1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

You have a choice: you can arbitrarily at what people are willing to pay for ships, or you can slightly less arbitrarily decide which ship chassis must have strong enough builds to make it worth losing half points.

If you use a ship's cost, rather than it's HP, you have a much greater ability to target the ships/builds that you want to limit.

Would you like to save 34pt Wedge and QD? Shift the limit up to 35+ points, that still catches Miranda with TLT, and every other problem point-fortress (I think you could go higher than that even). It also has the added benefit of catching several other small ship point fortresses that aren't 9+HP, like Poe, Kylo and Corran. I can't tell you how many games I've won with a 1-2 HP Kylo just living and costing more than what my opponent had left.

You're also completely missing the detrimental effect it will have on all the cheap and/or generic 9+ HP ships. Most of the 9+ HP ships aren't problematic, it's just a few builds that combo several cards. It's hard to build those card combos when you have to stay under a certain points limit, or give away half points.

Quote

Neither is perfect, and I'm against half-MoV at all, but if it must be done, doing it at 9+ HP is the best way.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

9 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

No.

Git Gud.

Krayts on top.

Thanks for your informative and well thought out explanation. It really changes the way I perceive the game. Plus be sure to enlighten us more with your wonderful intelligent and thought provoking conversation and idea's.

9 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

No.

Git Gud.

Krayts on top.

Have you even listened to a Krayt podcast recently? They are constantly railing against Point Fortressing. You are hiding behind a group that you don't even listen to.

Anyways, here's the type of stuff that needs to give up half points- Anything that runs away to conserve MOV to win on time.

The half-points token is a good way to address regen, or you could instead add a note that no ship can regen more than 5 shields per game.

It can't be based purely on health, or else Kylo, poe, and Corran come out to ruin everyone's day.

It can't be based on unique/generic status alone, as Wookiees exist.

It can't be based purely on points unless the threshold is set at 24, as once again, Wookiees exist.

Honestly, I'm in favor of some variant of the last one. Half and even Third points, to ensure no ship can run away with 2 of the cheapest ship worth of MoV.

- Half points on anything that costs 24+. Third points on anything that costs 47+

- Add a Regen cap at 5 health regenerated per game per ship

47 minutes ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

Have you even listened to a Krayt podcast recently? They are constantly railing against Point Fortressing. You are hiding behind a group that you don't even listen to.

Anyways, here's the type of stuff that needs to give up half points- Anything that runs away to conserve MOV to win on time.

The half-points token is a good way to address regen, or you could instead add a note that no ship can regen more than 5 shields per game.

It can't be based purely on health, or else Kylo, poe, and Corran come out to ruin everyone's day.

It can't be based on unique/generic status alone, as Wookiees exist.

It can't be based purely on points unless the threshold is set at 24, as once again, Wookiees exist.

Honestly, I'm in favor of some variant of the last one. Half and even Third points, to ensure no ship can run away with 2 of the cheapest ship worth of MoV.

- Half points on anything that costs 24+. Third points on anything that costs 47+

- Add a Regen cap at 5 health regenerated per game per ship

Those aren't commas those are periods, indicating separation of thought processes. So I am disagreeing that half points on small ships is a bad idea, but still affirming Krayts are on top.

1 hour ago, eagletsi111 said:

Thanks for your informative and well thought out explanation. It really changes the way I perceive the game. Plus be sure to enlighten us more with your wonderful intelligent and thought provoking conversation and idea's.

This forums become a Sarlacc pit anyway, but I will say this, that this is a dogfighting game and:

Honestly I'm sick of the band-aid approach to fixing things. Because interceptors used to matter in this game. And there's no running from a true interceptor.

I wish they would just errata the original ghost title, or maybe even get rid of it, and let the phantom 1 do coordinate action.

On 2/6/2018 at 12:26 PM, Tvboy said:

TIE swarms are dead, preserving 6 points on a 2 damage card TIE Fighter isn't bringing them back to the meta. There's no good reason for allowing almost dead ~50 pt ships to preserve their full points total at the end of time. We're basically going through the Fat Han problem all over again, ships like Miranda and Kylo just have survive until time is called after everything else is dead which leads to people running away for the second half of the game.

It's such an easy fix, you'd actually make tournament scoring simpler by removing the distinction between large and small ships.

Half points shouldn't exist at all, neither on large nor small base ships. There were three problems with the old, fat turret meta. One, large bases had Engine Upgrade (EU). With EU, you could control range better so much of the time you would only have to take fire from one ship. Two, turrets exist. While you're range controlling, you can also pick away at the one or two ships that can shoot at you. Three, the aces accompanying the fat turret could practically solo most small base lists by itself.

The complaints against large base point fortresses missed the mark entirely. Overly-powerful aces, combined with large base boost AND turrets was the problem. If you remove any one of those components, the metagame wouldn't have been so egregious. FFG addressed none of it until much later with the cloaking "nerf" or Autothrusters, whichever you think really addressed the problem. They came up with this half-point, hack solution instead. It's a solution that narrows the list of playables because of how MOV works. Adding the half-point, hack solution to small base ships would just further narrow the list of playables.

They should not add to their bad policy by expanding it. They should remove it. Turrets should have always been mobile arcs but since they aren't, players should get an extra evade die if shot from out of arc. Autothrusters was a great printing. It's inadequate by itself because of the boost requirement so only a small subset of ships can address the turret problem. If everyone just got an extra evade die when shot from out of arc, it wouldn't invalidate turrets but it would be a significant boost to many ships against turrets, especially those with only two evade dice. It wouldn't narrow the list of playables; it would expand it. There would also be no awful errata to card text (the worst way to correct a mistake). There's nothing like buying a game and not knowing what it does without a corresponding text document.

53 minutes ago, AceWing said:

Half points shouldn't exist at all, neither on large nor small base ships. There were three problems with the old, fat turret meta. One, large bases had Engine Upgrade (EU). With EU, you could control range better so much of the time you would only have to take fire from one ship. Two, turrets exist. While you're range controlling, you can also pick away at the one or two ships that can shoot at you. Three, the aces accompanying the fat turret could practically solo most small base lists by itself.

The reason half points exist is because of point fortressing (which you comment on a line below). I agree that Engine Upgrade is too good for Large Base Ships. I personally think that Large Bases should be SLOWER than small bases. But large base ships with Engine Upgrade are FASTER than the fastest small base ships. That is a design flaw. ( I understand physically why large bases are 'faster' but the game should be changed to fix this fundamental flaw ). A simple fix is to make Engine Upgrade small base only (like deadeye).

53 minutes ago, AceWing said:

The complaints against large base point fortresses missed the mark entirely. Overly-powerful aces, combined with large base boost AND turrets was the problem. If you remove any one of those components, the metagame wouldn't have been so egregious. FFG addressed none of it until much later with the cloaking "nerf" or Autothrusters, whichever you think really addressed the problem. They came up with this half-point, hack solution instead. It's a solution that narrows the list of playables because of how MOV works. Adding the half-point, hack solution to small base ships would just further narrow the list of playables.

If Engine Upgrade is removed, point fotressing is still a problem. There are PLENTY of builds that do not have Engine Upgrade that still perform very well. Timewalk Asaj for instance (which doesn't have a turret either!). I also do not believe the 50pt rule for large base ships limits the play-ability of large base ships. We still see the Lamda Shuttle arguably the WORST large base ship but gets huge amounts of play for being a cheap Palp carrier.

53 minutes ago, AceWing said:

They should not add to their bad policy by expanding it. They should remove it. Turrets should have always been mobile arcs but since they aren't, players should get an extra evade die if shot from out of arc. Autothrusters was a great printing. It's inadequate by itself because of the boost requirement so only a small subset of ships can address the turret problem. If everyone just got an extra evade die when shot from out of arc, it wouldn't invalidate turrets but it would be a significant boost to many ships against turrets, especially those with only two evade dice. It wouldn't narrow the list of playables; it would expand it. There would also be no awful errata to card text (the worst way to correct a mistake). There's nothing like buying a game and not knowing what it does without a corresponding text document.

I disagree that half points on large base ships is 'bad policy'. I think its actually reasonable. I also do not think there is any problem with turrets.

I do think there is an issue with Ghost double tapping w/ TLT's and Accuracy corrector. Its essentially 4 points of auto-damage per round. But that is an isolated problem on a ship with a combo of cards. Removing Engine Upgrade will help with that issue. I also tend to think Coordinate should work with small base ships only. This will also reduce the ability of large base ships to modify their movement after their activation (which again, large base ships should be slow).

Just my opinion though.

If big bases didn't give up half MOV no-one would play small bases any more. My MOV at my last regional would have been bat **** bananas if big bases didn't bleed half their points. I gave up close to 250 points in 6 rounds of swiss because of the rule. Think about that. 4-2 with a MOV of over 1000 if half points weren't given. Big ships just are faster, higher health, and can combo up A LOT more damage that exceeds their squad value over other ships. A 60 point "Old Han" murders a 50 point Nym every time. It's not even close. Only with half points do you start having to consider win/loss conditions.

People arguing that Enginge Upgrade on large base ships seem to be forgetting about Dash and Asajj. If you were to ban Engine upgrade on large ships but then remove half points completely from the game, those ships would be broken AF. The only thing keeping them in check right now is the fact that they bleed ~25 points at the end of the match. And honestly I don't think losing Engine would hurt the Ghost and the Falcon nearly as much as taking away half-points would help them. I think a meta where a 1 hull Ghost keeps 100% of its points just by giving up Engine upgrade is a way worse situation than we have now.