Back to methods of playtesting (that was the thread purpose, right), I hope that everyone uses actual models, not vassal, not even chits. I'm concerned with how big the ships are and the no stacking rule. Knowing that a ship model is physically problematic, might make a difference in the ship - or at least in its playability. Just a thought.
Playtesting - Your Methods
- Thread starter Tank
- Start date
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
animus said:
I don't use models all the time, how could I possibly afford every model of every race!? :shock:
I use counters where I haven't the correct models, and playtesting the Drakh and Dilgar before their models were on sale would have been impossible by your logic!
philogara_mk2
Mongoose
Target said:
But these match ups shouldn't go 50% one way and 50% the other. Come on, the might of the republic against an upstart race, using reverse engineered technology? If these two should be matched, then they would have to be much the same in stats, and by follow-on so should the Omega, Avoiki, etc.? That would mean having every battle level ship effectively identical.
Okay, the Primus can out shoot a G'Quan, but in a fleet action the G'Quon would be clearing any fighter cover for Narn fighters. Thats its strength in "make-up" for not being a straight shooter.
Phil
philogara_mk2
Mongoose
emperorpenguin said:
Unless it was B4...
philogara_mk2
Mongoose
With regards to fluff vs. choices. Yes the choices should be there, but they need clearly defined roles and/or time frames. Some of the options do not seem to do that (the Orestes/Omega being an obvious one to me). The other option is to have some limiting mechanic - rarity levels or whatever. If for whatever reason EA is having to use Orestes still, then perhaps this should be represented!
Phil
Phil
Greg Smith
Mongoose
emperorpenguin said:
Not only do we have to playtest them all, we have to try and 'break' them by playing 10 of every one. :roll:
Okay I understand you guys can't use mini's. Duh. My bad. But if possible, use something that approximates the size. I'm struggling with stacking issues more than I'd like - especially for a space combat game with vast scales.
I guess what I'm also saying is fix stacking in the next edition!
I guess what I'm also saying is fix stacking in the next edition!
Allowing stacking causes far more problems than disallowing it. Mainly in the area of trying to move ships at the bottom of a stack being a nightmare. Although some weird tactics like area denial through occupying the space are possible with no stacking, it saves problems in the long run.
As for playtesting - I do think every ship should have a defined base size that is "tournament standard", simply to encourage a standard. Not everyone has to stick to this and tournaments/one-off games wouldn't either but it would provide a starting point for players. Also, many players play with counters anyway (I do about 2/3 of the time) so using counters is actually quite representative of a chunk of the gaming community. Maybe changing the size of the counters would be a solution...
As for playtesting - I do think every ship should have a defined base size that is "tournament standard", simply to encourage a standard. Not everyone has to stick to this and tournaments/one-off games wouldn't either but it would provide a starting point for players. Also, many players play with counters anyway (I do about 2/3 of the time) so using counters is actually quite representative of a chunk of the gaming community. Maybe changing the size of the counters would be a solution...
i see some people saying you wouldnt see a primus/g'quan fight as centauri players take the tertius. this is true for one off games as most people play them definately to win and will take the better ship any day.
but think about it this way - what if the primus was put in more for campaign players? after all if you play by dates and timelines you wont always get a tertius depending on how late you play, but you can normally always get a primus.
yes the tertius is better than a g'quan for the most part altho i have beaten them with my g'quans loaded with ship busters. and yes there is no choice between the tertius and primus for one off games but as you can see mongoose caters for both one offs and campaign by having both ships in there.
but think about it this way - what if the primus was put in more for campaign players? after all if you play by dates and timelines you wont always get a tertius depending on how late you play, but you can normally always get a primus.
yes the tertius is better than a g'quan for the most part altho i have beaten them with my g'quans loaded with ship busters. and yes there is no choice between the tertius and primus for one off games but as you can see mongoose caters for both one offs and campaign by having both ships in there.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
The problem with bases sizes is that Mongoose specifically allows players to use miniatures produced by another company, as well as counters or it's own minis. Which makes standardising basing difficult.
katadder said:
I can totally see what you're saying, but all I'm saying is that maybe there should be some sort of payoff for taking the Tertius besides losing 1 interceptor, like a slightly raised damage threshold or a lower crew compliment. Small things that while not massively crippling the ship will actually make it more of a choice as to what you actually want. It's just simply a case of trying to actually make choices more, well choices as oposed to total no brainers most of the time.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but i don't see changes like this breaking the game. If anything, they would improve the game as a lot more thought would go into some fleet selections than just always going for the super winningest combination.
Another thing to keep in mind about the In Service Dates is that not everyone uses them, even for campaign. Lots of folks play ahistorical campaigns involving races that do not exist alongside each other. Allowing power creep because something is further down the timeline along exacerbates the pl problem. PL becomes useless as a balancing feature if it does not actually rate the strength a ship.
This is a playtest issue in that folks are often confused by what you are playtesting. Are you playtesting the actual strength of a ship, the strength relative to some time progression, the strength relative to other ships in its own fleet, the ships relative strength to similar ships from other fleets within a particluar time band, etc. Saying that a Tertius should be better than a Primus at the same pl due to it being availabe later is basically saying that the Primus is an unnecessary set of stats except for those who play campaign using ISD and that in all other games the Tertius is the standard cruiser of the Centauri.
I am all for variance. The Altarian vs the Eulatiarian (or something like that) are great variants. They fill different roles. But two ships that fill the same role and are the same pl and are almost the same but one is just a tad better. That's just putting in historical information. Save that for the various 'War...' books. We could have lots of those with tons of era specific variations for those who want them without cluttering the main game with what will ultimately just be arguement points.
Ripple
(mind you I could be wrong about this...talking with you all and the roommate....)
This is a playtest issue in that folks are often confused by what you are playtesting. Are you playtesting the actual strength of a ship, the strength relative to some time progression, the strength relative to other ships in its own fleet, the ships relative strength to similar ships from other fleets within a particluar time band, etc. Saying that a Tertius should be better than a Primus at the same pl due to it being availabe later is basically saying that the Primus is an unnecessary set of stats except for those who play campaign using ISD and that in all other games the Tertius is the standard cruiser of the Centauri.
I am all for variance. The Altarian vs the Eulatiarian (or something like that) are great variants. They fill different roles. But two ships that fill the same role and are the same pl and are almost the same but one is just a tad better. That's just putting in historical information. Save that for the various 'War...' books. We could have lots of those with tons of era specific variations for those who want them without cluttering the main game with what will ultimately just be arguement points.
Ripple
(mind you I could be wrong about this...talking with you all and the roommate....)
philogara_mk2
Mongoose
Tank said:
What did I miss?
Need to play it a few times first to be convinced.....
They split up the Orestes and the Omega into different EA fleet lists so it isn't really a valid example anymore. Came to realize that after I made the posts comparing the two earlier in this thread.
Makes me wonder if that is how they'll solve all these other issues. Just split the ships across multiple fleet lists representing different timespans. The question of course is if people will ignore that the same way they ignore the ISDs now.
philogara_mk2
Mongoose
Obsidian said:
Ahhh, it seems like an obvious solution, though, I guess you then have the problem of all races having to have the same timebreaks.
lastbesthope
Mongoose
philogara_mk2 said:
No reason why they should
LBH
