Changes for 3rd edition ACTA

[Locutus9956]

Well, please remember that when someone next says we never listen to you chaps

Did I hear someone say forward arc beam in the G'Quan? I'm certain I did......

Regards,

Dave
(Living in hope! - That's not Hope, Kansas!)

To be fair, a few people have said for a while they think it should be F arc but it's hardly the entire comunity up in arms as they were over, say, the Saggitarius or the Gaim, when enough people complain about something to do with the game I generally find that Mongoose are pretty good at listening to our concerns. Personally I wouldnt mind a F Arc G'Quan but I don't particularly mind the Current one either, I'd personally like to see a TOUGHER G'Quan rather than a weapons change but that's an argument for a different thread to be honest!

 

[Triggy]

Ah, words of wisdom Locutus

Where [everyone] is calling for a change and these calls are fairly similar (e.g. currently FAP splits, Shadow Fighter, Shadow Stalker, Demos and Bimith) then something is almost guaranteed to be done. With something a little more delicate like the Abbai in general, the G'Quan (not that something needs doing but what needs doing), the White Star and certain Psi Corps ships then much more thought needs to be put in to avoid upsetting the apple cart with something that supposedly is addressing a small issue. Does anyone remember the old to-ing and fro-ing that the White Star has had in the past? It's still not finalised due to overcompensations at almost every turn!

 

[mollari_uk]

Where [everyone] is calling for a change and these calls are fairly similar (e.g. currently FAP splits, Shadow Fighter, Shadow Stalker, Demos and Bimith) then something is almost guaranteed to be done.

I feel great things are on the horizon!

 

[Foxmeister]

Ah, words of wisdom Locutus

Where [everyone] is calling for a change and these calls are fairly similar (e.g. currently FAP splits, Shadow Fighter, Shadow Stalker, Demos and Bimith) then something is almost guaranteed to be done. With something a little more delicate like the Abbai in general, the G'Quan (not that something needs doing but what needs doing), the White Star and certain Psi Corps ships then much more thought needs to be put in to avoid upsetting the apple cart with something that supposedly is addressing a small issue. Does anyone remember the old to-ing and fro-ing that the White Star has had in the past? It's still not finalised due to overcompensations at almost every turn!

I don't disagree - but my fear is that unless potential changes are openly discussed by a larger group than the current set of playtesters, the apple cart is still going to be upset anyway! Anecdotal evidence from this forum suggests that some of the tier 2 playtesters felt that they didn't have enough time or input into the process.

Ultimately if the players* are unhappy with what P&P brings to the table, it can only be bad for the game and will probably result in people abandoning it.

On the specific issue of the G'Quan - it isn't boresighted in the show, so shouldn't be in the game - period! However, I really don't expect to see that in P&P.

Regards,

Dave

* Yes, I know playtesters are players too, but I'm referring to the broader community here!

 

[ATN082268]

Ah, words of wisdom Locutus

Where [everyone] is calling for a change and these calls are fairly similar (e.g. currently FAP splits, Shadow Fighter, Shadow Stalker, Demos and Bimith) then something is almost guaranteed to be done. With something a little more delicate like the Abbai in general, the G'Quan (not that something needs doing but what needs doing), the White Star and certain Psi Corps ships then much more thought needs to be put in to avoid upsetting the apple cart with something that supposedly is addressing a small issue. Does anyone remember the old to-ing and fro-ing that the White Star has had in the past? It's still not finalised due to overcompensations at almost every turn!

I don't disagree - but my fear is that unless potential changes are openly discussed by a larger group than the current set of playtesters, the apple cart is still going to be upset anyway! Anecdotal evidence from this forum suggests that some of the tier 2 playtesters felt that they didn't have enough time or input into the process.

Ultimately if the players* are unhappy with what P&P brings to the table, it can only be bad for the game and will probably result in people abandoning it.

On the specific issue of the G'Quan - it isn't boresighted in the show, so shouldn't be in the game - period! However, I really don't expect to see that in P&P.

Regards,

Dave

* Yes, I know playtesters are players too, but I'm referring to the broader community here!

The A Call to Arms rule book and Fleet List book each list the same 10 playtesters which, in my opinion, is *way* too few. For all practical purposes, it is pretty difficult to be in a position where you have too many playtesters for a gaming line. I'm not sure why the number of playtesters is kept to around 10 or so but it doesn't help the game. I'm sure you would have a number of volunteers if you asked in this forum... Do you want to make a better game or be sure that you come to a certain point of view?

Sincerely,

Andrew Norris

 

[l33tpenguin]

I'll play test stuff! well, once I get back stateside.
oh, and once I find people to play with

 

[CZuschlag]

The number of playtesters isn't a mistake; the list that you see there can best be described as team leads, eachof whom have their own playtesting community or group. There are instances of playtest groups of one, but they are few. Usually, the crew from some LGS or some such is involved in the process, but the listed person is the team lead.

There was secondary examination to 2nd Edition as well, a well-considered second review for sanity.

However, if there is a playtest issue, it is likely with the time that team memers get to inspect changes, try them over the board in all circumstances, and implement them for the next iteration of testing. We locally came up with a test plan document that would require approximately 2-3 months for a full testing cycle with a team of 10, using gaming time to get it done, and a whip to enforce a testing schedule. That's a lot! In contrast, the first tier of playtesters get but weeks to evaluate major changes, and, the current fleet breakdown structure was implemented at virtually the very last minute! Very trying circumstances for the playtesters themselves, to say the least.

So, time to consider the changes is the issue.

The result is an inability to rush out product, despite market (and player community) pressure. Triggy, Greg, Wulf, Richard Bax, and the rest of the team that I have temporarily forgotten are doing their level best, and have a lot of people involved --- they just need time to take in all the changes, and that's something that you just don't always get. Business is business and all that.

If there is anything else out there, it is the natural conflict between design vision and game reality. A design lead (here, Matt) has an idea of what he wants the game to be. The playtesters then should experiment, and see if that vision holds, or if clever players come up with tactics, strategy, or loopholes to destroy the vision. Invariably, given enough time (there's that darn word again!), they succeed. The designer is then faced with a choice -- comprimise/scrag the vision, adapt the system to meet the problem, or plunge on regardless in the name of gameplay, fluff, or feel. Balance won't always win out. That is the game producer's call .... who is usually the designer.

 

[Burger]

Triggy, Greg, Wulf, Richard Bax, and the rest of the team that I have temporarily forgotten are doing their level best, and have a lot of people involved --- they just need time to take in all the changes, and that's something that you just don't always get.

Also in my opinion they should be active on the forums. A lot of good ideas are on here, and a lot of discussion of the pros and cons of those ideas. If Matt or one of the playtesters throws an idea from the forums in (for example Redundancy) and the others are already familiar with the discussion, then it wouldn't be a major issue, it would either be accepted or rejected based on the points already raised. But if half of them have to have it explained from scratch then it would be a much harder sell to get it included. Several playtesters have not been seen for months, even years! RBax? Wulf? Paul Davies? Erik?

 

[MongooseMatt]

Several playtesters have not been seen for months, even years! RBax? Wulf? Paul Davies? Erik?

Doesn't mean they are not here. Watching. . . waiting. . .

 

[lastbesthope]

Several playtesters have not been seen for months, even years! RBax? Wulf? Paul Davies? Erik?

Doesn't mean they are not here. Watching. . . waiting. . .

I mean look at me, more posts than any other 2 forum members put together, and I only post in about 5% of the threads I visit.

LBH

 

[ATN082268]

The number of playtesters isn't a mistake; the list that you see there can best be described as team leads, eachof whom have their own playtesting community or group. There are instances of playtest groups of one, but they are few. Usually, the crew from some LGS or some such is involved in the process, but the listed person is the team lead.

There was secondary examination to 2nd Edition as well, a well-considered second review for sanity.

However, if there is a playtest issue, it is likely with the time that team memers get to inspect changes, try them over the board in all circumstances, and implement them for the next iteration of testing. We locally came up with a test plan document that would require approximately 2-3 months for a full testing cycle with a team of 10, using gaming time to get it done, and a whip to enforce a testing schedule. That's a lot! In contrast, the first tier of playtesters get but weeks to evaluate major changes, and, the current fleet breakdown structure was implemented at virtually the very last minute! Very trying circumstances for the playtesters themselves, to say the least.

So, time to consider the changes is the issue.

The result is an inability to rush out product, despite market (and player community) pressure. Triggy, Greg, Wulf, Richard Bax, and the rest of the team that I have temporarily forgotten are doing their level best, and have a lot of people involved --- they just need time to take in all the changes, and that's something that you just don't always get. Business is business and all that.

If there is anything else out there, it is the natural conflict between design vision and game reality. A design lead (here, Matt) has an idea of what he wants the game to be. The playtesters then should experiment, and see if that vision holds, or if clever players come up with tactics, strategy, or loopholes to destroy the vision. Invariably, given enough time (there's that darn word again!), they succeed. The designer is then faced with a choice -- comprimise/scrag the vision, adapt the system to meet the problem, or plunge on regardless in the name of gameplay, fluff, or feel. Balance won't always win out. That is the game producer's call .... who is usually the designer.

I am a relatively new player to the game and discovered that the FAP was broken after about a half dozen games. The FAP works OK so long as people don't split it down by more than one level. The trouble is that swarms of ships are almost always better than less numerous larger ones not only from a capability standpoint but also from an initiative standpoint, so you too frequently have people who split down by more than one level. Out of the 52+ people who cast votes and posted votes for this poll, only 9 saw no need for any changes to ACTA, which includes the FAP. I only hope out of those 9, few or none are playtesters...

Sincerely,

Andrew Norris

 

[Ripple]

The playtesters have said a few times that the design standard they worked with had two ship of a lower level being slightly better than a ship of the level above. The theory being that it would take less fire to remove half the effective AD of the FAP point spent.

This doesn't work out as the value of extra activations is not taken into account nor the effects of the crit tables. It also does not account well for the 'glass hammer' ships that are not designed to live past being targeted once. In cases of those ships, buying down to two ships likely to die suddenly instead of one (and gaining a couple AD for the one glory shot) is always a good bet.

As ATN points out it also doesn't deal with the increasing power creep as you go down. If each drop gets you a tiny increase in power, dropping multiple levels just adds up to more and more power as you go down.

Ripple

 

[CZuschlag]

ATN082268,

I stand by my claim -- the actual fleet breakdown structures were only made final (and in some cases, even publicized!) less than 3 weeks before printing. It was even a shock to some of the Tier-A playtesters -- as was mentioned earlier, the Tier B playtest kit had no less than 3 different breakdown rules in it! This should symbolize how much this rule was, unfortunately, in flux.

Yes, it was clear that it was wrong, but printing was a hard date and time was the constraint.

I stand by my claim.

 

[ATN082268]

ATN082268,

I stand by my claim -- the actual fleet breakdown structures were only made final (and in some cases, even publicized!) less than 3 weeks before printing. It was even a shock to some of the Tier-A playtesters -- as was mentioned earlier, the Tier B playtest kit had no less than 3 different breakdown rules in it! This should symbolize how much this rule was, unfortunately, in flux.

Yes, it was clear that it was wrong, but printing was a hard date and time was the constraint.

I stand by my claim.

Some may think so but I'm not trying to bash the playtesters. If you didn't have the time to properly playtest something like the FAP, then there isn't much more that you could do with it. As a new player, I'm sure you realize the importance of a system to balance fleets. Experienced players may be able to do this with more ease than others but that doesn't help the newer players and personally I don't think it should be the player's job to do this in the first place (even assuming they can do it effectively). If you don't have adequate time to playtest something, then you should probably recruit more playtesters. I will volunteer right now.

Sincerely,

Andrew Norris

 

[CZuschlag]

You can't just throw hours at a task and expect it to get done. Smetimes, you just need time. An extreme example was put forth by Fred Brooks in the seminal IT book The Mythical Man-Month:

"You can't lock 9 women in a room for 1 month and expect to get a baby."

There is no real substitute for good, old, calandar time.

 

[Burger]

If you didn't have the time to properly playtest something like the FAP, then there isn't much more that you could do with it.

I don't think the problem here is time. The problem is, the FAP splits weren't decided or tested at all! Even 1 week before release, the playtest copies I saw (as a tier 2 playtester) had 3 different versions of the FAP splitting in it, and my questions as to which is the correct one went unanswered.

Still it's all moot point now since P&P is already set to change the FAP splitting. Our forum heckling has been successful :lol:

 

[No. 1 Bear]

Well its a start:- Now to balance all the ships to their respective PL. Dont tell me they are Bin Tak and G Vrahn etc.

 

[Locutus9956]

BinTak is fine the way it is frankly.

G'Vrahn is possibly a teensy bit too good but again not that bad.

Theres very few ships in the gam that really actully need changing as far as I can see:

The Tethys Laser Boat - would be a nasty piece of work even if you only got 1 of them, with 2 for a patrol point its quite clearly extra mature cheddar if taken in large numbers!

The GQuan - needs boosting

The Demos - Just a smidgeon too good, bring it in line with the Vorchan and its fine.

The Whitestar - a tiny bit too good in some peoples eyes though I personally dont think its THAT bad still.

The Psi Corps Mothership - Again a BIT too good, but not game breakingly so.

 

[CZuschlag]

I guess that's just the difference, then, Locutus.

As far as ships go, I think there are a good 30-40 that absolutely use re-evaluation up or down:

Tethys Missile
Tethys Laser
Jashakar Tae
Mankhat
Teshlan
Haven
Vorchan
Demos
Mograth
Darkener
Sulust
G'Vrahn
White Star I
White Star II
Blue Star
Haltona
Xonn
Tzymm
Xeel
Shadow Ancient
Amu
Ma'cu
Shadow Hunter Experimental Ship

I still think the whole Gaim concept, but that's just me.....

-----

Poseidon
Command Omega
Assault Hyperion
Ochliavita
Morshin
Torotha
Rongoth
Rothan
G'Sten
T'Loth
T'Rann
G'Quan
G'Quonth
G'Tal
Octurion
Milani
Bimith
Kotha
Lakara
Cidikar
Jumphawk
Nightfalcon
Fireraptor
Sunhawk
Shadow Stalker
Kamare Sas Patrol Cruiser
Drakh Scout
Drakh Light Cruiser
Shadowfury
Raider Carrier
Raider Attack Freighter
Raider Nova

-------------

That's a lot of ships on my list to tune (over 50). There are several more I'm not certain of (Troligan, most of the Psicorps fleet and some of the Minbari due to inexperience, Var'Nic, and I just don't know WHAT to do with the Drazi.)

In the spirit of full disclosure: I play Drakh and Dilgar, and am currently experimenting with Early and 3rd Age EA.

 

[katadder]

wow, I certainly dont think that many ships need changing up or down.
a few need some slight alterations (demos ion cannon go down etc) but nothing as major as you are suggesting.

also whats wrong with the posiedon (just as an example from your go up list)? it used to be hull 4 with 16 fighters and alot less firepower than it has now. and you still want it to be better?

on the ones you want to go down, whats up with the teshlan? it lost damage etc and gained a bit of stealth. but its firepower stayed the same effectively. ok slightly better versus hull 6 but also worse versus hull 4.

see thats where I think you show you have gone over the top on adjustments.