Jump to content
Rekkon

Corellian Conflict Questions: Dev Answers

Recommended Posts

Anyone else unhappy that bases and outposts purchased in a turn give your side Refit Points for the current turn, but not Resource Points? It makes managing a turn unnecessarily painful for a CC organizer and the players. I noticed this when tweaking the CC Google Sheets spreadsheet and using it. You have to walk through several coordinated steps (get resource points; buy bases / get refit points / spent refit points and the remaining resource points) to complete the management phase, when this should have been one super-simple single-step process: "BUY STUFF FOR THIS TURN. NOTHING TAKES EFFECT UNTIL NEXT TURN"!

This way, players could just calculate their income for the turn and make purchases, without having to wait for every player on their team to tell them how many new Refit locations they are buying a base/outpost at this turn. Very poor design, very clunky. I'm very disturbed by this!! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Making it worth points to kill would be an advantage to the first player.  As its not difficult to do so.

And the Base Defense Objectives are heavily biased to the Second Player.  Moreso than the Standard Objectives.

Yeah, the second player does have a massive advantage with any of the base defense objectives.  I was just wondering if there was at least something the alleviate the imbalance for the attacker.

The other two, Ion and Squadron, make sense.  You get points for killing the extra squadrons.  There is nothing to target/destroy with Ion.  It just seemed odd that destroying a station would yield no points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DakDaniels said:

Yeah, the second player does have a massive advantage with any of the base defense objectives.  I was just wondering if there was at least something the alleviate the imbalance for the attacker.

The other two, Ion and Squadron, make sense.  You get points for killing the extra squadrons.  There is nothing to target/destroy with Ion.  It just seemed odd that destroying a station would yield no points.

Because it exists simply to bulk up the opponent side.

Of them, Fighter Ambush is the odd one because they do count for Objective points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when attacking a planet with a Rebel Presence sticker it says in the Management Phase that if a rebel base or Outpost was revealed then place the appropriate sticker over the presence sticker.  This is mentioned after "if a player wins a battle with a Base or Outpost sticker . . . .place a destroyed sticker." The way it is worded makes it seem like a player must assault a planet twice if it has a Rebel Presence sticker and proves to have a rebel base. This seems wonky to me. Is that the way it works or is the rebel base destroyed in the same turn as wining an attack on a planet with rebel presence sticker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20.2.2017 at 6:18 PM, Thraug said:

Anyone else unhappy that bases and outposts purchased in a turn give your side Refit Points for the current turn, but not Resource Points? It makes managing a turn unnecessarily painful for a CC organizer and the players. I noticed this when tweaking the CC Google Sheets spreadsheet and using it. You have to walk through several coordinated steps (get resource points; buy bases / get refit points / spent refit points and the remaining resource points) to complete the management phase, when this should have been one super-simple single-step process: "BUY STUFF FOR THIS TURN. NOTHING TAKES EFFECT UNTIL NEXT TURN"!

This way, players could just calculate their income for the turn and make purchases, without having to wait for every player on their team to tell them how many new Refit locations they are buying a base/outpost at this turn. Very poor design, very clunky. I'm very disturbed by this!! :rolleyes:

No.

Because this makes it equal to the OTHER specials.

Diplomats, spynet and spacers...they are available the turn after, this is true, but the conqueror gets to use them for AT LEAST 1 round before they can be taken away.

If yards had to wait until the following round, a side could lose their benefit before ever having a chance to gain the bonus.

So I'm quite happy with the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Green Knight said:

No.

Because this makes it equal to the OTHER specials.

Diplomats, spynet and spacers...they are available the turn after, this is true, but the conqueror gets to use them for AT LEAST 1 round before they can be taken away.

If yards had to wait until the following round, a side could lose their benefit before ever having a chance to gain the bonus.

So I'm quite happy with the way it is.

But that hardly makes up for the logistical burden of having to calculate it in the middle of the Management phase when that phase should be easily executed by each player, often times outside of a meetup. From a design perspective, the management phase should have no interruption to perform calculations . It's really poor design, and in this case, having everything gained impact the following turn wouldn't negatively affect play at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nothing complicated. Certainly not a "logistical burden". All you are doing is addition.

You might as well say that Show Of Force is a "logistical burden" because it makes you add resource points that aren't part of the planet/base total. :unsure:

If it is too much for your group to track, just create an online spreadsheet with google docs and then you're good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thraug said:

But that hardly makes up for the logistical burden of having to calculate it in the middle of the Management phase when that phase should be easily executed by each player, often times outside of a meetup. From a design perspective, the management phase should have no interruption to perform calculations . It's really poor design, and in this case, having everything gained impact the following turn wouldn't negatively affect play at all.

Logistical burden?

Add 5 refit. End.

Not a problem for my group.

Edit: and you're already counting number of yards, adding 5 to base refit for each. Adding 1 more is no more work at all.

Edited by Green Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But on a design level, it is a little wonky.

1) Generate some of your income 

2) Spend some of your income

3) Generate the rest of your income

4) Spend the rest of your income

Thraug's complaint isn't that math is hard, just that you look at that sequence and realize it probably could/should have been designed in a more streamlined way. I think he has a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sekac said:

1) Generate some of your income 

2) Spend some of your income

3) Generate the rest of your income

4) Spend the rest of your income

If you don't view refit points as 'income', it's a lot easier to determine what you get.

Our game has an automated spreadsheet, you just plug in which systems changed hands during the turn and whether anyone is building a base with their winnings or not.  

Should be a pretty easy yes/no question.  At a maximum, you will get 10 more refit points to use that turn, but a more likely 5 if anything.

Is the potential addition of 5 refit points really throwing you for this much of a loop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eggzavier said:

If you don't view refit points as 'income', it's a lot easier to determine what you get.

Our game has an automated spreadsheet, you just plug in which systems changed hands during the turn and whether anyone is building a base with their winnings or not.  

Should be a pretty easy yes/no question.  At a maximum, you will get 10 more refit points to use that turn, but a more likely 5 if anything.

Is the potential addition of 5 refit points really throwing you for this much of a loop?

Nobody's saying it's hard, I don't think.

It's just weird, and could've been designed better. Or at least more intuitively.

I'm inclined to agree, it feels clunky and adds to my overall impression that corners were cut in playtesting CC. No individual issue with CC has really been gamebreaking, exactly, there's just an accumulation of little things like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what the issue is. You claim a planet, you get whatever ability or thing is immediately. But you generate income next turn.

It only looks weird and clunky because you are looking at a tiny aspect of the game. Take a step back and it makes sense.

  1. Claim Correlia and make a base.
  2. Get Repair Yards.
  3. +5 refit points
  4. Next turn get 45 income.


 

  1. Claim ?Centerpoint? (not sure on name) and make a base
  2. Get Spynet
  3. Next turn get 20-30 points (based on planet income)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Eggzavier said:

Is the potential addition of 5 refit points really throwing you for this much of a loop?

Interesting choice of words. I'd say no. I'd say the inbuilt looping resource gathering and expenditure is throwing people for a loop. 

Not a deal breaking loop, but an unnecessary one. I don't think pointing out flaws in the design is that scandalous a thing to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sekac said:

I don't think pointing out flaws in the design is that scandalous a thing to do. 

Certainly not - I apologize, but the wording of your post and those previously seemed like there was more difficulties than just a simple comment. 

I didn't read the middle ground of this thread, and assumed we were still on game breaking elements (i.e. the misprinted armed station) and didn't realize that we had just progressed to general critiques.

Edited by Eggzavier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ardaedhel and Sekac do a better job than me at explaining where my issue is, and I will go into the exact timing of where I see it could have been handled differently, but I will save that for another time, because......., it's ironic that spreadsheet management was mentioned. Either tonight or tomorrow I am going to release the next version of the CC Manager spreadsheet that was started by other users. It's quite a step forward in improvements and while using/testing it with my group I discovered how this extra step in the Management phase came to be.

Look for the the new CC Manager 3.0 spreadsheet in a post coming soon (hopefully tonight!). :rolleyes:

 

Edited by Thraug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eggzavier said:

Certainly not - I apologize, but the wording of your post and those previously seemed like there was more difficulties than just a simple comment. 

I didn't read the middle ground of this thread, and assumed we were still on game breaking elements (i.e. the misprinted armed station) and didn't realize that we had just progressed to general critiques.

No apologies needed. You were clearing coming from a place of assistance which you shouldn't back off from. Forums often need more solution oriented replies such as yours and a spreadsheet would certainly be a handy tool for tracking. 

I think the Corellian Conflict suffers from being written and developed by a small group with direct contact with one another. Some ideas can be expressed more easily in person and you won't likely receive the same level of critique from friends as you would a "how do I break this" shark tank of playtesters.

The language of the rulebook is written way more informally than the tight and keyword  oriented language FFG usually employs. It almost reads as if a friend is explaining how to play a game they know well as opposed to a rulebook, if that makes sense.

I can't speak for anyone else but it does seem to me that they didn't spend much time on the playtesting side of development or many of the language issues would've been noticed immediately (e.g. "has initiative" actually meaning "is first player"-a ruling in direct conflict with the language of the core rulebook). They used the wrong verbiage and nobody noticed because they didn't need to read the rule, they'd been using it.

The cyclical nature of the management phase is another one of these moments for me. There are myriad ways it could've been streamlined but it's tricky to spot these moments without a little objectivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Sekac said:

I can't speak for anyone else but it does seem to me that they didn't spend much time on the playtesting side of development or many of the language issues would've been noticed immediately (e.g. "has initiative" actually meaning "is first player"-a ruling in direct conflict with the language of the core rulebook). They used the wrong verbiage and nobody noticed because they didn't need to read the rule, they'd been using it.

Initiative doesn't conflict with the rule book.  I'm not sure where people are getting this from.  Page 10 of the RRG, #3 under Setup: "Determine Initiative: The player whose fleet has the lowest total fleet point cost chooses which player is the first player. The first player places the initiative token next to his edge with the a side faceup."  Also, page 7 under Initiative: "Initiative determines which player acts first during the Ship Phase and Squadron Phase. It is assigned to a player during the “Determine Initiative” step of setup. That player is the first player and takes the initiative token."  First player has ALWAYS been the player who 'has initiative.'  I think this is one of those things that folks have gotten clouded with the player who gets to choose first or second.  That player doesn't 'have initiative' and never has.  They pick who gets initiative.

Edited by Xindell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xindell said:

Initiative doesn't conflict with the rule book.  I'm not sure where people are getting this from.  Page 10 of the RRG, #3 under Setup: "Determine Initiative: The player whose fleet has the lowest total fleet point cost chooses which player is the first player. The first player places the initiative token next to his edge with the a side faceup."  Also, page 7 under Initiative: "Initiative determines which player acts first during the Ship Phase and Squadron Phase. It is assigned to a player during the “Determine Initiative” step of setup. That player is the first player and takes the initiative token."  First player has ALWAYS been the player who 'has initiative.'  I think this is one of those things that folks have gotten clouded with the player who gets to choose first or second.  That player doesn't 'have initiative' and never has.  They pick who gets initiative.

I stand thoroughly corrected. Turns out checking the rulebook pre-rant makes you look like less of an ass (am I allowed to say that word Disney?! Huh, AM I?!!) *edit* yes, I am

But that only raises another question. Why have an unnamed "one who chooses" role and have have initiative and first player be synonymous? Seems an unnecessary pitfall to create for the lazy, such as yours truly. 

2 keywords that mean one thing and 0 that mean the other is on odd way to assign key words. 

Edited by Sekac
Swear checking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sekac said:

But that only raises another question. Why have an unnamed "one who chooses" role and have have initiative and first player be synonymous? Seems an unnecessary pitfall to create for the lazy, such as yours truly. 

2 keywords that mean one thing and 0 that mean the other is on odd way to assign key words. 

Now THAT, is a question I do not have a good answer for.  Is 'First Player' actually a keyword?  Perhaps their thought process is that Initiative means you are the first player, but  first player is being used as a descriptor rather than a title/keyword.  I don't know, I think I'm reaching here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what people are saying, but I have to say I dont think it actually could have been streamlined more than it has in order to get the effect desired; simply being the boon of a special location applying immediately whereas income happens down the road so buying a base is actually a tradeoff and an outpost isnt simply free points now.

Even with a group thats doing the book keeping remotely it seems pretty intuitive- the current resource income can be calculated by any player, and then the person running asks 'does anyone want to build a base'. One gets built, and that team is informed 'btw you have more refit points'. Sometime in the intervening days you do your math and show up ready to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...