Jump to content
Wazat

Feelings about Harpoons vs T-65s

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Vontoothskie said:

there are 3 missiles fired in the entirety of the original trilogy, all 3 fired at death stars. why the **** is this whole game ordnance wars all of the sudden

I guess you missed the A-wings firing missiles at the Executor bridge tower.  Also Dave fired a Salvo of Torpedoes prior to Luke’s shot heard round the galaxy.  

also X-wings fired Toroedoes, tho the only difference with missiles was in the novel, with the Falcon possessing concussion missiles that had a large enough yield to take out the main reactor of DS2.  Wedge fired at the power regulator on the north tower of the reactor.

but yes projectiles were never used against star fighters in the OT, only against huge capital ships or space stations.

so?

ordnance is awesome, let’s us it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line: harpoon Missiles don't really feature in any of the most sickeningly good squads, and are in fact one of the best tools for players trying to bring down the broken stuff.

Harpoons are one of the good guys.  Yeah they're a good guy that don't play by society's rules, yeah they're always getting called up to the commissioners office to explain the latest headlines in tomorrow's papers, but they sure as Sam Hill get results and make the streets a little safer at night for all of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

P.P.S.  why the **** hasnt there been a new Star wars dedicated flight sim since the 90s? wtf

Many of us are wondering exactly the same thing.  X-Wing, TIE Fighter and X-Wing Alliance are available on GOG and Steam (I'm halfway through X-Wing Alliance right now), but no dedicated Star Wars flight or space sims for so long is criminal.

From what I gather, the most popular part of Battlefront 2 is the space combat (unsurprising as it was developed by Criterion).

I've been saying it for a while, but if Disney really wants to print money then:

 

Elite-Dangerous-Core-Logo.png

+

latest?cb=2017090920232

=

4b4.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

The bottom line: harpoon Missiles don't really feature in any of the most sickeningly good squads, and are in fact one of the best tools for players trying to bring down the broken stuff.

Harpoons are one of the good guys.  Yeah they're a good guy that don't play by society's rules, yeah they're always getting called up to the commissioners office to explain the latest headlines in tomorrow's papers, but they sure as Sam Hill get results and make the streets a little safer at night for all of us.

I'm more inclined to agree with this post, if only for the much friendlier and more effective presentation of the argument.

IMO Harpoons, like many dominant meta-lurkers, kill off a lot of other species of list.  Many otherwise-viable fleets don't see the table anymore because of harpoons, and if you liked any of those, you may see harpoons as an enemy.  But if they're killing of invasive species that are a major threat to fun as a whole, then I can see why people would like them.

I'm not quite at the point of "any enemy of Miranda is a friend of mine", but I get it.

Though I wonder, if Harpoons are doing such a good job for the meta, should other munitions raise to their level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, another crazy question:

Currently the game is introduced with a tutorial pitting an x-wing vs (edit: two) tie fighters.  Then the game says to try adding upgrades to each ship and explore increasing the squad point cost, etc.

Given their presumably equal standing (one x-wing roughly equals two ties give or take, at least for new players), and given that T-65s are presumably getting a substantial boost, might we expect to see a TIE Fighter boost?

Or is that just crazy talk?

Edited by Wazat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wazat said:

My big concern for T-65s is, will the boost actually put them back in the meta?  Let alone keep them there for any notable period of time?

Because we've seen very ambitious, even aggressive boosts like Vaksai that still fell quite short overall.

That is the question and we’ll have to wait and see to find out. Now, I feel a little bit better about it since it has the example of pervious fixes (including the Vaksai) to have a rough gauge on power levels and with the T-65, they won’t get that big a backlash (or at least at first) if they over do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm halfway between hopeful and expectant.  I think there should be but I wonder if they'll be loathe to release yet more TIE Fighter expansions and just try to fix it through sideways nerfs like an Integrated Astromech/Lightweight Frame sort of thing.

A solid upgrade for Galactic Empire only.  TIE Fighter only.  would probably be welcomed across any ship it could apply to - TIE, Interceptor, Bomber, Punisher, Striker... they could all do with a little leg up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I don't think the T-65 is going to get a huge boost.  I think it's a lot like the Starviper MkII title in power level, making then fun to fly but not necessarily any better competitively than they already are.  The T-65s have such garbage pilot abilities, for the most part, that they'll still be pretty average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

The few things that people generally like is that Harpoons

   -**** defense stacking
   -Deal lasting damage to rebel regen cancer.

   -Make small-base ships with only a primary arc matter.

Very good popcorn points....

1 hour ago, Stay On The Leader said:

The bottom line: harpoon Missiles don't really feature in any of the most sickeningly good squads, and are in fact one of the best tools for players trying to bring down the broken stuff.

Harpoons are one of the good guys.  Yeah they're a good guy that don't play by society's rules, yeah they're always getting called up to the commissioners office to explain the latest headlines in tomorrow's papers, but they sure as Sam Hill get results and make the streets a little safer at night for all of us.

This. Maybe sadly, but in the current game: this!

1 hour ago, Wazat said:

I'm more inclined to agree with this post, if only for the much friendlier and more effective presentation of the argument.

IMO Harpoons, like many dominant meta-lurkers, kill off a lot of other species of list.  Many otherwise-viable fleets don't see the table anymore because of harpoons, and if you liked any of those, you may see harpoons as an enemy.  But if they're killing of invasive species that are a major threat to fun as a whole, then I can see why people would like them.

I'm not quite at the point of "any enemy of Miranda is a friend of mine", but I get it.

Though I wonder, if Harpoons are doing such a good job for the meta, should other munitions raise to their level?

The enemy of my enemy......... yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFG's official acrylic cluster mines are larger than the cardboard ones us peasants get.  Some worlds dice came with misprints so they looked like they had extra blanks (excellent for bomb rolls).  Spinning dials gets you a slap on the wrist.  Might as well offer premium range rulers. </salt>  >:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Wazat said:

@Kaptin Krunch: That's a pretty elitist and abrasive way to describe people who don't agree with you, or even, haven't yet agreed with you.  Yes, multiple things need to be nerfed with Harpoons, including rebel regen and other fortress builds.  But you're not going to garner much agreement with your choice of wording.  You seem more focused on insulting people than convincing them, which feels like severely underplaying your argument, even poisoning it.  That can't be your intent, can it?

And the Genius, Advanced SLAM, Jumpmaster nerfs... these happened without a total rehaul of the entire game.  They were targeted nerfs to remove specific problems.  They were not held back until the entire game could be rebalanced with them, and the resurgence of their enemies is a problem but not worth withholding the fix.  Nerfing harpoons shouldn't have to be withheld until all other potential problems can be anticipated and solved.  And saying "please nerf harpoons" doesn't mean we're all too stupid to also want nerfs to rebel regen and friends.  It just means we feel the harpoons considerably more intensely than, say, Miranda or Wookies.  Harpoons are the new enemy, and new threats can sure as **** leave people nostalgic for the problems of the past, the good old days when we were mainly worried about shield regen or fat tanks.  That... wow, that doesn't make anyone here ore elsewhere nearly as ignorant, stupid, or dismissable as you insist.

 

And another point that gets glossed over for meta discussions: Right now, if you're fielding munitions that aren't harpoons (other than tracers?), chances are you're playing casual.  Sure you can get other munitions to work (mainly Proton Torps), but not as well as harpoons.  Not even close.  The question now is, will FFG nerf harpoons, or rebalance other munitions to operate at that level, or leave the situation as it is (one objectively correct munition choice to rule them all).  My guess is Harpoons have been left alone to let gunboats have their fun, but eventually FFG will have to address them one way or another.

As for their effect on the rest of the meta, they feel at least as ugly as rebel regen and other meta evils.  Sure, you can play in a way that outplays the harpoons, "git good or get out".  But that applies to everything that dominates the meta: correctly build and fly a specific counter-play, or you're doing it wrong; get out.  That's independent of whether it's a problem worthy of a nerf.  Rather, dominant fleet designs forcing rigid counter-plays and eschewing everything else is what FFG usually targets with its nerfs.  Certainly what they should target, IMO.

 

And on that same note, I wonder if any sane buff to the T-65 can make/keep them relevant... time will tell.  People sure freaked out about the "OP" Vaksai title, but it never quite delivered.  Same concerns extend to the U-Wing... I worry that in the current meta of X-Wing, U-Wings and X-Wings themselves are just not well-suited.  Pump them with new abilities, even ones that sound OP, and there could still be something missing once they hit the table.

And yet, I still find excuses to fly Wedge and Wes in OT tournaments, so honestly, I think there's a lot of reason to hope.  Even as X-Wings have been left behind, many of us have found excuses to play them simply because of fun pilot abilities, or their iconic status.  So here's to hope!

CMs work very well paired with GC and Expertise.

HM are always a solid choice, even at 5 points. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

Harpoons gotta go. ordnance has been stupid from the beginning because chance to hit and damage are the same stat in X-wing.

this means a missile/torp is OP or worthless based on its comparison to primary attack value, and basically cant be balanced. the exception is control weapons like ion torpedos etc.

in short if a missile/torp does more damage for the points than a primary, its an auto include. less, its unplayably bad.

that isnt how it should work.  in real life dogfights ceased to exist when guidance systems became viable because the longer range missile wins 100% of the time.  star wars os WW2 combat in space, and in WW2 air to air missiles didnt exist. 

so in the current format we should either have expensive high risk/reward missiles or none at all. the game system cant accomodate cheap powerful ordnance and 2 dice primary weapons both

What is needed to combat ordnance is a counter like chaff or a jamming action that ships can use.chaff might be an extra die roll or minus to the ordnance user at different ranges, or a jamming action to limit the ability to launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, librarian101 said:

What is needed to combat ordnance is a counter like chaff or a jamming action that ships can use.chaff might be an extra die roll or minus to the ordnance user at different ranges, or a jamming action to limit the ability to launch.

I personally dislike the idea of a specific upgrade needed to counter something dominating the meta.  At that point, you either have to abandon what you otherwise would have equipped/fielded, which harms both you and the munitions player, or you don't use it, in which case you gain no benefit unless everyone else has bought in (and you can enjoy the resulting meta shift).  IMO needing a specific card to play in the meta is bad counter-play, not to mention it's selling us a problem then selling us a solution.  And that solution can be its own problem.

In a certain sense, this is what harpoons are according to the arguments above, though a lot less specific -- a direct solution to rebel regen, tank builds, etc.  It creates problems of its own in displacing those problems it solves, but people above generally regard it as better than not having it because regen and tanks are worse.  I'm still not sold on the argument that harpoons are more fun to fight than, say, Miranda, but I get the argument.

IMO I prefer to have a number of strategic options, lots of different ways to tackle the top meta.  If the counter-play is too limited, then the dominant card/fleet itself is the problem and needing a sound nerfing (ala "Genius" + Trajectory Simulator etc).  I don't want a specific anti-munitions card to be necessary to deal with munitions...  Not unless its very presence creates an interesting risk-reward for the munitions player (not a total shutdown), lowering the frequency of seeing that fleet but not removing it from the meta entirely.  Then there's potential to shake up the meta without requiring everyone to buy into the same counter-play.  Total buy-in would mean both sides abandoning what they wanted to fly instead, which makes non-casual games a chore because you fly and fight the same stuff all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2018 at 1:00 PM, Kaptin Krunch said:

This entire thread can be summed up with the below-

mmVYPsR.jpg

 

Yeah, it's a problem that fat turrets named Nym and Miranda can use Harpoons as well- If you nerf Harpoons, they still have their secondary weapon turrets, multiple bomb placement locations (EI, Traj Simulator, Genius, etc) regen, and re-positioning, and they switch immediately to Homing missiles. 

In order-

harpoons counter swarms (Which died when Deadeye got nerfed, as they preyed on Deadeye Scouts, Deadeye Scouts ate Dengaroo, and Dengaroo Ate swarms?)

tanks (AKA 'fat' ships, which is a good thing?) 

jousters (Not really- Harpoons are the jousters now. Also, with even basic range control, you can avoid any non-turret-bomber harpoon shots)

regen (Which we are all desperately asking for?)

Aces, agile ships, arc dodgers (If your Vader or Soontir eats a Harpoon and takes damage from it, you straight-up got outplayed)

low ps (Only low-PS ships that can't reposition, which were dead already?

If you are fighting against **** like 3 Nus and Quickdraw and losing to it, legitimately and unironically get good. 

Your asking for harpoons to get nerfed because some fat bombing turrets can use them is a really roundabout way to nerf fat bombing turrets. 

 

I get it, you want to have your **** like XXBB be viable and 3BQD destroys it. I'm still mourning the loss of the TIE swarm- Harpoons aren't what is keeping it down, fat turrets and bombs are. The issue is that 3BQD kills you fast when you make mistakes infront of it, while you get to flop around for 75 minutes vs Nym Miranda eating bombs and turret fire, and maybe a harpoon, and then lose a game you never had a chance at winning. I'd be on board with a harpoon nerf, but all of the cancer needs to be nerfed into oblivion as well. 

It's like Chemo- Chemo isn't fun if you have cancer, but you need it to stay alive. If harpoons go, watch the meta turn into NymMiranda and Wookiee Wonderland overnight and player counts plummet like they were before the Genius nerf. 

Ave, true to Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm super excited for the T65 stuff, simply because I want to fly X-wings. I also really love the U-wing, although I don't think Saw's pack will elevate the U-wing as much as it will the T65. Harpoons are a problem in my eyes, but the promise of some old ships come good with a slick paint job trumps that problem for me.

On the topic of Harpoons though, I think the biggest thing with Harpoon Missiles is the their cost/ease of use in comparison to all other ordnance (I actually like the mechanic). Its cost per damage is so much higher than anything else that, if you have a missile slot, it almost always needs to have a Harpoon in it. Not just ordnance either, they're more cost effective than cannons (in the case of the gunboats). They can give your aces an alpha strike for very little cost, and contrary to popular belief, I believe they're a major contributor to the rebel tank meta. Rebels have the lowest number of ships of all factions that have missile slots and therefore run the Regen/Wookiees/Fenn/Ghost&Co in order to have some counter to the inevitable and monstrous damage output of a harpoon strike. When you can't match the offense, you counter with defense. If harpoons weren't so dominant, I doubt we'd see as many of these lists, since they're universally known to be pretty boring to fly.

I think harpoons need to spend the target lock, first and foremost to re-balance its cost-efficiency, but secondly, I think FFG have got it backwards when it comes to which ordnance cards spend/do not spend target locks. I personally believe that with all the dice conversion mods available these days, the low damage extra effect ordnance like flechette torpedos should be the kind of cards that keep their target lock, and the high damage ordnance like homing missiles/proton torpedoes (and yes harpoons) should be the ones to have to spend their lock. Some of these I think FFG have got right already e.g. ion pulse missiles/proton torps, and I thought they'd turned a corner with cruise missiles. Cruise missiles are very well designed in my eyes being high risk high reward, forcing the player to choose the optimal moment to both use them, but also set the shot up. Then we got harpoons...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 12:41 PM, Wazat said:

Okay, another crazy question:

Currently the game is introduced with a tutorial pitting an x-wing vs (edit: two) tie fighters.  Then the game says to try adding upgrades to each ship and explore increasing the squad point cost, etc.

Given their presumably equal standing (one x-wing roughly equals two ties give or take, at least for new players), and given that T-65s are presumably getting a substantial boost, might we expect to see a TIE Fighter boost?

Or is that just crazy talk?

The X-wing was outclassed by the TIE fighter in efficiency right out of the gate.  If anything the X-wing fix should make core set games more balanced.

I don't mind harpoons that much.  You really have to build around them to get the cost savings (i.e. you need to hit with a harpoon on the alpha strike and then be able to reliably put a crit through on the same target during the same combat phase.  Which is why 3 attack die GC missile carriers like the scurrg and Khiraxz like them so much)  If you just run harpoons without any crit dealing ability you're as likely to take the splash damage as your opponent is.  Basically you're saving a point over homing missile but effectively giving your opponent a 2 point deadman's switch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BVRCH said:

, I doubt we'd see as many of these lists, since they're universally known to be pretty boring to fly.

 

Pretty much agree to everything you said but this. 

A boring list never seemed to ennoy "competitive" players. 

Remember the days of quad TLT Ywings? ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...