Game Balance - Hopes and fears for 2nd Edition

[Hash]

Hi all,

Judging from preview stats, previous ships (pre-fixed Armageddon sag) and the subsequent responses on the forum, I think it's fair to say that a number of players have become increasingly concerned and maybe a little frustrated at approaches to game balance.

A cynic may comment that stats *seem* to get published, quickly noted as blatantly overpowered by the majority of the forum (if not the player base) and subsequently changed and revised...sometimes multiple times...in S&P. I need to say I find this approach both frustrating and question why it is necessary.

It is my hope that the expanded playtest group can ensure that ACTA V2 will be "good to go" from the outset, that Mongoose will listen to them, and will be as balanced as can be...in fact I would be in favour of expanding the playtest group to as many players as could be (the entire forum perhaps?!) - this wouldn't affect me buying a hardback book if it was a tightly balanced and streamlined game.

Now the reason I care so much is that I think that the core ACTA ruleset is a cracking set of rules - quick, easy-to-play, and generally a step above other wargames in the genre...with a cool setting to boot...kudos to Mongoose for that. However, there are so many balance issues that creep up and threaten to ruin the game for me that I'm seriously considering just Ebaying my fleets and being done with the game...there are other things I can spend my cash on.

I'm sorry if this seems negative, and it isn't an attempt to bash anyone, it's just a post expressing my concerns and my hope that they are unfounded. So come on Mongoose - don't rush this, take your time - listen to the playtesters and please get this right

 

[Alexb83]

Speaking for myself, I am somewhat frustrated by the 'talk to the hand' attitude of some playtesters on certain issues, certainly where I've found that other playtesters are more moderate and understanding. It doesn't inspire much confidence when playtesters have expressed reservations about whose opinions are/aren't carrying more weight amongst their own number.

It's even more baffling where in some cases, Mongoose has done things without even consulting their playtesters at all. Begs the question as to what the point is at all...

At the moment, I think the big issue isn't the core rules. The move/turn dynamic is okay (although it could do with revision). The main issue is ships, and 'balance'. First ones need revision to their damage (apparently dealt with in 2e - although this seems to be the stock answer for all issues). Many races need balancing within their own fleet lists, let alone against each other (the big issue).

 

[versengeteriks]

The Ad (playtester) stated quite clearly twice over the weekend, once on the way home from the tourney, and once yesterday while painting figures for a different game.

That he is not playing B5 anymore. And its because of the current state of 2e, and poor decisions. we may get him to play the odd game but he seems pretty serious. The big one was realising the new ultimate cheese fleet. Gaim.

When i mentioned the new troli stats to him he just walked away. And thats not like him. Id normally get some sort of a rise but no... nothing.

Ive only been playing for a couple of months. He and Tank got me into this. But to see them go from really enjoying a game to one of them refusing to play it anymore because of silly management decisions, is making it less likely I'll bother to buy 2e either.

 

[Burger]

Just for clarity, Adam isn't a playtester, he is Tank's playtesting opponent

I totally agree with everythingHash said!

 

[TGT]

I have to agree with Hash on all counts.
I think we as players should start being more vocal in our concerns.

If Matt wants to treat this thread as an open letter I think he should.
It would certainly be an astute move for someone to advise him of the increasing number of revised edition players that will not be buying nor playing 2nd edition.

I think he'd be very wise to reconsider the 2nd edition and maybe redirect efforts into possibly a campaign book, balancing the existing fleets and integrating new fleets and additional models.

Personally I think 2nd edition will be an absolute flop. Tourneys will still be run, based on revised edition and supported by a "players society" much akin to epic and warmaster. Both massively successful games that GW dropped and players picked up.

 

[H]

Lets not be so hasty, 2nd ed still has at least a couple of months of playtesting to go, issues of balance should easily be addressed in that time, or at least made less of an issue, I am really looking to second Ed as a mechanic to boost the popularity of the game, after the damage done by Armageddon. Maybe Hash is right, maybe it needs more playtesters, but maybe that would just make it more awkward to agree. one thing for sure is that all the existing playtesters must be vocal and must be heard, they all play the game, some perhaps more than others. It needs an open accepting attitude, and maybe, some people, Matt included need to listen more closely to what is said both by playtesters, and players.

oh, and TGT, look for a "unnoficial" sourcebook after 2nd ed, I'm midway through writing it now, although Matt has asked to see it anyway, it won't be printed, as Mongoose it would seem will stick to their 1 hardback a year promise. (but some of it might make it in, heres hoping ;-))

 

[TGT]

I'm always pesermistic about things... I can just see the 2nd edition needing a lot of refining to become playable. Which is frustrating as first edition is nearly there.

 

[cordas]

Is the problem with 2nd ED really to do with the rules? Or is it to do with fleet balance? Whilst they are interconnected they are 2 seperate issues. Having read the preview put up in S&P 43 I am excited about 2nd ed, I like the alteration to beam, I like what it sounds like they are going to do with beam, I also like what it sounds like they are doing with Hyperspace (and HS bombing) although I personnaly hope its still available to ships without AJPs, just a fair bit more difficult to achieve.

On the fleets side I am maybe a bit more cautious, I have been annoyed with some of the recent ship releases in S&P. I have felt that old GW new must be better than old feeling creeping in, the new trolli is a perfect example, but that is a seperate issue to the rules. There is still a load of time left till the game is released and plenty of time for more play testing to balance ships and fleets, and as we know MGP is quite prepared to delay stuff if they feel the need...

So lets lay off the "screw you guys I am going home" attitude, lets just carry on saying what we want and arguing for it, and hopefully MGP and the play testers will listen and make us a game we all want to play.

 

[Alexb83]

Like Neil, I think there's definately more room for working out the remaining kinks in 1e, without trying to straighten out the whole bag of snakes - you could say that revising the ships amounts to a new edition anyways, which is fair enough, but I think that needs to come first and foremost before any major game mechanic changes come in (like shadow ships freezing, refraction, 4+ beams etc. etc.).

I don't think there's any single fleet list atm where you can say that the ships are balanced in and of themselves, let alone where you start pitting them against each other, and I'm not convinced that a limited pool of playtesters can offer a satisfactory level of control (especially not where some seem quite heavily opinionated). I remember playing a Neroon against a Ka'bin'tak on Vassal with Katadder back when Arma first came out - a lucky 4/6 crit ended it on turn one effectively for the narn, and it was called, with no indication of a repeat test to see how it could've gone (quite easily bad for the Minbari IMO).
Not a great playtesting method - indeed, just throwing any given ship against any given fleet isn't good enough as a QC check, each ship needs to be considered against each, ideally.

The whole deal of playtesting seems somewhat redundant lately though, how the hell did the new Troligan get through?

 

[TGT]

ok less of the screw you attitude...
I want 1e fixed before I pay xx.xx amount of money on a new edition.
Hows that?

 

[Burger]

The whole deal of playtesting seems somewhat redundant lately though, how the hell did the new Troligan get through?

The playtesters were not shown the stats prior to release.

 

[H]

but is a new edition not a fix for an old edition anyway?

 

[Alexb83]

I think that about sums it up

What needs doing is a whole revision, rather than GW 40k-esque codexes which constantly up the ante on the unit rules and contradict each other. It's good that Mongoose are going for the whole package and moving ships and rules together - this avoids the issues with retroactive balance between fleet n and fleet n+1 and so on. But is this too much of an overhaul for one upgrade?

 

[Greg Smith]

Is the problem with 2nd ED really to do with the rules? Or is it to do with fleet balance?

The rules changes are relatively small and enhance the gameplay or eliminate a few kinks. The changes to the fleets are wholesale.

I know there are a considerable number of forum regulars who play with the playtesters. I know they've seen 2e and have expressed some concerns about it. I would suggest they go through the rules and fleets in some detail and put their thoughts on paper and have their friendly neighborourhood playtester email that to Matt.

 

[cordas]

Is the problem with 2nd ED really to do with the rules? Or is it to do with fleet balance?

The rules changes are relatively small and enhance the gameplay or eliminate a few kinks. The changes to the fleets are wholesale.

I know there are a considerable number of forum regulars who play with the playtesters. I know they've seen 2e and have expressed some concerns about it. I would suggest they go through the rules and fleets in some detail and put their thoughts on paper and have their friendly neighborourhood playtester email that to Matt.

Sounds good to me I just got a bit peeved by people slating the idea of 2e. I don't really see 2e as a new rule set, I just see it as I dunno... a new edition of the old rules.

I see some problems in CTA, such as the dependence on hull 5/6 ships, and the awesome power of stealth (when the dice roll the way they do sometimes) and I see these being addressed and am happy. I really don't care if they come out in 2e or a book like armagedon thats an "addon".

I do see these have game balance issues and needing a rebalancing of the fleets... The question is how well will the fleets be balanced....

 

[Jhary]

The hole problem comes from the Hull 5/6 Problem. when i play with new players i have ever to answer the quistion who is playing a Target Practise ship with hull 4. On a die 6 are only 6 number some fleet list hade gain in the past new ship´s with Hull 5 and 6 ande other and gain nothing then they balanced the high number fleet against each other and the lower Hull ships where nice notes in the List but not really play able.
My fear is that they do the same again look at the major races and balance there around and the others where given one two sweets and one/two year later we are at the same point again where we was before.
Maybe faster then how do you explane an narn or Centauri player that his ships have now only Hull 4/5 when they had hull 6 before. There are to many hull 6 ships in the game. I remebered when the discusion was about rule for building self ships. every one was shouting about then you will see only hull 6 ships on the table and what have we now? Hull 6 Minbary against Hull 6 Centaury against Hull 6 Narn against hull 6 EA and all the other are laughting when you enter with an theme fleet from hull 4 to 5 because they blow you out of the sky

 

[H]

you need to look at the Drakh then, Hull 6 doesn't exist in their fleet, and they are the newest complete fleet to be released, in fact they only have 2 hull 5's, the majority of their fleet being hull 4 at present. Their ARE too many hull 6 ships to be sure, this is the limitation of a D6 unfortunately.

 

[Alexb83]

Even more laughable are the hull 5 and 6 fighters... please. Fighters as tough as major warships (or tougher!).

Either it's a value for the strength of the hull, or it's not. Their ability to dodge or evade fire is represented by the dodge rule more appropriately.

 

[H]

Even more laughable are the hull 5 and 6 fighters... please. Fighters as tough as major warships (or tougher!).

Either it's a value for the strength of the hull, or it's not. Their ability to dodge or evade fire is represented by the dodge rule more appropriately.

Good call yes! Thunderbolts have better armour than raiders!

 

[katadder]

its a combination of how easy to actually hit and their armour. small things moving fast are harder to hit, and thats before you start adding in the fact they can evade (dodge). whereas big ships its more just about their armour.