Proposal: The White Star - The Knife Fight Variant

[katadder]

its not meant to be that at all and methos obviously sees what I am trying to put across.
the playtest documents are based on what matt decides not what the community or even the playtesters ask for as its his game. he does read the forums and may make changes/additions on comments but he makes the final decision on what goes in and he has asked people to test these.

I never at any point said dont make stuff up and test it and I never will as I do it myself and so do many others. what i did say was the testing you did on knife fight WSs wasnt counted towards testing as it wasnt testing published material. it was testing your own ideas which may or may not be used. I told you it wouldnt be and you went off all upset/sulky.

now you wanted to be kept in the loop, i pased on info i recieved to keep you in it. however you took this very badly for some reason even though what you were testing wasnt published stuff.
rather than taking it badly, sulking and saying whats the point in testing, why not come up with something differant. perhaps matt will take interest in that but if its not whats been published to test then dont expect it to go forward, just have a hope it does.

also if you do test something new I will no longer let you know when is a good point to stop and better ask someone else to keep you in the loop as obviously you expect your ideas to be heard above everyone elses and expect because the majority want something it will go in. this is not always the case if the game is not heading in the right direction and only matt can know exactly what direction that is.

as an aside I am not a representative of mongoose. just a playtester with his own views that may or may not coincide with mongoose. you asked to be kept in the loop so i did. no longer, official word only from now on.

 

[Hindsight]

The fact that you are the type of person Matt would choose to have his ear, and speak for him when he is too busy to speak himself, makes me sad.

I stand by the White Star Knife Fighter, as written in the original post, as the alternative to resolving the concerns that many have with the White Star in its current form. Sniping White Stars are against the feel of the series, and as 80% of the polled people agree, will be a resolution to many complaints.

It is what we, the players, are asking for, and I stand by these cumulative 30+ pages of forum posts and discussions.

You just keep repeating the same thing Katadder, again and again, and that leaves me eagerly waiting Triggy's return from Vacation, so we can have someone speaking to us with some tiny shred of humility and tact.

 

[katadder]

on a completely differant note but actually back on topic - the knifefight WS looks unlikely as matt doesnt want such a major change.

this is what I started with and got sulkiness and people having ago about wasting their time.
I have tried to explain things as plainly as possible. I have to repeat things as they obviously are not getting through to some people.
neither me, triggy or greg speak for matt, all we can do is try to keep you in the loop. all i get for that is abuse. even when I agree with the ship you are trying to put forward and I passed this ship upto matt right away, in fact i like it that much I am changing WSs from boresight to knifefighters in the supplement I am working on. standing by it wont change alot unfortunately much as I wish it would. hell if we all stood by our ideas and didnt budge nothing would ever get done as we all have differant ideas on how things will go, majority of us wanted boresight WSs from before 2e but some things we cannot change.

doesnt matter which one of us you talk to matt will decide what matt decides. none of us talk for matt or mongoose but I did pass on info so you wouldnt waste more time testing.
its not a slap in the face, its a simple fact.
I'm sorry you take offense for whatever reason but thats the way it is.

 

[H]

The fact that you are the type of person Matt would choose to have his ear, and speak for him when he is too busy to speak himself, makes me sad.

I stand by the White Star Knife Fighter, as written in the original post, as the alternative to resolving the concerns that many have with the White Star in its current form. Sniping White Stars are against the feel of the series, and as 80% of the polled people agree, will be a resolution to many complaints.

It is what we, the players, are asking for, and I stand by these cumulative 30+ pages of forum posts and discussions.

You just keep repeating the same thing Katadder, again and again, and that leaves me eagerly waiting Triggy's return from Vacation, so we can have someone speaking to us with some tiny shred of humility and tact.

hmm, ok at the risk also off being called names (and I most certainly do not have matts ear) we have a playtest document, we are to playtest the matereal in it, we may like it or not, we then have to justify it and make proposals. just designing a ship then throwing a hissy fit because it isn't accepted isn't constructive and isn't how we were asked to playtest. IF you want to design a ship for a fix, cool. see what people think about it, in many cases people will agree with you, BUT it still isn't what we were asked to do. ther are many many posts in this forum where a huge majority of people said one thing, but Matt and mongoose did not take it on, they don't have too, heck they had absolutely no obligation to post the playtest rules in the first place and if people continue whinging then they may well not do it again.

I personally think the WS knifefighter is a much better proposition than the current proposed fix, and everyone knows my scathing hatred of the WS and the whole damn ISA, your Idea is GOOD, it is, but the way you are acting now is not, if you want to be taken seriously,you have to be able to accept your idea is dead. I posted a possible G'Quanth idea, I PM'd Greg a tester and got no reply, I posted on the forum and people preffered other ships, have i thrown a hissy fit, nope, do i hate greg, nope, do i hate all the people who didn't like my design, well, maybe a couple of them but hey ho. so come on, shape up, do some playtest results using the proposed whitestar, and tell matt about them, prove that it doesn't work, then he "might" consider an alternative.

 

[Ripple]

Have to agree... I, and the group I play with, has had a few back and forths with the playtesters on a few topics, but I would never say they are not being up front and honest with us.

They asked us to participate in testing Matt's proposals for changes, at least in part due to our asking them too, and rather than test and post battles we 'armchaired' the majority of the proposals. So we failed at the first part of the task assigned... we substituted 'review' for 'playtest'.

We then went on to do creative work. Nothing wrong with that, but it is a sidelight to what they asked us to do. We just need to remember that.

Chris Z has pushed the concept of 'out of scope' and voting on the proposals actually put out. I chided him a bit for it, as his style of testing and mine are different. But in this case he was absolutely right. Our task was test what was on the table and vote up or down... anything else we wanted to add was at our own expense in creative energy and emotional investment.

To the playtesters that have kept us informed... don't walk away from us because some folks get a little testy... it's a temporary state of mind for everyone but me... they'll get over it.

Ripple

 

[katadder]

Apologies for maybe getting worked up, its quite hard sometimes as we all argue over the game because we like it. Plus some of us have been working on P&P since just before 2e was released so theres alot of work gone in.
We dont ignore ideas, in fact alot of them get debated. Dont be put out if yours are the ones not used.
This phase of testing has brought up alot of stuff, some changes in ideas, some noticing broken stuff we may not have noticed, we are not beyond getting things wrong because of being testers, we are just gamers like everyone else and can miss things.
Keep up the good work and we will endeavour to keep you in the loop

 

[Da Boss]

Fine words Gentlemen -

 

[Greg Smith]

The original WS had 5+ dodge, Adaptive Armour didn't save crew, 1AD double damage laser, although this was SAP not using the current beam rules, and didn't have accurate guns.

The AA rules were quickly revised.

The ISA was considered a fleet for expert players.

 

[stepan.razin]

The ISA was considered a fleet for expert players.

Hehe, more like masochistic players.

 

[Methos5000]

not so sure on your idea as it nerfs WSs as well but maybe, prefer knifefights to that.

I have been thinking about this some more and like I mentioned earlier we know the knife fighter is out, we also know that the WS will be getting a nerf. I think the issue is we want to make sure the WS get the right kind of nerf.

Its already been said many times by many people what kind of behavior this current nerf promotes. Even the ISA haters don't like this. That right there screams not a good nerf.

For now, until proven otherwise, I stand by my new proposal (I stand by the Knife fighter to but that is a dead end right now), I have playtested the current nerf and found it lacking. I still tried getting up close like I usually do and found that half the time my beams missed. The current nerf is discouraging because I feel I am being punished for using Whitestars the way they appeared on the show. I know up close I will lose ships and I accept that, we saw plenty of WS go boom on the show.

I suppose an alternative, though it would require a stat change, would be to reverse the ranges on the weapons. 18" Molecular Pulsars and 10" Improved Neutron Laser. But then that may bring up complaints as the ISA would have an 18" accurate gun.

 

[Court Jester]

It is my personl experience as both designer and playtester that playtesters never just "play test". The world would be amuch better place if they did.

There is always far too much armchair testing, playtesters thinking they are designers and never enough actualy gameplay.

And what's this we see... players getting upset bacause mongoose doesn't pander to all the wanky threads around here...Well colour me NOT suprised...

This is open playtest, not open design. So don'tget upset when you are told Matt does not want to take the WS in that direction.

 

[Hindsight]

I would love it, if people would not skim what I write, before calling me out on something.

For starters, 1) I didn't design the Knife Fight White Star, I think the title came from Methos and the ideas of shortening range was I believe initially suggested by me and then cycled through several pages and I simply compiled the overall consensus of the former thread before this one.

I do not take ownership of the idea, nor do I think it is the only solution. I think the White Star is fine the way it is, and I play it in a up close and personal way. The proposed change favors sniping, and that shouldn't be how the White Star is best played. It is an elite over sized fighter with a eyes of fire and a heart of gold.

2) We have Katadders word that Matt didn't like the reduced range on the White Star. By his own admission, he didn't tell Matt about increasing the damage for added HP, and only that, by his word, it is probably out.

3) Track That Target is in. Matt doesn't like it, he thinks it is a bad idea, but he let it in, because we asked for it. This is no different, and stands as a fine precedent that if enough people vote on something, and in the poll at the forefront of this post, that it will go into the final game, against the judgement of the developer. Why is this different?

You people act like I came up with this by myself, and am sulking because I want some credit or something for this design. It is a nerf, and it better represents the White Star. I think it is a rather huge nerf as we will typically lose the whole first turn in shooting, where as it is now we can shoot, and it makes the White Star a lot easier to get away from, as if you spread out enough and we focus our fire in one direction, it'll limit other things we can shoot at.

Finally, lighten up.

The group I play with has some folks who have been with ACTA for a very long time, since B5 Wars, and I have some Co-Workers who have been with the game as long as well, and know Matt Sprange from when he worked for Games Workshop. Had a talk about Matt with Matt Smith from the UK just today, so I may be new to ACTA, but I'm not unconnected to information about Mongoose, and no stranger to minis companies.

I hear a lot of frustration, and a lot of people feeling like taking part in testing, and contributing to the forums isn't worth it, as no one cares, and no one listens anyway. I was the guy trying to rally my local crew and say "hey, let us give Matt the benefit of the doubt and support this renewed playtest effort, as if we don't we only have ourselves to blame for not getting involved." Some agreed, and you've seen some folks from my local group on here, but many others have seen the game take a dip in quality, and aren't thrilled with the new direction in P&P. The Centauri didn't get enough of an update, the proposed White Star isn't worth using, the CBD 4+ on Narns is just broken, and those ESA 1 Shot Mines resulted in games being won in a single turn.

I'm trying to be optomistic, and supportive, in a sea of pesimism, and I have to get from Matt second hand, that our efforts were for not. Maybe the White Star will not be changed at all now, that we shot down the idea of -1 AD when doing anything else. Maybe Matt has other ideas, but thats really the problem. You're dealing with a Weapon with only 2 AD as it is, you can only do one of two things, reduce the range or traits of the weapon, or cut an AD. One AD beams are just lame, as I can't roll a 4 to save my life.

I'd like, given the sheer volume of pages on the topic, to hear Matt's take on the White Star from his own mouth. Not this second hand stuff through Katadder. I'd like direction, and not just "no, don't like it."

How about some next steps? How about some alternate options for testing? Something? Anything? Oh... do we have to come up with that on our own...? Didn't we do that already?

Meh, half of you won't even read a tenth of what I said, and will still reply in reference to the perceived message and not what I actually said.

Color me discouraged. That is my perception, and I am not alone.

 

[Ripple]

I read every word if you were referring in part to me...

I don't think anyone is really looking at you as trying to own the idea and grabbing for credit, rather that you were upset about time put into testing an idea that hadn't gotten a green light to test from the designer himself.

And yes, Matt is putting in some things that he doesn't like, but they are things that have been argued since I first came on the board. That's a long time folks have been demanding something of the sort of SA that TTT is.

We have a fairly large local group and some of those folks did a lot of testing for B5Wars as well. Doesn't make me feel I know anything more about where Mongoose goes with the product.

All we're saying is your clearly upset with the track this one issue went, and not entirely because of the concept being lost, but because of the work that went into it. All we asking you to remember is we all raced after this idea in one way or another without checking in with Matt on what was within the scope of the changes he wanted.

Without that, we had very little chance of getting this kind of change on the first go, and the mistake we made was getting excited about an idea without first getting the designer to sign off on the concept sketch before we went to blueprints.

Ripple

 

[Hindsight]

Indeed, so as I said, what now? What next?

"Matt didn't like it." doesn't give us anything to go on. Just a "heh you wasted your time" and now... nothing... what?

Keep inventing stuff? Give us something different to test... give us a direction to go... give us the math of how a Raid point is valued... anything.

All we did get... was "no", and not only no, but no second hand.

 

[mrambassador1]

Give Matt Sprange a fair go hindsight. Most game designers don't go on forums about their games at all. Matt has been unbelievably available to us. So much so I think he spoiled us and now we expect him to answer our every question personally. I think if anything he listens to us too much, he has included several things in P&P he doesn't like but which we have been pestering him for so he is including it even though he apparently doesn't like the idea. He changed the FAP in 2e from the Armageddon book I suspect largely because alot of us didn't want to be "punished" for bringing smaller ships to battles. Now in 2e he changed it so they don't (8 instead of 6 patrol per battle pt) and the rest of us are saying we get swarmed, so in P&P he's putting it back to roughly where he wanted it originally (way back before SFOS even) which most people now seem to think is about right.

As far as I'm aware ACTA isn't the only game he is involved in making, and he is obviously deep into the writing timeline of P&P. I think he wants input from us on the things he has before he puts the book into a final draft. If he starts adding new things into the book at this stage It will probably be another year before its ready, he might as well start from scratch. The knife fight variant may find a place in 3rd edition or whatever the next book will be, but it seems to me Matt has finished writing P&P and just wants us to give some final testing to some of the content before finalising the publishable draft. The knife fight variant is something for a later supplement or signs and portents.

 

[katadder]

exactly. i did say that he believes its too much of a change for this. I mean you are changing the ranges of 2 weapons rather than just a minor special rule.
this is more stat changes than would be liked. also TTT has been in a long time, the changes that were not liked were its current edition of it.

you're right, i didnt add in extra damage when i passed it up, why? cos this would take the WS into broken and most people were against the extra damage so I just passed on the changes people agreed on.

who's matt smith? and whys his 2nd hand info any better?

one thing, we do care, we do listen and we do pass on ideas to matt as theres far to much for him to go through on his own, especially if hes been away for a few days. currently thats what greg, triggy and myself are doing, going through the forums, collating stuff and passing it upto matt.
most ideas if they get either enough backing on the forums or if we just happen to like the idea get passed up by at least one of us. they also provide fuel for thought on ideas of our own to pass up.
the knifefight WS was not ignored, in fact it was passed on fairly early as I believe its the right direction for this. but you want to be kept in the loop so I told you when this was not going in so that you can move onto other testing. I wouldnt tell you this just for kicks as I like it too.

next steps as you have been told and if you actually read the whole peoples posts will be after Gencon UK as has been said in multiple posts, multiple times.

 

[lastbesthope]

The original WS had 5+ dodge, Adaptive Armour didn't save crew, 1AD double damage laser, although this was SAP not using the current beam rules, and didn't have accurate guns.

The AA rules were quickly revised.

The ISA was considered a fleet for expert players.

And to think, I've been playing them since back in those days.

LBH
(Definitely not an expert player)

 

[Da Boss]

must be up for a long service award LBH?

Was that the edition with the Maximus from Hell - very broken it was

I remember my first game when we played EA vs Minbari and got the Close blast doors very wrong - EA kicked ass when they could CBD and fire all weapons :shock: fun days

 

[lastbesthope]

I've been playing ACTA since it came out, as long as anyone has really, bar the developers/playtesters. And I've always used ISA as my fleet.

LBH