Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Eclipse» Forums » Variants

Subject: Opinion about specific adjustment. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
R A
Spain
flag msg tools
mbmb
First of all, sorry for another post about this issue (whats the best "little adjustement" to PM's, only until the expansion is out). I just want to know what the most experienced players thinks about this specific adjustment, and if they consider that there is another superior solution without changing mechnics (its not my intention to start another gigantic post about the issue in general). The point is that after a lot of thinking and testing, and having read EVERY single word about it in the forums, I really think that the best solution is in the end one that mfaulk80 mentioned in one of the posts (simple and without change in mechanics involved, although maybe not the most elegant): n-1 energy for each missile upgrade. I'll try to explain why i think is it:

First of all, i want to say that i think the game is perfectly playable without any fix in the PM's, and that this is only a minor adjustement (i understand that the game is much much more than winning battles etc etc). Having said that, I only find, like many others, that there are some especific "ultracheap" ship designs which are "problematic", not the PM's by themselfs or their mechanics.

I think that this specific solution work best because it only nerf that problematic designs, without changing rules or combat mechanics. One of the advantage over the classical 1 cost per missile is that it doesn't touch at all interceptors, and it touches much less 2 missiles ships, which in my opinion are not the designs which are problematic at all.

For cruisers, and in general 3 missiles combinations, the main feature is that it stills nerfs a bit the 3 missiles + gluon computer combination, which is one of the most problematic cruiser designs (not much, just that now you need at least fussion source to build it..). For starbases, now they "only" can have 3 missiles + gluon, instead the ridiculous cheap 4 missiles + gluon.

And for Dreads, it just limits the most abusive combinations better than the 1 fixed cost (almost anything that involves >4 missiles + 1 or 2 gluons.., with the 1 fixed cost, 5 missiles + gluon or specially 4 missiles + 2 gluons (only with fussion source!!) were still a bit too strong). However, builds as powerfull as 3 missiles + 2 gluons or 4 missiles + gluon are still perfectly possible, even without tachyon source.

So in conclusion, what problems do you see in this especific fix if any? It has been working so incridibly fine in our group (adjusting only that designs that were a bit problematic) that i almost think we are doing something wrong(i also have read the lofung_hk post which implies that this could benefit hydran a bit..even if i could admit it, i think its almost negligible). So i'm all ears.

Thanks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Hammond
United States
League City
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If it works for you, there are a ton of "suggested" fixes but I have 44 games played and have never felt PMs were overpowered. The fixes are in the game-play, better use of actions/resources, creating defensible space and not being easy pickings.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelvin Lau
Hong Kong
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
evilK wrote:
First of all, sorry for another post about this issue (whats the best "little adjustement" to PM's, only until the expansion is out). I just want to know what the most experienced players thinks about this specific adjustment, and if they consider that there is another superior solution without changing mechnics (its not my intention to start another gigantic post about the issue in general). The point is that after a lot of thinking and testing, and having read EVERY single word about it in the forums, I really think that the best solution is in the end one that mfaulk80 mentioned in one of the posts (simple and without change in mechanics involved, although maybe not the most elegant): (n-1) energy cost per missile. I'll try to explain why i think is it:

First of all, i want to say that i think the game is perfectly playable without any fix in the PM's, and that this is only a minor adjustement (i understand that the game is much much more than winning battles etc etc). Having said that, I only find, like many others, that there are some especific "ultracheap" ship designs which are "problematic", not the PM's by themselfs or their mechanics.

I think that this specific solution work best because it only nerf that problematic designs, without changing rules or combat mechanics. One of the advantage over the classical 1 cost per missile is that it doesn't touch at all interceptors, and it touches much less 2 missiles ships, which in my opinion are not the designs which are problematic at all.

For cruisers, and in general 3 missiles combinations, the main feature is that it stills nerfs a bit the 3 missiles + gluon computer combination, which is one of the most problematic cruiser designs (not much, just that now you need at least fussion source to build it..). For starbases, now they "only" can have 3 missiles + gluon, instead the ridiculous cheap 4 missiles + gluon.

And for Dreads, it just limits the most abusive combinations better than the 1 fixed cost (almost anything that involves >4 missiles + 1 or 2 gluons.., with the 1 fixed cost, 5 missiles + gluon or specially 4 missiles + 2 gluons (only with fussion source!!) were still a bit too strong). However, builds as powerfull as 3 missiles + 2 gluons or 4 missiles + gluon are still perfectly possible, even without tachyon source.

So in conclusion, what problems do you see in this especific fix if any? It has been working so incridibly fine in our group (adjusting only that designs that were a bit problematic) that i almost think we are doing something wrong(i also have read the lofung_hk post which implies that this could benefit hydran a bit..even if i could admit it, i think its almost negligible). So i'm all ears.

Thanks.


this is the same for applying a power requirement in missiles. i do not understand the wording. should it be n-1 for each part of missiles or n-1 for each die of missile. never mind. this result is the same: buffing all science races and improved hulls causing the game imbalanced.

and if the game is perfectly playable without the fix, i dun understand why u dun do that. u just do not realize the so-called hidden cost behind missiles.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R A
Spain
flag msg tools
mbmb
Yeah you are right about the wording, i'll edit it.

And about possible imbalances, i think that you may be overestimating the buff to science, now is harder to defend with missiles due to the no possibility of4 missiles + comp starbases(one of the most problematic designs designs if not the most problematic one,its just too efficient for defense miles ahead of any other possibility ), and although attacking with missiles is also a bit harder, defending with them gets more nerf.

And about IH, i think that they remains more or less the same, cause the tech that really gets more useful is shields, as you cant now negate them against missiles with the classic move of changing the comps for more missiles...

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelvin Lau
Hong Kong
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
evilK wrote:
Yeah you are right about the wording, i'll edit it.

And about possible imbalances, i think that you may be overestimating the buff to science, now is harder to defend with missiles due to the no possibility of4 missiles + comp starbases(one of the most problematic designs designs if not the most problematic one,its just too efficient for defense miles ahead of any other possibility ), and although attacking with missiles is also a bit harder, defending with them gets more nerf.

And about IH, i think that they remains more or less the same, cause the tech that really gets more useful is shields, as you cant now negate them against missiles with the classic move of changing the comps for more missiles...


the missile starbase is never a problem. lure him to build it. then attack somewhere else. do it until he runs out of starbases. if he builds 3 of them at the same time then it is gg. if he builds one by one he loses in terms of action. if you have a problem opening frontlines do wormhole generator. if he can do missiles + comp, do not tell me that u cannot do the generator.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mathue Faulkner
United States
Austin
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I hate to comment too much on this since it was technically my idea.

First of all, I don't play with a variant and that idea was just generated from discussion on these forums (and I don't think one is needed). I think it is a relatively minor adjustment on smaller PM fleets, but obviously it affects larger (in terms of PM/ship) fleets quite a bit more.

I honestly think that it's a small enough of a change that I don't agree with the idea that it imbalances the game in favor of the Hydrans. That's an over exaggeration imo. I would be interested, however, in seeing how it affects those races that start with an extra source on their ships. If your group is the only one playing with the variant, however, then any other discussion on the topic is completely theoretical.

Another idea that I had on PMs (why do I bother coming up with variants to something I don't have an issue with??) is to only allow one PM to be placed per upgrade action (per ship perhaps). Again, this increases the amount of effort needed to place PMs, but it doesn't disallow larger fleets. 1-2 PMs are not affected as much with this variant, but it becomes expensive in terms of actions to place 3+ PMs (but far from impossible)...
1 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R A
Spain
flag msg tools
mbmb

I don't think it benefits hydran neither. I though at first that it could benefit to orion due to the extra sources, but in the end, the most extreme missiles designes are enough difficult to orion to get in comparison to the other races, so it works fine.

About the "balance" issue, i think the game is more or less balance with PM untouched, but it's just not less balanced with this specific variant, and the game is more interesting without the most extreme pm designs out (because that's the only thing this variant do, make harder to build only the most extreme PM desings).

thanks for your opinions anyways, its good to disagree politely.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.