It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:00 am


"Fixing" the game

Tell the world your Dropfleet related trials and tribulations!
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Shikatanai

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:54 pm

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostWed Nov 08, 2017 11:31 pm

Lordprinceps wrote:
Shikatanai wrote:Well, the thing is that Occulus Beams / Arrays and Desintegrators are played as normal cruisers provide double the shots compared to a UCM one on WF which is a crucial parts with all those great arcs. So actually a Amber or Sphinx has roughly the same firepower as an Moscow for ~ 2/3 of the points invested. There is a reason why all those Massdriver ships are not seeing tabletime in maxed fleets while Occulus and Desintegrator ships do ;) Much more important to buff them instead of the Madrid or the Frisco imho.

Concerning the Avalon my point was that it would not be 12 shots on 4+ as you stated before but 10 on 4+ instead of the 8 that it has now. Not what I would call gamebreaking while it would help a lot of the other ships that are indeed subpar.


True, but consider what it would be be like if the mass drivers were buffed!
Functionally, the +1 attack 4200 is identical to the Toulon's gun, which as we know, is functionally identical to the Topaz's bank or the Harpy's beam, which are each worth exactly half of their bigger versions.
Thus, even just with the 4200's being buffed, the Moscow now has two main guns, and two half guns, making it exactly equivalent in overall average damage (ignoring Scald) to the Shenlong and Onyx.
If you were to buff the 6400's with +1 attack, each pair of turrets now becomes equivalent to the Beijing's 6400 battery (which becomes even more powerful, mind you); just the buffed 6400's alone on the Moscow makes it equivalent to the Shenlong and Onyx, and with (unbuffed!) 4200's it's superior. With buffed 4200's and 6400's, the Moscow would be roughly equivalent to some hypothetical ship with four pairs of unbuffed 6400's, or four occulus arrays, or four disintegrator batteries.
Considering the Rio, with both buffed 4200's and 6400's, it becomes identical in overall power to the Sphinx and stronger than the Amber.

And mind you, this doesn't even solve the problem with the San Fran, Madrid, or New York. You've functionally given the former two a Toulon gun, butyou they're still never, ever going to go weapons free to use the second gun. I personally consider it bad design if a ship can gain something from going weapons free (unlike ships like the Bellerophon or Wyvern, for example, which can use their full firepower on standard orders), but the cost of going weapons free will ALWAYS outweigh the benefits of doing so. If that is the case, then it's just best to link their weapons up (as linking 4200's would do)
For the New York, with buffed 4200's, you're basically giving it a pair of 6400 turrets on its shoulders (as 4+ lock, 3 attack, 1 damage is equivalent to 3+ lock, 2 attack, 1 damage on the average). Even though that's good, the costs of going weapons free on a battleship are even greater than they are on smaller ships, so I don't see the New York necessarily taking advantage of that either.


I really do not get what you are talking about... right now Massdrivers are never used in a maxed out fleet ever except for the free Command Card. Even if the BTLs would not be far superior (which they are) each massdriver ship is not even close being as good as it's counterparts in other factions.

I just pick one example:
The rio has 4x3+ and 4x4+... that's obviously not as good as 8x3+ (Amber) or 5x3+ for 2 - not even mentioning the better stats on the Amber in general or the higher Threatrange and Scald on the Sphinx.

Buffing it up to 5x3+ and 6x4+ means 2.11 crits and 4.22 (1.44 damage against 3+, 2.11 against 4+) hits while e.g. the Amber has 2.66 crits and 2.66 hits (0.88 against 3+ and 1.33 against 4+) Much more comparable in strength than before. If you then also take into account that the Amber has a lot of other upsides the balance question is clearly answered imho. Same goes for the other example...
Again: There is a reason for the Amber and Occulus Ships being taken in nearly all fleets while massdrivers are not ;)

I also do not see how all those ships that get additional free shots would not take advantage of it ;) they instantly do and WF gets even better. In most of the games you'll be shot anway during T4-6 (Besides that the New York example just sucks because Battleships just suck).
Offline
User avatar

Lordprinceps

  • Posts: 272
  • Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:25 pm
  • Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostThu Nov 09, 2017 12:04 am

Shikatanai wrote:I really do not get what you are talking about... right now Massdrivers are never used in a maxed out fleet ever except for the free Command Card. Even if the BTLs would not be far superior (which they are) each massdriver ship is not even close being as good as it's counterparts in other factions.

I just pick one example:
The rio has 4x3+ and 4x4+... that's obviously not as good as 8x3+ (Amber) or 5x3+ for 2 - not even mentioning the better stats on the Amber in general or the higher Threatrange and Scald on the Sphinx.

Buffing it up to 5x3+ and 6x4+ means 2.11 crits and 4.22 (1.44 damage against 3+, 2.11 against 4+) hits while e.g. the Amber has 2.66 crits and 2.66 hits (0.88 against 3+ and 1.33 against 4+) Much more comparable in strength than before. If you then also take into account that the Amber has a lot of other upsides the balance question is clearly answered imho. Same goes for the other example...
Again: There is a reason for the Amber and Occulus Ships being taken in nearly all fleets while massdrivers are not ;)

I also do not see how all those ships that get additional free shots would not take advantage of it ;) they instantly do and WF gets even better. In most of the games you'll be shot anway during T4-6 (Besides that the New York example just sucks because Battleships just suck).


Oh, I do agree that Massdrivers need some buff, but a straight up increase to their attack is not the way to go. Let's compare the gun cruisers and gun heavy cruisers of the UCM, Scourge, and Shaltari. (for reference, Rio+ and Moscow+ refer to the ships with your proposed changes; +1 attack per turret on the 4200's, and +1 attack per turret for the 6400's (so with an total of attack 6 for the Rio's 6400's). Additionally, I'm not going to include scald in the calculations since it's actually a rather minimal (but not negligible) benefit.

Standard orders:
Rio: 2x 6400's: 2.000 [average damage]
Moscow: 2x 6400's: 2.000
Rio+: 2x 6400+'s: 3.000
Moscow+: 2x 6400+'s: 3.000
Sphinx: 1x Oculus Array: 2.000
Shenlong: 1x Oculus Array: 2.000
Amber: 1x Disintegrator Battery: 2.000
Onyx: 1x Disintegrator Battery: 2.000

Weapons free:
Rio: 2x 4200's, 2x 6400's: 3.333
Moscow: 2x 4200's, 4x 6400's: 5.333
Rio+: 2x 4200+'s, 2x 6400+'s: 5.000
Moscow+: 2x 4200+'s, 4x 6400+'s: 8.000
Sphinx: 1x Oculus Beam, 2x Oculus Array: 5.000
Shenlong: 3x Oculus Array: 6.000
Amber: 2x Disintegrator Battery: 4.000
Onyx: 3x Disintegrator Battery: 6.000

As we can see, on standard orders, all the ships are identical and equivalent and can shoot in the same arcs. However, your proposed buff makes the UCM gunships stronger than their contemporaries in other races.
On weapons free, yes; the standard Rio and Moscow are less powerful than the comparable ships in the other faction, but your proposed buff goes way too far in the other direction (as we can see with the Moscow being battlecruiser tier in overall firepower).
A more subtle buff to the 6400's (not sure what exactly) would be far more appropriate, in my opinion.

However, as for the 4200's, I don't think they really should be buffed at all (save for them being linked); besides possibly making the Avalon too powerful, it still doesn't solve the problem with the San Fran or Madrid (possibly the New York, but only just barely if it does). I don't know how you play, but personally, I would never, ever go weapons free with objective-critical ships like the San Fran and the Madrid if it meant I'd only be getting a single extra Toulon's worth of firepower for it.
Offline

brandothecommando

  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:51 pm

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostThu Nov 09, 2017 5:02 am

I am glad to see this has sparked some conversation. Still no fixes that are decided upon (shocker), but good to see discussion at least.

Also nice to see that most of the (vocal) community agree that some fixes would be nice and that they tend to have same viewpoint on which items need fixing.

As far as the UCM mass drivers go, I'm guessing that they must have experimented with the dorsal turrets being linked but then must have decided it was too good an option; the models scream that the should be linked, so they must have considered it, no? I honestly don't think another shot for ALL mass drivers will fix anything. I also don't want to add a bunch of special rules to make certain ships better. The balance is fairly good, I think the UCM just needs a minor tweak in points and/or existing items to really make some ships more viable.

The other thing that often gets forgotten about UCM ships is that they have a HUGE firing arc, especially when the go weapons free. Scourge are limited to frontal arc attacks, Shaltari can't bring all their guns to bear on side arcs (and again, pretty limited to front arc only, etc.). Same goes for when comparing BTL ships to mass driver ones; yes, the BTLs can do more damage, but they're statistically less reliable AND you need to really sacrifice flexibility to engage your target. The turreted cruisers don't always have to be pointing directly at their foe and can target a wide variety of opposition potentially.

My buddy who has been playing UCM wants to buff them stupidly...I don't want to see the UCM become a super gun heavy fleet. They're designed to be very balanced, not great at anything, but with a ton of versatility and they reward a player who can use their mediocrity at everything to minimize the enemies strengths and capitalize on their weaknesses.
Offline

Shikatanai

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:54 pm

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostThu Nov 09, 2017 8:22 am

Lordprinceps wrote:Oh, I do agree that Massdrivers need some buff, but a straight up increase to their attack is not the way to go. Let's compare the gun cruisers and gun heavy cruisers of the UCM, Scourge, and Shaltari. (for reference, Rio+ and Moscow+ refer to the ships with your proposed changes; +1 attack per turret on the 4200's, and +1 attack per turret for the 6400's (so with an total of attack 6 for the Rio's 6400's). Additionally, I'm not going to include scald in the calculations since it's actually a rather minimal (but not negligible) benefit.

Standard orders:
Rio: 2x 6400's: 2.000 [average damage]
Moscow: 2x 6400's: 2.000
Rio+: 2x 6400+'s: 3.000
Moscow+: 2x 6400+'s: 3.000
Sphinx: 1x Oculus Array: 2.000
Shenlong: 1x Oculus Array: 2.000
Amber: 1x Disintegrator Battery: 2.000
Onyx: 1x Disintegrator Battery: 2.000

Weapons free:
Rio: 2x 4200's, 2x 6400's: 3.333
Moscow: 2x 4200's, 4x 6400's: 5.333
Rio+: 2x 4200+'s, 2x 6400+'s: 5.000
Moscow+: 2x 4200+'s, 4x 6400+'s: 8.000
Sphinx: 1x Oculus Beam, 2x Oculus Array: 5.000
Shenlong: 3x Oculus Array: 6.000
Amber: 2x Disintegrator Battery: 4.000
Onyx: 3x Disintegrator Battery: 6.000

As we can see, on standard orders, all the ships are identical and equivalent and can shoot in the same arcs. However, your proposed buff makes the UCM gunships stronger than their contemporaries in other races.
On weapons free, yes; the standard Rio and Moscow are less powerful than the comparable ships in the other faction, but your proposed buff goes way too far in the other direction (as we can see with the Moscow being battlecruiser tier in overall firepower).
A more subtle buff to the 6400's (not sure what exactly) would be far more appropriate, in my opinion.

However, as for the 4200's, I don't think they really should be buffed at all (save for them being linked); besides possibly making the Avalon too powerful, it still doesn't solve the problem with the San Fran or Madrid (possibly the New York, but only just barely if it does). I don't know how you play, but personally, I would never, ever go weapons free with objective-critical ships like the San Fran and the Madrid if it meant I'd only be getting a single extra Toulon's worth of firepower for it.


Can you please provide the math behind that with including which armor rolls you took into account? Average damage depends a lot on which ships you are shooting, especially when you include 3+ and 4+ weaponry (as stated above the Amber on WF is doing 3.54 average damage against 3+ saves while the Rio would do 3.55 (Pretty even I'd guess? ;)) against 4+ it shifts a little bit towards the Rio with 4.22 against 3.99 - still average out around 4. How do you get an average of 4 for a WF Amber and an average of 5 for the Rio? Not taking into account which Armor saves are coming in is pretty useless when comparing Weapons with different locks

On Standard Order it is 1.3 crits and 1.3 hits on the Amber and 1.6 crits and 1.6 hits on the Rio. Equal ~2 damage against 4+ / 1.7 against 3+ for the Amber and 2.4 against 4+, 2.1 against 3+ against the Amber. Again I do not see why this would be a problem, especially when taken into account that Amber and Sphinx have other upsides that are way more important than the only upside on the Rios side (3+ armor).

You also need to take into account that Ambers and Sphinxes are basicly always going to WF when they are in range (if played well) - that's the whole purpose of those ships (and they even do it better than the Rio because of their better threatranges). So I'm pretty fine with buffing the UCM ships on Standard Orders a little bit. Still would take an Amber over the Rio everytime... just comparing weapons on their own is not enough as the other abilites of those ships factor in to a huge extend.

Again I don't see why 2 additional shots would be gamebreaking for the avalon ;) 0.5 additional damage against a 4+ ship on WF...
Linking the Weapons on the Frisco the Madrid or the New York won't change anything to those ships. The Madrid is still pretty much dead in competitive game while the Frisco is played anyway... but 0.5 more damage against 4+ is definetly not why I take another Frisco... I already stated that the New York is like nearly all Battleships a flaw in design - you really think that would make it viable?
And the most important thing: Linking those turrets does not change anything for all those massdriver ships that are pretty much never seen in any competitive List (Moscow, Rio, Osaka) and also does not increase the interest in WF orders on e.g. the Berlin.
Offline

Shikatanai

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:54 pm

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostThu Nov 09, 2017 8:31 am

brandothecommando wrote:
The other thing that often gets forgotten about UCM ships is that they have a HUGE firing arc, especially when the go weapons free. Scourge are limited to frontal arc attacks, Shaltari can't bring all their guns to bear on side arcs (and again, pretty limited to front arc only, etc.). Same goes for when comparing BTL ships to mass driver ones; yes, the BTLs can do more damage, but they're statistically less reliable AND you need to really sacrifice flexibility to engage your target. The turreted cruisers don't always have to be pointing directly at their foe and can target a wide variety of opposition potentially.


The Fireing Arc argument (which I used a lot when this game was quite new) is just not valid in my opinion if you have some feeling for the game. If you plan ahead a little bit there won't be much of a problem getting the ship you want into your F arc and especially Shaltari and Scourge groups to not care about splitting fire anyway in a lot of situations as they have huge firepower.
Concerning BTLs: That's true for bringing small amounts of BTLs but if you spam them (which you obviously should do when bringing in a maxed out list) factors that out pretty nice and they still do more damage on average than a Massdriver (and crit much more which is crucial). The F(N) also is not that big of a problem. On long ranges with scans you won't having problems and in general you are completely free in your orders because you do not have to go WF - there is only a very limited area where you cannot be fired from a BTL.
Right now there is no place for Massdriver based ships when wanting to get the best out of the points...
Offline
User avatar

Lordprinceps

  • Posts: 272
  • Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:25 pm
  • Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostThu Nov 09, 2017 1:53 pm

Shikatanai wrote:Can you please provide the math behind that with including which armor rolls you took into account? Average damage depends a lot on which ships you are shooting, especially when you include 3+ and 4+ weaponry (as stated above the Amber on WF is doing 3.54 average damage against 3+ saves while the Rio would do 3.55 (Pretty even I'd guess? ;)) against 4+ it shifts a little bit towards the Rio with 4.22 against 3.99 - still average out around 4. How do you get an average of 4 for a WF Amber and an average of 5 for the Rio? Not taking into account which Armor saves are coming in is pretty useless when comparing Weapons with different locks

As stated, all those calculations are for 4+ armor. This is because that while, yes, there is non-negligible variance in the mean damage versus different armor, it's less than a +/- 17% difference from the damage done against 4+ armor. More importantly, however, is that the mean damage against the varying armors is identical across these main weapons. The Oculus array does the same mean damage against 3+ armor (excluding scald) as the twin 6400's do, and the 6400's and disintegrators are literally identical in terms of weapon stats.
As for the actual math, I use this for the probability: http://anydice.com/
However, if you just want the average damage of a basic gun in the game, its mean damage is determined by: [number of attacks] * [damage per attack] * ([probability of hitting and critting] + ([probability of hitting but not critting] *[probability of armor save failing]))
Now, for the issue of different locks against different armors, it's actually not as much of an issue as you think! For every lock except 6+, there is always a 1/3 probability of hitting but not critting, but there is otherwise a continuous improvement of the chance to hit and crit by multiples of 1/6 for every step of improved lock, starting at 0 * 1/6 at 5+ lock. What this means is that there's more variation in mean damage against differing armor as you have worse lock, but it's not a significant jump which allows for comparison between weapons with adjacent lock values.
As for the Rio having 5 damage, it doesn't. The Rio has 3.333 average damage. What does have 5.000 damage on weapons free is the Rio+, which as stated, is the Rio with your changes applied to it.

Shikatanai wrote:On Standard Order it is 1.3 crits and 1.3 hits on the Amber and 1.6 crits and 1.6 hits on the Rio. Equal ~2 damage against 4+ / 1.7 against 3+ for the Amber and 2.4 against 4+, 2.1 against 3+ against the Amber. Again I do not see why this would be a problem, especially when taken into account that Amber and Sphinx have other upsides that are way more important than the only upside on the Rios side (3+ armor).

The problem is that now the UCM are straight up outperforming literally every other faction when it comes to standard orders, when they're not and never have been the "extreme firepower" faction; that does and should remain with the Scourge and PHR.

Shikatanai wrote:You also need to take into account that Ambers and Sphinxes are basicly always going to WF when they are in range (if played well) - that's the whole purpose of those ships (and they even do it better than the Rio because of their better threatranges). So I'm pretty fine with buffing the UCM ships on Standard Orders a little bit. Still would take an Amber over the Rio everytime... just comparing weapons on their own is not enough as the other abilites of those ships factor in to a huge extend.

Correct, and with the buffs proposed, so would Rio's and Moscow's, except even moreso because they're straight up -better- than their comparable cousins in the other factions. Also, if we're talking about other abilities, it's important to note that no faction really gets the same level of synergy that the UCM does. A few Limas effectively equalizes the bonus to scan that Shaltari ships get, and likewise so they help neutralize the increased speed of the Scourge ships (by letting the UCM start shooting first)

Shikatanai wrote:Again I don't see why 2 additional shots would be gamebreaking for the avalon ;) 0.5 additional damage against a 4+ ship on WF...
Linking the Weapons on the Frisco the Madrid or the New York won't change anything to those ships. The Madrid is still pretty much dead in competitive game while the Frisco is played anyway... but 0.5 more damage against 4+ is definetly not why I take another Frisco... I already stated that the New York is like nearly all Battleships a flaw in design - you really think that would make it viable?
And the most important thing: Linking those turrets does not change anything for all those massdriver ships that are pretty much never seen in any competitive List (Moscow, Rio, Osaka) and also does not increase the interest in WF orders on e.g. the Berlin.

It wouldn't just be 2 additional shots, it's have to be 4 additional shots. +1 for each and every turret, since the single turret 4200's would get +1 attack.
The point isn't to make the Madrid or SanFran into hypercompetitive combat ships, but rather to just allow them to use their full firepower without having to go weapons free (which they never would, anyways), possibly at a reduced price. Changing it so that they've got a Toulon sitting on each shoulder, with one of those locked away behind weapons free, is not going to make them any more viable.
As for the New York; it would certainly help. 8 4+ attacks on standard orders is functionally the same as an entire PHR medium broadside, and with some reduction in points the New York might approach being useful. But it certainly needs an improved torpedo as well.
As for it not improving the gun ships or making the beam ships any better on weapons free; you're right, it doesn't, which is one of the main benefits I listed of the change early on. It provides utility in fringe cases, such as something being in a beam-ships front-arc after turning but not their narrow-arc after turning, or where UCM ships have two separate targets (such as straggling frigates on one hull) that would be more efficiently killed by two 4200 turrets. The change only improvies the Madrid, San Fran, and New York, without giving too much additional firepower (if any at all) to the rest of the ships.
The problem with the UCM gun ships should be solved by modifying the 6400's, not the 4200's.
Offline

Shikatanai

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:54 pm

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostThu Nov 09, 2017 10:46 pm

Lordprinceps wrote:
Shikatanai wrote:Can you please provide the math behind that with including which armor rolls you took into account? Average damage depends a lot on which ships you are shooting, especially when you include 3+ and 4+ weaponry (as stated above the Amber on WF is doing 3.54 average damage against 3+ saves while the Rio would do 3.55 (Pretty even I'd guess? ;)) against 4+ it shifts a little bit towards the Rio with 4.22 against 3.99 - still average out around 4. How do you get an average of 4 for a WF Amber and an average of 5 for the Rio? Not taking into account which Armor saves are coming in is pretty useless when comparing Weapons with different locks

As stated, all those calculations are for 4+ armor. This is because that while, yes, there is non-negligible variance in the mean damage versus different armor, it's less than a +/- 17% difference from the damage done against 4+ armor. More importantly, however, is that the mean damage against the varying armors is identical across these main weapons. The Oculus array does the same mean damage against 3+ armor (excluding scald) as the twin 6400's do, and the 6400's and disintegrators are literally identical in terms of weapon stats.
As for the actual math, I use this for the probability: http://anydice.com/
However, if you just want the average damage of a basic gun in the game, its mean damage is determined by: [number of attacks] * [damage per attack] * ([probability of hitting and critting] + ([probability of hitting but not critting] *[probability of armor save failing]))
Now, for the issue of different locks against different armors, it's actually not as much of an issue as you think! For every lock except 6+, there is always a 1/3 probability of hitting but not critting, but there is otherwise a continuous improvement of the chance to hit and crit by multiples of 1/6 for every step of improved lock, starting at 0 * 1/6 at 5+ lock. What this means is that there's more variation in mean damage against differing armor as you have worse lock, but it's not a significant jump which allows for comparison between weapons with adjacent lock values.
As for the Rio having 5 damage, it doesn't. The Rio has 3.333 average damage. What does have 5.000 damage on weapons free is the Rio+, which as stated, is the Rio with your changes applied to it.

Shikatanai wrote:On Standard Order it is 1.3 crits and 1.3 hits on the Amber and 1.6 crits and 1.6 hits on the Rio. Equal ~2 damage against 4+ / 1.7 against 3+ for the Amber and 2.4 against 4+, 2.1 against 3+ against the Amber. Again I do not see why this would be a problem, especially when taken into account that Amber and Sphinx have other upsides that are way more important than the only upside on the Rios side (3+ armor).

The problem is that now the UCM are straight up outperforming literally every other faction when it comes to standard orders, when they're not and never have been the "extreme firepower" faction; that does and should remain with the Scourge and PHR.

Shikatanai wrote:You also need to take into account that Ambers and Sphinxes are basicly always going to WF when they are in range (if played well) - that's the whole purpose of those ships (and they even do it better than the Rio because of their better threatranges). So I'm pretty fine with buffing the UCM ships on Standard Orders a little bit. Still would take an Amber over the Rio everytime... just comparing weapons on their own is not enough as the other abilites of those ships factor in to a huge extend.

Correct, and with the buffs proposed, so would Rio's and Moscow's, except even moreso because they're straight up -better- than their comparable cousins in the other factions. Also, if we're talking about other abilities, it's important to note that no faction really gets the same level of synergy that the UCM does. A few Limas effectively equalizes the bonus to scan that Shaltari ships get, and likewise so they help neutralize the increased speed of the Scourge ships (by letting the UCM start shooting first)

Shikatanai wrote:Again I don't see why 2 additional shots would be gamebreaking for the avalon ;) 0.5 additional damage against a 4+ ship on WF...
Linking the Weapons on the Frisco the Madrid or the New York won't change anything to those ships. The Madrid is still pretty much dead in competitive game while the Frisco is played anyway... but 0.5 more damage against 4+ is definetly not why I take another Frisco... I already stated that the New York is like nearly all Battleships a flaw in design - you really think that would make it viable?
And the most important thing: Linking those turrets does not change anything for all those massdriver ships that are pretty much never seen in any competitive List (Moscow, Rio, Osaka) and also does not increase the interest in WF orders on e.g. the Berlin.

It wouldn't just be 2 additional shots, it's have to be 4 additional shots. +1 for each and every turret, since the single turret 4200's would get +1 attack.
The point isn't to make the Madrid or SanFran into hypercompetitive combat ships, but rather to just allow them to use their full firepower without having to go weapons free (which they never would, anyways), possibly at a reduced price. Changing it so that they've got a Toulon sitting on each shoulder, with one of those locked away behind weapons free, is not going to make them any more viable.
As for the New York; it would certainly help. 8 4+ attacks on standard orders is functionally the same as an entire PHR medium broadside, and with some reduction in points the New York might approach being useful. But it certainly needs an improved torpedo as well.
As for it not improving the gun ships or making the beam ships any better on weapons free; you're right, it doesn't, which is one of the main benefits I listed of the change early on. It provides utility in fringe cases, such as something being in a beam-ships front-arc after turning but not their narrow-arc after turning, or where UCM ships have two separate targets (such as straggling frigates on one hull) that would be more efficiently killed by two 4200 turrets. The change only improvies the Madrid, San Fran, and New York, without giving too much additional firepower (if any at all) to the rest of the ships.
The problem with the UCM gun ships should be solved by modifying the 6400's, not the 4200's.


Well I think I made my point pretty clear why I don't think it is gamebreaking. Imho the difference is not as signifcant that it would be OP while you continously ignore that other factions cruisers are already in an advantage due to their design and also other faction specific rules. Furthermore doing math only against 4+ is rather odd as it really comes down against which faction you'll play.
This is very much backed up by basicly all tournament based lists that heavily rely on BTLs and Massdrivers are just subpar while Occulus and Desintegerators are pretty much set as a standard.
Again I'd still prefer an Amber over a Rio or an Onyx over a Moscow because they are still better!!! And I'm saying this playing mainly Shaltari, Scourge and PHR... Could it be that you are little bit biased or are you just underestimating all those benefits that Shaltari ships (and to a certain degree also Scourge ships) have in comparison to UCM?!

Concerning the Avalon: It would be 2 Additional shots and not 4 as the avalon has 2 massdriver weaponprofiles. I'd give every Massdriver entry one more shot. Easy as that. (and don't come up with the WYSIWYG stuff again please - won't discuss this).

Concerning the Madrid the Frisco and the New York: So you want a change that won't make those ships viable? Why bother than? Btw 8 shots on the New York will still be useless as it will burn to ashes before it does anything usefull with it ;)

Will be my last post on this topic as we are running in circles and I personally do not see any valid point why +1 on all massdrivers would be OP.
Offline
User avatar

Lordprinceps

  • Posts: 272
  • Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:25 pm
  • Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostFri Nov 10, 2017 12:35 am

Shikatanai wrote:Well I think I made my point pretty clear why I don't think it is gamebreaking. Imho the difference is not as signifcant that it would be OP while you continously ignore that other factions cruisers are already in an advantage due to their design and also other faction specific rules. Furthermore doing math only against 4+ is rather odd as it really comes down against which faction you'll play.
This is very much backed up by basicly all tournament based lists that heavily rely on BTLs and Massdrivers are just subpar while Occulus and Desintegerators are pretty much set as a standard.
Again I'd still prefer an Amber over a Rio or an Onyx over a Moscow because they are still better!!! And I'm saying this playing mainly Shaltari, Scourge and PHR... Could it be that you are little bit biased or are you just underestimating all those benefits that Shaltari ships (and to a certain degree also Scourge ships) have in comparison to UCM?!

But I'm not denying that the other factions cruisers are better; they ARE better, but as I said, the proposed change goes too far in the other direction.
I'm not saying that the Gun ships are good as they are, but only that extra attacks aren't the way to go (from primarily a balance perspective); I know that beam ships are strong and the mainstay of the UCM.
As for why 4+, just because it's the average armor value across all ships. I -could- post the stats against each armor, but it just needlessly takes up space for little extra benefit.
As for being biased or underestimating, I play UCM! :lol:
Believe me, I want mass drivers to be as viable as beams, but I strongly disagree with just flat out giving them extra attacks; +1 attack for each 6400 (6 attacks total) does way too much, and just +1 attack per profile (5 attacks total) -still- does too much. I'd be happy to discuss alternatives, but I just dislike increasing standard attacks from both a numbers, and yes, model perspective.

Shikatanai wrote:Concerning the Avalon: It would be 2 Additional shots and not 4 as the avalon has 2 massdriver weaponprofiles. I'd give every Massdriver entry one more shot. Easy as that. (and don't come up with the WYSIWYG stuff again please - won't discuss this).

Even ignoring WYSIWYG, it still needlessly buffs the Avalon (which like all beam ships, actually does have some use for its side turrets) while still not doing enough to make the New York even close to viable.

Shikatanai wrote:Concerning the Madrid the Frisco and the New York: So you want a change that won't make those ships viable? Why bother than? Btw 8 shots on the New York will still be useless as it will burn to ashes before it does anything usefull with it ;)

Sorry, I mispoke. When I said "viable", I mean viable as in "combat viable", something that could actually hold its own against something like 2 or 3 frigates. It shouldn't be a mini assault troopship, and even with bumping them up to 3 attacks each, they still wouldn't be combat viable. Linking their turrets doesn't make them mini Orpheii or anything, but it still allows them to contribute with their full firepower (however marginal), and even ends up being -more- firepower than just +1 attack per turret. Even with 3 attack per turret, they'd still have no reason to ever go weapons free unless you're absolutely desperate for a single extra Toulon's worth of guns, and they'd end up being worse off than if you had just linked them.
As for the New York, fair point! There's a few more things that could be done to fix it (not the least among them just making torpedoes longer ranged), but actually allowing it to use its full (meager) firepower rather than restricting it behind weapons free, which it will never, ever do even if you did give each profile +1 attack or +2 attacks or whatever, is also another good step.

Shikatanai wrote:Will be my last post on this topic as we are running in circles and I personally do not see any valid point why +1 on all massdrivers would be OP.

I posted the numbers, man, and even with a weaker version of your proposal (just a flat +1 attack to every profile, regardless of number of turrets) it doesn't work out.
Standard Orders
Rio+: 2.50 [average damage]
Moscow+: 2.50

Weapons Free
Rio+: 4.50
Moscow+: 7.00

They still end up being better than every other ship on standard orders, AND better than every other comparable ship on WF. With the exception of the Sphinx, of course.
The ultimate goal here is to make it such that the UCM are equivalent to other factions on both standard orders and WF, or pretty close to it, as their better armor and arcs is their special compared with Scourge speed and scald, and Shaltari sig and scan

As far as standard orders go, the UCM are fine. Where they struggle is on WF.
As of now, on WF, the UCM put out the least overall damage, but do have the benefit of being able to put almost all of their firepower into their side arcs, as opposed to the Scourge and Shaltari which can only fire one gun into each side arc.
Seeing as how the Sphinx average is 5 and the Amber is 4, and both the Shenlong and the Onyx have an average of 6, the "target numbers" of the Rio and Moscow, on weapons free, should be as follows.
Rio: 4.00, possibly up to 4.50, but 4 is a good number to aim for.
Moscow: 6.00

Seeing this, it's obvious that rather than giving them a raw stat buff, something similar to fusillade or some hypothetical special that applies only on WF may be in order; if not to all mass drivers, then at least just the 6400's.
Offline
User avatar

Admiral JCJF

  • Posts: 160
  • Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:12 pm

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostFri Nov 10, 2017 2:19 am

Fusilade on some, or all, of the railguns does seem like a good potential solution.
Why would we waste words on Prey?
Offline
User avatar

Lordprinceps

  • Posts: 272
  • Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:25 pm
  • Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostFri Nov 10, 2017 2:58 am

Admiral JCJF wrote:Fusilade on some, or all, of the railguns does seem like a good potential solution.


It does sort of work, as far as the numbers are concerned (or at the very least, "close enough").
For example, with Fusillade(1) on the 6400's, we bring the Rio and Moscow up to the following on WF.

Rio: 3.83
Moscow: 6.33

So the Rio is getting there, but Moscow overshot a little bit. However, I would argue that it's within the bound of the bonus allowed by the Scourge and Shaltari strengths.

Alternately, if we go with Fusilade(2) per 2x 6400's (so effectively an extra shot per turret), we get the following:

Rio: 4.33
Moscow: 7.33

That brings the Rio in line with what we want (slightly better than the Amber, not as good as the Sphinx), but it does result in the Moscow becoming far too good (at least not without significant price increase), unless the cloak/stealth or 12" scan just counts enough to make the Moscow being so powerful that good.

Naturally, this has the added benefit of giving the Beijing (presumably) Fusillade(3) on its rack of guns, as well as giving Osakas a decent enough reason to go weapons free. Still not as much firepower than the Yokai, but it's something.

An alternate idea is one that isn't actually in the rules, but is a fine proposal in my opinion. For the sake of argument, let's just call it "Charge" or something, defined as "When using weapons free special orders, this weapon reduces its lock by 1 to a minimum of 2+", or something like that.
With this, on weapons free, we get the following values:

Rio: 4.00
Moscow: 6.66

Rio is spot on, Moscow overshoots a touch more than it would with Fusillade(1), but it does so without increasing it's overall maximum damage capacity, unlike Fusillade.

There are obviously other solutions one could think up, but I personally think this one is rather good. Fluff wise, it could be seen as the 6400's overcharging their rails, allowing for higher velocities, greater penetration, and thus being more accurate and damaging. Plus, the UCM don't really have any 2+ lock weapons anywhere in their arsenal.
PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests