Sign in to follow this  
gamblertuba

Time to Revisit Large Ship MOV?

Recommended Posts

Has scoring points per hull/shield been discussed yet? This seems to me to be the best fix, but a lot of players don't like the idea of having to do this level of math after every round to determine the winner. Regen is still an issue in this case as well though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Has scoring points per hull/shield been discussed yet? This seems to me to be the best fix, but a lot of players don't like the idea of having to do this level of math after every round to determine the winner. Regen is still an issue in this case as well though.

Edit for clarity: Hasn't come up in this thread yet.  Not sure it is really feasible without good implementation within tournament software.  

Edited by gamblertuba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Has scoring points per hull/shield been discussed yet? This seems to me to be the best fix, but a lot of players don't like the idea of having to do this level of math after every round to determine the winner. Regen is still an issue in this case as well though.

The reason that half-MoV -- or proportional scoring, or whatever else along those lines -- is a bad idea has been touched on up-thread, but it deserves to be emphasized:

Rules that reward landing damage take away from the tactical reward deserved from forcing your opponent to split fire.

X-Wing competitive play was designed with two benefits to forcing an opponent to split fire: (1) the opponent would still be facing two fully functional (usually) guns, and (2) the opponent would not collect points for either ship.

Taking the second benefit away lessens -- not obviates, but lessens -- the advantage from better tactical flying.  I think that's bad for the game, personally.  Large PWT ships with Boost were a real problem.  But that's not what FFG actually targeted with their "fix."

Edited by Jeff Wilder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

All of that has elements of truth.  And yet, all three were flown -- and with significant frequency and success -- before the half-MoV nerf.

Yes, but was that because of the nerf they stopped being flown? Or a combination of the nerf and better options presenting themselves overall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my humble opinion, if half-point MOV were to change, I'd have it be:
"Any ship with a starting base total health (shields + hull) of 8 or more provides half-point MOV".

Keeps all the large-based ships still in for half-point MOV, and just adds the K-Wing, ARC-170, TIE Punisher, and G1-A Starfighter (sorry to drag you into this group Punisher & G1-A) as small ships that can have half-point MOV scored on them.

I've seen a lot of people at local tournaments get a little irritated that they work hard to put lots of damage, including hull damage, on Miranda or Norra (or any K-Wing or ARC-170 pilot for that matter), but get no points for the effort if they're unable to finish them off despite the fact that the K-Wing and ARC-170 have as much, close to, or more total health as large-base ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having lived through the PWT meta, and given the current predominance of Scum large based ships, absolutely do not get rid of it.

If you REALLY want to discuss changing things, then I could entertain the concept of factoring points by damage where the points earned is a function of ship value time the ration of health remaining over health. (e.g. 45 point Miranda at hull is worth 20 points to the opponent).

I have a couple of concerns about this approach, though.  First, we would be taking what is fairly simple and complicating it to the point that where you could not easily figure out who won what without a calculator.  Secondly, I think that the points value for regeneration will likely be skewed as suddenly each hp has value over and above just keeping the ship alive.  This bleeds into the third concern that there might be some shift in the value of MOV as the secondary performance indication after win/loss record.

Just my thoughts.

Edited by balindamood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this blew up fast and I don't want to read everything.

I've never been a big fan of singling out large ships and saying that if they are below half of what we may call "starting hit points" you get half of the ship's total point value.  Maybe there is some math to figure out but it all seems so random to assign half a ship's value despite the ship almost certainly being able to operate as if at full strength.  If this is the path then it really should apply to all ships.

To me the more reasonable thing would have been to have ships award some fixed MoV value when dropped to a certain point.  Say the large ship gives up 10 points when it takes its first damage card.  Maybe it's not close to "half" of the ship's value but it's sure better than nothing.  It acknowledges that you've landed damage on the big ship but you've still got a ways to go before you can really declare victory over it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality to this is that the K-Wing and ARC-170 should have NEVER been a small base ship.  FFG, unfortunately, messed up here.  Happens.

The way to fix this is to turn all ship bases to half points MOV.  If you do that, balance will come back.  That is what the player base is asking for.  

Edited by cclaybern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cclaybern said:

The reality to this is that the K-Wing and ARC-170 should have NEVER been a small base ship.  FFG, unfortunately, messed up here.  Happens.

The way to fix this is to turn all ship bases to half points MOV.  If you do that, balance will come back.  That is what the player base is asking for.  

I mean, yes both the K and ARC absolutely should have been small base ships

their game mechanics, especially SLAM, where implemented with a small base in mind

 

and if you've flown a spray, you know how ass-clunky it is even with the aux arc

 

Edited by ficklegreendice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ficklegreendice said:

I mean, yes both the K and ARC absolutely should have been small base ships

their game mechanics, especially SLAM, where implemented with a small base in mind

 

The SLAM mechanic sure.  I can agree there.

The reality is though, these ships, with their hull and shield sets are not small based ships.  They are large.  That is the factor to consider.  I would say the way to balance this once again is to give all ships half MOV when ships are at or below half their health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cclaybern said:

The SLAM mechanic sure.  I can agree there.

The reality is though, these ships, with their hull and shield sets are not small based ships.  They are large.  That is the factor to consider.  I would say the way to balance this once again is to give all ships half MOV when ships are at or below half their health.

idk, B-wing is pretty chuncky at 8 and it's a small ship as well

large ships seem mostly to scale out at 10 total health or more, minus the teeny tiny U and Aggressor

Edited by ficklegreendice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 2 separate problems here.

Number one large base repositioning is too good. Even with the change to large base barrel rolls, which some ships have natively, they are still incredibly good. And large base boost is still as good as it ever was covering simply obnoxious distances with large variances in end points. I'd say large base boost should be nerfed similarly to barrel rolls, forced to use a sideways straight template and no longer allowed to bank boost at all. I might also say that large base barrel roll shouldn't be able to slide forward for back but less certain about that one. That would legitimately fix some of the Wave 5 era problems rather than papering over them with 1/2 points MOV that while shifting the tournament meta does nothing about the actual on table effectiveness of the ships.

Number two, points fortressing Miranda (and Corran but we'll see how he survives with Kylo in the meta). They are the effectively the same problem as Fat Han was in Wave 5, a ship worth a large number of points with excellent survivability and repositioning that often wins simply by dragging out the game to time. Anyone arguing that Wave 5 meta was awful and kissing all over 1/2 MOV while at the same time telling people to just git gud against Miranda is simply being a flaming hypocrite as they're basically the same resultant issue.

As far as a fix, if you tidied up large base repositioning then I think you could largely get rid of 1/2 MOV on large ships. Especially since I think other changes in the meta and powercreep would prevent Fat Han from making a massive comeback anyways. It's a weird distortion to the meta that was targeting a narrow problem but get applied to a massive chunk of the game.

I honestly don't have a handy solution to points fortressing regen, maybe it doesn't need one, maybe that solution is Kylo. Especially since the problem is rarely just Miranda, she can be burned down fairly fast. It's the combo of Miranda and Corran as either are excellent points fortresses and you can't focus on both. But while Kylo is an annoyance to Miranda he's crippling to Corran who both relies on his high PS and can only take 2 hits now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mad mandolorian said:

i fly soontir fel & vader, i know how easily aces can die

or not die, situation pending

biggest thing with Horn for the purposes of this topic though is that the little guy can float almost 50 points on his person, and he's only 5 health total

made 2nd at worlds twice in a row now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

or not die, situation pending

biggest thing with Horn for the purposes of this topic though is that the little guy can float almost 50 points on his person, and he's only 5 health total

made 2nd at worlds twice in a row now

if the player can fly aces well then there's not much that you can do.

it's one of two cases

either you deal more than 50% damage in which case why don't you deal some more b/c you have proven you can

or

you cant cause 50% damage in which case the 50% rule does not matter

the only place this rule comes into play is ships with tons of health and even after taking 50% damage may have more HP than they enemy squadren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Makaze said:

I'd say large base boost should be nerfed similarly to barrel rolls, forced to use a sideways straight template and no longer allowed to bank boost at all.

No, because this removes the utility of Boost (changing direction) for Large ships with arcs, and they are not the problem.

Boost simply needs to be shortened by pushing the ship back one Small base length after the initial Boost is performed.  The final position is what is considered for whether or not the Boost is legal.  The incredibly easy way to do this on the table?

Straight - Lay a 4-straight along side the ship and slide forward to even with the end.

Banked - Lay a 3-straight alongside the ship and slide backward to even with the end.

It works absolutely perfectly, and is remarkably easy to do on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just change large base boost similar to barrel roll.  Turn the 1-straight on it's side along the front of the large base, and move forward that amount, but slide it left to right.  It removes the defined position of the 1-banks, but at the cost of loosing the rotational aspect.  It DOES, however, slow the thing down a bit which needs to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're talking about large ship boost changes (which isn't really the topic of this thread), I've always been partial to putting the bank template on the corner of the ship, facing toward the center of the ship. So a bank left would involve placing the 1-bank template along the front edge of the ship in the right corner of the ship. You pick up the ship and place it so that the back-right edge of the ship is flush with the template. This reduces the total distance the large ship moves, but allows you to change the angle of your firing arc.

Edited by Budgernaut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

If we're talking about large ship boost changes (which isn't really the topic of this thread), I've always been partial to putting the bank template on the corner of the ship, facing toward the center of the ship. So a bank left would involve placing the 1-bank template along the front edge of the ship in the right corner of the ship. You pick up the ship and place it so that the back-right edge of the ship is flush with the template. This reduces the total distance the large ship moves, but allows you to change the angle of your firing arc.

It's not terrible, but it does change how the Boost rules interact with obstacles.  (Specifically, certain Boosts would become legal or illegal in a way that's non-congruent with how Boosting works on Small ships.)  My method doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

It's not terrible, but it does change how the Boost rules interact with obstacles.  (Specifically, certain Boosts would become legal or illegal in a way that's non-congruent with how Boosting works on Small ships.)  My method doesn't.

Hmmm. I hadn't considered that. So you're talking about whether the template overlaps an obstacle or not. You're right. This method is a little more clunky. What you could do is place a 1-bank behind the ship after it has moved and if the template overlaps an obstacle, you suffer the effects of that obstacle. Again, it is a bit clunky. I'll have to try flying around asteroids with it to see what kinds of strange interactions I can force.

I'll have to try your method, too, because it does seem simpler to explain and to implement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

I'll have to try your method, too, because it does seem simpler to explain and to implement.

I'm genuinely interested to know your experience on the table.  It seems like every objection to it is some variant of, "It's too hard to do," and then I ask, "Did you actually try it on the table?" to a response of, "No, but I don't have to try it to know it's too hard to do."

(It's not -- at all -- hard to do.  Players routinely perform much, much more difficult ship-juggling in the course of a normal game.  And it fixes Large-Boost, which has been a problem forever!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this