Jump to content
S.Neil

Discussion Thread for the new Sorylian Collective Stats

Recommended Posts

Thank you to everyone that is testing and keep up what good work. I also want to note we are in the final week of testing now so go try out the other ships if you have not played with them yet.  Let SG know what you think as YOU the players are the reason the game is still around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drive rupture on back to back frigate shunt deployment makes these definite outliers in terms of effectiveness. That would neuter almost any T3 Squadron.

Certainly, rolling 4 twice on 2d6 was irregular.  They made boarding attempts the turn they arrived, which was what they were purchased for.  At 1CP, they are exceedingly vulnerable to crew effects though.  All our other T3s have 2CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i was able to get a game in using all the new ships. I hope i will have time to do a detailed post tonight.

I can sat the gunships are "meh" at best. I think i would take reapers over them in almost all instances.

The other two classes are "neat" and fill an interesting niche, but i have more to say on them later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I posted earlier I was able to get a game in to try out all of the new sorylian ships. My opponent decided to be a bit more conservative and only try out the escort carriers.

my list

battleship with 2 escorts. added 2 move, weaponshielding, and an extra shield

2 battlecruisers with weaponshielding, +1 shield and 6 bombers

3 light cruisers -1 TL, and packhunters

3 new gunships

6 light frigates

3 light frigates

my opponent ran aquans

battleship 6 bombers

2 battlecruisers

2 gunships

3 escort carriers 6 bombers

4 frigates

4 frigates

so first off let me speak on the harvester gunship. I think that it is telling that my opponent brought a pair of the ROtO aquan gunships which cost 160 for the pair so very close in price to the Harvesters. I tried to maximize my harvesters by pairing them up with my battlecruisers. They were right in fhey ront of the Hastas so that the bombers could help defend them against torps. Their AD left alot to be desired. They were only decent in RB2 at every other range they were terrible. While the additional range from kinetics is nice 24" is not alot of range. Beyond this range their AD is negligible at best. I was really disappointed with their AD up close. Once the Aquan frigates moved in close they had no way to hurt them. As soon as I lost one ship they ceased to have any effect on the battle.

nd

I really wanted these guys to work I though that maybe they weren't as bad as they looked at first. I think they are worse than I thought. They only have decent AD with ONE gun at ONE range band. Their broad sides seem more like an afterthought. And why do they have reinforced port/starbrd when they want the enemy to be in their fore arc????? I can honestly say that as they are statted now I would never take them again. For cheap killing power I would take reapers all day every day. just as an example Harvesters put out 14AD at 33" (move + range) Reapers put out 14 AD at 28" plus they can fire out of 2 more arcs with an equal amount of AD. all for 25 less points. If I dont mind spending more points then I can move up to destroyers or the Warwolves.

the Lucern.

I like the agile ability on them, but I really feel that you are paying for them so any game where they are not ducking and weaving out of asteroids you are overpaying on ships. In my game I shunted these guys in and in two activations my opponent was able to put 5 damage on the squad and he rolled low on two of the 3 attacks. These guys are squishy. I paid for pack hunters and -1TL putting at 50pts each. Their AD was alright, but I was taking damage so fast that their offense suffered fast.

Let me say that these guys are not as bad as the harvesters, but they are a mediocre ship. I really would have preferred to come up with 30 pts and take Falcatas (regular cruisers). These ships have a gimmick, and if you want to play with that gimmmick(agile) then they are kind of fun. If you dont plan to dive head first into asteroids then leave these at home.

The Flechette.

Man are these guys fast they have 32" of threat to throw around. In 18 tests I only failed oneand took one damage. These guys were fun to play. Shooting at hard target ships with half AD was fun for me, but not my opponent. with their large squad size I was still shooting 6 or 7 AD from inside the asteroids. Once I was reduced to half size they were not much good for shooting anything other than enemy T3.

Overall I think this ship is the best of the 3. They are cheap and fast and agile. that 1cp hurt me though. (each one gained a hazard marker when i shunted in...GRRR) Sadly I think their low damage output is a pro and a con. Once they take a bit of damage they struggle to hurt anything outside of tier 3. This however is a pro in that in my game my opponent really didnt want to waste any shot to finish them off allowing me to retain some Battlelog. This ships biggest problem is that the Sorylians other T3 options are so good, and I really think that in the future I will probably stick with the Reaper class frigates.

As a player I am really disappointed with this release. I will only be using one of the three options, and the Flechettes will only come out to play on occasion. I really wish I had passed on this release, but at least I can say that own everything for the Sorylians o.O

Notice. I am not trying to poopoo the hard work the FFG put in to this release. The above is MY OPINION.

Neil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is late, but I spent a lot of time play testing the new ships for all the races with 2 friends over the past 2 weeks and I still wanted to post the feedback.  We got in 12 games (all at 800 points taking copious notes) with various race combinations of fleets containing the new ships vs. fleets containing only existing ships and fleets both containing the new ships.  Unfortunately I came down very sick this past weekend and did not have time to polish and submit our feedback and summary battle reports by the 15th.  I still haven't written up the battle summaries, but here were our thoughts and experiences.

 

General Thoughts

After playing a more than a few games I have found that almost all of the new ships are significantly easier to board than existing ships.  The new ships are boarding liabilities, when even facing non-traditional boarding races like Terrans and Aquans.  Even the traditional boarding race's new ships are boarding liabilities.  For example, based on past precedence Tier 2s normally have at least 2-4 AP.  I understand Light Cruisers are suppose to be between Cruisers and Frigates, but I feel they sacrifice too much for too high a points cost and too easily give up Tier 2 Battle Log - especially in the AP numbers.  Besides the boarding issues experienced with the new ships, the Agile MAR seems to be over costed across the board on the new ships.

 

Light Cruisers

Light Cruisers are a hard sell because they are so fragile and cause you to take a Tier 2 Battle Log hit.  I think these would see more play if they remained Tier 2s, but only gave up Tier 3 BL.  Light Cruisers should also be consistent across the races like other Ship Classes and have 3 HP.  There could be a +1 HP Hard Point or upgrade option for the tougher Races.  Something else to watch out for is the Light Cruiser upgrades turning them into worse normal Cruisers, at which point you would just take a base normal Cruiser.  Also, Light Cruisers for races that can take normal Cruisers and Heavy Cruisers in squadrons of 4, make their Light Cruiser squadrons of 3 even worse.  If the Light Cruisers are worse (but cheaper) versions of normal Cruisers that are balanced around squadrons of 4, then the Light Cruiser Squadrons of 3 are even more gimped than normal and much easier to score the same amount of Battle Log points. It would also be interesting if Light Cruiser squadrons could take a Torpedo, Shield, R&D, Shunt, or normal Cruiser as a squadron upgrade.

 

Escort Carriers

I don't know what to think of the Escort Carriers, it feels like they need to be very finely balanced to provide and alternative or supplement to Carriers.  I like how the Dindrenzi Escort Carrier is as tough as their Heavy Cruiser.  I feel like all races Escort Carriers should be as tough as their Heavy Cruiser.  In general I feel that Escort Carriers trade smaller wing capacity, firepower, and point per wing ratio for speed and smaller Battle Log hit.  The escort Carriers are also more difficult to remove, as long as the Carrier doesn't have a Tier 2 accompaniment.  Even though whole squadrons are harder to remove, Escort Carriers are significantly weakened once they lose one ship or their SRS are damaged.  One thing I think all Escort Carriers need is an upgrade or hard point to increase their SRS capacity by 1.  Also, Cruiser squadron upgrades should support both Heavy Cruisers and Escort Cruisers, instead of limiting you to one or the other.  The new Cruiser squadrons that can only take Escort Carrier upgrades don't synergize well at all.  

 

Light Frigates

Light Frigates all seem to have a hard time differentiating themselves from other Frigates and Corvettes for all races.  The Aquan Light Frigate is at least unique with its DR and CR the same, but I don't know if that's a good thing.  Besides being overshadowed by other Frigates and Corvettes, Light Frigates also seem overpriced for what you get.  Given their overlap with existing Tier 3 ships, reducing their price to 10-15 pts may establish their niche.  They could be like the Omnidyne Corvettes at 15 points with either fore or port/starboard weapons.  Another option to make Light Frigates more unique would be to make Elusive Target and/or Agile either standard MARs or upgrade options for Light Frigates.

 

Gunship - VERY BAD

  • There's already a Gunship

  • Should be an Escort Carrier

  • +1 Shield, +2 AP - upgrades are needed and make it expensive

  • Why does it have kinetic, when rest of fleet wants to close and brawl

  • Existing Gunship is better long range brawler

  • At least significantly cheaper than existing gunship

  • Competes against the Skyhammer Cruiser

  • Almost the same, little slower, slightly cheaper, but can only squadrons of 3

  • Gains better FF kinetic, worse star/port and no torps

  • Was outperformed by both existing gunship and cruiser - didn't think the cheaper price warranted its inclusion

Light Cruiser - VERY BAD

  • Worse than existing cruisers that cannot be taken in groups of 4

  • Give up easy Tier 2 BL

  • Primary is not scatter - why?

  • -2 AP -2 CP -1 PD -1 HP and worse Guns

  • Agile seems over valued

Light Frigates - BAD

  • 5 points for Assault Blitz - 12 AP

  • Fastest ship in game? 16

  • Existing Frigates can already board and are the best Frigate in the game, Relthoza Nidus is closest contender

  • Existing Frigate has 3 arc primary weapons and Pack Hunters vs. scatter gunrack at same strength

  • Existing Frigate has 1 more CR

  • Only 5 points cheaper

  • Needs to be cheaper or have more unique role

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with most of it.

I'm sure in some metas they could be viewed this way but in a low MFV environment or spam lists the point savings can stack up.

I also think most of the suggestions would actually nudge these ships into tighter competition with existing ships unless their squadron sizes were adjusted which seems to be unlikely due to the Taskforce Tie In.

The most straightforward improvement to both the Lucern and the Harvester would be squad size 4. I think that would address almost every one of the expressed concerns in terms of overall performance rather than trying to get all the Taskfotce ships to be more homogenized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How low of an MFV are you talking about? How does spamming an under-performing for the points unit help (if they do underperform for the points)?

Stating adding suggested changes would make them viable doesnt invalidate OctupusPrime's feedback, it supports it... So it sounds like you agree instead of disagree. Maybe I don't understand your stance.

At least we both think they should have a larger Squadron size; it's what Sorylians DO, thanks to their fantastic comms enabling better combat coordination and control.

From my game yesterday, Agile should let you move at minimum speed and ignore Asteroid Fields. Everyone else should have some advantage for moving slowly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Octopus prime is entitled to his opinions I just don't agree with most of his suggestions since they all involve adjusting prices and I think their meta places different value on some characteristics.

The most common games in my Area currently are around 550 due to the number of players with just patrol fleets that means low cost options give those of us who are more completist to still field a variety of ships (which also lets us illustrate to the new players why they should expand their fleet).

While most players on the forums play larger games I think to promote entrance to the hobby their needs to be variety in all levels of play. I hate the idea of a new player walking into an environment where their patrol fleet isn't enough MFV to play most opponents. So if everything gets more effective and also has an appropriate relative cost you slowly close that low MFV design space.

So I agree with the idea you should get what you pay for, but I think it's easy to under appreciate the value of a stripped down model if you constantly compare it to more expensive things.

Instead of taking Taskforce models and comparing them to their more expensive equivalents instead take the maximum cost of a Taskforce Squadron and see what else you can afford with those same points. Compare those often reduced squadrons for effectiveness.

In other words try playing to the lowest common denominator as well as the highest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

550... That's an odd points value, but it makes sense if you're only using Patrol Boxes.

So... Let's say you buy the Sorylian Patrol Box and the Reinforcement Box. You're always using the Battleship, which is 175 base, leaving 375. Using just the Patrol Box...

240 4x Cruisers

100 5x Frigates

That leave 35 points for up grades, which gives some flexibility. If you used the Reinforcement box and 1.0 stats.

150 3x Gunships

120 3x Light Cruisers

90 6x Light Frigates

At most, the base cost is 240, so you could add the Frigate squadron and still have 35 for upgrades.

So, who thinks it is a good idea to trade Cruisers for Gunships and Light Frigates? Or would you rather save points using the light Cruisers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would personally shave points to get more Frigates. The biggest thing is lower costs mean more options in lower MFV games.

I'm just saying rather than compare 150 pt of Taskforce gunships to regular gunships compare them to 150 pts of Regular gunships.

There may still be room for improvement but it's a more well rounded way to compare them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The harvesters do have a use in boarding fleets where cheap decimator warheads can be quite useful.
Other than that I agree with octopus, generally underperforming and susceptible to boarding assaults.

 

however for sorylians we have some of the best gunships, cruisers and frigates in the game. Its not surprising that the newcomers are finding it hard to compete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would personally shave points to get more Frigates. The biggest thing is lower costs mean more options in lower MFV games.

I'm just saying rather than compare 150 pt of Taskforce gunships to regular gunships compare them to 150 pts of Regular gunships.

There may still be room for improvement but it's a more well rounded way to compare them.

 

This is generally an uncommon MFV value but this makes me realise why you like the TF ships now. I however think they are bad for common 800-1200 MFV games because you can simply get more in a list which in turn = longer playing time on an already long game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is generally an uncommon MFV value but this makes me realise why you like the TF ships now. I however think they are bad for common 800-1200 MFV games because you can simply get more in a list which in turn = longer playing time on an already long game.

I'll admit my point of view is based on my meta. I doubt we're the only meta where there is a sizable number of starting players though. One of the nice things about FSA is that you can play with a single box purchase and you can play a lot of different games by setting the MFV at the lower end where you need to make more hard choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.