Shocked and disheartened

[Celisasu]

In fact, it has returned us to one list...just in two books...wait, 3 books...Dilgar! dang, that's 4 books - Drakh! so 4! 4 books! ah ah ah!

Chern
:lol:

Well I don't mind the Drakh/Dilgar books being seperate. Lots of games have seperate books for different fleets and armies.

But it's still three books just for rules. Core Game+SFOS+Armageddon which might be a bit much.

Before the next version of ACTA comes out I hope that Mongoose puts a bit more work into balancing the game. I accept that you can't have 100% balance. But I really don't want to see another 10 Sag debacle or a balancing system which is based on fleets dominating certain priorities at the cost of being helpless at other priorities.

Like I've said before, the core setup other than fighters is actually very good. It's a simple, concise, easy to use and play system. Fighters really remain the only serious problem as far as rules are concerned in my eyes. Most of the remaining problems just have to do with balancing the ships and replacing some really really bad models. *Looking at the Vorchan in specific here for bad design leading to extremely hard assembly and the Frazi for something that just needs a new mold as it always comes in such aweful shape that I have enough flash on it to make another fighter*

 

[Nightmares about Minbari]

I'll have to be more vocal in the future then, as my desires for the Vorlon fleet don't appear to have made it into Armageddon. But Greg your point is well taken

 

[lastbesthope]

I'll have to be more vocal in the future then, as my desires for the Vorlon fleet don't appear to have made it into Armageddon. But Greg your point is well taken

Doesn't mean they weren't heard, just that they weren't where Mongoose wanted the Vorlons to go
LBH

 

[Greg Smith]

I'll have to be more vocal in the future then, as my desires for the Vorlon fleet don't appear to have made it into Armageddon. But Greg your point is well taken

Vocal but well reasoned is the way to go. My ideas for the Vorlons didn't get into Armageddon either, so don't be too disappointed when the things you would like to see don't appear in the game.

 

[Ripple]

In part my thought...

We can complain about things but what I do not see is suggestions on rules being taken from these boards and implemented. This is not the suggestion box so much as the complaint department. A much less rewarding place to be in my opinion.

examples include

Sagitarius - just plain wrong

Stealth - the all or nothing being the issue not just how much 'all' one got with ones 'nothing'

Fighters - fighters fireing first is discussed and the issue with anti-fighter no longer being a defense is discussed, the Vree problem comes up.

Vorlons and Shadows continue to be big bricks - lots of discussion at one point on the 'first one damage system' being the issue, but that does not change.

PL - lots of discussion of the problem with the current pl being that certain races dominate certain pls. Answer is to make even more races that cannot play at the lower end of the spectrum but are silly hard at the top.

Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but it is much different than being directly part of an evolution in the game.

Ripple

 

[Jal]

lots of nasty postings on the Forum?

well..... you can`t blame me, i only take piss out of LBH anytime he slips a trite, non relevant remark into a thread to increase his post count and i bitch about badly thought out mini designs. :roll: :wink:

 

[H]

lots of nasty postings on the Forum?

well..... you can`t blame me, i only take piss out of LBH anytime he slips a trite, non relevant remark into a thread to increase his post count and i bitch about badly thought out mini designs. :roll: :wink:

careful, he has the power of MOD on his side now!

 

[Jal]

lots of nasty postings on the Forum?

well..... you can`t blame me, i only take piss out of LBH anytime he slips a trite, non relevant remark into a thread to increase his post count and i bitch about badly thought out mini designs. :roll: :wink:

careful, he has the power of MOD on his side now!

i call it as i see it and take the flames as they come. :wink:

 

[Greg Smith]

In part my thought...

We can complain about things but what I do not see is suggestions on rules being taken from these boards and implemented.

Examples of issues that have been implemented (whether they were done successfully is another matter):

Minbari are too tough.

Vorlons and Shodows are too weak.

Fighters are too weak after the changes in SFoS.

White Stars are too tough.

Var'nic's ion cannon should be precise.

Jump point bombs are too good.

Stealth (addition of Scouts, scanners to full, and changes in Armageddon)

Energy mines -1 to damage roll.

Shadow cloud is too slow.

Planetary assault is difficult to complete in 10 turns.

Secundus, a dedicated assualt ship, should have shuttles.

There are two fleet lists (tourney and SFos).


Ripple your examples either did not come up in time to make it into Armageddon (Sagis) or were too big a change to make it into a rules supplement (stealth). The fighters thing came up as a result of Armageddon. Some of the issues you feel have not been addressed may change in the future.

 

[Voronesh]

To add an extra one.

Dilgar Virus bombs.


Though i dunno about the Sag, that thing was overpowered and reconized as such very early. Or did i simply miss something there?

 

[H]

somehow, Matt, and all the playtesters seemed to have missed the 33million threads on the subject, who would have thought it eh, stealth on the noticeboards.. :wink:

they did however pick up a lot of issues, although they missed equally as many, or might not have come up with the right answer.

 

[Greg Smith]

IIRC comments about the Sagi started around April. About the time work on the text of Armageddon finished.

I can't say too much about 2e except that problems mentioned on the boards are being addressed. But don't expect huge changes to the game.

 

[Voronesh]

April

wasnt that the time when the tourney rules were released?

Cant check, cause the the thread has been deleted....

I can understand that there werent huge changes to stealth, due to armageddon only being a rules supplement, and not a new edition.

BUT if 2e doesnt contain any big changes at all, why not simply call it a rules supplement as well. (Considerind the flak 40k gets for onyl having a rules supplement for 4e, i dunno about doing the same for ACTA)

 

[Greg Smith]

BUT if 2e doesnt contain any big changes at all, why not simply call it a rules supplement as well.

Because people have already complained about having to carry too many books around?

 

[lastbesthope]

well..... you can`t blame me, i only take piss out of LBH anytime he slips a trite, non relevant remark into a thread to increase his post count and i bitch about badly thought out mini designs. :roll: :wink:

I slip in trite irrelevant remarks for one reason, to make trite irrelevant remarks.

Boosting my post count is merely a fringe benefit :lol:

LBH

 

[Davesaint]

IIRC comments about the Sagi started around April. About the time work on the text of Armageddon finished.

I can't say too much about 2e except that problems mentioned on the boards are being addressed. But don't expect huge changes to the game.

If the text of Armageddon was finished in April, did it go to playtest then or was that post playtest?

I still don't understand how the Sagi got past playtest with the stats that it got in Armageddon.

I do admit that many items that were concerns were addressed in Armageddon, however the way these concerns were addressed were not necessarily the best option. My group has volunteered in the past to playtest for mongoose, we play up to 3 days per week, but we were told that there was no need for us. Matt did say that he would keep us in mind for the future.

Overall, I was very disappointed in Armageddon. I really like the base system of ACTA, but I am concerned with the direction that the game is going. I will be patient for now, however our group is considering instituting some major house rules for our next campaign.


Dave

 

[Greg Smith]

If the text of Armageddon was finished in April, did it go to playtest then or was that post playtest?

The playtesting was finished.

Overall, I was very disappointed in Armageddon. I really like the base system of ACTA, but I am concerned with the direction that the game is going.

Dave

What direction is the game going in?

 

[Ripple]

I guess I just do not see many of the issues you listed as having been appropriately addressed or addressed in the wrong format. Things like fixing the Var'Nic in a $25 book when it screams typo and could have gone in the free SFoS FAQ just kind of offends me. But the idea of paying for a FAQ/errata kind of bothers me from a customer service stand point.

I do not like the way stealth works, fighters work or the way certain races are balanced by removing them from certain pls. I think it is bad for the game enviornment, the campaign enviornment and the tourney enviornment.

My opinion is not terribly relevant though, as I am not the game designer. If I am unhappy with an increaseingly rock paper scissors style of play I will just move on.

Ripple

 

[Greg Smith]

Ripple, I can only reiterate that the opinions of posters do have an effect on the development of the game.

I also agree that the FAQ/Errata should be free. In fact most of it already is, it just needs updating.

 

[Nightmares about Minbari]

I am sure that many posts on these threads do get picked up on, just as I'm sure some slip through the net.

A question: Which is more likely so provoke a change? A single view that has a well argued point and a suggestion of how to change it, or loads of posts simply saying this is wrong, with no support?