Babaganoosh

Members
  • Content count

    2,308
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Babaganoosh

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

1,707 profile views
  1. We've been playing through the campaign on the Shuttle Tydirium podcast. I haven't seen any online resources, but I might be able to post a scan of the mission briefings if you are really interested. My general take on the campaign is that it's pretty fun to play, with the exception of mission 2B. If you're not playing at a hard-core competitive level, these will be very fun. And even if you are playing in tryhard mode, they're not bad. If you want our takes on the missions, try these episodes: Mission 1 Mission 2 alternate Mission 2 (Final mission reviewed on the next episode, airing Jan 23)
  2. The disproportionate rewards are fine, depending on missions balance. The asset rewards are the problem (some of them). I think the real problem would be if people can invest asset points to give themselves a clear advantage in their missions, leading to a positive return on investment in terms of Assets, while reducing the enemy Asset gain. That's success leading to success, which sets you up for steamrollers. I think most of your Asset rewards are ok but there are a couple one I'm worried about: In general, any reward for mission success that a player can use to tip the odds of future missions in their favor is dangerous. Missions should always be balanced to the best of your ability. Player influence on the campaign should be limited to affect pacing, theme... anything that falls outside of mission balance, and does not create the possibility of no-win or practically no-win scenarios arising in the context of individual missions or the campaign overall. Counting assets to determine the campaign victor is a good deterrent to spending them, but it would not deter someone from spending them if they thought they had a good chance to increase their assets by investing some. So if the return on investment for assets is good, then they won't stop spending them. A good example would be a player with three assets going into a mission against a player with 0-1 assets. In a mission with stakes of more than 3 assets, I would expect most people to invest their assets to pump their forces up by 20 points and get an advantageous deployment, putting themselves in good position to dominate the mission, lowering the asset gain by their enemy while increasing their own.
  3. Looks interesting; I would be worried that you might be setting people up to be able to steamroll, depending on how many asset points you can get each mission. For example if a rebel player comes out of the first round of missions with 4 APs and the Imperials with 1 (not sure how many sats you have there, but you get the idea), and each subsequent mission allows them to earn more than two APs, you could have a situation where a player could invest 2 APs per mission for a lopsided battle each time, which would probably deny the enemy APs and ensure that they accumulate more. That would be a scenario where success leads to more success, and makes it harder for the enemy to build strength - that's steamrolling
  4. In any campaign, you have to balance the effect of consequences against the tendencies to steamroll or rubber-band (depending on your mechanics). I'll define those terms quickly here for everyone's information: Steamrolling is when a side accumulates power, then power becomes easier to accumulate, leading to an unstoppable force. This is kind of OK, since it leads to an end in the campaign (which you DO want), but if it happens too early or too quickly, the campaign can become unappealing to play. Rubber-banding is the opposite effect, where you get more powerful by losing, and the game never ends. If you reward players for losing missions (giving them more squad points per mission for example), then it may become hard to finish off a player, and the campaign can yo-yo back and forth between alternate outcomes without reaching either. That's no good either. A couple of ideas for how you can let players effect the campaign, while avoiding the aforementioned problems: ALLOW PLAYERS TO AFFECT THE STORY PATH: An easy way to allow players to have an effect on the campaign without affecting mission balance is to have alternate ending missions for the campaign, which are always balanced, but offer different thematic endings to the campaign. For example, if the Rebels are losing going into the last mission, the last mission might be a base evacuation scenario. If the Rebels win, they survive to fight another day, but if the Imperials win, the rebels are finished. Neither outcome is great for the Rebels; they're not really defeating the Imperials in either case. They're trying to stay alive. In the same example, the scenario for Rebels going into the last mission with the advantage may be an attack on an Imperial shipyard. If the Rebels lose, they blew their chance to destroy the shipyard. Bummer, but not catastrophic. If the Imperials lose, it's a major blow. By having players affect the theme, they feel like they've done something by winning previous missions, but you can keep your grip on the mission balance. ALLOW PLAYERS TO AFFECT WHEN THE CAMPAIGN ENDS: I'll talk more about this below as a way to end a campaign, but essentially, a win moves the player/team closer to the campaign win condition. ALLOW PLAYERS TO EXPAND THEIR SQUAD OPTIONS: Another way to reward players without throwing balance way out of whack is to reward players by opening up their squad building options. This assumes that you have restricted their squad building (having players work off a squadron roster to build squads for missions is a common way of restricting squadbuilding options). Rewarding mission success by allowing players to add to their roster is a nice soft reward for a job well done. You should be a little careful if you use this option that players don't have a chance to custom-build their squads to counter specific opponents over the course of the campaign; by changing up the player-player matchups between rounds, you should be fine. In terms of ending the campaign, if you're maintaining control over the number of rounds and what missions are played each round, you would have control over when the campaign ends. If you want the players to be more in the driver seat, the I recommend having a 'race to the finish, with possibility of comeback' model of victory. The way a race to the finish might work in this type of campaign, you could have a string of missions that each team has to complete, each mission success opening up the next mission in the chain. A quick example for the Imperials would be: intercept data transmission ->capture prisoner ->Perform recon for Rebel base -> Assault Rebel base. The Imps would have a chance each round to complete the current mission in their chain, and move on to the next one. The final mission would start the end of the campaign - if the Imperials win the 'Assault Rebel Base' mission, they win. But I would always include a chance for the defending team to turn things around at the last second, so that if one team gets an early lead in their mission chain, the other team always feels like they have a chance to win until the campaign is over. That's really important - if either side senses that the campaign is already decided before it actually ends, then the dramatic tension goes out of the whole project and you will probably see people stop playing. Players can only be relied on to keep playing if they think they have a chance to win.
  5. Couldn't disagree more. I think he makes maybe one good point - I agree they mishandled the humor, although I might disagree with him about why the humor wasn't great. I think there was too much slapstick, not enough bickering/banter. Overall I think it's a really lazy review that is constantly making factual errors about the movie's plot and glazing over some really obvious details about the movie that contradict his interpretation.
  6. Of all the wonky star wars physics, space bombs are easiest to write off; just say they're propelled out of the ship. As long as they're not accelerating downward as if they were really falling, it's easy to hand-wave off. Let's talk about turbolaser shots that have drop in space.
  7. I'd recommend taking a second look at the scenes around the announcement of Holdo's assumption of command of the fleet. I thought Poe had an expectant look on his face, followed by disappointment when Holdo was designate the commander. I think that informs his decisions going forward. I could be wrong; I would need to watch again to really confirm that. It's also a subjective thing to begin with.
  8. Yeah; she may have made a mistake in not telling Poe that she was doing something, without revealing the real plan to him. I don't think the question here is "did holdo act correctly?", but rather, "Did holdo act believably?". I think the answer to the second is definitely yes. The answer to the first question is debatable, but less important- characters should be allowed to make mistakes, but should always act believably. I do wonder if Poe would have accepted a vague answer - I really think that he thought he should have been in charge, not Holdo. (What do you think on that angle, by the way?) Coming from that angle, he would probably want to know what Holdo was doing, in order to appraise that course of action. It's also important to not that when Poe did discover the plan, he unnecessarily transmitted the details of that plan and ended up compromising it. If he had not been insubordinate or loose-lipped, the plan probably would have worked. That chain of events goes a long way toward vindicating Holdo's tight lipped response. And I also found that chain of events believable, so I don't see a problems with the way this aspect of the chase plot arc played out. (Plenty of other stuff annoyed me; just not this part)
  9. How does the First Order find out about Holdo's cloaked transport evac plan? Hint: Poe's bad grasp of opsec is involved It's too bad the resistance didn't have AFN commercials...
  10. That might have been her answer to him if he'd been more respectful in his approach, or if the resistance was being run more by-the-book. Making demands to your CO like that (In public, casting doubt on their ability to command) is really bad form. How much deference should a newly-demoted captain be showing their new admiral? A lot more than Poe was showing. The resistance is a pretty lax bunch of people, but there are limits to that. I get the point that's being made here, but I don't think it's as big of an issue as it's been made out to be. Her response is well within what I'd consider believable. Was it the right move? Maybe - or maybe not. Would Poe have backed down if she'd told him her plan? Not necessarily. It was pretty clear that he thought he should have taken command in Leia's absence (at least from my reading of the scene where command is handed over to Holdo).
  11. It makes sense that he did what he did (whether or not you think he was right). It also makes sense that Holdo was tight-lipped about her plan. It depended on secrecy - the fewer people who realized what was happening, the better. Poe didn't need to know what was going on; he wanted to know what was going on. Let me tell you from experience that this sort of tight-lipped behavior is absolutely normal within military ranks, especially when we're talking about a new incoming commander dealing with a somewhat disgraced and pushy subordinate.
  12. Thanks for compiling a neat summary of the political controversies surrounding TLJ! I've been curious about these and I hadn't seen a concise list yet. Here's a quick take from me on these: -The push for diversity. This is straight from K. Kennedy's many speeches on the new star wars films. We can see this in the use of female leads, racial diversity of cast, and status of genders. I don't see this as an issue excerpt when the story is affected by the choices. I encourage pushing for diversity in film generally. Star Wars is for everyone and I'm happy they try to reflect that in the movie. I also understand that there are very clear financial incentives to do so, so I don't give them a ton of credit for making a diverse movie in 2017. I do also understand that one criticism of TLJ is that the Finn/Rose casino storyline was unnecessary and shoehorned in to give something for those characters to do, because they are non-whites. I disagree that the casino storyline was a distraction from the theme of the movie. Ultimately I think that one of the main messages from the movie is that people over-rely on heroes, and people with conspicuous lineages (i.e. the Skywalkers) for the answers and the victories in a struggle, and that real power for change comes from what I call the 'nobodies'. This includes Rey (who started off as a nobody from nowhere, and who (probably) was born to inauspicious parents), Rose, and broom-kid. Inspiring people to rise up is the point of the Rebellion, not simply defeating the Empire's military forces with sheer pluck and self-sacrifice. Standing up to the Empire is important, and self-sacrifice is upheld as honorable (Adm. Holdo is a good example), but only when it's absolutely necessary or productive. Let me ask: do you think Finn had a good chance of destroying the mini-super-laser by flying straight into the primed laser aperture? We saw his laser cannon melt - I think that was a signal to the audience that Finn would have been vaporized before he completed his suicide run (in addition to giving him a reason to make the suicide run in the first place instead of firing his guns). If he wasn't going to accomplish anything by flying into the firing laser, then Rose was justified in knocking him out of the way - if he was going to get himself killed for no reason. *edit*: Also; the casino storyline does a ton to flesh out Finn's character. Previously, his only motivations were to protect himself and Rey, who he cares about. He was never a true believer in the Resistance. the casino storyline helps him see things differently and gives him a reason to really fight on the side of the Resistance, other than to protect Rey. -Relativism. There is no universal right and wrong only gray or only what you perceive to be right and wrong. I think this is a notion that the movie brings up in order to discredit it. The person who we get this message from is the same person that sells out the Resistance at the first chance for extra money. In my experience people who express this point of view are usually doing so to soothe their own consciences (and I think this is the case with Benicio's character). -Woman power. Everything a man can do a woman can do better. Woman are the voice of reason and have to subdue the out of control males. Again, does this interfere with the story? You decide. I don't know, Luke Skywalker and Poe Dameron demonstrate extreme skill and power in this movie (in fact his unreasonable piloting abilities are one of my main problems with Poe). 'Woman power' has always been in evidence in Star Wars, too. Leia has always been a strong character, and the political leader of the Rebellion was Mon Mothma. In this movie, Rey is impulsive and overconfident and she almost gets herself killed when she goes to the Supremacy to confront Kylo and Snoke. The only reason she survives is that Kylo betrays Snoke. -PETA. Rose frees the camel/horse/dog of its saddle and says something to the effect that this was the real victory or this was worth it. Human life is equal to animal life. I'm not sure about equal... but yeah, Rose is saying that they did at least accomplish something before they got caught or died. I'm no fan of animal cruelty (pretty clearly the case for these horse-things), so... shrug. -Casino scenes. Wealthy people are oblivious to the world around them and could care less about the woes of the down trodden. Wealthy people oppress those they view less than them. Wealthy people have no conscience past making money. I think the movie does over-generalize here, but they do identify these people as being war profiteers; and I think that's a fair target of criticism. -Milking the sea thing. Breast feeding in public. I stated this one a while back on this tread. I take it this is mainly a North American thing. But it is a debate and a hot button topic in the states. I'm not sure this was intended to be a political message(?) We've seen things get milked in movies before. But usually that's a cow or something, and this was more like breast feeding(?) I just dunno on that one. Personally I find our cultural hangups very odd; we blanch at an exposed breast, but have no problem showing people getting sliced in half. (and even making it a bit of a joke). -The view that white males are the problem in society. Only white male with any authority are part of the first order (bad guys). While the hierarchy of the rebels (good guys) is female dominant and the other rebels are very ethnically diverse. Remember that Luke does the right thing here, too. Poe has some authority and we're rooting for him practically the whole movie (Oscar Isaac is hispanic, though). There's also a white male resistance general that makes a brief appearance on Crait. Ackbar dies fast, but is a male fish... On the other hand we also have a prominent female FO military commander in Captain Phasma (disappointing as she may be). But yeah, I don't think it's a coincidence that the FO is effectively led by white men and the Resistance is led by women in the movie, and has a diverse set of aliens to boot. I'm very comfortable with the FO being portrayed as xenophobic (they're evil, after all). I don't think that making the main villains all white men is really the right answer, though. I would have preferred a bit more diversity in the top villains. -Love wins. If you have enough love you will win despite the overwhelming odds against you. Typical movie sappiness. This is expected from pretty much any blockbuster movie. No points awarded or deducted.
  13. That channel (the auralnauts) do the only genuinely enjoyable rendition of the prequels I've seen... you should check it out. It's a very imaginative comical re-dub/cut. And carries up to episode 5 so far. VERY funny.
  14. Disagree/agree: there's some interesting moments and some facepalm moments. This is a tongue in cheek review of that fight but enlightening nonetheless: