Jump to content

AdmiralYor

Members
  • Content Count

    148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AdmiralYor

  1. All this advice is probably still valid.
  2. What I'm most interested in is how they can release the Starhawk and still leave some space for the mc80l to have its own unique role in the game.
  3. When dealing with red dice based opponents you really only have a few options (against decent deployment and a six round limit): 1) Avoid engagement, either just to deny points or using fighters. If they want the points, make them change their game plan. 2) Do exactly what they want, and hope the red dice fail them. With your particular fleet: A) You are out activated. Either put in flotillas to go for more even parity, or ditch the idea and use Pryce to try to even the count. B) You are out deployed, by a ton. Combined with A, this is a loss in most cases, unless you have a Pryce. Flotillas, and more fighters are called for. C) Keep track of what upgrades/ships/squds you are not getting much use out of, for future iterations. For instance, in your case, you didn't get much of any use out of Screed, you might consider another commander. D) Accept that not every ship is going to do something in every matchup. If your Star Destroyer has to putz around being useless because you needed to deploy Demolisher last, so be it. You only have six rounds, the goal is to net as many points. Not throw all the ships into a blender and see what happens. That being said, it's much easier to say something like that in retrospective. P.S. Playing at higher or lower point levels has weird effects of the balance of the game.
  4. The real question isn't about the logic of clone wars era vs galactic civil war. It is whether FFG can make clone wars ships different and fun to play without making all existing ships obsolete.
  5. If we keep bumping, this will eventually be true right?
  6. For those squads their strength and weakness is that they are unique. For both factions, they are a nice way to burn a couple points if you don't care about your bid. Rebel, it was mostly to synergize with aces lists. Imperials? The best use I found was to add additional triggers to trip my opponent up. Forgetting the escort on black, or that gamma doesn't have heavy, etc, can turn the tables on a game. I never felt the rebel squads we're quite as good at that. As to making the special squads not unique? I think more squad models would be better. Just to avoid the confusion caused by the above point.
  7. The most important goal should be shortening the max game time. Armada is seriously handicapped by its long round times, which leads to long tournaments with very few games played. Consequently, quite frequently, your final placement in a tournament has more to do with 10-1 matches at lower tables than it does with your own outcome. My thoughts on two major places to save time. 1) Squadron rules. Find some way to speed up squad play. The current ruleset is slow, fiddly, and very boring to observers . The solution in casual play is to run by two rules, what is possible, and what you want to do. Running off of intent speeds up the squadron play considerably. At a minimum, codify that. Pie in the sky? Rewrite the rules to completely get rid of the range 1 rules. 2) Make objectives a bigger deal. In most cases, the vast majority of points in a match come from destruction of ships. This tends to lead to three options in a game, avoidance, attrition, or slaughter. If all the current objectives were scrapped and replaced with a system where players are competing directly for 11 points on the objective, which may or may not include destroying enemy ships. Once the fight over the 11 points is over, the game is done. With both of those I'm looking for a result, lower game time. I have not really put any thought into the details of implementation.
  8. You are seriously underestimating the annoyance of trying to fleet build on paper with a system where each upgrade can have a different cost on each variant, and theoretically, combinations of upgrades become more expensive. It's a system that is almost impossible to represent on paper, even at the number of ships that Armada has. FFGs main claim to fame in the miniatures world was making systems that don't require giant piles of paper and tedious record keeping. Would it be nice if Armada did a 2.0, sure. Not worth the pain of having to reprint a low selling game though. So really, I would be very surprised if they did it.
  9. Armada by its very definition is unfinished (we hope). Pretty much every card and miniature game on the market is unplayable out of the box. It will include rules of how to play a learning game and that's it. For Armada at least, there are meta breaking balance errata that mean that playing the game without is playing a completely different game. If you don't care about FAQ, errata, and such, why do you even care about point values at all? Build whatever you want with the cards and play the game. If you have no interest in a balanced game, why bother with balance at all? With xwing 2.0 I think FFG did it correctly. They made a fleet builder more or less required. However, they also made the system so complicated that honestly, I wouldn't WANT to do it without a builder. If you want to play out of the box, they give loadouts for that, with balance to be taken with a grain of salt. All that being said, I expect Armada is too young to scrap for a 2.0. I just expect mechanic changes and MAYBE some more complexity to the fleet building process.
  10. My thought has been to allow ships to fire either twice before they move or once after. Giving everyone a "lite" version of demolisher. While demolisher remains special because it can fire once before and once after. More activations can be used to your advantage, but it stills allows for the cinematic ISD jumping on to a little ship and ripping it to shreds.
  11. Stores do. Never underestimate the power of a FLGS owner/employee over the playerbase. Their interest lies towards what will make their store money. Games that have a fixed cost (board games), or a predicable collection cap (I put FFG minis/LCG games in the category.), don't keep the doors open unless you have engagement levels at the peak of xwing. At that point, there was more content out than your average player was going to be able to consume. Similar to a traditional mini's game or CCG. I believe a while back we discussed the economy of a store supporting Armada in 2018. The numbers, even with optimistic tournament attendance, milking the kits, 200 point fleets for 3 hour tournaments, etc.. Came out to a pitiful number. Are stores going to start throwing Armada players out? probably not. It will however, eventually, be kept under control like RPGs, obsolete games, and other activities that take up tons of space and generate minimal income. If your FLGS is willing to support a system that won't make any money, more power to them. Dollars to Doughnuts though, stores doing their 2018 accounting are going to have to seriously consider the viability of Armada.
  12. #BankruptMe2020 ? I'm convinced that despite the success of Xwing, FFG has probably decided that their concept of "own everything" miniature and card games has been a failure. Even most historical games release more plastic than any average player will ever buy, so being able to own everything is abnormal. Combined with the unreliable and sparse release schedule, even an Armada "whale" customer isn't worth much of anything to a store. This problem has been reflected across multiple of FFG's lines. To be successful, a game needs to give the "whales" something to spend money on, while still being accessible to the "casuals", additionally giving the "casuals" something to aspire to. It could be that the original idea was that during the dearth of content in one game, say the Star Wars LCG for example, players were supposed to get attracted to other FFG titles that just had content release, like xwing. In practice, I think the players just left the game when they got bored. At least I hope that was the idea, otherwise FFG has crashed and burned multiple titles due to lack of content and not adjusted anything.
  13. Also, I think an article about this process and how the rules came to be would be GREAT content we would all love to read. Obviously you can't share this, but it would be nice if you could pass it to someone with the authority to do so.
  14. I never said that being a warehouse worker was bad or made them a less intelligent person, I didn't even imply it. Just said that it wasn't relevant. Most articles for FFG don't have a bio, and the ones that do, don't read like that of Brooks'. For those of us that don't have the advantage of being a play tester, friends at FFG, and an inside track to information, we have to make due with the scraps that we are given. Oddities stand out. The bio is odd, period. It's a news starved community, we are going to rip into anything we get and analyze it completely wrong because, quite frankly, we have nothing better to do. You obviously do, congrats.
  15. Also, I would quite possibly drop Runewars from the list of credits. I can't imagine anyone wanting to associate themselves with that debacle until it has nostalgia credit.
  16. The serious salt levels aside, former warehouse worker isn't exactly what I would want put on my bio unless I was running for political office and wanting to impress the "average joe", its just not relevant. I don't have any beef with the guy/gal/person, just a curious choice, kind of like the part about being the youngest developer. Brooks Flugaur-Leavitt is a developer in the miniature games department and started with FFG as a playtester. Since becoming a developer in 2017, they have worked on Star Wars: Armada, X-Wing™, and Runewars Miniatures Game. In their spare time, they are an avid miniatures enthusiast, historical wargamer, and medieval re-enactor. Dropping it to that seems much more professional to me.
  17. Your overall point isn't wrong, but I think it's a bad comparison. The Starks are either dead or so emotionally traumatized to the point that that I doubt that the house will ever exist with the same nobility every again. Even if they "win" in the end, they will likely have become just as "bad" as any other house. My guess is that any prequel they do with the house will center around how their ancestors were NOT that honorable but set an impossible fake standard that killed their descendants. Random unrelated side note, Sean Bean as the villain in the new season of the Netflix Medici show certainly provides a counterweight to Ned Stark. I kinda want to see a conversation of cut of video between the two.
  18. I don't think we have locked a thread on movies this week, so lets get this rolling. Star Wars cinema for me has always been about the "WOW" moments. Some are CGI related, others are content related. Rogue One did a very good job of making both CGI and emotional moments. Star Wars has always felt like we are watching the highlight reel (action movie) of a much bigger world (space opera). Solo really doesn't get there on either count. It wasn't quite a heist/twist movie a la Oceans, it wasn't an action film a la Fast&Furious, wasn't a space opera. So even though I was entertained by the movie, I left it not knowing exactly what I watched. Compared to the Legends Solo history it just felt like they simultaneously provided too much detail on certain events, and yet fast forwarded over huge sections of time, leaving no mystery or fodder for the imagination. For the "rogues" of Star Wars, that was always half the fun, there was always another story behind the story, some blank space to be filled. At some point writers/directors/producers/whatever people in charge have to make a decision. The divide between blockbusters and critically praised movies is pretty clear nowdays. Trying to do both tends to please nobody.
  19. Agreed, since Armada doesn't, theoretically, have power creep in the releases over time, the most important part of any release should be "What in this release makes players WANT to change their fleets?" So far, the most effective way that FFG has found to change the meta has been through FAQs. Which tended to have the intended effect, its basically the equivalent of pounding the game over the head with a sledgehammer. For bonus points, it also doesn't sell more models. In fact, due to the FAQs most players are going to have way way more flotillas than they can ever run. At this point, I don't care if the solution is 2.0, putting power creep into releases, promoted alternative formats, or something else entirely. Between all of the variables, it's very likely that the only way to spread Armada back into the regions that have lost it will be for someone to bite the bullet and take a hit. Meaning either the playerbase, FLGS, and/or FFG. That is one of the reasons the 2.0 train has so much support, effectively making a new game is an investment, trying to expand an existing game is throwing good money after the bad. The (admittedly anecdotal) evidence we have for xwing 2.0 is not encouraging for that being attempted again though, most players putting the blame on expensive conversion and poor app support. Pointing towards FFG not wanting to take as much of a loss on xwing 2.0.
  20. 1. About 5.5 hours driving one way 2. 12 hours driving one way 3. Yep, to avoid driving 12 hours one way
  21. Each deck in keyforge is unique, so a unique deck vs a unique deck leads to... a unique situation. Trying to balance the game around various player skill levels to enforce %50 win rates over the entire population drives AAA MOBA developers batty, and they have probably a couple order of magnitudes more resources available (and %100 knowledge of all matches). Even if such a thing would be possible and effective. My trust is FFG to execute such a system and have it keep up with a game's meta is nil. Doing so also dampens the rush when buying new decks, "Ah! I got this super awesome deck", Scan deck: Starts with two cards in hand, "goes and complains on forums". If certain card combinations dominate for a year, let them. Give the winners a free deck, ban out the "winners" as unplayable in the app, and put tech cards in the next set that neuter the combinations. Or, since we have a "living" rule book, change the rules to make it not work anymore. Keyforge is a unique game (pun intended) in the gaming world, it needs a unique solution. Either decks will be over nerfed due to their contents, such that players are ripped off. Or they will be under nerfed, and win anyways. It's all going to be anecdotal. So, embrace the anecdote. Make it either "****, I should have bid more chains to avoid that deck" or "Do I take my kick-*** deck to regionals, or save it for Worlds?"(as posited by someone up above). FFG tends to move at glacial speed to solve problems, but they will get there eventually.
  22. I believe the point that was trying to be made is that you can't just take one deck in a vacuum and assign it chains. If you assign a deck(A) say, seven chains, that could be perfectly appropriate against the deck(B) that it has a 60% win rate against. However, giving it seven chains against deck(C) could slide it to a 40% win rate in that matchup. Preset chains is then just as punishing as the problem you are trying to solve with them, the match is "decided" before the decks are cut. The chain system is going to be much more appropriate in a higher end play setup where more time is available. For instance, if each player brings three decks, then they bid up chains to pick which decks play. A player driven system requires much less active maintenance. It is very likely that the meta would determine on it's own what the bids should be through third party scores and tools, anyways.
  23. My wife was one of those two. Unfortunately, ffg's ticket lottery didn't give her a ticket for the last worlds, so we didn't go. I preferred the old method, since it required immediate buying of the ticket, so less of them got wasted. When the round of time released tickets came up, it was too short to make airline and hotel plans.
  24. As much as we like to think the worst of FFG, it most likely wasn't JUST a straight cash grab. The hope was probably that epic play would catch on as another competitive format that would attract and maintain it's own player base. Without some serious insight in the reasoning behind FFG's decisions, we will never know. Unfortunately, the format seems to suffer from the weaknesses of Armada, IE play time and area, at a minimum, I haven't actually ever played it.
×
×
  • Create New...