Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
41 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Eclipse» Forums » General

Subject: what do you really think about plasma missiles? (poll) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
jay cutler
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmb
Poll
plasma missiles need changes?
yes, must pay at least 1 energy
yes, must be limited for each ship (max 3 missiles)
no, but I hope that the expansion offers something to combat it
no, I can counter them with shields and hulls, everything is balanced
      277 answers
Poll created by bodybuilder
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jay cutler
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmb
seeing so many threads on this subject, I'm curious to know how many people want different rules for missiles
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wim van Gruisen
Netherlands
Den Bosch
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmb
I hope that the expansion offers something to counter it, so that people stop bringing it up on these forums.
13 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jay cutler
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmb
Whymme wrote:
I hope that the expansion offers something to counter it, so that people stop bringing it up on these forums.


ok, but people who want the expansion to solve the problem, fundamentally they think that there is a problem!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sky Zero
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm STILL baffled that so many people that have played this game a dozen or so times think they know more than the designer, playtesters and publisher who put THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of hours designing this game. Grow up you overgrown crybabies. IT'S A GAME.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jay cutler
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmb
in my games, the missiles never been so overpowered, I think the most important thing is to have the shields, if you cancel the computers, even 5 missiles are not so powerful.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jonas havreglid
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think that the simplest tweak would be to remove the exception in the rules that missiles fire before other weapons. Then they would be slightly better in short battles than anti-matter cannons and cost less energy but lose out in any protacted combat. Further, cannon fleets would still damage them depending on initiative. That alternative was not in the poll so I did not vote.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelvin Lau
Hong Kong
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
this is one exactly one of the evidences for 'whiner always makes the loudest voices'
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebastian Grawan
Germany
Lehrte
Niedersachsen
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Even if PM would be overpowered (which they are not), you can always include little houserules to lessen their impact on the game (eg. 'missiles always miss on a roll of 1' or 'missiles cost 1 energy').
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Hammond
United States
League City
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rashktah wrote:
Even if PM would be overpowered (which they are not), you can always include little houserules to lessen their impact on the game (eg. 'missiles always miss on a roll of 1' or 'missiles cost 1 energy').

All attacks always miss on a roll of 1.
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jay cutler
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmb
seeing the votes received in the poll, I think that the argument "missiles" should be closed once and for all!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jay cutler
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmb
rashktah wrote:
Even if PM would be overpowered (which they are not), you can always include little houserules to lessen their impact on the game (eg. 'missiles always miss on a roll of 1' or 'missiles cost 1 energy').


why your missiles also shoot with 1?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Danny Frahm
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Interesting, more than 1/3 of people are hoping for a plasma missile change from the standard rules.

Why do people insist on shouting down and insulting people who see a problem with plasma missiles?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jay cutler
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmb
True, but only a few people would that the missiles cost energy, and even fewer people would a limit to build them into ships

would be nice if these 43 people would write what changes they would like in the expansion

I would certainly be pleased if in the topic also wrote Mr. Tahkokallio or some of his collaborators
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom P
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmb
I normally play 2 player and generally think "oh no" when plasma missiles come out regardless of who snaps it up. But I guess the challenge of trying to defend against them is fun.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Danny Frahm
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bodybuilder wrote:
True, but only a few people would that the missiles cost energy, and even fewer people would a limit to build them into ships

would be nice if these 43 people would write what changes they would like in the expansion

I would certainly be pleased if in the topic also wrote Mr. Tahkokallio or some of his collaborators


I guess that's the problem with the poll questions. No offense intended. But the third should say "yes" at the start. And a replacement for the first two could have been "yes, I use a variant".

Nitpicking aside. The missiles don't necessarily win games. They do however IMO make battle less fun and occasionally very one sided. If you never got a chance to get IH or Sheilds it can be very frustrating.

The issue with almost all variants as I see it change the dynamic and remove some of the fun of missiles. Furthermore probably don't solve the real issue of missiles anyway.

My group are playing with a point defense variant but generally there is amongst the more skilled players at the table a non-spoken gentle men's agreement that none of us need to take missiles to win. Taking missiles is kind of seen as a handicap for less skilled players.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Quirky One
msg tools
I absolutely think they need a change, but out of the twenty or so different suggestions out there to fix PM, you choose two for voting? Why not one alternative that just say, "yes, they need a change".

I would vote for that in a heartbeat.

But I guess +1 energy is better than no change at all.

And there should also be an alternative for buffing up AMC so they are an ok alternative, since military strategy over all is rather weak at the moment.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeffrey Speer
United States
Fargo
North Dakota
flag msg tools
Gravity Falls
badge
Remember, reality is an illusion, the universe is a hologram, buy gold, bye!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rashktah wrote:
Even if PM would be overpowered (which they are not), you can always include little houserules to lessen their impact on the game (eg. 'missiles always miss on a roll of 1' or 'missiles cost 1 energy').

All attacks miss on a roll of one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Hammond
United States
League City
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quirky1 wrote:

And there should also be an alternative for buffing up AMC so they are an ok alternative, since military strategy over all is rather weak at the moment.


Military strategy can get you typically a max of 16 VP (if really lucky) but lets say 12 on average + the VPs of all the worlds you conquer.

Tech maxes at 15.

Monoliths can get you 9-12 in a good game (27 is my max but that was a weird game).

I don't see that military strategy needs a boost...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Quirky One
msg tools
skyzero wrote:
I'm STILL baffled that so many people that have played this game a dozen or so times think they know more than the designer, playtesters and publisher who put THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of hours designing this game. Grow up you overgrown crybabies. IT'S A GAME.


I am still baffled that fan boys have such a supersticious belief in the game creators uber skills at everything.

With the same thinking there would never be any bugs in any software. You could never suggest that any design of anything is wrong since almost everything has been designed by professionals, been tested by professionals and gone through trials.

And still there are revisions, fixes, erratas, second editions, improved concepts and new design based on old ones all the time. What makes your favourite game designer so perfect that nothing they do can be wrong or even improved upon?

And finally, when it comes to games, there is always that little problem of personal taste...

So in the end, no one want's to improve upon a bad game, one usually tries to improve on the good ones to make them even better.

I think we should encourage this line of thought. If the game designers didn't think along these lines we would not have Eclipse to play today but be stuck with other similar games.
7 
 Thumb up
0.27
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelvin Lau
Hong Kong
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dlhammond wrote:
Quirky1 wrote:

And there should also be an alternative for buffing up AMC so they are an ok alternative, since military strategy over all is rather weak at the moment.


Military strategy can get you typically a max of 16 VP (if really lucky) but lets say 12 on average + the VPs of all the worlds you conquer.

Tech maxes at 15.

Monoliths can get you 9-12 in a good game (27 is my max but that was a weird game).

I don't see that military strategy needs a boost...

if people do not maximize vp but something else like ego, they do need a boost subjectively i could understand.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Cwik
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
After a lengthy discussion with my group of TI3 friends after playing a bunch of Eclipse sessions we came to the following conclusions about plasma missiles:

Hulls and Shields are all well and good to defend against missiles, but create no conflict zones with often boring battles based much more on luck. Also, whatever is left after a missile salvo and combat round usually is not enough to cause more damage if the missile army retreats.

Interceptors and Starbases are cheap, and when equipped with missiles often destroy much more in materials cost, making most attacks a net loss. I never mind sending suicide missile squads into combat knowing that if lucky I can gain much.

Most of the time that we play, the person who buys the plasma missiles first become the target of all other players. The game where two of our players bought plasma missiles fairly early and colluded resulted in everyone else having a miserable time.

Missiles are a broken game of Paper, Scissors, Rock, where a player with missiles can become any of the three during upgrade.

Once most players have missiles, the only thing that matters is initiative, good thing computers give initiative bonuses. It also puts certain races immediately in an advantage or disadvantage, solely based upon the possibility of someone having missiles.

The fix that we have tried and worked well: ion cannons for each ship group can fire at incoming missiles instead of enemy ships for the first round of combat.

My idea for a future expansion: ECM (electronic countermeasure) class ship or module. As a ship: Only a two square ship blueprint not allowing any weapons, shields, hulls etc. Reduces initiative value for all opposing ships by one, cumulative for multiple ECM vessels. Disables a single missile for every 2 unused energy.

As a module: Reduces a single opponent ship type's initiative by one. Adds one energy. Makes ship type un-targetable until only ships with an ECM are left.

Edit: Also, if I could generate a wormhole with that respective technology, why wouldn't I want to use that to make missiles or enemy ships go somewhere else?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Simons
United Kingdom
Royal Wootton Bassett
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Change the combat rules, keep everything else as normal:

Ships always fire in initiative order.
A ship will always fire its missiles before a ship at the same level of initiative fires cannons.
A ship will always fire its missiles even if it is eliminated.
If all ships in a sector are eliminated, the defender is the victor (ie: there is no removal of influence, or attacks on population).

Thus, the benefit of missiles is still gained (they will always get a shot at an enemy, cost zero power, only fire once in battle, pre-empt other weapons).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Kelly
United States
Longmont
Colorado
flag msg tools
Allow me to introduce myself. I am Hexachlorophene J. Goodfortune, Kidnapper-At-Large, and Devourer of Tortoises par Excellence, at your service.
badge
If you can read this, then this sentence is false.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FinalAttack wrote:
I guess that's the problem with the poll questions. No offense intended. But the third should say "yes" at the start. And a replacement for the first two could have been "yes, I use a variant".


If the third answer said "yes" at the start then I would have voted the fourth instead. I don't find that missiles need changes but I also think that some additional counters would be welcome. I don't need to hope, though; I already know that the expansion contains new and varied options for dealing with missiles.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelvin Lau
Hong Kong
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Iamsock wrote:
After a lengthy discussion with my group of TI3 friends after playing a bunch of Eclipse sessions we came to the following conclusions about plasma missiles:

Hulls and Shields are all well and good to defend against missiles, but create no conflict zones with often boring battles based much more on luck. Also, whatever is left after a missile salvo and combat round usually is not enough to cause more damage if the missile army retreats.

Interceptors and Starbases are cheap, and when equipped with missiles often destroy much more in materials cost, making most attacks a net loss. I never mind sending suicide missile squads into combat knowing that if lucky I can gain much.

Most of the time that we play, the person who buys the plasma missiles first become the target of all other players. The game where two of our players bought plasma missiles fairly early and colluded resulted in everyone else having a miserable time.

Missiles are a broken game of Paper, Scissors, Rock, where a player with missiles can become any of the three during upgrade.

Once most players have missiles, the only thing that matters is initiative, good thing computers give initiative bonuses. It also puts certain races immediately in an advantage or disadvantage, solely based upon the possibility of someone having missiles.

The fix that we have tried and worked well: ion cannons for each ship group can fire at incoming missiles instead of enemy ships for the first round of combat.

My idea for a future expansion: ECM (electronic countermeasure) class ship or module. As a ship: Only a two square ship blueprint not allowing any weapons, shields, hulls etc. Reduces initiative value for all opposing ships by one, cumulative for multiple ECM vessels. Disables a single missile for every 2 unused energy.

As a module: Reduces a single opponent ship type's initiative by one. Adds one energy. Makes ship type un-targetable until only ships with an ECM are left.

Edit: Also, if I could generate a wormhole with that respective technology, why wouldn't I want to use that to make missiles or enemy ships go somewhere else?


sir, do u now think missiles are broken, boring or both?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.