How much Influence do we as players wield?

[TGT]

From most of the posts I've read and my own personal feelings, there seems to be a general disapproval of a lot of the revisions of rules and ships (inc the actual models) that have come from Armageddon.

One rule that is particularly nonsensical is that Anti fighter weapons cannot fire before fighters.

It also seems that many of the ship classes are just unusable and are a complete waste of PL.

I 've however played many systems inc Full Thrust and I wonder how easily an actual ship creation points system might work.

I do really hope a great deal of effort is taken with the second edition, especially with collecting information from the forum and from talking to players at the Tournaments. I will be along on the 11th so please feel free to have a chat.

I started collecting the B5 ships a long time before I started playing the ACTA rules. I think If the second edition is as poorly thought out as Armageddon, and we as players are being asked to buy a new rules system to correct obvious flaws, I might go back to just collecting.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

I do really hope a great deal of effort is taken with the second edition, especially with collecting information from the forum and from talking to players at the Tournaments.

There have already been two major drafts of 2ed playtest rules, and vast numbers of changes, mostly in detail, and mostly responses to or refections of opinions and ideas from the forum (which of course includes the playtesters). There was a deliberate attempt not to change things too much in any of the first edition books or supplements. This is not the case with 2ed...

Wulf

 

[thePirv]

Mongoose do seem to listen for the most part. Many of the changes brought forth in the Tournament lists and Armageddon are as a direct result and you'll never please everyone with the changes you make. However, it does appear that only a select few are listened to for the most part, whereas a good deal of people's opinions are just brushed aside on occasion.
Bit of a mixed bag really.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

However, it does appear that only a select few are listened to, whereas a good deal of people's opinions are just brushed aside.

Design by committee is never a success. Most of the ideas here either are designed only to suit the one individual, or are so radical as to invalidate much of the existing game. More people might be listened to (or, more precisely, might have ideas that come to action, regardless of whether THEY were the originator, or simply had the same ideas as others) if they considered the impact of their ideas on the game as a whole, and the rest of the players.

Wulf

 

[Burger]

Vote Redundancy for v2! :lol:

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Vote Redundancy for v2! :lol:

Vote Redundancy for Burger!

Actually, again, I'm not AGAINST the idea, I just don't like a proliferation of Traits and special rules.

Wulf

 

[thePirv]

However, it does appear that only a select few are listened to for the most part, whereas a good deal of people's opinions are just brushed aside on occasion.

Design by committee is never a success. Most of the ideas here either are designed only to suit the one individual, or are so radical as to invalidate much of the existing game. More people might be listened to (or, more precisely, might have ideas that come to action, regardless of whether THEY were the originator, or simply had the same ideas as others) if they considered the impact of their ideas on the game as a whole, and the rest of the players.

Wulf

Like the Tourney Saggi getting extra AD when Armageddon came out didn't benefit a few and leave the rest of the community asking what just happened?

 

[Voronesh]

Yer the Sag is pretty much a cesspool for MGP currently.

Theyre just human, so theyre bound to mistakes, even big ones.

And yes you can have all the ideas floating here, some of them often being diametrical opposites of each other.

But often enough we get listened too. Only sometimes (ok in the prearmageddon and during armageddon release time a bit more often) do i get the feeling that MGP is moving a bit too fast, so stuff cant reach the big community and as such be gammatested. Or betatesting on a huge lvl. (Name it what you want, but no one finds problems as fast as 500 avid gamers and fans)

 

[TGT]

I think its poor to say that "Most of the ideas here either are designed only to suit the one individual, or are so radical as to invalidate much of the existing game." I completely disagree and I think if your taking that attitude to comments made on the forum, its validating the view made before concerning a select few who have influence, when its all of us who make a gaming ACTA community.

Individuals will obviously return comments on experiences within the game and obviously be influence by what they are playing with and against. Its not our job to streamline them into the whole body of the game, we hope this is taken into account for us.

I think if my history serves there's been far greater advances from committee than from seats of power based upon a "select few".

Maybe a wider community of play testers would help.

"More people might be listened to (or, more precisely, might have ideas that come to action, regardless of whether THEY were the originator, or simply had the same ideas as others) if they considered the impact of their ideas on the game as a whole, and the rest of the players."

I just wonder if people would have a greater influence if they waited for snippets from V2 rather than rushing out and buying it. I know I saved money by paying to enter the tourney and getting the pdf.

 

[thePirv]

More playtester couldn't hurt. That way there'd at least be people deliberately trying to break lists and take advantage of things like the Saggi, unlike the current system where it seems to simply be playtested for comfort and ease of play rather than balance throughout.

 

[TGT]

Maybe we could suggest that some of the time at the Tourney be put aside to discuss increasing play tester numbers. I presume those participating are the more avid and knowledgeable players?

 

[Wulf Corbett]

I think its poor to say that "Most of the ideas here either are designed only to suit the one individual, or are so radical as to invalidate much of the existing game." I completely disagree and I think if your taking that attitude to comments made on the forum, its validating the view made before concerning a select few who have influence, when its all of us who make a gaming ACTA community.

I think it's perfectly realistic to say so. I'm talking about ALL the ideas, not just the popular or common ones, or just the ones that get worked on. The majority of suggestions just are not worked out, and most of them would add a level of complexity entirely out of keeping with the game as it exists.

Wulf

 

[Wulf Corbett]

More playtester couldn't hurt. That way there'd at least be people deliberately trying to break lists and take advantage of things like the Saggi, unlike the current system where it seems to simply be playtested for comfort and ease of play rather than balance throughout.

I'd have said it was a matter of getting anything done within a single lifetime. Collating ideas input and reports from more and more people, often contradictory as it is, takes TIME.

Wulf

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Maybe we could suggest that some of the time at the Tourney be put aside to discuss increasing play tester numbers. I presume those participating are the more avid and knowledgeable players?

Not neccessarily, I'll be there and they don't come much less avid or knowledgable than me!!

Cpt Kremmen

 

[katadder]

well perhaps keep the same amount of playtesters but change them for other people for a change. obviously the current ones dont play things to breaking point, or even attempt to break fleet lists combos etc. need some more powergamey and tourney type playtesters in there, ones that will find the flaws etc.

 

[thePirv]

More playtester couldn't hurt. That way there'd at least be people deliberately trying to break lists and take advantage of things like the Saggi, unlike the current system where it seems to simply be playtested for comfort and ease of play rather than balance throughout.

I'd have said it was a matter of getting anything done within a single lifetime. Collating ideas input and reports from more and more people, often contradictory as it is, takes TIME.

Wulf

Too many cooks spoil the broth yes, and having massive numbers of playtesters is a very bad idea as there will be massive discrepancies in what they report, BUT only having five playtesters is blatantly not working for ACTA, otherwise there wouldn't need to be constant rules updates and clarifications to rules that have been part of the game from day one.

 

[TGT]

I agree more play testers and probably new ones.
This should be twined with comments and experiences gathered from tournaments. Where most fleets are brought into full exposure by particular ship choices and omissions.
MGP really need to derive a coherent and respected set of rules for V2 and NOT generate new rules that will require in perpetual revision.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Like the Tourney Saggi getting extra AD when Armageddon came out didn't benefit a few and leave the rest of the community asking what just happened?

I thought we reacted to people's opinions on that pretty quickly. . .

 

[MongooseMatt]

Vote Redundancy for v2! :lol:

We are indeed looking at several different mechanics to handle just this. Not entirely convinced by the concept as yet, but we are listening!

 

[katadder]

well redundancy as a best bet i think would be like the ancients version but with limited uses depending on battle level. so the crit can take effect as it takes time to actually reroute things.