Game Balance - Hopes and fears for 2nd Edition

[Alexb83]

Very, very difficult to acheive on a D6 system. Give fighters too low a hull and no matter the dodge they will roll a "1" with the sheer number of hits they'll take from Starship guns

With respect, isn't that realistic? Fighters are not going to stand up to direct hits from weapons designed to carve through other starships.

The simple counter is: more fighters for your money.

As katadder said, those weapons shouldn't find it so easy to hit/track fighters. In a more detailed system (eg B5 Wars) fighters are harder to hit, but with hulls 0f 4-6 (mostly) you just can't scale things enough

With respect - the 'difficulty to hit' is (or should be) solely accounted for in the dodge value. The 'difficulty to damage' is represented by the Hull value. Otherwise the terms 'hull rating' 'armour piercing' and 'super armour piercing' are wrongly used in the game system.
If the fighter has a higher hull than the frigate because it's 'harder to hit' then effectively what you're saying is that a SAP beam is better at hitting on the one hand, and better at damaging on the other. And that's before you take hits into account.
Also, hits should happen /after/ dodges, not before them. You don't dodge what's already hit you.

 

[Burger]

Also, hits should happen /after/ dodges, not before them. You don't dodge what's already hit you.

You don't need to dodge what isn't going to hit you.

Interestingly, the statistics work out exactly the same for dodging then hitting, as hitting then dodging. Just less dice rolling.

 

[Alexb83]

and makes stealth even suckier than it already is.

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

Well, you may have had different experiences than me Matt, but I have found stealth to be the most hit/miss thing about the game. More frequently hit than miss, if you'll pardon the expression. You may note that as many people that complain about Minbari being too tough to hit, complain about them being too easy to hit. But this effects more ships than just minbari.

I stand by my point on the +1 from ship to ship for pre-detection. It doesn't marry with what scouts are supposed to do as written. Previously to reduce stealth, you had to have dedicated advanced sensors and coms systems, and a good crew (CQ) to achieve it. Effectively this new rule gives you a potential 'scout bonus' which is restricted only to your weapon range (which can be far in excess of the mere 20 odd inches of scout effects). Omega fires from 30 inches with beam, scores lucky hit. Another ship 20 inches away from him gets the effective benefit of having a scout on the table, without there being one.
As for LOS communications - I seem to recall an episode of B5 where they explicitly had to use encrypted LOS communication to avoid it being detected by the Minbari and reacted to.

 

[Alexb83]

Also, hits should happen /after/ dodges, not before them. You don't dodge what's already hit you.

You don't need to dodge what isn't going to hit you.

Interestingly, the statistics work out exactly the same for dodging then hitting, as hitting then dodging. Just less dice rolling.

Yes, but is it not going to hit you because you're dodging, or not going to hit you because your small, hit you, and then you dodge it? =/ logic.

As I've said before, giving a fighter a high hull because it's 'tough to hit' and then making it even 'tougher to hit' by giving it a dodge on top is doubling up. Leave the hull values where they should be, and give them a higher dodge if that's what you're trying to show.

 

[Burger]

Effectively this new rule gives you a potential 'scout bonus' which is restricted only to your weapon range

Actually you can declare an attack, even if it's outside your weapons range or arc. So you could try to break the stealth, even with a ship that can't shoot, to make it easier for your ships that can shoot.

 

[LaranosTZ]

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment:

I could see a high hull value on a flight of fighters not being necessarily a reflection of how tough it is to destroy an individual fighter, but how hard it is to inflict enough damage to the squadron to make it ineffective, (ie, to destroy it.) From that perspective I could see how fighter flights can have a hull value as high as a capital ship. Remeber after all, each counter is supposed to represent a full squadron of fighters, not an individual ship, (with a couple of notable exceptions,) and when you are defeating a fighter flights' hull, and they fail to dodge and are thus removed, that is the equivilent of knocking 6-12 fighters out of the sky in a single barrage.

Now from the other side:

Well, let's use another argument that we get quoted quite often. 'We are trying to make the game resemble what we see on screen in the TV Series and Movies.'

If you're trying to do that, then there's -another- argument for reducing the hull value of a fighter, rather then increasing it. In the TV show and in all the movies we see fighters popping like popcorn whenever anything even resembling a main weapon is fired at it. The fighters are essential to the battle, they provide covering fire, and quite often do quite a bit of damage on their own to the target ships, but the fighter casualties in B5 always seem, well...to put it bluntly, almost pyrric in nature.

 

[Alexb83]

Effectively this new rule gives you a potential 'scout bonus' which is restricted only to your weapon range

Actually you can declare an attack, even if it's outside your weapons range or arc. So you could try to break the stealth, even with a ship that can't shoot, to make it easier for your ships that can shoot.

That's even more patently ridiculous.

 

[Burger]

Effectively this new rule gives you a potential 'scout bonus' which is restricted only to your weapon range

Actually you can declare an attack, even if it's outside your weapons range or arc. So you could try to break the stealth, even with a ship that can't shoot, to make it easier for your ships that can shoot.

That's even more patently ridiculous.

Well actually I'll need to check the wording on stealth to comfirm this. Obviously it might change in 2e. But it has been Rulesmastered that you can use a ship an an "initiaative sink" in the attack phase, if you like. Until now there's been very few reasons to do it.

 

[cordas]

Effectively this new rule gives you a potential 'scout bonus' which is restricted only to your weapon range

Actually you can declare an attack, even if it's outside your weapons range or arc. So you could try to break the stealth, even with a ship that can't shoot, to make it easier for your ships that can shoot.

That's even more patently ridiculous.

Yes its ridiculos to read a hint of what will be in 2e and apply it directly to the original rules. 2e might very well say that you can only declare weapons against ships that are within your arc and range for the weapon.

Lets not start nitpicking the 2e hints, as it is just ridiculous as we don't know what the 2e rules are yet that pertain to the hints.

 

[Alexb83]

Even if it's 'only' within your arc and range, it means you can reduce stealth on ships far in excess of normal scout range, and you can do it without a CQ check, and without the scout trait.

Currently the scout trait indicates that only scout ships have the sensors and communications systems required to detect stealth ships, and relay the detailed targetting telemetry to other ships to assist in their targetting.
Imagining a closely knit squadron passing this information directly from ship to ship isn't too tough, but what you're essentially doing is giving a longer range version of this rule to every ship on the board, whilst leaving the scout rule in there, and ignoring the fluff behind the scout rule.

Why would you ever take scouts? You'd just load up on ships like the Sag, with 30 inch weapons in every arc, split your AD up a bit and before you know it the entire fleet of Minbari ships 30 inches away are all at -1 stealth. Heck, they couldn't even shoot back with ships below War PL

 

[Hash]

Gents - you don't know the full rule set, let alone given it a go - lets not rip this apart before at least a fair trial period to see how well it works!

I am encouraged at Matt's response and the promise of a second, "fresh eyes" playtest group prior to release. It certainly sounds like Mongoose are investing the time and effort to making this a success and engaging actively with the community on the forums. (When was the last time you had discussions with a game developer keen to answer queries?! ) As I said previously, I have great admiration for Mongoose' gamer friendly attitude and I'm sure they appreciate that members of the gaming community can be quite passionate about their games and tend to let that spill into posts and such like I certainly hope that the impact of good ideas in the forums and from the playtesters (and the second effectively "review/sanity check" group) is reflected in the balanced final version that is polished, runs well keeping the essences of the current game we enjoy that is still based on the TV show we know and love.

I suggest that in turn, each and every forum member to their best to ensure that our comments feeding back to Mongoose on the forums regarding development from S&P and other sources are as constructive and well put forward as they can be so Mongoose have every chance of success with this venture.

 

[H]

It worries me that I hear all this in Baltars voice now, you really need to chainge your avatar, NARF!!

 

[Alexb83]

Yes, it is scary when you think of it coming from Baltar...

As for raising issues with rules - isn't it better that this happens now, than after publication?

I mean, look at the way the new Troligan was pounced on by Minbari players and opponents alike. Are we going to be seeing this for every durn ship and rule in 2e?

It's all well and good Matt saying 'we've considered this' and 'some playtesters are right and some are wrong'. But have you considered it enough, and are you quite sure you know which ones are right and which ones are wrong?

 

[H]

Yes, it is scary when you think of it coming from Baltar...

As for raising issues with rules - isn't it better that this happens now, than after publication?

I mean, look at the way the new Troligan was pounced on by Minbari players and opponents alike. Are we going to be seeing this for every durn ship and rule in 2e?

It's all well and good Matt saying 'we've considered this' and 'some playtesters are right and some are wrong'. But have you considered it enough, and are you quite sure you know which ones are right and which ones are wrong?

Things can never be 100percent, you have to accept this, Also, for example, Greg might be off on holidays when a change happens to say, the Warlock, he comes back, realises it's wrong, but everyone else missed it, so it gets stuck in. These things will happen, we can just hope they get some good mitigation.

 

[Ripple]

I also am really encouraged that there will be a set of 'fresh eyes' applied (especially as he's indicated the naysayers may have their day in court).

Thank you for coming on Matt and sharing your thoughts. I'm a bit of a curmudgeon around here, but that is mainly based on the idea that if you don't speak up, you don't have the right to bitch if you don't like the results.

ripple

 

[Lord David the Denied]

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

Don't mistake me, Matt, I'm not assuming everything you're doing is rubbish. It's just this new beam mechanic I don't like much, at this point. Maybe it'll grow on me.

When I said take your time to get it right I didn't mean that I think everything is wrong at this point. Just that I, personally, don't mind waiting as long as necessary to get an excellent game.

Incidentally, in the show we very often see shots from capital ships missing their targets. There's several incidences of pulse cannon fire from Omega destroyers missing by large margins. At least half the fire from the Primus that attacks B5 misses. That's two examples off the top of my head.

I think a to-hit, to-damage system is sensible and realistic, and adds more variance to ships' defences. You could then accurately represent ships that are hard to hit due to ECM systems, dodging or whatever, and ships that are easy to hit but well armorued, shielded or whatever, without the need for seperate shield mechanics in many cases.

Just my two pen'ath of course, but I think it works nicely.

 

[H]

Write up a mechanic and post it? Who knows it could at least make it to S+P as an unofficial optional rule?

 

[Hash]

Yes, it is scary when you think of it coming from Baltar...

As for raising issues with rules - isn't it better that this happens now, than after publication?

I mean, look at the way the new Troligan was pounced on by Minbari players and opponents alike. Are we going to be seeing this for every durn ship and rule in 2e?

It's all well and good Matt saying 'we've considered this' and 'some playtesters are right and some are wrong'. But have you considered it enough, and are you quite sure you know which ones are right and which ones are wrong?

Gentlemen, please be assured my avatar does not reflect my demeanour nor my current circumstances in the slightest and the delightful Tricia Helfer is not even now, most unfortunately, whispering into my ear in a seductive fashion, encouraging me to betray the ACTA community by allowing her access to the Sentient Rabbits Defence Mainframe (my PC).

I am actually encouraged by response to the Troligan. Almost every player seemed to recognise it as grossly overpowered and suggested immediate changes. If this marks the process of the 1st cut ACTA 2nd edition and Matt is the creative person we know him to be, it stands to reason that his ideas are going to be a little "out there" (if you will excuse the expression), experimenting with the art of the feasible.

It will work I believe if the playtest group can effectively act as his metaphorical anchor however and, as such, this is why I believe the 2nd playtest/sanity check group is such a good way forward.

...I do however share your sense of caution regarding new rules, don't misunderstand me, the forum should act as the place where such things are debated after all! All I am saying is let us keep an open mind on some issues, experiment and feed back constructively on not only why we think something isn't quite right but also why we think so and, going by Matt's comment on conceptual ideas driving the game, what concepts we think the rule is introducing.

In any case I'm rambling now and Number Six has just made the coffee so I'd better get back to work

EDIT: Oh and may I suggest that the gamers based in Chicago/US on the forums be among the second "review" group closer to the time? They seem to be very much on the ball when it comes to rules analysis, would give the game a less UK centric testing atmosphere and I would feel very much more comfortable to know that our US cousins has a significant input into game balance. Just a suggestion!

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Write up a mechanic and post it? Who knows it could at least make it to S+P as an unofficial optional rule?

For to-hit, to-damage or my take on how beams should work?

 

[H]

to hit, to damage. Unless you intend a complete copy of VAS?
hey, suggest a beam mechanism if you want, I don't mind the 4 hits approach (although if it works on minibeams too that might be a bit much) but you may have a groundbreaking idea that we thinik is great !