Peter,

Not going to debate the front shields.

If you want to compare to the shark, add 20% to the power cost of it's disruptors and take 30% off of the damage of it's phasers. Tell me then if the power curve should be exactly the same.

Not saying it doesn't need to come down, but just saying that the apples:apples comparison doesn't hold. Still advocating waiting till it's played more.

Mike

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, October 25, 2013 - 01:00 pm: Edit

Mike wrote:
>>If you want to compare to the shark, add 20% to the power cost of it's disruptors and take 30% off of the damage of it's phasers. Tell me then if the power curve should be exactly the same. >>

I'm not saying it is exactly the same. But it is reasonably close.

And yes, the TGs take more total power, but the ability to front or rear load then tends to give the ship vastly more flexible power options while still having a significant punch.

The Shark, for example, can't spend 4 total power on disruptors on an attack run and still be able to do 40 damage with them consistently.

Just n the name of tournament standards (which tends to be 38 power for a MC1 ship; see: pretty much every TC there is), it seems like the prudent thing to do is give it 38 power until it indicates that it isn't good with 38 power rather than the other way around.

By Michael Kenyon (Mikek) on Friday, October 25, 2013 - 03:38 pm: Edit

Ummmm ... I don't have the charts in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that 1 power TGs don't hit 10 damage, even at R1.

If you're looking at it from a two-turn perspective (4+1 load), that's 40 damage over two turns at R1, and yes, the Shark can do that easily, just load half it's weapons and attack twice.

If you're going to the position that all ships should have identical power curves, you really need to talk about the 20 spare power on the AuxBC, the two extra warp on the Seltie, etc.

Claim it as a "standard" if you like, but there's enough exceptions to the "standard" that it's not particularly standard in my mind.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, October 25, 2013 - 04:18 pm: Edit

That's what Peter is saying, you can store power on a rearm turn so you can have a high power curve when you go in on your attack run... if you can get past that rearm turn without getting mangled.

And no, the Shark cannot do 40 points of damage on a turn with disruptors AND arm them for 1 point each on that turn (if it put 20 to disruptors and didn't fire them on the previous turn, which isn't something you can do with disruptors).

I'm not sure you understand tournament tactics very well...

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, October 25, 2013 - 04:50 pm: Edit

Mike wrote:
>>Ummmm ... I don't have the charts in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that 1 power TGs don't hit 10 damage, even at R1.>>

You can't arm TGs for 1 power. You can front load the arming (5+1) or back load the arming (1+5), so that you are arming your guns with enough power to do a lot of damage while having to only spend 1 point of power on the turn when you want to only spend 1 point of power.

>>If you're looking at it from a two-turn perspective (4+1 load), that's 40 damage over two turns at R1, and yes, the Shark can do that easily, just load half it's weapons and attack twice.>>

Well, no, it can't while spending 1 power per torp. A shark can have empty guns (and do nothing) or have power in guns (which is a lot of power). There will never be a situation where a shark is spending a total of 4 power on a given turn for disruptors and shooting someone for 40 damage. The Maesron can easily be in a situation where it is going to have allocated 1 power to each of its guns and still be able to shoot for 10+ per gun (T1: spend 5 points per gun/T2: spend 1 point per gun or vice versa).

>>If you're going to the position that all ships should have identical power curves, you really need to talk about the 20 spare power on the AuxBC, the two extra warp on the Seltie, etc.>>

I'm not going to the position that all ships should have identical power curves. But given that 38 power is the mode amount of power for a MC1 TC (see: Fed, Rom, Rom, Kzinti, Gorn, Shark, ISC), unless there is a compelling reason for the ship to have 40 power, it should probably have 38. There is no way to tell if it works fine with 38 power unless you try it with 38 power. So try it with 38 power for a while. If it turns out that that isn't enough power, go back to 40.

As it stands, the ship has an insane amount of power to work with on T2 if you want to have it work that way (you can have a 1 point in each gun, resulting in 6 point torps; move speed 30 all turn; turn on your ship; still have 2 power left over). Maybe this isn't a big deal. Maybe it is.

>>Claim it as a "standard" if you like, but there's enough exceptions to the "standard" that it's not particularly standard in my mind.>>

It is the place it should have started in the first place. Start at 38 power. Maybe it isn't enough power. Then add more if it seems warranted.

By Michael Kenyon (Mikek) on Friday, October 25, 2013 - 04:51 pm: Edit

Richard,

Over a two-turn period, the MAE can generate 40 points of damage by allocating 4+1, giving it a turn where it spends four points on weapons and one where it's spending 16.

Over the same two turn period, the WBS can generate 40 points of damage by allocating 2x4, 2x4, giving it two turns of 20 points of damage each and never spending more than 8 on weapons.

If you argue that the MAE gets a turn where it spent 4 points on weapons, you discount it spent a turn spending 16 getting gacked by someone else while it was rearming.

If you argue that it's clearly superior because of the flexibility of it, you discount that the WBS just matched its 2 turn weapon out by arming half it's weapons on two turns.

If you're still grumbling because of the amount of damage, consider that the WBS could spend exactly what the MAE did in turn one and get 40 points of damage from twice as far away as the MAE could and then has the option to do it again the next turn (which the MAE doesn't).

If you're still grumbling because of the flexibility, consider that as soon as the MAE has made a 5 power TG it's stuck to range 8. If it can't get that range for whatever reason, it's stuck holding that for 10 power a turn or abandon them and both announce to the opponent that he's unarmed for 2 turns and be unarmed for those. If the WBS cranks up 4 overloads and can't get it, it can 32 the next turn and smack you sideways with standards with no further loss while catching up.

The argument that a ship with a two-turn arming weapon can do X in a turn is meaningless unless you take the rest of the arming cycle into account. By that logic, we should get rid of the Fed (those photons can pump out 64 points of damage a turn) and definitely plasma (one of those things can pump out 100 points of damage to be had).

I do cede that they get a nice bump if you let them spend a turn pumping 16 points into the TGs without worry. Know what, I've got about 1/4 of the current battles in the MAE under my belt and to date no one has let me put more than 1 point in those TGs on the reload turn because they made me work till the end of the turn to get my shot and and then I was in close range when I had to start my reload. It was speed or weapons and speed won, every time.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, October 25, 2013 - 05:08 pm: Edit

Mike wrote:
>>Over a two-turn period, the MAE can generate 40 points of damage by allocating 4+1, giving it a turn where it spends four points on weapons and one where it's spending 16. >>

5+1 gives you 10 damage per gun at R5. But yeah.

>>If you argue that it's clearly superior because of the flexibility of it, you discount that the WBS just matched its 2 turn weapon out by arming half it's weapons on two turns. >>

No one is trying to argue that anything is clearly superior to anything. The point is that the incredibly flexible arming of the TGs allows the ship to front load or back load the guns, so that it can spend 1 power on each gun on one turn and some other amount of power on the other turn. Which gives it the ability to have a lot of power on the turns where it spends 1 power. If that means run fast and then park, or go slow then run fast, either one can be a solid play, depending on the situation.

>>I do cede that they get a nice bump if you let them spend a turn pumping 16 points into the TGs without worry. Know what, I've got about 1/4 of the current battles in the MAE under my belt and to date no one has let me put more than 1 point in those TGs on the reload turn because they made me work till the end of the turn to get my shot and and then I was in close range when I had to start my reload. It was speed or weapons and speed won, every time.>>

There is no way to prevent the ship from arming each gun for 5 on T1 and then finishing each gun for 1 on T2. Then on T2, you can move 30 for most of (if not all of) the turn to get the shot you want inside of R5 and then have plenty of speed for getting away. T3, run as far and as fast as you can while putting 1 power into each gun. T4, stop, finish the guns as appropriate, and commence the knife fight that was coming anyway.

Again, I'm not saying the ship is necessarily too good. But unless the ship has a compelling reason to have 40 power, it should have 38 power. And the only way to discover if it has a compelling reason to have 40 power is to use it with 38 and see how it goes.

By Michael Kenyon (Mikek) on Monday, October 28, 2013 - 01:48 pm: Edit

Peter,

I'm not sure how this is that much different than a Fed who can put 2-4 in the first turn, 2-4 the second and overload off of battery. Or a disruptor monkey who can put in 8 and all the way to 16 to get full overloads.

The weapons _are_ flexible, but they're not great. They're okay in the general case and exceptional if you have someone facing them who has no clue what the heck they can do.

The compelling reason is because it really does need 40 power to be able to compete with it's competition. Every ship is balanced so long as we don't consider its competition.

While I cannot dispute your math (cause it's math), you're failing to take into account any situation wherein that would be useful.

If you volunteer to not load in Turn 1, you leave yourself open for someone to run up an smack you solid in turn one and run away giving your opponent a free shot.

If you take what you're given by WS, your 5+1 doesn't matter till after the first shot. The first shot from a TG ship is worse and more costly than a photon ship, power-wise. It's probably hitting for 32 points of damage. You opponent it probably getting at least 24 back in return.

So, lets consider AFTER the first shot. In order to get that damage, you've got to be close. Once you've fired, the ship isn't at all scary and has a low "keep away" factor. So, why the heck wouldn't the opposition chase it down and mug it. So, in this environment, are you ever going to dump 20 points of power into the weapons you're not firing on this turn?

In general, the Maesron has to get in, get it's shot, run away while it reloads, which means that it's heavy loading on the second, not the first turn. So while on paper if the opposition does nothing to stop it, you absolutely can do what you say. Also,

* If you don't turn, the ISC is going to remove your front shields
* If you run up to range 1 on the Hydran, you get what you deserve.
* If you stop at R1 on a turn break next to a Fed who is about to have photons back on line, you're going to get smacked.

In all of these cases, the opponent had the opportunity to make a better decision to avoid the flexibility of the the opponents ship. If the listed ship wins all of these battles does it say that we have to worse those ships or does it say that the opponent isn't playing the strategy against his target.

If you're point is that it has 40 power and ships shouldn't have 40 power, then you have to take the Seltie down a notch.

If you're taking the point that the MAE has "free" weapons and the Seltie doesn't, that is true.

Talk to every player who's flown the MAE and if they'd give up the TMs for Alpha phasers and Seltie arcs. Pretty sure you're going to get 100% yes.

By Andrew J Koch (Droid) on Monday, October 28, 2013 - 03:07 pm: Edit

I don't think it's all the hard for a disr( especially a droner) ship or an AUX or an Orion to herd the MAE into his deep corner then run at speed 30 all next turn and avoid range 5. Then the MAE is stuck holding his TG for 1/4 the warhead strength.

I also dont think it's all that hard to avoid giving the MAE a CL shot.
Once opponents get a little experience fighting against it, I think we will see that 40 power is just fine, although there is no reason for it to have 32 on the #1, but that's a small point.

By Michael Kenyon (Mikek) on Monday, October 28, 2013 - 04:25 pm: Edit

Andrew, totally agree with you.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, October 28, 2013 - 04:30 pm: Edit

Mike wrote:
>>I'm not sure how this is that much different than a Fed who can put 2-4 in the first turn, 2-4 the second and overload off of battery.>>

The difference is 1 power vs not 1 power.

It is a matter of how much power there is available for stuff in general. Having 2 points of power in each of 4 weapons is a significant difference over 1 point of power in each of 1 weapons.

>>The compelling reason is because it really does need 40 power to be able to compete with it's competition. Every ship is balanced so long as we don't consider its competition. >>

Maybe. Maybe not. I have played it with 40 power. It seems like it has a lot of power. I have not played it with 38 power. So I don't know if that is enough power or not. Which is why starting at 38 seems like a better plan than not.

>>If you volunteer to not load in Turn 1, you leave yourself open for someone to run up an smack you solid in turn one and run away giving your opponent a free shot.>>

Against many opponents, they simply can't do this. As you can safely corner dodge and they can't remotely hurt you on T1. Some folks can, sure. But many can't. Which is when you do this.

>>So, lets consider AFTER the first shot. In order to get that damage, you've got to be close. Once you've fired, the ship isn't at all scary and has a low "keep away" factor. So, why the heck wouldn't the opposition chase it down and mug it. So, in this environment, are you ever going to dump 20 points of power into the weapons you're not firing on this turn? >>

Yes. That is when you put 1 point into each gun, and run away fast. And then park on the second turn, and put a bunch of power into each gun, and do well in the knife fight.

>>If you're point is that it has 40 power and ships shouldn't have 40 power, then you have to take the Seltie down a notch. >>

No, my point is that there needs to be a compelling reason to have more than 38 power on a MC1 cruiser. And the way to determine that there is a compelling reason is to play the ship at 38 power and see how it does.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, October 28, 2013 - 04:47 pm: Edit

From what I've read here, I think it should be tested at 38 power. If it needs more, it can be added later.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Monday, October 28, 2013 - 07:05 pm: Edit

The thing is, in earlier playtests with 38 power, it was too weak. It got bumped to 40 (and the front shield was bumped as well) after various TM improvements were written off. Now, you can discount the earlier playtests as players not knowing how to fly it optimally, and there's definitely an argument to be made that we should err on the side of making new ships too weak. But based on my experience flying Maesrons in a campaign, I don't think 38 power is enough. Maybe if it had C-racks for the TMs...

Compare it to the Lyran. ESGs are better than TMs. The damage output of Lyran, off centerline, at 4-8, is similar to the damage output of the Maesron, off centerline, at 4-8. (The comparison gets trickier at closer ranges because more depends on maneuver and various arming scenarios.) The Maesron can flex the arming schedule of the TGs, but Lyran can fire disruptors every turn. The ESGs take power while TMs don't, but the Maesron needs power to maneuver more than the Lyran does. And the Lyran has 40 power, and is a mediocre ship.

By Michael Kenyon (Mikek) on Monday, October 28, 2013 - 07:36 pm: Edit

So, allow me to restate the request so I make sure I got it right.

Testing is currently inconclusive, but we should change it now (invalidating the testing we have done), and we may change it back to what it's currently at later if we find that it should have been where it's currently at all along?

That seems inefficient to me.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, October 28, 2013 - 07:53 pm: Edit

Andy,

Why was the shield bumped up at the same time the power was bumped up?

Also - who has all the early play testing results? I could not find them to be able to see what the history and changes were.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 02:49 am: Edit

You'd have to ask Barry about the shield change. And about his experiences flying the Maesron. We did an Omega tourney in early 2011; there are discussions on the BBS under Star Fleet Battles: Star Fleet Battles Online: Tournaments: Omega II Tournament and under Star Fleet Battles: The Omega Sector: Omega General Discussions.

By Barry Kirk (Barrykirk) on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 02:16 pm: Edit

I'm pretty sure it's had 32 shields from day one.

The reason for that is racial flavor. The Maesron CA in the SSD book is one of the few CAs that has a 32 point front shield. To tell the truth, it's not that big a deal.

As for a lot of the rest of the discussion. My experience with the ship is that it always struggles.

Two things happened at Co5N.

1) Almost everybody flying against it, had little to no experience flying against it and didn't know it's weaknesses.
The one exception was Peter Bakija, and he let me have the perfect shot on turn 2 for unknown reason.

2) my d

By Barry Kirk (Barrykirk) on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 02:18 pm: Edit

2) my dice were insanely hot all tournament long.

By Barry Kirk (Barrykirk) on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 02:25 pm: Edit

Things that nobody here is really posting that are disadvantages to the Maesron.

1) Almost impossible to hit with all four TG in a single impulse, unless your opponent gives you that opportunity.

2) Unless your willing to settle for eight points per TG, your max range is five. That is a lot more significant than people realize.

Think about it... A Klingon at range eight firing four UIM overloads has max damage of 24. The Maesron also has max damage of 24 at that range unless it can get that front hex row.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 02:31 pm: Edit

Your opponent doesn't know what level of charging is in your TGs, and guessing wrong could prove problematic. :p

By Barry Kirk (Barrykirk) on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 02:34 pm: Edit

3) The hold cost is huge for TG.

Andy Koch took advantage of that fact big time in our game. I went for the corner dive front load the TG on turn one. He came up the center and drove me into the corner and than turned off. Remember he was in the aux pig with turn mode D.

By the time I realized he was not going to corner me, it was to late and I couldn't turn in time. I wasn't in the corner at the end of turn one, but I wasn't to far from it either. As a result, I couldn't get the turn 2 shot, remember max range was five... Not eight.

My firing pass on turn 3, I was sucking wind because of hold costs. I literally had to discharge my off side TG. Which caused problems down the road.

By Barry Kirk (Barrykirk) on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 02:56 pm: Edit

Richard, that is correct to a certain extent.

It doesn't make sense to put less than five points of power into a TG except for the TG you expect to be on the offside. With four points of power in, the TG does five points of damage, which just isn't that much... At least for a two turn arming weapon.

Therefore, like a fed, it's going to be expected that you have a least five energy in them. However, the five energy range eight attack is pretty feeble and most likely will not punch a fresh forward shield.

By Barry Kirk (Barrykirk) on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 03:05 pm: Edit

So, really six energy is a good number to use. You might want to put in five, and hope your opponent thinks you have six. If they run away to avoid range five, you can punch a rear shield and do a few in.

If you have six in, and get the range three shot, you can battery up to seven power for a twelve point torp.

That is still nothing to write home about... 12x3=36 with a max range of three. A disruptor ship can do 32 at that range.

Keep in mind that I almost always load my torps one energy level lower than I expect to use and than battery them up at the point of firing.

This means the one of the weaknesses of the Maesron, is that he almost always needs to have three points of battery power for weapons on a firing pass.

By Barry Kirk (Barrykirk) on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Everyone is talking about Maesron flexibility... But seriously???

The TG is either damage limited or range limited.

People mention the really good accuracy of the weapon. But most of them don't think about the poor efficiency.

Example.

Assuming they all hit.

Disruptors do 1.5 damage per point of energy all the way out to range 15.

At range they improve to 2 damage per point of energy.

Photons do 2 damage per point of energy.

TG assuming firing at max energy for the range

At ranges 9 to 16 it 1.25 damage per energy.

By Barry Kirk (Barrykirk) on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 03:29 pm: Edit

At ranges 6-8 the ratio is 1.6
At ranges 4-5 the ratio is 1.667
At ranges 2-3 the ratio is 1.71