Game Balance - Hopes and fears for 2nd Edition

[On_DS9]

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.

Well, all I can say is that GW did it for a great number of what was formerly known as their Specialist Games, and the process worked. Not their main line stuff, but Specialist Games, where the staffing levels were low but also the number of gamers were low. Because look, how many people are there here who post a lot?

Honestly, I'll bet if you did open development that you could tap a volunteer moderator to screen out the chaff and summarize ideas and feedback. At the very least, you could get lots of people playing the game and then you have literal hundreds of playtesters.

Look even if you did nothing but accept feedback on playtesting, it'd be worthwhile. There's tons of gamers who could play far more games for you to test out various rules and fleets. They can spot things you miss before publication. I fail to see how that can be a bad thing.

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!

Yeah, and with due respect, it's not seeming like said feedback is being taken into account. Look, let's take stealth. The consensus is that the rule is frustrating. Not unbalanced, just not fun. So any modification of that rule is not going to fix that problem. Your solution, from what we've seen, is to adjust the existing rule. Our feedback is that what's needed is a different rule. So far, it doesn't seem like our feedback is being accepted.

Oh and stealth? Terrible fix.

Have you tried the new rules?

No I haven't. Because I can't. Release the wording of the rule and I will.

Bottom line: you release hints that are out of context and then reply that our snappy comments are because we're taking the rules out of context. That's not fair. We can't read your mind. Release the whole ruleset, so we can comment on it as a whole.

Hints and rumors begit frenzied rumor-mongering.

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.

Okay, fair enough. That's a fair response to my feedback and idea. How about this as a fix:

if you fail the stealth roll, then weapons are considered inaccurate. When a weapon is inaccurate, a player still rolls the number of attack dice, but any successes must be re-rolled. If the second roll is also a hit, then the attack hits. If it's a miss, then the shot misses.

Inaccurate weapons affect special rules in the following way:
Beam: the weapon cannot use this ability (i.e. is no longer beam for this turn).

Anti-fighter: the weapon cannot use this ability. So enemy auxiliary craft still have their Dodge.

Twin-Linked: The weapon cancels the effect of Innacurate, but may not reroll hits. So the weapon would simply roll the dice once, without rerolling hits or misses.

This was lifted from another thread and doesn't take into account the Beams always hitting on a 4+. So maybe take out the special note on Beams, they just have to reroll hits.

That would at least let me roll some dice at a stealthy enemy. Personally, I think you could leave the hull and damage alone and just increase the stealth across the board as a balance. Give most Minbari a +1 bump on stealth.

 

[Jhary]

cordas wrote

Nice ideas, but it will make a far more complicated game, where you have to work out multipul different factors to work out what is needed to shot a ship. The thing I love about ACTA is the simplicity of the game and the quick and easiness of working out whats going on.

Not real look there is an Table top on the market what use this system its called B-Tech.

To MSprange

I read here to many times your Its not what we see on TV-Screen, To hell you made Model even complet Fleet list of Ships What are not shown on TV. dilgar Ship for exampal.

 

[emperorpenguin]

To MSprange

I read here to many times your Its not what we see on TV-Screen, To hell you made Model even complet Fleet list of Ships What are not shown on TV. dilgar Ship for exampal.

I appreciate English isn't your first language but I find it difficult to understand your meaning here :?

The majority of models are based on those from B5 Wars, if we only had ships from the show this game would be very, very limited

Was that your meaning?

 

[Celisasu]

At least thog loves his d12.

And you can also go after Qin players for the d10. They at least have two of them.

As for the World of Darkness I don't think it destroyed co-op play. I mean Werewolf had whole sets of things devoted to teamwork(pack tactics, etc). Grantd Vampire encouraged player vs. player stuff but that's the setting of Vampire.

Going back to 2nd Edition, I'm not bothered by the beam rule changes. They feel odd and seem strong but I'm guessing at least some ships will see drops in their AD. And Hull 4 does need some sort of help to survive.

And no on two dice per weapon as well as bonuses and penalties based on evasive maneuvers. I like my ACTA simple thank you very much.

As for improving fighter dodge and lowering hulls, most fighters already have a dodge of 2+. You can't lower them! :lol: They'd be impossible to hit.

 

[Jhary]

Was that your meaning?

On One side we hear "oh that was not on TV!"
On the other hand Ships and races never shown in TV are in the game.
(Nothing against them but why then telling us first "Not seen in TV"

That give me that "Shut up i don´t care what you say" fealling.

 

[emperorpenguin]

Was that your meaning?

On One side we hear "oh that was not on TV!"
On the other hand Ships and races never shown in TV are in the game.
(Nothing against them but why then telling us first "Not seen in TV"

That give me that "Shut up i don´t care what you say" fealling.

who said "oh that was not on TV!" I am sorry but i don't know what you are referring to :?

 

[Darzoni]

Holy cow. What is it in the gamer mentality that insists upon these sorts of threads or discussions whenever a new edition of a game/ruleset comes out?

I'll take a wait and see attitude on 2nd Edition. God forbid somebody play a few dozen games against lots of different opponents using different fleets and tactics before rendering a final judgement on a new edition.

 

[Target]

Still sounds like i won't like where stealth is going, don't like the not being able to hit thing at all due a single dice roll, prefer the ideas of increases hull or no of bulkhead hits or rerolling succesful hits. Guess i will have to wait & see how things are in 2e.

 

[emperorpenguin]

increased hull would be a bit crap versus troligans and neshatans, plus the problem it'd present to the new beam mechanic.........

 

[animus]

In truth in "the show" EA Early could NEVER lock onto a Minbari. It seems an act of mercy that they have a chance now.

Bring on the new stealth rules - but don't go too far; the Minbari should be Born Again Hard! (I love that line)

 

[emperorpenguin]

msprange post

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

great joke i remeber no episode with an WS-Gunship

Oh come on that is ridiculous! So you wouldn't want ships that aren't seen in the show? :?

That is VERY different to accurately reflecting the feel of the show eg non-beam reliant centauri

 

[MongooseMatt]

Why would you ever take scouts?

Because the bonuses stack, and Scouts are the only way to get that much of a reduction. As several Minbari ships have had an increase in Stealth, this will be important. . .

 

[MongooseMatt]

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?

Are you asking if I am God?

 

[Jhary]

Oh come on that is ridiculous! So you wouldn't want ships that aren't seen in the show?

That is VERY different to accurately reflecting the feel of the show eg non-beam reliant centauri

No I want that This "Sorry not on TV-Phrase" is not longer more used.

Give better then answer what makes sense. and not this Phrase.

If my tone was harsh sorry.

 

[MongooseMatt]

That would at least let me roll some dice at a stealthy enemy.

We have seen this suggestion before. Again, it does not reflect what happens on the screen.

Also, you are quite wrong in that a mechanic can indeed be altered to work better, rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water. . .

 

[animus]

Are you asking if I am God?

.. :shock: ....I mean, I've seen worse deities. At least you talk us, reply to our prayers, so to speak. Yes sometimes the answer is no, but hey, a god that takes suggestions is good in my book.

Johnny, First High Priest of Sprange

 

[MongooseMatt]

I read here to many times your Its not what we see on TV-Screen, To hell you made Model even complet Fleet list of Ships What are not shown on TV. dilgar Ship for exampal.

And the problem with that is?

 

[MongooseMatt]

Holy cow. What is it in the gamer mentality that insists upon these sorts of threads or discussions whenever a new edition of a game/ruleset comes out?

I have never minded them too much - it would be much, much worse if there were no comments!

 

[Pauly_D]

Oh come on that is ridiculous! So you wouldn't want ships that aren't seen in the show?

That is VERY different to accurately reflecting the feel of the show eg non-beam reliant centauri

No I want that This "Sorry not on TV-Phrase" is not longer more used.

Give better then answer what makes sense. and not this Phrase.

If my tone was harsh sorry.

well the aim is that if it IS seen on tv then it should definately be in the rules (unless it was a CGI error) but if we only used ships that were seen in the show then Narns would only have T'Loths, G'Quans and Frazi's (B5 CGS anyone remember those days?) naturally if we did that then it would be to restrictive and of course other races will have more ships than are seen in the show so mongoose has used the designs created by Agents of Gaming from the B5 Wars game

 

[MongooseMatt]

No I want that This "Sorry not on TV-Phrase" is not longer more used.

Give better then answer what makes sense. and not this Phrase.

Well, I am very sorry, but that is the phrase I choose to use, and there are very valid reasons behind it.