Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
msprange said:
Which stand I, for what it's worth, support whole-heartedly. Now, about those beams, Matt... :wink:
Game Balance - Hopes and fears for 2nd Edition
- Thread starter Hash
- Start date
Which stand I, for what it's worth, support whole-heartedly. Now, about those beams, Matt... :wink:
Right, that bothers me. So if we want things to happen as they occur on screen, then Minbari Sharlins and Omega Cruisers should share the same priority level. Those are the two ships of the line, as shown onscreen.
Heck, let's remove all but the iconic ships because those are "what's on TV."
Sorry don't think so. Some mechanics need to just be tossed.
I can see from your responses to recent threads have shown a lack of interest in feedback. I can see why you are against open development.
Right folks, bye. My brief foray into this game system of a setting I love is done. $100 rulebooks with continues rules development because the company refuses to get it right the first time. Game designer who responds to, but refuses to listen to, feedback. Steadily declining quality of miniature product (or in the case of pre-painted, dramatically declining). Yeah, I can see why Mongoose is and will remain a third-rate company.
On_DS9 said:
I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. . .
Court Jester
Mongoose
On_DS9 said:
:roll:
Court Jester said:
:roll:
Be nice
You have to see things from DS9's point of view. He has encountered several problems in his games, and has come up with solutions that fix them. With a little balancing and playtesting, they would work fine.
The trouble is, we cannot do that, because we cannot consider what goes on around DS9's gaming table and provide a fix for him. We need to consider what will happen on _every_ gaming table that the books land on, with players who will a) not see DS9's problems as problems and b) raise problems with mechanics that DS9 may think are sound. Who is right?
This is why games of this nature cannot be designed by committee. What you will end up with are my ideas of how a B5 fleet game should work, married to the hard balancing work of the playtest team.
However, to give a proper answer to DS9's previous points;
1. We did give consideration to making the Sharlin and Omega the same priority level. Really. There are certainly arguments for it. In the end, it was decided that those arguments were not sufficently persuasive, and did not reflect what was seen on screen.
2. On the subject of tossing mechanics, some have been. Others have been tweaked. However, CTA has proved remarkably successful over the years since release, and there are solid reasons for not making wholesale changes when we clearly have a good formula as a foundation.
3. I find it difficult to understand why you believe there is a lack of interest in feedback when, surely, it must be clear that I am reading each post on these threads, and responding where needed.
Now, if you mean that I seem to have ignored your suggestions, you could not have be more wrong. The problem is that we have considered ideas similar (or the same) as yours in the past and, for various reasons, found them wanting. That is not to say what remains in the rules set is perfect, just that the suggestions are no better (see my above point for different gaming groups though). Please understand, this does not come from idle discussion around a gaming table - we do this for a living. It is our full-time job. We sit at our desks for days on end wrestling with things like this. You may not always like the conclusions we reach, but they are thought out.
4. There are several reasons I am against open development, but not listening to our customers is most assuredly not one of them. If you stick around these forums for any length of time, or talk to some of the longer term regulars, I think you will see that. I am quite happy to stand by Mongoose's record of customer service.
I would like to say thanks at this point. It is rare to see the development team for any major game (and let's face it this is a major game), openly discuss their thought in a forum such as this. From what I have seen of 2nd ed, it seems like the development of this game is going in a direction that I like. I will reserve a final up or down untill a few months after the new book's release, but so far, I am more than happy.
My only major complaint is the horrible quality controll I have seen in my models. Nothing I can't fix with a dremmel and a little elbow grease, but depressing to see none the less. (Then again, I have been making metal models for almost a decade so my deffinition of "a little" may be different from other people's) Given the rate at which these issues are being corrected, however. I will reserve judgement. (any time frame on a new Omega mould?)
SERGE
My only major complaint is the horrible quality controll I have seen in my models. Nothing I can't fix with a dremmel and a little elbow grease, but depressing to see none the less. (Then again, I have been making metal models for almost a decade so my deffinition of "a little" may be different from other people's) Given the rate at which these issues are being corrected, however. I will reserve judgement. (any time frame on a new Omega mould?)
SERGE
pwrserge said:
Well, it isn't really open discussion - it's a case of: "That's your opinion, we don't believe it's right'. No rhyme or reasoning behind it is made evident.
You may have gone through things with the playtest group (or not, from some indications). That doesn't mean that discussion on here wont show you a different point of view, or produce better ideas.
Alexb83 said:
I believe I have, at each stage, explained exactly why certain ideas have been chosen, and why others have been rejected.
With regard to the forums themselves, we collated hundreds of comments during the run up to Armageddon, and continued to monitor the forums thereafter, to get a sense of what players were looking for in the game - the whole fundamental starting block of the new edition was built on the points raised here.
For example, concerns had been raised over Stealth. We looked at the issues being raised, discussed a variety of different ways of tackling it, and picked what we felt was the best solution. It is now being balanced to ensure it works. If it does, great. If not, it gets thrown out and we try something else.
This is how it works. But to say suggest we have not and do not consider other points of view is a little. . . odd.
I'm not just talking about you, Matt, or Mongoose, but your playtesters - who you've said yourself are sometimes wrong.
For indication, from an earlier reply from yourself:
"Yes, because Stealth is noted as being very bad for the Minbari. . ."
I would argue that yes, it is bad for the Minbari. You seem to be indicating that it works well for them too well, in your opinion, and yet in later posts you're talking about upgrading them further.
You talk in S&P about altering Minbari tactics to keep your stealth up - but in terms of the pre-targeted rule as I've heard it from Playtesters in person, and the way scouts work, and racial bonuses, this simply wont work. At raid level and below the Minbari simply dont have a ship that can shoot from outside stealth penalty ranges. So you're stuck taking battle level ships, with commensurately fewer AD than their peers.
If all it takes now to reduce stealth is a successful targetting roll, as I've said, people will just throw AD at ships from range (and yes, most races have a range advantage), and negate stealth no matter what you do.
Given that I've also heard that Minbari damage thresholds are being made lower, and the 'spiral of death' effect on Stealth that lock on and scouts will have, things have just got a darn sight worse.
For indication, from an earlier reply from yourself:
"Yes, because Stealth is noted as being very bad for the Minbari. . ."
I would argue that yes, it is bad for the Minbari. You seem to be indicating that it works well for them too well, in your opinion, and yet in later posts you're talking about upgrading them further.
You talk in S&P about altering Minbari tactics to keep your stealth up - but in terms of the pre-targeted rule as I've heard it from Playtesters in person, and the way scouts work, and racial bonuses, this simply wont work. At raid level and below the Minbari simply dont have a ship that can shoot from outside stealth penalty ranges. So you're stuck taking battle level ships, with commensurately fewer AD than their peers.
If all it takes now to reduce stealth is a successful targetting roll, as I've said, people will just throw AD at ships from range (and yes, most races have a range advantage), and negate stealth no matter what you do.
Given that I've also heard that Minbari damage thresholds are being made lower, and the 'spiral of death' effect on Stealth that lock on and scouts will have, things have just got a darn sight worse.
I have to apologise for splitting posts, but the firewall restricts upload sizes here -
Also, on the fighters issue, this seems to have been effectively ignored or poopooed by certain people.
iving a fighter a benefit for being small as part of its hull score (but not, it would seem, giving large ships a penalty for being big) on the basis of it being 'more evasive' is fuzzy logic.
The terms AP and SAP as relates to such a system make no sense. SAP beams deal better with evasive ships? There needs to be a clear delineation between hull (toughness) and dodge (evasiveness). Someone said lowering dodge even more would make some fighters (most of the main ones) impossible to hit. Well... yes... except with AF weaponry. Is that a problem? Frankly most of them are pretty much immune to normal guns as it is, between hull 5-6 and dodge 2+ scores.
From an earlier reply by yourself Matt, the notion that it's easier to armour a 10m long, 1 man fighter against a 1.21 jiggawatt laser than it is a 1.5km long behemoth of destruction is a bit... odd, too.
Also, on the fighters issue, this seems to have been effectively ignored or poopooed by certain people.
iving a fighter a benefit for being small as part of its hull score (but not, it would seem, giving large ships a penalty for being big) on the basis of it being 'more evasive' is fuzzy logic.
The terms AP and SAP as relates to such a system make no sense. SAP beams deal better with evasive ships? There needs to be a clear delineation between hull (toughness) and dodge (evasiveness). Someone said lowering dodge even more would make some fighters (most of the main ones) impossible to hit. Well... yes... except with AF weaponry. Is that a problem? Frankly most of them are pretty much immune to normal guns as it is, between hull 5-6 and dodge 2+ scores.
From an earlier reply by yourself Matt, the notion that it's easier to armour a 10m long, 1 man fighter against a 1.21 jiggawatt laser than it is a 1.5km long behemoth of destruction is a bit... odd, too.
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Alexb83 said:
Apart from you I don't see anyone else saying stealth isn't good. There are complaints about the one dice roll mechanism, and Minbari being too strong but not that they are weak!
I'm sorry, I thought complaints about the dice roll system /were/ complaints about stealth. I am certainly not the only person who has complained about stealth. I'm not saying Minbari stealth is not 'good enough' (although 5+ across the board is almost definately in order, aside from the Troligan IMO). I'm saying that stealth as a system is not good enough, and the pre-lock change as I've had it explained to me is just going to make it worse, especially for those whose ships live and die dependant on the roll.
Every Minbari player I've met has had issues with it. Every opponent I have met has had issues with it. For the Minbari players it's too easy to break through, and too hard to keep effective whilst maintaining any hope of actually fighting effectively. For the opponents it's usually a case of exasperation at slightly missing out on the dice roll (when they usually have a 50/50 chance against the majority of the fleet, if not better by default).
Every Minbari player I've met has had issues with it. Every opponent I have met has had issues with it. For the Minbari players it's too easy to break through, and too hard to keep effective whilst maintaining any hope of actually fighting effectively. For the opponents it's usually a case of exasperation at slightly missing out on the dice roll (when they usually have a 50/50 chance against the majority of the fleet, if not better by default).
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Alexb83 said:
You missed my point, you are in a minority who thinks stealth isn't good! Matt cannot fix everything to please everyone, this being a case in point, you say stealth isn't effective, most disagree and say it is.
The majority of complaints are about the dice roll mechanic not the weakness.
Alexb83 said:
Okay, you have to understand that what you are doing is adding 2 + 2 and coming up with 5.
The pre-targeting rule, as you call it, does not work the way you think it does, and the Minbari are going to have plenty of options for staying beyond the penalty ranges, at any Priority Level fight.
You are right, the situation you describe above would not work. That is not how the rules play. If it were, we would have spotted it, and then fixed it.
Alexb83 said:
If that situation were to occur (and there is one very good reason why it won't), all it would achieve is to knock the Minbari's Stealth back to its base value. You are going to have to do more than that to negate Stealth.
Alexb83 said:
And this is just plain false. The Minbari Damage levels are currently in a state of flux, due to re-balancing, and anything you have heard isn't going to be worth much.
Basically, it pans out like this. At its core, Minbari Stealth is very effective, and will shield their fleets extremely well. However, we have given other fleets the means to lower Stealth, to the point where on many ships they can automatically bypass it, _if_ they succeed in doing certain things. In turn, the Minbari player has to work to stop them achieving this.
This works because a canny player can more or less bypass the unlucky dice roll syndrome that has been raised on these forums, and yet in other circumstances the Minbari appear as they do on the TV show, and this happens across all Priority Levels. This fulfils all three criteria for any rules change.
I think the problem people have with stealth is it is one roll which has to far important effect on the game.
All or Nothing is annoying for either side it's" Oh! you seen me, im dead " or " You can't See me !!! Time to die :twisted: "
That why i would be in favour the rerolling sucessful hits on failed stealth rolls, probably no crits as well. Less ways to reduce it, maybe just scouts. It could work well with the new way beams work i think.
It also would enable Minbari ships to be stronger hulled & more hits as you can still hurt them even when you fail but it will be much harder. So eliminating the fragile part of Minbari.
If stealth going to be like is on screen, then Minbari ships will have to be tougher. Most shots bounce off & they seem to able take more punishment than other ships. Damn Crystaline armour.
I really hope i am going to be impressed with the way stealth is going to work but single dice rolls controling the outcome of game doesn't impress me.
All or Nothing is annoying for either side it's" Oh! you seen me, im dead " or " You can't See me !!! Time to die :twisted: "
That why i would be in favour the rerolling sucessful hits on failed stealth rolls, probably no crits as well. Less ways to reduce it, maybe just scouts. It could work well with the new way beams work i think.
It also would enable Minbari ships to be stronger hulled & more hits as you can still hurt them even when you fail but it will be much harder. So eliminating the fragile part of Minbari.
If stealth going to be like is on screen, then Minbari ships will have to be tougher. Most shots bounce off & they seem to able take more punishment than other ships. Damn Crystaline armour.
I really hope i am going to be impressed with the way stealth is going to work but single dice rolls controling the outcome of game doesn't impress me.
Similar threads
- Question
