Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About spacemonkeymafia

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Colorado, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Nope, but thanks as I hadn't seen it. It is not surprising regarding the results. The current iteration of the alpha AI is epitomized by the actions of that blue bomber doing parking lot donuts. It suffers from too many randomized options without enough guidance/feedback from the board state. The writer's suggested fixes are interesting in that they align with Paul's in the sense that they both want to account for additional information regarding the Tally's board state. I like Paul's approach simplifying options based on the Tally's directional facing but can see proximity being taken into account as well. I feel like the other AI systems out there like HOTAC are too much "work" for me to really get into so bloating out the system with more conditions may backfire. We're coming upon 3 weeks since the initial Alpha release. Hopefully they have had enough time to collect feedback and revise for a second wave of testing. The next release (if any) will indicate which direction the design team wants to take this system.
  2. Nope. Not buying it. Resolving collisions will take less time than resolving the ship's entire action sequence. Whether having a bunch of AI collide is fun or not, that is a function of what you are hoping to get out of this. If you like complex AI that does its best to simulate a competent opponent, then it isn't for you. The current FFG system is more than Zombicide with TIE Fighters but it is not a particularly competent opponent. Howver, I am enjoying the edits Paul made and adding the swerve rules Ysenhal suggested. I think it is getting there for me and once I'm confident on the the AI, it will be easy to expand on it with missions and scenarios.
  3. Well the beauty of a solo rule set is you can play it anyway you want so I can see running it as you describe: Ship X is always offensive and the others are defensive (or whatever). I'd be afraid things would be too predictable but I haven't put it to the table so can't say for certain. It may be that the "horde" idea is the best this system can offer if you are looking for a challenge. I'll keep trying Paul's method to see if/how it can be further refined.
  4. The test rules being in a nice polished layout is a sales thing. The design team normally wouldn't send out non-printer friendly early draft documents for the reasons described above. If you check other companies though, rarely would they put out a beta rule set that was just a wall of text without layout. It looks terrible and can turn off people from actually trying out the rule set. If you want to create a more printer friendly document, the entire PDF is created with selectable text. You can copy and paste it into a word processor and clean it up for printing quite easily. I actually liked it in a layout and didn't mind the one-off printing. Regarding ship attitude, I can't really use the original scheme as it is too random as many have described but I have had better success with Paul's scheme. I haven't tried complex ships yet so can't comment on their ability use target lock attacks but ships try to stay in arc and maintain an attack. The constant switching of "offensive, defensive, or balanced" attitude isn't so much a strategic choice on the part of the pilot but a tactical one. In a normal game, you aren't dedicating your own ships as solely aggressive and attacking at all cost, you are adjusting your approach depending on the layout of the board. You may have a high-level strategy of sacrificing a certain ship to do maximum damage or holding a key piece back but you aren't going to do that blindly all game even when optimal choices dictate that you should start playing more conservatively. The Solo Ship attitude is trying to simulate that. It doesn't have a board state to judge the best timing of that but it also means you can't just bet that the ship coming straight at you is always going to play aggressive and charge in. The uncertainty is really all AI can offer unless you want to deal with chart up chart of action/re-action tables (or program an app to play them for you). After removing the "turn in the direction the Tally ship is flying" component of Paul's scheme, I don't have ships randomly veering off an attack any more and find the attitude mechanic quite useful and elegant.
  5. well the Blank is the supposedly the most aggressive attitude for solo ships so that should the "no fear" option. After that swap with the Focus roll, I could see it being useful. I don't think you even need to roll again as you already have their attitude locked in by the time you're throwing the maneuver down. Using the current FFG AI, I hit rocks multiple times (at least 5 times). Using PHeaver's modified AI, I only did it twice. I'll be playing a few more games to see if the PHeaver method needs this but it sounds like a good back condition if obstacles are a problem.
  6. Oh I see it now, the spacing of the excel image above made me think the entire command was just "Tally, K-turn, or Turn towards Tally". I see that the "Fastest Sloop" was part of that whole command. When I was messing around after the game with the "in the direction of" commands, I thought that was what you were going for- an option for the solo ship to pursue a ship cutting across its front. It seems like it was a rare instance that that would work out in the solo ship's favor. I agree with changing it to "towards the Tally" and will run it accordingly. I struggle with the "towards" in those instances that you point out. I worry that the "Direction" option will still lead to issues of ambiguity when the Tally is headed straight on or directly away. I think the FFG designers did a clever thing using obstacles as the guiding point and trying out the "away from closest obstacle in front arc" will give the user a clear instruction. I'll test some more tonight as things seem very close. I'm only testing with TIE fighters at the moment but I'll expand into more complicated ships later on. Ideally, I'd like to get Epic ships in on the action but those might need individual AI systems and I'm ok with that since they would be more or less "Boss fights".
  7. After running Paul's revised AI, I like it but have to ask what the intention of the "in the direction its Tally is flying" option is. I had it come up three times in my little core box skirmish and every time it was a complete disaster for the enemy. I think you'll get more mileage pulling it back down to a simple "towards its Tally". In all three cases, that change would have either denied me a shot or gave the enemy a great line on me. I think system is improved over the current FFG model (enemies aren't banking randomly into asteroids or circling obstacles turn after turn). I don't know if the system is easier to pick up or I'm just getting used to the concept in general but it feels faster. Ive tried HOTAC but even after being shown the game, it still felt like a lot of book keeping. The game did feel like I was playing against a passable opponent and the ships were being used to fit their skills rather than a one-size-fits-all. I have not tried OoALEJOoO's system but I'll take a look as well.
  8. Paul's revised chart is exactly what I was thinking of after I played a few games of the current v0.01 rules. I've already given this feedback in their form but the issue I found is there are too many options for the AI to totally mess up obvious maneuvers. When splitting out the options based on more game state information (like you have here where the solo considers not only its tally's relative position but also its relative position to the tally) you can divide the AI maneuvers into smaller, less random options. No more will the solo ship perform a random k-turn when chasing me or veering off in some random direction. I'll print this out and give it a go tonight. I didn't jump in on the forum right away but kudo's to FFG for making a go at an official product that is very relevant at the moment. Also, I really like the ambitious restriction of only requiring the core box material and the new rules document. Edit: what does "Tally, K-turn, or Turn towards Tally (in that order)" mean? Edit2: also attached your new variant in the original FFG layout. x-wing-solorules_openalpha_PHeaver_Approach1.pdf x-wing-solorules_openalpha_PHeaver_Approach2.pdf
  9. These are totally not the pics we're looking for...
  10. I really like this idea but would carry it even farther where your small squad cards are double sided with one background blue and the other orange and you flip them to the non-active side like the sliders.
  11. Top 2 Denver Regional (13 people, 4 rounds with cut to top 4): Luke, Gideon, Chewbacca, Mak, Elite Rebel Troopers vs Luke, Gideon, Mak, Jyn, Elite Rebel Saboteurs x2, Rebel Saboteurs I don't know who won it though.
  12. I almost want to see this thread stickied... might need to rephrase to "let's keep FFGEvan lonely."
  13. This isn't quite right... In Armada, there actually isn't a term for the person who owns the lowest point fleet. The lowest point side (or coin toss winner) gets to determine who has initiative/first player but they are never considered to have initiative until after the decision is made. It does make for some confusing terminology though. While awkward, the player with the lowest fleet total wins the ability to determine initiative but saying they "won" or "got" initiative will be misleading.
  14. Imps were second player I know this point is lost in the actual "issue" but you said you had initiative which means you were first player. I see now that you mention the opponent chose the objective which is what the person with initiative would do. Minor point but still confusing in the OP.
  15. Am I missing something? The Imperial player had initiative and sat in his deployment zone and let the Rebels come to him? Sounds like the Rebels played it completely wrong. They were second player and should have just sat there waiting for you. You burn 3 turns sitting there and then move out, Rebels run away, you lose because nothing was killed and Second player wins in the tie game. Had you been second player, maybe there would be more to this but as is, the Rebel player just played wrong.
  • Create New...