Sagittarius officially changed in S&P38
- Thread starter mbtanker
- Start date
Triggy said:
Really? Wow that's huge...that's like more than half of LBH's total post count!
But seriously, yeah they downgraded the Sag, after initially upgrading it from what many thought was a frankly overpowered tournament version, although sadly this was only the vocal forum majority opinion after all playtesting was complete.
I don't think people thought it was a problem in small numbers, they just felt that a 10 Sagg fleet (in a standard 5pt raid game) was nigh on unbeatable and so ruined the game. Personally I think it was a good move but some EA players I know are not so happy now
sidewinder
Mongoose
just goes to show that mongoose isnt any better about giving in to pressure then any other company, except maybe the people that make warmachine. I play mechwarrior and the FAQ for that is stupidly long. If the company test this stuff and thinks its ok they should leave it alone. your never going to please everyone.
MustEatBrains
Mongoose
sidewinder said:
If they don´t change things the players think need to be changed, everyone complains; if they DO improve things, more criticism - sometimes, being the designer of a succesful wargame must be the most frustrating job on this planet!
Actually, part of the issue was they as much as said that the ten sag fleet was never tested. It was just smashing tourney lists right and left. That is hard for a company to ignore. If you game is seen in the tourneys as having a pre-determined winner, your game will get a bad reputation and die. Most companies know this and when they see something come out that folks cannot think of a solution to they usually change it.
IF a company has tested the broken combo and can beat it regularly without a specialized response combo, then they will usually talk about how they beat it. This will often calm folks down and start brainstorms about how to customize the best answer. No need to adjust. But only if the answer can be reliably re-created by the player base.
Ripple
IF a company has tested the broken combo and can beat it regularly without a specialized response combo, then they will usually talk about how they beat it. This will often calm folks down and start brainstorms about how to customize the best answer. No need to adjust. But only if the answer can be reliably re-created by the player base.
Ripple
Actually there was a moderately sized group of people who believe that if a ship is over/underpowered then it doesn't matter how many you take, the ship is still just as potent/naff but you just haven't chosen to inflict it on your opponent/yourself to such a degree.Hash said:I don't think people thought it was a problem in small numbers, they just felt that a 10 Sagg fleet (in a standard 5pt raid game) was nigh on unbeatable and so ruined the game. Personally I think it was a good move but some EA players I know are not so happy now
i.e. It's not the 10 Sagittarius fleet that was broken, it's the Sagittarius itself that was broken (in any quantity)
If only people would spend as much time lobbying to get some of the absolutely pointless ships, like the Troligan, upgraded so that they actually have a function in any fleet in preference to their peers.
I guess every fleet has a lemon (or more than one) but it begs the question... why? Given the choice, who would ever take them? That logic extends from games into the fluff universe. Why would the EA ever make anything but Saggitarius, being as they (were) so effective? What Minbari Alyt would ever use a Troligan?
I'm sure that others can point out prime examples which need upgrades, just as badly as the Sagg 'needed' a downgrade.
I guess every fleet has a lemon (or more than one) but it begs the question... why? Given the choice, who would ever take them? That logic extends from games into the fluff universe. Why would the EA ever make anything but Saggitarius, being as they (were) so effective? What Minbari Alyt would ever use a Troligan?
I'm sure that others can point out prime examples which need upgrades, just as badly as the Sagg 'needed' a downgrade.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
As has been discussed before though an underpowered ship is nowhere near as critical as an overpowered one. If a ship is underpowered it simply wont get used much (which is indeed a shame but its not going to screw with the overall game balance). An overpowered ship on the otherhand gives one side a clearly unfair advantage if they use it. Now in 'friendly' local games and campaigns its not really a problem (I simply refused to use the Saggitarius in its beard-on-a-stick format)
And frankly any EA player who starts winging that the new Saggi is an unfair nerf should be hung for grand munchkinism. It's now I feel a very good little ship, still packing a hideous amount of firepower for its pl but its now very fragile to the point that you cant just plonk 10 of em down and declare victory
And frankly any EA player who starts winging that the new Saggi is an unfair nerf should be hung for grand munchkinism
. It's now I feel a very good little ship, still packing a hideous amount of firepower for its pl but its now very fragile to the point that you cant just plonk 10 of em down and declare victory I tend to disagree - overpowered ships are bad from a competition point of view, fair enough, but so are underpowered ships. I think one is just as bad as the other, since 'over' and 'under' powered are all relative. If a fleet tends to have underpowered ships, then in comparison, normal ships are overpowered, and overpowered ships are doubly so.
An underpowered ship can limit the game in different ways - what if you're stuck with a choice between a good ship and a bad ship (Troligan vs. Tinashi is a clear example) effectively that's no choice at all, simply the illusion of choice, and it limits fleet variety whilst giving the impression that variety is there.
It's even worse where there is no choice at all for certain fleets at certain PLs.
You'll have to forgive me for harping on about the Minbari, but they're what I'm most familiar with. Ships like the Troligan could be an easy fix - what they need is a clearly defined role (some of them already have defined roles they don't fit in the ship description!), and a slight stats tweak to put them into it. Hull 6 would be a clear start in that case. An 'armoured cruiser' that's no more armoured than a light cruiser.. hrm.
An underpowered ship can limit the game in different ways - what if you're stuck with a choice between a good ship and a bad ship (Troligan vs. Tinashi is a clear example) effectively that's no choice at all, simply the illusion of choice, and it limits fleet variety whilst giving the impression that variety is there.
It's even worse where there is no choice at all for certain fleets at certain PLs.
You'll have to forgive me for harping on about the Minbari, but they're what I'm most familiar with. Ships like the Troligan could be an easy fix - what they need is a clearly defined role (some of them already have defined roles they don't fit in the ship description!), and a slight stats tweak to put them into it. Hull 6 would be a clear start in that case. An 'armoured cruiser' that's no more armoured than a light cruiser.. hrm.
Alexb83 said:
But all Tinashi won't dominate tournament scenes so much that to be as good as automatic winner now does it?
10 sag fleets were pretty darned hard to stop from winning tournament which is not exactly nice. Tournament A: Oh 10 sag fleet won! Tournament B: Hmmm...Another 10 sag fleet won. Tournament C: Why do I bother to even try to win tournament without 10 sags...
Now of course underpowered ships should be fixed as well(thanks for Mongoose for fixing WSC-2!) but I would rate overpowered ships as higher priority.
Well, I don't know about anyone else - I'm not out to win the tournament on the 11th. Frankly I'd be surprised if I won a game. I just want to come along and play with the fleet that I've bought and perhaps improve somewhat 
Certainly playing against someone with 10 saggitarius isn't going to put me off the game, just off playing against that individual.
I think the main problem with the Sagg is that people were considering how it could be abused in 5 point raid. I don't know if its supposedly massive overpoweredness would extend down into lower point value games where massed wings of fighters could dominate over it.
Certainly playing against someone with 10 saggitarius isn't going to put me off the game, just off playing against that individual.I think the main problem with the Sagg is that people were considering how it could be abused in 5 point raid. I don't know if its supposedly massive overpoweredness would extend down into lower point value games where massed wings of fighters could dominate over it.
Alexb83 said:
Maybe. But then again how big % of games 5 point raids represent...I would wager that's the most common form of games so having ship so broken there needs nerfing eventually(and this wasn't like quick fix to begin with. Tournament lists have been around for quite a while already afterall).
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Precicely. Im not saying underpowered ships arent an issue and they do need looking at but what your talking about is effectively being limited in fleet choice as opposed to having a fleet choice that is an automatic win.
Even if you have a ship that would make, should you choose it, your fleet more or less an automatic loss, as long as you have the option to simply take other stuff its not REALLY going to afect tournament results as frankly you simply dont take that ship.
Its a matter of control, underpowered ships are your own lookout if you choose to take them, sure you'll probably lose but you could have avoided that by taking different ships. But in the case of overpowered fleets its the opponent who takes them who is wrecking the game for everyone ELSE.
Thats the key point. Chooising underpowered ships is something you do to yourself, choosing overpowered ships is something you do to the other players. One is a tactical error, the other is frankly bad sportsmanship. Which is the bigger issue? I would suggest its quite clearly the second one as it ruins enjoyment of the game for just about everyone else involved!
Incidentally when it comse to UNDERpowered ships I would say the Vorchan is by far the biggest issue here as its one of the iconic ships from the show and a great miniature (and most centauri players have quite a few of them and would like to be able to use them competitively). Personally I dont think its THAT bad but it IS a little understrenght, just give it back SAP on its Plasma accelerator and problem solved frankly!
The Troligan is much less of an issue given the fact that its a pretty obscure ship that isnt that popular anyway. Sure it would be nice to have it useable but I think the REALLY important ones to get right are the ships seen on screen!
Even if you have a ship that would make, should you choose it, your fleet more or less an automatic loss, as long as you have the option to simply take other stuff its not REALLY going to afect tournament results as frankly you simply dont take that ship.
Its a matter of control, underpowered ships are your own lookout if you choose to take them, sure you'll probably lose but you could have avoided that by taking different ships. But in the case of overpowered fleets its the opponent who takes them who is wrecking the game for everyone ELSE.
Thats the key point. Chooising underpowered ships is something you do to yourself, choosing overpowered ships is something you do to the other players. One is a tactical error, the other is frankly bad sportsmanship. Which is the bigger issue? I would suggest its quite clearly the second one as it ruins enjoyment of the game for just about everyone else involved!
Incidentally when it comse to UNDERpowered ships I would say the Vorchan is by far the biggest issue here as its one of the iconic ships from the show and a great miniature (and most centauri players have quite a few of them and would like to be able to use them competitively). Personally I dont think its THAT bad but it IS a little understrenght, just give it back SAP on its Plasma accelerator and problem solved frankly!
The Troligan is much less of an issue given the fact that its a pretty obscure ship that isnt that popular anyway. Sure it would be nice to have it useable but I think the REALLY important ones to get right are the ships seen on screen!
Well its not that popular, because it is total crud!!! Cause and effect. I've seen a few Vorchans used in tourneys, to good effect. At least they fill a niche, and have unique properties. The Troligan is totally outclassed in every way by other ships, it does not have any unique points.Locutus9956 said:
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Well its uniquely ugly 
(thats what I meant by the way, I personally would rarely use one even if it WAS up to par with the Tinashi and Veshatan).
And personally Im a great champion of the Vorchan's unsung ability. It may not be the one shot kill machine of the big beamers or a nasty little sniper like a Darkner but its incredibly fast (alomst Whitestar fast!) which counts for ALOT in terms of maneuvering!
(thats what I meant by the way, I personally would rarely use one even if it WAS up to par with the Tinashi and Veshatan).And personally Im a great champion of the Vorchan's unsung ability. It may not be the one shot kill machine of the big beamers or a nasty little sniper like a Darkner but its incredibly fast (alomst Whitestar fast!) which counts for ALOT in terms of maneuvering!
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
I quite like the Trolligan for a BIG fleet. Sure, it's a poor ship, and easily hit & damaged. But it's a big damage sponge, and while people are firing at THAT, they're not firing at the rest of the fleet...
But, yes, an armoured cruiser should have... armour...
Wulf
But, yes, an armoured cruiser should have... armour...
Wulf
