Game Balance - Hopes and fears for 2nd Edition

[MongooseMatt]

Because there is no way to create a balanced game using unique and individual sides. As long as this ship has different stats then that ship then there will be a way to unbalance it. Unscrupulous players are a part of the game (unfortunately) and you can always just refuse to play them. If they go to the Tourny and you are forced to play them, well suck it up and walk away in the knowledge that your are the better person for taking a balanced fleet.

This is partially true. What you can do is limit the excesses of this, and provide tools for a fleet to _potentially_ deal with any other fleet. Remember, a player's choice of which ships to take is just as much part of balance as what is available on a fleet list. What works for one opponent may not have an equal effect on another - this is part and parcel of games such as this.

I'll give you an example - the playtesters have just highlighted a difficulty for Abbai fleets to deal with Vree, who can simply skip out of range and pound. What should we do? Increase the speed, power and range of the Abbai? Of course not - that would shatter the theme of the fleet. What we _can_ do is ensure they have access to the tools for dealing Vree, in the same was as they have the ability to deal with Minbari, EA, and everyone else.

 

[MongooseMatt]

To be honest it would be interesting to know how many players there are for ACTA revised edition? B5 has been finished for a while how many people actually pick up the game each month, I'd be surprised if it was in double digits.

Prepare to be surprised

 

[MongooseMatt]

Which to me, sounds like its being rushed. A lot have people on here have mentioned (myself included), we would rather you take your time and get right, than rush it and watch the forum implode from angst gamers!

Dude, we have been working on this since the release of Armageddon. I am sorry, but you are flat wrong.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Like the man said, take as much time as needed to get this right.

You are presuming it is wrong in the first place. It was necessary to insert that mechanic in VaS because of the era, and the fact that fewer units would generally be on the table allowed us the luxury.

In a space combat game based on B5, it is simply not needed - you can presume most shots from capital ships will hit their target (and for fighters, this is why you have a Dodge score).

Adding a 'to hit' mechanic would be a backwards step, would add nothing to the game, and break something that has worked perfectly well for years.

 

[LaranosTZ]

I think the one mechanic that needs a change is stealth, even with modifying it to make it easier, or harder, it essentially is still an all-or-nothing roll. One or two turns of single rolls on bad stealth can spoil a game for an individual, maybe not from the perspective of win/loss, but certainly when looking at the overall fun of the game.

I know we all have games that frustrate us, where the dice just aren't with us. Even in those games there is usually something you can do, or at least even if the majority of your rolls are bad, you're still getting through with something. With stealth you can spend an entire turn doing nothing.

I have seen several suggestions for changing this mechanic, or doing away with it all together, (my personal suggestion is to simply halve the range of any weapons shooting at a ship with stealth, no mechanic, just a change of tactics required.) In this case, I think there is a certain element of trying to stick with a flawed mechanic simply because it was the first one that was agreed on, and the designers are unwilling to consider tossing it and trying something new that may work better.

The rest becomes more a question of balancing ships and stats then changing the rules, which are probably the favorite base ruleset I've played in quite a long time.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I, personally, don't like the beam fix as you're all aware, but so far that's my only gripe with the way things are going. I'm just hoping the Centauri - my own fleet - gets the attention needed to make them balanced, accurately represent the source material and eliminate the "broken!" cries that have dogged them since I got involved in this game.

The Beam rule was always going to be controversial, but players will quickly get used to it, it will be easier for new players to get to grips with, and it solved a problem for Hull 4 ships.

As for the Centauri, you are going to have to get used to their new approach. But I think you are going to like them

 

[MongooseMatt]

The new stealth rule does exactly the opposite of that. Keeping track of which ships have already broken the stealth on certain enemies and haven't broken it on others, is not streamlining, it is making it way more complicated! Bin it.

Have you tried the new Stealth rules out?

You no longer have to mess around with fighters, you have the ability to sway Stealth in your favour (whichever side of the equation you are on), and bookeeping is minimal, with you just having to note one or two Minbari ships a turn, on average.

It is quite simply better.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Yes but I thought 2e was about streamlining rules, not having more and more coloured dice to represent different things. It does kind of make sense but its just too much bookkeeping.

If you reduce bookeeping in one area, you can safely expand it in another without over burdening the game. The new edition will have more tactical options for players, but the overal bookkeeping overhead will be the same or less for most games.

 

[MongooseMatt]

It kind of makes a mockery out of the advanced sensors on scouts which are required to give lockon assistance. Suddenly all ships have them, and no CQ check required!

It does not quite work that way.

And you can stack it with scout redirection!

So there is a reason to have scouts after all. . .

I wouldn't mind seeing this in squadrons (you could say the lead ship is directing fire for the squadron) but giving it to ships which could theoretically be on opposite sides of gas giants is a stretch.

Well, only if you are limited to line of sight communications which we managed to get past in the 20th Century. . .

 

[MongooseMatt]

So he's not playing anymore based on a fleet that has yet to be playtested? :roll:

Yeah, that made me smile.

Goes to show what rumour can do. . .

 

[MongooseMatt]

I keep hearing from Greg at least that the game is not changing much.
It is just not true. There are major changes to at least one major mechanic affecting virtually every fleet. Just the changes to movement, criticals and beam can be looked at as virtually game defining.

Well, no. The changes to movement are minor, and the other two you mention are effectively bolt-on rules.

With so much in flux I am concerned that there seems to be significant disagreement between the play testers and mongoose.

And this is something I am completely unaware of. As far as I have been made aware, there is no 'significant' level of disagreement between staff and playtesters.

Do playtesters always get their own way in this process? Of course not, and for two very good reasons.

1. Playtesters do not always agree, no matter how passionate they may be for an idea.
2. Playtesters are sometimes, how can I put this. . . wrong.

I'll explain the second

We operate a very open policy in the CTA playtest group. Anyone can make any comment/suggestion, at any time. This is not restricted to game balance, but fundamental rules and fleet concepts as well. They can even suggest new ships.

However, there is a difference between a playtester and a designer. There is a definite direction we want various areas of CTA to go in and, sometimes, no matter how good a suggestion might be on the surface of things, it is just incompatible with where we need to take the game. The 'to hit' roll debate is a good example. Yes, it could add something to the game, yes, it could allow us to do new things - but it is not somewhere we want to take the game.

I should also take the time to point out that some of the suggestions from the playtesters have been absolutely astounding, and you will see the fruits of their labours in August.

 

[MongooseMatt]

The simple counter is: more fighters for your money.

And you end up flooding the table with fighters, and substantially altering what the game is.

We _have_ thought about these things

 

[MongooseMatt]

and makes stealth even suckier than it already is.

Yes, because Stealth is noted as being very bad for the Minbari. . .

 

[MongooseMatt]

I'm gonna throw down the gauntlet to Mongoose (in case they're reading):

Do away with closed door game development. Seriously. Move to total open development. In the internet age, you have access to hundreds of potential playtesters, why not use that resource.

We tried a form of this with RuneQuest, and though the experiment did not go the way I would have liked, it was enough to convince us that this is absolutely _not_ the way to go. There are massive time overheads for processing so many comments, and little ability to have a single cohesive vision for the game. Add to that there is always a section of the community who are just plain rude when they do not get their own way during the playtest stages, and it is just not worth it.

However, you _do_ have the ability to make your voice heard and thus have an impact on the game. You can use these forums. You are doing it right now!

Oh and stealth? Terrible fix.

Have you tried the new rules?

Stealth uses the same mechanic as a dodge. So each model gets a "stealth" save against each hit and/or damage die done.

And, again, we have looked at this method - it has been suggested many, many times.

The problem is here that while it may be a balanced solution, it simply does not reflect Babylon 5 as we see it on the screen. And that is a stated aim of CTA.

 

[polemarch]

Great Thread...

What I really (really) like about these forums is that you get excellent feedback, comments and follow up from the guys at Mongoose.

The fact that Matthew has taken the time to directly answer most of the comments and maintain a smile (I think) is fantastic. Even better is his comment about opening up the playtesting group for a final review prior to release of 2e.

Give praise where praise is due.

My views on 2e.

I think that not only is it a good idea, it is a must. Whilst the basics of the game are simple, easy to learn etc... the number of books, rules changes, clarifications, lack of clarifications etc... make 1e just a little unwieldy for someone new to the game.

In regard to balance, I think that it comes down to whether you are playing socially or in tournaments. Since you are not limited to using miniatures (since you have counters) you always have the option in social games to adjust your fleet selection to balance the matchup. The trouble with tournaments is that you generally have to play with the list you bring to the tournament against all comers. This can always lead to mismatches and perhaps in the case of ACTA tournaments, flexible fleet design would be a viable option.

Rules changes, apart from modifying their impact on the game I believe that it is important to refresh rules to keep the people who play the game fresh. i.e. I like the opportunity to discover a different way to play an existing army or fleet and have the opportunity to use miniatures I may not often use since they may have been crap under the old rules. I know a lot of people who just get in a gaming rut and play the same old thing the same old way and wonder why they feel the same after every game.

Personally I like what I have seen so far in S&P. Sure they will force a lot of people to design their fleets and play differently, but this is probably a good thing.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I think that not only is it a good idea, it is a must. Whilst the basics of the game are simple, easy to learn etc... the number of books, rules changes, clarifications, lack of clarifications etc... make 1e just a little unwieldy for someone new to the game.

This is precisely the point - it happens to all games that are continually developed after a while, and a new edition is required to basically tidy everything up. What keeps the designers going is that it is also an opportunity to do at least some of the cool new things they have been dreaming up over the years since the original release, but have been deemed too major for a simple supplement.

Everyone wins

 

[Celisasu]

Speaking of balance I have a campaign balance question as opposed to ship balance. One thing people have commented on is that some races have far better refit and other duties tables. Using two extremes, the Narn have one of the worst refit tables out there(They're the only race with a refit that basically says "give up your kickass ship and replace it with a lemon") and on the opposite end you have the Drakh who have almost a solid line of excellent items on their tables. While balancing the ships is more important, I'd like to know if some work has been done to fix the bugs and imbalances in campaign play as well? I'd also like to see the tables be more flavorful.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I'd like to know if some work has been done to fix the bugs and imbalances in campaign play as well? I'd also like to see the tables be more flavorful.

There is no area of the rules that has not been subjected to examination.

 

[Celisasu]

That's good to hear. In all honesty I haven't had a chance to try campaign play(it's a pain just getting one off games going here) but I'm hoping to eventually.

 

[Burger]

A little while before release, we are going to have a second group created, drawn again from people on this forum (probably the mosy vocal, cynical and pessimistic ones ). This will act as the Test Group for 2e, using the final laid out files for the game, and will have the opportunity to poke holes and break balance.

Fantastic \o/
That is definitely the best news about 2e I have heard yet!
I always thought the playtesters were involved too early, so they see so many different revisions and changes that they can't face reading through the entire book again, seeing stats they've already seen a hundred times, and miss things because they expect it to say one thing therefore see that. A fresh set of eyes looking over "almost final" stats is definitely the best way to spot "10x Sag" type issues