Arttemis

Members
  • Content count

    627
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Arttemis

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

607 profile views
  1. You mention Boarding being inspired by the ending scene in Rogue One... Well, I'm reading Lords of the Sith by Paul S. Kemp, and in the opening chapter, Vader and a squadron of V-Wings attack a stolen cargo freighter. I'll spoiler tag the details, but what happens is so awesome that it hooked me right away. I think it would be cool to add a boarding mechanic via an upgrade card to Lambda Shuttle squadron, and other squadrons capable of carrying a boarding party. I think it would be SUPER BADASS to have that kind of upgrade added to Vader himself.
  2. Couldn't imagine playing without these:
  3. That is most likely the case, and it's absolutely a problem. Disney, Lucas Arts, EA, FFG should all have a collaborative approach for every launch, or at least have access to a Disney liaison that can communicate the appropriate and pertinent information for each launch between studios for proper cross-promotion. The current system just isn't working well.
  4. I really dislike this mentality. Asymmetry is a beautiful element in game design that is ruined by that kind of 'balance'.
  5. I feel like that's a problem that shouldn't exist, though. EA has an exclusive contract to create Star Wars videogames; it's not like FFG has to juggle multiple studio dialogues to get the whole picture. I've heard that every step of the way in development at EA requires confirmation from Disney, so if EA can't disclose details directly, then their liaison at Disney should be forwarding pertinent information to other studios and designers for maximized cross collaboration. If any content is in development, then I don't mind if they take their time for balancing; that should always be priority over every other element. If that content is not in development already, then there's an undeniable flaw in this system. RogueOne is a perfect example of flawed cross promotional communication. We got a TIE Striker and U-Wing, but haven't gotten any Blue Squadron pilots or an X-Wing fix. Now, we're at another unique, annual Star Wars release and awaiting to get anything... Edit - I sincerely would rather have a variety of competent developers have access to this IP than just a company who can only launch two versions of one game type, but botch their execution, while utterly fail at managing their other SW projects. The best in their genre should be rewarded with these projects, not these clowns who go out of their way to monetize gambling boxes for progression-based content.
  6. Dual ISDs are pure fun to command. I think I've run 4 games with two, which is the most of any single fleet I've designed, as I usually mix and match things together every game. With the cheaper refits on their way in the Chimera expansion, I'm looking how to best maximize a 3 ISD fleet.
  7. Definitely only getting one expansion, but I've purchased a couple dozen cards piecemeal, and will probably pick up 2 or 3 extra of these. I just hope they're only $2 a pop.
  8. I'm posting here (just this one time only) to say, "No, I hope it doesn't come."
  9. It takes the place of the Imperial player (who normally acts like a GM), so everyone is playing cooperatively instead of asymmetrically. The game also reveals the game tiles as you open does and enter areas instead of showing the entirety of the map at the start.
  10. The entire reason I want a 2.0 is so they can reevaluate those game mechanics and, more importantly, update every existing ship in the game with rebalanced prices, maneuver dials, available actions, and pilot abilities. If your proposed 2.0 brings that for every ship, then I'll update my fleet. If it doesn't, then absolutely not; I want nothing to do with prequel content.
  11. I could see a stop and reverse maneuvers being viable, but I'd put the restriction of having to be stopped before being allowed to go into reverse. My idea would be to combine them into a single symbol on the maneuver dial representing 'full reverse', where the first time it's used brings a ship to a halt, and if used twice in a row, allows the ship to travel backwards. A neat mechanic for determining power generation during a 'full reverse' could be a simple calculation where you start with three energy and subtract one for each speed you were going the previous turn, down to a minimum of zero. If a player was going speed 1, they get two energy, speed 2 gets one energy, speed 3 gets none. While stopped, enemy ships add an attack die to their shots. When the 'full reverse' maneuver is repeated, the ship would get three energy. This feels thematic and functional, as ships are supposed to be sitting ducks when floating still in Star Wars. Side note, I'm reading Lords of the Sith, which has been an utter blast so far in the first half, and a Star Destroyer pulls a full reverse maneuver, and all I could think about was how it could be applied to Armada, but it absolutely could work here, too.
  12. I found this game after stumbling into this section while browsing the Imperial Assault forums. I always dismissed this game because I thought it was as disgustingly garbage-tier quality as the Star Trek miniatures game. After realizing t is much better, I bought a TFA Starter, an extra T70, and two extra TIE/FOs, read all the rules documentation, while continuing to browse this thread. A couple weeks went by before I played my first game... and that was at a local tournament. My first match was a win using a borrowed list from another contestant: Han Solo YT-1300 with Luke and C-3PO and Corran Horn E-Wing with R2-D2.
  13. This really couldn't be further from the case with EA. EA has mandated these kinds of boundary-pushing industry taboos for a decade (three decades off and on, really). They forced games like Sim City and Need for Speed (2015) to be always online, and in the case of Sim City, lied about needing to do so for cloud computing assistance when there was none. They have forged the 'games as a service' mantra trying to take away and sell back as much freedom from their customers as possible while still peddling as many licensed games as possible, closed countless studios after their products underperformed when placed under unreasonable expectations for the genre, forged exclusivity contracts with big licenses like the NFL, Porche, and now Star Wars, and now they're trying to turn gambling in games into a cash cow. Jason Schreier just wrote an incredibly detailed article about the closing of EA's Visceral Studios, and in it, they describe how EA wants Star Wars lootbox microtransactions to be the next FIFA Ultimate Team. It's mandatory reading for anyone interested in Star Wars videogames. Full Disclosure, I bought SWBF2 and I really enjoy the gameplay. I won't be buying any lootboxes unless they remove the randomized element or make it aesthetics. They haven't even released their aesthetic customization options, so that might just be what they're waiting for.
  14. I would really like to see a
  15. Version 2.0 Every game mechanic is reevaluated including large ship repositioning, munitions, primary weapon turrets, etc, and and every ship is rebuilt with a holistic take on actions, pricing, and maneuvers. Give the whole thing a 6 month public beta before finalization, and release it by December.