Redundancy/Armour - Which Version?

[Tolwyn]

We use a system with an armor rating 1/4th the ships starting damage. That value is the nummer of critical hits (and their effects) a ship can ignore in a game before suffering any effects.

 

[silashand]

He certainly won't go for anything that is any more complicated than the simpler systems suggested with a lot of playtesting to back it up and even then he may not.

Which is why I am doubtful this will have any effect whatsoever. If he can't see that there is a problem now and that something needs to change then I don't know that any of our playtesting will convince him otherwise. From what you say it really sounds like he's made up his mind regardless what players think. Unfortunately for me if it doesn't change somehow then I can only foresee myself playing ACtA less and less in favor of other, more enjoyable systems. Not trying to drag this thread down, of course, but given your comments I don't hold out much hope. JMO though.

Cheers, Gary

 

[Lord David the Denied]

There will not be any race-specific adjustments in P&P, this assumes that a race's ships are universally weaker/stronger than the norm and whilst it would be good if building the system from the ground up, it isn't practical here.

Also, this method not only combines more bookkeeping and more dice rolling but is simply more complicated than ACtA in general is looking for. Again, from the ground up and systems like this may have a chance but I'm trying not to raise expectations given that Matt hasn't even agreed to redundancy/armour in the first place. He certainly won't go for anything that is any more complicated than the simpler systems suggested with a lot of playtesting to back it up and even then he may not.

I don't see the complication at all. It's one extra die roll per shot and one extra stat per ship. How is this "more complicated than ACtA in general?"

 

[SylvrDragon]

I agree, l33t's system really isn't all that complicated. But we do have to remember who we're dealing with. MSprange has almost no attention span, and all the grasp of balance as that of toddler. The latter may be due to the former, but who knows with him. He can't even give proper, or consistent rulings on his own game. : / I know some may wish to give me flak for saying this, but it doesn't make it any less true. lol

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Attacking the owner of the company isn't that good an idea...

 

[SylvrDragon]

Attacking the owner of the company isn't that good an idea...

I just assume he doesn't pay much attention to these forums to be honest. Besides, if he takes offense from my comments, then he should be man enough to prove me wrong. Trying to swat me for having an opinion would just prove me all the more right, while also proving him to be childish. In all honesty, he really needs to step up to the plate and we all know it. He's got a game that has a strong following and he throws us to the wayside. We've been doing the play testing he should've done. We've been trying to fix the rules that he left broken. And yet we've still been a loyal fan base that buys his products. He's damn lucky to have us.

 

[katadder]

Seems like the vast majority are in favour of only ignoring the effects of certain criticals, without ignoring the damage/crew loss.

It's almost 50-50 so far between a save and ignoring the first criticals with a few favouring the player's choice of criticals instead.

A further factor to consider - which would be simpler to track and/or implement during play? Saves are consistently used with no tracking of score but require a dice roll for every single critical suffered. A redundancy score requires tracking of how many points are left but no additional dice rolling.

l33tpenguin - nice as this system may be not only is it complicated enough that Matt won't want to see it included in a supplement, but frankly it would take far longer to playtest and balance. The time to playtest is what I see as the most important factor here as we're running to a (rough) deadline.

as base numbers for crits ignored I would use this, but not as a save or confirmation roll in any way shape or form. would mean its almost impossible to crit the big ships which isnt right.
whilst trying to improve big ships this is going too far, any weapon can cause crits and is often what you need for big ships. the easiest way to balance them is to allow them to ignore a bigger number of crits rather than any save/confirmation.

 

[Triggy]

Attacking the owner of the company isn't that good an idea...

I just assume he doesn't pay much attention to these forums to be honest. Besides, if he takes offense from my comments, then he should be man enough to prove me wrong. Trying to swat me for having an opinion would just prove me all the more right, while also proving him to be childish. In all honesty, he really needs to step up to the plate and we all know it. He's got a game that has a strong following and he throws us to the wayside. We've been doing the play testing he should've done. We've been trying to fix the rules that he left broken. And yet we've still been a loyal fan base that buys his products. He's damn lucky to have us.

Erm, excuse me? Doing the playtesting he should've done?!?!? The fans asked to be involved so he let you (and most companies rightly wouldn't). There was already a good deal of playtesting going on, and the amount that we've done is still a lot more than the forum combined has done (many times over).

It's this sort of arrogant and condescending attitude that makes people in high-up positions turn away from the so-called fans at times as a vocal minority constantly hurl abuse and criticism regardless of what is done.

Matt has never claimed to be a playtester, nor does he claim to come up with perfectly balanced rules first time. Guess what, nobody else does either. That's why games have supplements and new editions, because the game evolves based upon feedback from gamers and new ideas. To say that he left rules broken is to say that he has deliberately inserted rules that he knew to be unfair and undesirable. If you stop to think for a moment, can you honestly claim that this is likely to be the case?

I've listened to many of your "solutions" and frankly many are worse than what's already there. Sure, some are better but what works well for you won't necessarily work well for every other gamer out there. To then go on and verbally abuse the chief game designer and owner of the company is so out of line that it's unreal.

I'm sorry to everybody else, some criticism is one thing but certain attitudes sicken me at times.

 

[SylvrDragon]

Alright, I'll admit I may be a bit harsh sometime. I'll apologize for that. But that doesn't make me wrong. I've been playing this game for 2 and a half years now, and it's just recent that I've seen him start doing some real play testing. Though he still doesn't listen to it like he should. You say him letting us play test is some god send. I say it's him trying to make up for years in inadequate play testing. Maybe he's learned that play testing is valuable. Maybe he's changed and that change has made my statements inaccurate. But in the past he failed to do proper play testing, and he failed to listen to the players, and he has failed to properly balance the game because of it. Sorry I don't sugar coat things, or beat around the bush. But that doesn't make me arrogant, nor does it make me condescending. It just means I'm direct and honest.
Now I realize he has made one of the better space combat games out there. And I acknowledge that he's done good work. I wouldn't have purchased the game if I didn't think so. Nor would I continue to play the game. Nor would I continually recruit new players to the game. Nor would I even care about the games flaws. Now would I put as much time and and effort into making sure our local campaign runs smoothly. I do a lot out of appreciation for his work. And that includes investments of my money and large investments of my time. I don't think it's ridiculous to get irritated when I see obviously broken rules remain unchanged.

 

[SylvrDragon]

as base numbers for crits ignored I would use this, but not as a save or confirmation roll in any way shape or form. would mean its almost impossible to crit the big ships which isnt right.
whilst trying to improve big ships this is going too far, any weapon can cause crits and is often what you need for big ships. the easiest way to balance them is to allow them to ignore a bigger number of crits rather than any save/confirmation.

Well, bigger ships do tend to take a a lot more fire. I don't know exactly how it would break down, but they will take crits through sheer attrition if nothing else.

But, if you really don't like that. What about a 4+ save against crit effects combined with the damage control parties? Reduce the occurrence of effects, and help the big ships overcome them. It's fairly simple, and gets the job mostly done. I know my group has already adopted the damage control parties.

 

[katadder]

not really. only redundancy things I would agree on are ignoring a set number of crits. or possibly the armour trait where you cant get critted for a certain amount of damage.

as for your previous post. there has not been years of inadequate playtesting, there has been plenty and putting it out is a nod to CTA players to help them influence the game they love. The game has had more official playtesting from testers than people on these forums as its fairly new to release stuff and even in closed testing we the testers read the forums and pass on what we believe are good suggestions. opening up the testing to everyone else was suggested by matt and backed up by the current testers and we collate alot of it and send it onto him anyway besides doing our own testing. saying that the testing was inadequate before the forum regulars and yourself was involved is very arrogant and condescending and to be honest although i have missed alot of the last week due to a house move prior to that I really havent seen much positive from yourself unlike from many of the other forum regulars.

 

[Triggy]

Alright, I'll admit I may be a bit harsh sometime. I'll apologize for that. But that doesn't make me wrong. I've been playing this game for 2 and a half years now, and it's just recent that I've seen him start doing some real play testing. Though he still doesn't listen to it like he should. You say him letting us play test is some god send. I say it's him trying to make up for years in inadequate play testing. Maybe he's learned that play testing is valuable. Maybe he's changed and that change has made my statements inaccurate. But in the past he failed to do proper play testing, and he failed to listen to the players, and he has failed to properly balance the game because of it. Sorry I don't sugar coat things, or beat around the bush. But that doesn't make me arrogant, nor does it make me condescending. It just means I'm direct and honest.
Now I realize he has made one of the better space combat games out there. And I acknowledge that he's done good work. I wouldn't have purchased the game if I didn't think so. Nor would I continue to play the game. Nor would I continually recruit new players to the game. Nor would I even care about the games flaws. Now would I put as much time and and effort into making sure our local campaign runs smoothly. I do a lot out of appreciation for his work. And that includes investments of my money and large investments of my time. I don't think it's ridiculous to get irritated when I see obviously broken rules remain unchanged.

Thanks for the apology on the harshness - I have no problem with criticisms, it's personal attacks that get me.

I also appreciate that you see certain areas of the game as flawed. My real point here is that it is a stepwise process and we've been in the boat of too-large, wholesale changes before. Hopefully we're addressing some more of the concerns now, particularly if we can get some form of redundancy/armour in the game!

Right, back on track with the poll and comments:

 

[MongooseMatt]

I just assume he doesn't pay much attention to these forums to be honest. Besides, if he takes offense from my comments, then he should be man enough to prove me wrong. Trying to swat me for having an opinion would just prove me all the more right, while also proving him to be childish. In all honesty, he really needs to step up to the plate and we all know it. He's got a game that has a strong following and he throws us to the wayside. We've been doing the play testing he should've done. We've been trying to fix the rules that he left broken. And yet we've still been a loyal fan base that buys his products. He's damn lucky to have us.

This, incidentally, is why companies are very, very reluctant to open up playtesting in this way.

I don't think it's ridiculous to get irritated when I see obviously broken rules remain unchanged.

The problem is that there are thousands of CTA players in the world, and they all have different opinions. What you see as 'obvious', someone else may just shrug at - or be absolutely opposed to.

Added to that, P&P was _never_ intended to be a wholesale change to the game and, as the Five Good Men know, there have already been more fundamental changes than I had originally intended driven, in part, by both them and the playtesting done here. The original brief for the supplement was to give players 'cool things to do'. Nothing more.

Many of the ideas raised during this playetesting would be better placed in a new edition of the game - and you can be sure we are taking notes about them. There will be some more information on our future plans in the forthcoming State of the Mongoose.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Thanks for stopping by, Matt. I swear I'll get you those documents I promised in time for a third edition!

 

[MongooseMatt]

Thanks for stopping by, Matt. I swear I'll get you those documents I promised in time for a third edition!

If not, there may well be a fourth in the years to come

 

[Scipio]

Thanks for stopping by, Matt. I swear I'll get you those documents I promised in time for a third edition!

If not, there may well be a fourth in the years to come

Just tell me where I can go and preorder it!

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I'm hoping we'll get it right next go, Matt. Third time's the charm, right? :wink:

 

[nekomata fuyu]

as base numbers for crits ignored I would use this, but not as a save or confirmation roll in any way shape or form. would mean its almost impossible to crit the big ships which isnt right.
whilst trying to improve big ships this is going too far, any weapon can cause crits and is often what you need for big ships. the easiest way to balance them is to allow them to ignore a bigger number of crits rather than any save/confirmation.

Sorry, but I'll have to pick you up on this.
If a ship needs to take twice as much damage to be destroyed, and it ignores the effects of half the criticals, how on earth can you class that as almost impossible to crit?
Instead you're advocating a system that would make big ships impossible to crit for a given period before suddenly switching to the same old tissue paper that we know and hate at present.

 

[SylvrDragon]

Awesome. A direct response from the man himself. This honestly increases my respect for you. Not only do you stand up for yourself in a respectful manner, but it also shows you really do read these forums. I respect, and appreciate both.

And I know there are many fans out there, and we don't all agree on everything, nor do we all see the same problems. But there are many things that we largely agree on, and we have loargely agreed on for years. Such as the crits. I don't bevieve I've ever known anyone who honestly said that they were happy with they work. Nor have I known anyone that's happy with the way boresight's implemented. At least not from anyone who truly cared about game balance, and not their own personal gain. I've known some that say neither is a problem, but for the most part it's come from people who aren't effected by it and stand to gain by things remaining the way they are. I know people like this, and I know there are many on these forums like that. I could name at least one off the top of my head...but I won't, simply for arguments sake. Back to the topic at hand. There are core issues, issues that at the very least, the vast majority agree on. And these things remain unchanged. And they have remained unchanged for years. Yes I see that public play testing has opened, and yes I see that change has started. But I can't help but be skeptical, as it took so long for these changes to take place.

I'll step out on a limb here, and list 4 things that I know are nearly unanimously considered to be problems suffered since well before 2nd Edition.

1: Crits
2: Boresight
3: Init sinking
4: Big ships losing to swarm fleets

Tell me I'm wrong? And if I'm not, then how can you say I'm entirely wrong in my prior statement, even if I said it too harshly? These have been problems for at least 2 and a half years.
And I won't say I haven't seen some major changes in my time playing this game. In the prior edition Minbari and ISA were unbalanced. Both were beatable, but they certainly had an edge. The new stealth system nipped Minbari in the bud, and made them much more balanced. And by simply reducing the White Star's dodge, and by removing Precise from their Molecular Pulsars they were also reigned in. These were great changes, but the 4 issues I named above existed then. And nothing was done. In fact, init sinking and swarm fleets, especially the latter, were made worse! The point buy in 2nd edition, according to the Rule Book, is more favorable to swarm fleets! Yes I realize P&P fixes that, but the point is that a complain was voiced, and it got answered by worsening the issues.

 

[SylvrDragon]

Sorry, but I'll have to pick you up on this.
If a ship needs to take twice as much damage to be destroyed, and it ignores the effects of half the criticals, how on earth can you class that as almost impossible to crit?
Instead you're advocating a system that would make big ships impossible to crit for a given period before suddenly switching to the same old tissue paper that we know and hate at present.

The truth surely does sting. lol

as base numbers for crits ignored I would use this, but not as a save or confirmation roll in any way shape or form. would mean its almost impossible to crit the big ships which isnt right.
whilst trying to improve big ships this is going too far, any weapon can cause crits and is often what you need for big ships. the easiest way to balance them is to allow them to ignore a bigger number of crits rather than any save/confirmation.

Seriously though, just do the math. Let's compare a Hyperion, an Omega and a Warlock. Hyperion has 28 damage. Omega has 48 damage. A Warlock has 75. Let's assume each it taking damage from blank attack dice. I'll also assume that none of the crits deal any actual damage. I know this isn't really realistic, but it makes breaking down basic totals much, much easier and achieves roughly the same percentiles, as each is being treated equally.

Hyperion
Hits taken: 28
Unconfirmed Crits: 4.66
Confirmed Crits: 3.85

Omega
Hits Taken: 48
Unconfirmed Crits: 8
Confirmed Crits: 5.32

Warlock
Hits Taken: 75
Unconfirmed Crits: 12.5
Confirmed Crits: 6.25

Now, as you can see I broke it down into total hits taken, and then into how many crits that would be in the current sytem, and then into how many it would be with l33t's system. This reduces the crits taken by a battle PL ship, and dramaticall reduces the crits taken by a war Pl ship, but even so, both the Omega and the Warlock still take more crits than the Hyperion. Hardly immune to crits. And if these saves apply only to the effect, and not the damage, then the Omega and Warlock take a hell of a lot more damage from crits than the Hyperion, but few effects. Which means they're not any harder to kill, they just don't get removed prematurely from crits as often.