balanced.
Now if you don't penalise such a ship regarding stealth then it hits the following turn with the equivalent of two turns of fire.
However a non-slow-loading ship has lost a turn of fire.
Not a good idea for that reason
 
Davesaint said:
Burger said:
If any of these things are introduced, you need to increase stealth scores. The stealth system is actually fairly balanced am I think, its just frustrating that you eithe rbreak it or don't. They are 2 totally different things. Most of the suggestions involve giving the attacker some kind of freebie in the case he doesn't make his stealth roll... well to maintain balance there has to be a bit of swing the other way, too.

The Armageddon range modifiers effectively reduced all stealth by 1, unless you were between 8" and 10" away. This change was balanced by increasing Minbari's damage and crew values back up to SFOS levels and allowing their variants. So, what boost would the Minbari get to balance this SA?

Something like weapons don't fire when you fail your stealth rolls. That way slow-loading ships aren't screwed nearly as bad by stealth.

Dave
How is that of any relevance whatsoever to what I wrote? What you are suggesting is another nerf to stealth, with nothing given back to the Minbari to compensate.

I say again: stealth ATM is balanced IMO. But, it is frustrating and not fun. Make a fix which gives the attacker an advantage, and you break the balance.
 
Burger said:
I say again: stealth ATM is balanced IMO. But, it is frustrating and not fun. Make a fix which gives the attacker an advantage, and you break the balance.

I agree stealth is balanced.

I played as Eldar in BFG and my opponents got frustrated when they couldn't beat my 2+ holofields so I have sympathy with the "one roll = make or break" thing

There have been some good alternatives mentioned, I'd not object to a new mechanism myself (though I am really bad at passing stealth rolls! except when I played Burger!)
 
I say again: stealth ATM is balanced IMO. But, it is frustrating and not fun. Make a fix which gives the attacker an advantage, and you break the balance.

Fair enough statement (if a bit rabid): up the Hull on everything. The Sharlin really should be a Hull 6.

Don't like that one? Up the Damage of the ship. Some variation of both (some ships go up 1 Hull, some get more Damage, some get both [yikes]).

Edit: I qoute that line because even someone who says that Stealth is balanced, says that it's not fun. I'm a newbie, so I can't really say whether it's balanced. I'm just saying it's frustrating and was a real barrier to me getting into the game.
 
I've not had a drink since the 29th of December last year, and it's staying that way for the forseeable future, or next time we go to the Swiss cottage, it's not economically viable to stay sober in that pub.

LBH
 
katadder said:
yes the centauri have changed but its a change alot of people asked for as by the show the centauri werent a beam heavy fleet like they currently are.
they will still have beams, but this isnt their main hitting style. centauri players will be happy i think with the new style although they will have to change tactics. and i dont think the people playing centauri will have a problem with them either, as theres more ways to deal with the centauri than before where you just had to close the range on the beam team.

I think there is some danger in overpowering them to compensate for the lack of beams, though. Just going by how well mobs of Vorchans can do if used well already, there's a danger of overcompensating for instance, by giving them even more firepower/traits to their existing weapons.

Dread to think what kind of ion cannon firepower the primus et. al. will be getting :S
 
Alexb83 said:
I think there is some danger in overpowering them to compensate for the lack of beams, though. Just going by how well mobs of Vorchans can do if used well already, there's a danger of overcompensating for instance, by giving them even more firepower/traits to their existing weapons.

Dread to think what kind of ion cannon firepower the primus et. al. will be getting :S

Well to be fair if used correctly underpowered ships (and I consider the vorchan such a ship) can do well in the right hands. That doesn't mean they are not underpowered.

As to the ion cannons/beams. Well it will be nasty firepower but as already said the Centauri lack the all-round fire coverage of other fleets and they tend to be more fragile than other fleets
 
I understand they won't live in the same market space as the Dilgar, however (lots of AP, DD ---- which isn't far from TL, DD; little in the way of active arcs)

Riiiight?!
 
CZuschlag said:
I understand they won't live in the same market space as the Dilgar, however (lots of AP, DD ---- which isn't far from TL, DD; little in the way of active arcs)

Riiiight?!

Dilgar have good arcs. At least i think so

they are both firepower over defences races though. Centauri are light and fast though in comparison.
 
Uh-oh. We have an overlap. Fast Dilgar ships (the ones most often played -- Targrath (12"), Tikrit (10"), Ochliavita (10")) arcs aren't particularly good -- F is the only one worth writing home about. All of the ranges are short as well. The rest is light and turreted, with a smattering of A at best.

The Omelos (12") is a notable exception to the rule.

The slow Dilgar, as it stands right now, are mostly bad ships not worth flying (with again one notable exception, the Rohric).
 
CZuschlag said:
Uh-oh. We have an overlap.

The slow Dilgar, as it stands right now, are mostly bad ships not worth flying (with again one notable exception, the Rohric).

There will always be some overlap in all fleets!

The slow Dilgar are obviously getting attention.....
 
Yes, that may be true, but so far, most fleets have had pretty different identities (the only one truly lacking is the Brakiri, but they are useful to provide a backbone to the rest of the League Fleet):

EA: Thunderbolts and more thunderbolts. Missile bombardment waves are tactical, so gaining space for your bombardment ships is at a premium. As are boresight beam tactics, especially with the later-generation ships. Aft boresight implications (almost completely absent from the rest of the game.)

Minbari: Stealth maximization is the core Minbari tactic. Range, speed, scout-killing.

Centauri: Largely, the beam team and F arc tactics. Basic but effective. Sometimes, if the beam team only gets part of the job done, disaster control after the beam line is broken when you only have 1/45 turn ships through your fleet.

Narn: Use of Ionics. Wolfpack boresighting. Furball tactics and maximizing the number of arcs that can fire. Making the fight as messy as possible. The use of Close Blast Doors on the approach.

ISA: Mobility and overrun. Arc evasion. The proper use of two 90s.

Abbai: Kind of identity-less now, but I expect with any new kind of defensive system, this assessment will change in 2e.

Brakiri: Pretty bland right now, as mentioned above.

Drazi: Boresight tactics to the 9's. Setting up the next target after the first one, requires a LOT of forethought, as you often cannot react to opponents given you've pretty much declared your targets after move. The architecture of battle passes are fundamentally changed by the purely boresight nature of this race.

Vree: Getting past the first wave of front arcs with enough guns to take the rest of the fleet down. Interceptor soaking at times. Turret weaponry and SM usage to set up next turn's special actions without loss of combat flexibility. Finding weak points in the enemies defense arc and completely exploiting them.

Vorlons: Arc management, defending each other. Gaining pauses in the fight to let ships regenerate and return to the fray after a pause. Brute toughness countered by having few ships.

Shadows: SM movement, yes, but also Hyperspace Mastery and its uses. Scout deployment to give you back CAF (not as important now). Regeneration tactics even more than the Vorlons. Terrain mastery.

Dilgar: Getting there, close-and-kill, stopping opponents from overflying your danger zones. Dealing with interceptors. The Pentacon. Managing ships that survived the overrun. Also dealing with slow ships and occasionally jumping directly into combat to deliver the ship.

Drakh: All about the GEG. If the ISA were about avoiding arcs, the Drakh are about initiative sinking. Protecting Heavy Raiders. Did I mention the GEG? Wide-ranging flanking maneouvers. Protecting Carriers and delaying contact until your Huge Hangars are deployed.

Most everything has a distinct identity. The Pak might be considered to be the ultimate in bombardment, but as I haven't played against them, I won't judge yet. It'd be nice if we could maintain those distinct ... well .... brand identities? Maybe that's not the right word for it.
 
emperorpenguin said:
Davesaint said:
Something like weapons don't fire when you fail your stealth rolls. That way slow-loading ships aren't screwed nearly as bad by stealth.

Dave

that can be balance affecting though. Take an Avioki for example. It would be sick with that firepower every turn, but every second turn is balanced.
Now if you don't penalise such a ship regarding stealth then it hits the following turn with the equivalent of two turns of fire.
However a non-slow-loading ship has lost a turn of fire.
Not a good idea for that reason

You mean the Range 18 Beam, DD SL beam on the Avioki? The one that you average 2-3 hits against hull 5? What I am suggesting is that the weapon doesn't fire if the Stealth roll is failed. You can try all you want, but if you can't make the stealth roll, you still aren't doing any damage. It just means you don't have to wait 2 turns to try again if you fail your stealth roll. Given the likely opponents that the Minbari are fielding in that fight, you might not live 3 turns after his precise Neutron Lasers hit you. Not sure how sick and overpowered that would be. The weapon isn't even AP.


Dave
 
Back
Top