No Mayson phaser from the second round of the tourney?!

posted on November 19th, 2010, 7:24 pm

  What Elim is saying is that getting 10 Vorcha against a Mayson Player is very difficult.  You will be swamped by that point by warpins and Intrepids.



  I get what you're saying, Officer Myles  , but it's beside the point he's trying to make.


   Yes, Vorcha technically counter Intrepids, but keep in mind that the Intrepids have ADAI and are faster than the Vorcha.  With Mayson's +3 to defense, you're unlikely to kill an Intrepid before it can run off and repair.  Again ... the counter may not be as clear as you think given game circumstances.

again... that wasnt my point, my point was using arbitary numbers in order to demonstrate the counter. i wasnt choosing a particular scenario.

vorcha rush is bad against fed warpin rush as its a slower strat, elim quickly built up 5 ships when his opponent had 2/3

my point is that in this specific case elim picked a bad ship for the task. he knew his enemy only had vorchas. (he hadnt seen his enemy pop a couple ktingas at this time, he may have had 1 brel as well im not sure), the majority of the klink fleet was vorchas. he would have done better if he had made a sabre and teched to akiras.

the sabre wouldnt have died if elim played well (which he did) as the klinks had only a handful of ships. either way elim wins, but it would have been quicker and easier if he hadnt picked a ship that does half damage to the vorcha.

posted on November 19th, 2010, 7:41 pm

I guess ...

  None of these replays were really good evidence of the power of a Mayson turret (which was the point, I believe) because that's a more spread-out factor than is really easy to show.


  However you are giving notes on what people should be building and what is countering what.  I don't think Sabers or Akiras would have been much better in this case as you're saying.  Mayson has a harder time teching up to Chassis 2 and Akiras are not as fast as Intrepids.  Part of Mayson's strength is the fact that Fed Chassis 1 ships are very fast, his turrets repel harassment until maybe the 15 minute mark, and his warpins can go anywhere. 

  Just saying ... that there's more to a good ship choice than just what does the most damage to what. 

posted on November 19th, 2010, 7:58 pm

None of these replays were really good evidence of the power of a Mayson turret

I think the fact that no guarded exp was attacked in any replay is an evidence?

posted on November 19th, 2010, 8:00 pm

Sure it's something alright .

  I'm just saying that it's very difficult to gauge the balance of something on things like that .

posted on November 19th, 2010, 10:12 pm

I guess ...

   None of these replays were really good evidence of the power of a Mayson turret (which was the point, I believe) because that's a more spread-out factor than is really easy to show.


  However you are giving notes on what people should be building and what is countering what.  I don't think Sabers or Akiras would have been much better in this case as you're saying.  Mayson has a harder time teching up to Chassis 2 and Akiras are not as fast as Intrepids.  Part of Mayson's strength is the fact that Fed Chassis 1 ships are very fast, his turrets repel harassment until maybe the 15 minute mark, and his warpins can go anywhere. 

   Just saying ... that there's more to a good ship choice than just what does the most damage to what. 

in this case the speed wasnt that important as he was using warpins, at least 6 of his ships were warpins, which arent that fast. i agree if he was double yarding it would be different and speed would matter. plus he was the attacker, he didnt need much speed to escape, just enough to keep up with vorchas. and akiras are a good all rounder, kinda like the vorcha, so it couldnt be bad to make them.

mayson doesnt tech as fast as risner, but he had good economy so i think the chassis investment wouldnt have been bad. i try to find the money for chassis upgrades even as mayson as they pay for themselves with new useful ships.

i agree with your last statement about what makes a good ship for the task, in this case i believe intrepids were less than optimal due to the fact they were doing less than half damage against the vorchas.

posted on November 19th, 2010, 10:29 pm

i agree with your last statement about what makes a good ship for the task, in this case i believe intrepids were less than optimal due to the fact they were doing less than half damage against the vorchas.

  Well I'm glad we agree on something.  I think though that, because Intrepids in large numbers do so well against Klingons in general, that the Intrepids backed by Warpins was not a 'bad' choice.  I wouldn't want other people less experienced than you, Officer Myles to think that an actual mistake was made.

 

posted on November 19th, 2010, 10:36 pm

  Well I'm glad we agree on something.  I think though that, because Intrepids in large numbers do so well against Klingons in general, that the Intrepids backed by Warpins was not a 'bad' choice.  I wouldn't want other people less experienced than you, Officer Myles to think that an actual mistake was made.

  

i wasnt talking about the whole strategy. i was talking about the choice he made later. when he said that quote i pointed out. right then he decided to make more intreps, on top of what he already had, which was largely warpins with some intreps.

his choice to make more intreps wasnt a critical error that would lose him the game, since he was already in the driving seat. but it wasnt the best choice, akiras would have been more effective.