Motion to Change the beam trait.

[Triggy]

Ahh.. Well Im pretty sure that I read posts from you saying one thing or another was unbalanced. Certainly not always the "rules are always right" sort. I dont think Ive really ran accross anyone here who seriously spouted the rules as gospel all the time.

Sure, I'll argue that ideas are imbalanced, and some designs are peculiar. But rarely if ever actual official designs. The only ones I use, barring RBax Dilgar era ships.

Im sure you've followed Triggy's tournament ships thread.

Nope, haven't read a single message from it. Just like I never read a single message on point construction (I have in the past, I gave up). Two reasons;
1) 'balance' is a great way to make any game boring, bland, and pointless (and a numeric system to achieve it is a certain first step to min-maxing and munchkinism)
2) if I get to playtest any changes, they won't be these designs. And if they're not official, I almost certainly won't use them. Either way, I can wait. The ships I have do perfectly well for me.

Wulf

I disagree with you entirely on both of your points 1) and 2). Using a numeric system to check what you have is actually the final step in preventing min-maxing and munchkinism as it shows areas that are potentially open to abuse and does so with relatively little effort. Most games designers don't run the raw numbers and there are almost always units that slip through the net for being too good or too ineffective. I believe I only pointed out about 8-9 ships in all of the tourney and SFoS lists that I considered to be "too good" and on only two of them suggested large changes and on all of the ships the changes suggested didn't change their playing style. On point 2, I have been playtesting as well and running the numbers so find your dismissing of this point fairly strange as what you are doing is playtesting too. Why wouldn't any potential changes be this design? Is this through deliberately ignoring feedback or just a feeling of nobody else can do things as well as you? I have no problem with you considering the changes unofficial - that's the point! We don't consider anything official until it's in print but until the unofficial ships are playtested, how can you be sure an official ship will be balanced?

 

[Reaverman]

Who said hull 4 is useless in tourney's? Reaverman did pretty well in Q-Con I'd say, winning 2 of 3 games. 7 of his 10 ships had hull 4.

Yes they did. and only lost to those pesky ubered Shadows :evil:

 

[Wulf Corbett]

I disagree with you entirely on both of your points 1) and 2).

Well, yes, of course.

Using a numeric system to check what you have is actually the final step in preventing min-maxing and munchkinism as it shows areas that are potentially open to abuse and does so with relatively little effort.

Or alternatively the first step in redesigning everything to the ultimate tweaked and twinked manimum effect, and allowing a multitude of uber-designs flooding the game with every concievable form of rules bending. Which can only be decided after the fact.

Is this through deliberately ignoring feedback or just a feeling of nobody else can do things as well as you? I have no problem with you considering the changes unofficial - that's the point! We don't consider anything official until it's in print but until the unofficial ships are playtested, how can you be sure an official ship will be balanced?

I have decided to use the Dilgar era ships from RBax' PDFs solely because there are too few ships of the correct dates available to match against the Dilgar. Other than that, I have no interest in more and more and more new and increasingly unlikely ships, and even less in yet another fleet list of all the same ships tweaked to some other preference. If and when Mongoose produce designs with the same stats as yours, I'll take a look at them and playtest them. As to your last point - what's the connection? Playing unofficial designs has no bearing at all on official designs unless and until the same designs appear in official versions.

Wulf

 

[Geekybiker]

The whole game would be fundamentally changed, and I believe for the better, by a simple 'Rarity factor'. No more than one Primus (to take the first example to mind) may be purchased for every 5 ships in a fleet. That would encourage use of smaller ships, they're cheap...

For once I fully agree with you. Rarity on ships would allow for having some really good ships for their PL without ending up with entire fleets of them. It would also make sure people have to take the workhorses of the fleet for better or worse. Honestly I think this is almost essential for the PL system to really work well in the long run.

 

[Chernobyl]

standard PL breakdowns?

like:
40% at PL or above
60% below PL?

 

[Ripple]

Sigh...

Three really scary points coming up.

One is this official is like church. can't question church regardless of how unbalanced it becomes in play. It's like Mongoose has some divine insight into its rules that mere man can't comprehend. Oh wait, they are mere men aren't they.

Second is the idea that folk acting in official capacities for Mongoose are simply ignoring whole catagories of commentary on the product. If the playtesters can't even be bothered to read feedback on the tourney list that's pretty frightening.

Third is the insistance that the game be geared for a playstyle that is a small minority of the games actually played. One-off makes up the majority of the games I play and I'm involved in a campaign. Heck I'm the judge in this one and was a player in our last one.

Ripple

 

[Reaverman]

The whole game would be fundamentally changed, and I believe for the better, by a simple 'Rarity factor'. No more than one Primus (to take the first example to mind) may be purchased for every 5 ships in a fleet. That would encourage use of smaller ships, they're cheap...

For once I fully agree with you. Rarity on ships would allow for having some really good ships for their PL without ending up with entire fleets of them. It would also make sure people have to take the workhorses of the fleet for better or worse. Honestly I think this is almost essential for the PL system to really work well in the long run.

The rarity bit aint going to work, since I am sure more than one Primus was in some battles. Also G'Quans were 10 a penny, so its going to be hard to validate. It will also mean that the Ancients really suffer, since they are going to find that there big ships are limited on numbers. Another point is Fleet selection, since that sometimes is the deciding factor on who wins

 

[emperorpenguin]

Sigh...

Three really scary points coming up.

One is this official is like church. can't question church regardless of how unbalanced it becomes in play. It's like Mongoose has some divine insight into its rules that mere man can't comprehend. Oh wait, they are mere men aren't they.

Second is the idea that folk acting in official capacities for Mongoose are simply ignoring whole catagories of commentary on the product. If the playtesters can't even be bothered to read feedback on the tourney list that's pretty frightening.

Third is the insistance that the game be geared for a playstyle that is a small minority of the games actually played. One-off makes up the majority of the games I play and I'm involved in a campaign. Heck I'm the judge in this one and was a player in our last one.

Ripple

I don't understand point one sorry

point two, I can't vouch for all the playtesters but equally don't take Wulf's statement to mean we all don't, because I certainly HAVE kept up with Triggy's plus other's suggestions

Third, well you should know that I predominately play one off games

 

[Target]

Points rather than priority would solve a lot of problems. Crap ships are worth less points. Good rare ships are worth more. Imagine that you could buy the campagn upgrades for your ships. Being able to have an expensive command ship that you created. If you have less points than your opponent you get a bonus to initiave. Points aren't that fiddly especially when you purchase fighter flights singlely.
Another way is to Core, Special and Rare units/ships like Warhammer. That means you will have a certain amount of less capable ships.

 

[emperorpenguin]

Points are more fiddly than the PL system though, I'm having a nightmare putting together a Skinnies list, not to mention my Eldar and Dark elves and thousand sons

 

[Twin-Linked Aldades]

Well, i`ll get flamed for this but heck...

The top pages on this forum are all about the same `drop beams, raise hulls, etc etc blablabla` or what seems to become EP`s personal crusade, no offense matey, since as you stated it`s your job as a playtester etc etc etc, but try not to force an issue thorugh the rest of us there throats, some just happen the game the way it is... Not intended personally, don`t get me wrong (I`m trying my uthermost to voice my ideas which are in my head in dutch to a written down version in english)...

I for one don`t think any of it needs to be changed. If a big beam nasty looks evilly at my hull 4 Thetys I know it`s going to die... on the other hand, it does survive occassionally and that makes for one hell of an heroic tale after the battle, not to mention a huge cheer on that legendary moment itself...

I have been playing acta since day one in all it`s variations and add-ons (the magazine lists, sfos, etc etc etc...) and still like the game a lot. Some ships are less popular, so be it. Beams are good against hull 4 ships? Don`t put them there then...
Referring to `source material` look at in the beginning; big Sharlin with beam equals a popping small Olympus...

Now looking `over the borders` as has been done with 40k etc in several topics, maybe, just maybe, an idea could be to look in the direction of Flames of War and their selection criterium. In that you wouldn`t buy a loose ship but a squadron of them, for example a Centauri light support could consist of 2 Dargan`s and an Amar etc... Just a farsought idea...

But in the end, i think a ship popularity all comes down to a player`s own tatste and whackiness.. I regularly take an Explorer, which often runs out of crew instead of blowing up, and apart from the limited +1 command, even that makes the fleet at best equal to some other races priority level, isn`t a battle winning ship, but hell, it is such a cool vessel (in my idea that is)...

 

[emperorpenguin]

Well, i`ll get flamed for this but heck...

The top pages on this forum are all about the same `drop beams, raise hulls, etc etc blablabla` or what seems to become EP`s personal crusade, no offense matey, since as you stated it`s your job as a playtester etc etc etc, but try not to force an issue thorugh the rest of us there throats, some just happen the game the way it is... Not intended personally, don`t get me wrong (I`m trying my uthermost to voice my ideas which are in my head in dutch to a written down version in english)......

I'm proactive and as a playtester I see a lot of problem areas that maybe others don't

I am getting accused of shouting down at people but look there's about three posters having a go at myself and others who post these things and we're accused of "whining" and not using "tactics"
We're getting shouted down

As for people saying there's no problem with the rule at present. Deja Vu the same ludicrous arguments were flung at myself and others about Minbari stealth when we first DARED say it was too good

likewise fighters pre SFOS or White Stars

It's easy to shoot the messenger rather than think "hey I'll try it and see"

 

[Twin-Linked Aldades]

Sure, and some things might get better with some tweaks and peaks, hell, I play WS`s and I think their hull should get down to 4 but not making their dodge `worse`, or they would be shot down real easily.

The problem (okay, so problem might be a bit of a big word) but why throw everything overboard from the last 2 years for something all together fully new. It would become another game, no longer acta. Call it Victory at Space if you will, but this game is about, in the end, big ships, big rays of light, and heroic efforts of poor quality vessels.

Balance, competivity, all fine in a sport, but in the end, don`t we play this game for fun and the joy of the Babylon 5 series instead of a sports where having a fair chance of a win rules all? Anderlecht isn`t going to beat Real Madrid any given sunday, but once in a decade it does happen and then everyone is euforious. Same with a Haven Patrol Boat versus a Victory Class destroyer. GW has that competitive edge, Magic has that also, even FoW in a certain degree (okay, unless you play italians, then you just go for it and hope for the best) and that has only led to the creation of a huge, and growing, group of `anti-players` of those games / systems / companies...

 

[emperorpenguin]

Sure, and some things might get better with some tweaks and peaks, hell, I play WS`s and I think their hull should get down to 4 but not making their dodge `worse`, or they would be shot down real easily.

The problem (okay, so problem might be a bit of a big word) but why throw everything overboard from the last 2 years for something all together fully new. It would become another game, no longer acta. Call it Victory at Space if you will, but this game is about, in the end, big ships, big rays of light, and heroic efforts of poor quality vessels.
s...

That'd mean you'd end up getting hit more! :lol:

Because there is no such thing as sacred rules which can't be changed. IF there is a problem better to fix then ignore it and see the game die because we stuck our heads in the sand and ignored potential fixes out of "comfort" and that is all it is

I stand by my assertion that if VAS had come first we'd not be arguing to DROP target values from B5!

 

[BigG26]

Right I've skim read this topic and to me as a complete noob I feel that the rules are fantastic! I play as lonaw and i have played approx 6/7 one off games and one campaign game at idgaming!

My last one off game on thursday was a 9pt raid would you believe against my mates shadows. One of his hunters tore through my right flank and accounted for two Brikortas and one Tiraca. His shadow ship and second hunter accounted for a Bimith between them and the ship caused damage to my kaliva! His shadow scout did literally nothing!! I beat him by takin a Kaliva and Takata and blew chunks out of him from a distance. My Bimith also powered into the middle of one of his hunters and his scout and caused a massive amount of damage to both ships before being blown up itself!!

I've played Vorlons and beat them, Narn and beat them (the Narn have become my second fleet because of that game), Dilgar and had my rear handed to me on a plate, played EA twice (one win, one loss) and I've had a draw against Drazi.

I find twin linked to be incredibly scary! Especially when you are rolling 12/14/16 AD! My milani and Bimith have caused so much devastation because of it! At the end of the day it is a tactical game that comes down to the roll of the dice! Nothin more, nothin less! Realise this and you'll see the game for what you like about it and not what you dislike about it! Just my opinion!

Gary

 

[Twin-Linked Aldades]

Feel free to test it, our group did it.
At hull 4, dodge 3+, the WS gets more hits, but dodges out of harms way still enough for the self repair to keep up.
At hull 5 dodge 4+, it can`t get away to often and most hits quickly decimate it.
Hull 5 dodge 5 makes them easy pickings for any gun.

Anyways, I`ve spend my time usefull during these debates, and did the proposed things in a few solo games, I`ll post my ideas and impressions in the correct topic

 

[Target]

Similar thing goes for Havens, Sho kos and Kutai's. Increase their dodge by 1 and they become far better. Not sur about Sho Kos Ion torp varient as it has the range.

 

[Triggy]

I disagree with you entirely on both of your points 1) and 2).

Well, yes, of course.

Using a numeric system to check what you have is actually the final step in preventing min-maxing and munchkinism as it shows areas that are potentially open to abuse and does so with relatively little effort.

Or alternatively the first step in redesigning everything to the ultimate tweaked and twinked manimum effect, and allowing a multitude of uber-designs flooding the game with every concievable form of rules bending. Which can only be decided after the fact.

Is this through deliberately ignoring feedback or just a feeling of nobody else can do things as well as you? I have no problem with you considering the changes unofficial - that's the point! We don't consider anything official until it's in print but until the unofficial ships are playtested, how can you be sure an official ship will be balanced?

I have decided to use the Dilgar era ships from RBax' PDFs solely because there are too few ships of the correct dates available to match against the Dilgar. Other than that, I have no interest in more and more and more new and increasingly unlikely ships, and even less in yet another fleet list of all the same ships tweaked to some other preference. If and when Mongoose produce designs with the same stats as yours, I'll take a look at them and playtest them. As to your last point - what's the connection? Playing unofficial designs has no bearing at all on official designs unless and until the same designs appear in official versions.

Wulf

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Triggy, dude, you didn't say anything just there... :?

 

[Triggy]

Obviously lost in the mists of time. Something along the lines of:

Sorry Wulf if I sounded harsh, I didn't mean to be.

On the topic of looking statistically/numerically, I don't see how this is a problem - it is used as a check that highlights potentially problematic ships and in my looking at both the SFoS and tourney lists I've only seen about 8-9 overpowered ships and most of these, real life has confirmed. There's no reason why a mathematical approach has to make everything bland, that's poor design if it does. I don't rely on just the numerical approach and when I find what I consider to be an unbalanced ship I try it out in battle too (most of the time with similar results). For the most part only the worst offenders get "red flagged" and from the online community the ones I've picked out tend to be ones picked out by most people too (I'm thinking the tourney Hunter and Sagittarius and SFoS Minbari fleet, Tertius and Prefect as prime examples)

Also, I've never suggested using points values for ships - I love the current system as it is. I do think there are imbalanced ships out there though and I can demonstrate this without too much difficulty. One example would be the SFoS White Star - a simple number check very quickly shows how overpowered this was and how the tourney version is still powerful but not overwhelming.