One year, one release

[Norsehound 2,740]

I wonder if this is the best time for a new fan format to rise in popularity, in the absence of FFG contributions. It wouldn't invalidate standard play, and it would be a non-sanctioned format, but it might be something interesting to do until FFG comes forward with something new.

[ThatRobHuman 1,794]

The skirmish format seems rather popular on the forums and @Undeadguy was working on a new campaign system. I've still got my campaign system on the back burner, too.

[GhostofNobodyInParticular 2,493]

9 hours ago, FoaS said:

Related to being productive: does anyone have any experience with SQL databases? I'm trying my hand at revamping KDYs schema and I could use some help with bouncing ideas off of.

Sort of? I know the basics. I'd be happy to offer any help I can, however limited.

4 hours ago, FoaS said:

The skirmish format seems rather popular on the forums and @Undeadguy was working on a new campaign system. I've still got my campaign system on the back burner, too.

Lot's of people have campaigns on back burners. . . if only we could actually get even one finalized. . .  

[Undeadguy 5,749]

3 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Lot's of people have campaigns on back burners. . . if only we could actually get even one finalized. . .  

Soon.

[Gallanteer 520]

So most things that were in Development are now at the printer including newly announced Eldritch expansion and the long delayed 30th Anniversary SW RPG book. Guess what isn't at the printers yet....

Edited November 22, 2017 by Gallanteer

[Democratus 1,698]

14 hours ago, FoaS said:

Related to being productive: does anyone have any experience with SQL databases? I'm trying my hand at revamping KDYs schema and I could use some help with bouncing ideas off of.

I'm pretty good w/ SQL. I've taught classes in SQL, mySQL and PL/SQL for a few years.

Are you trying to make the tables match your use-cases more directly?

[ThatRobHuman 1,794]

11 minutes ago, Democratus said:

I'm pretty good w/ SQL. I've taught classes in SQL, mySQL and PL/SQL for a few years.

Are you trying to make the tables match your use-cases more directly?

In a word, yes? - to be honest, I'm self-taught, so I'm not sure that KDY v1 is even really using a good DB structure, but at the end of the day it works.

Basically, here's how it's structured:

I've got an Items table that contains common values for ships, squadrons, damage cards, and what not. Each type of content also has a detail table of it's own containing specific values. I do a join to get the complete contents of an item. Easy so far. I've also got a few other tables containing things like Ship/Squadron silhouettes, Upgrade Types, Dice Types and what not. Obviously different pieces of content join on various IDs based on that.

So, what I'm trying to decide is if using a common table with a join is a good idea in the first place, and if so, should non-item things (like new Upgrade Types) be placed in that same common table instead of being completely independant table.

Pro: if I use a common table just right it'll be a lot easier to select from the common table for a "view all" list.
Con: I'm not sure everything will fit the common table's schema, like Articles, without just a little bit of work. For single-item views, it seems unnecessary to select from the common table and then join with the detail table in order to display a single record.

I'm also trying to re-structure it with a REST-style API in mind. It seems... wierd to use "api.kdyards.com/swa/items/(hashId)" instead of say "api.kdyards.com/swa/ships/(hashId)" - if I do the former, then the expected structure of the JSON I'm returning will change based on the type of item that it's returning - which is bad. If I do the latter I'm still finding things in the common table and joining, which is likewise annoying.

I also don't want to do a duplicate-data pattern (where the contents of the common table are duplicated in the detail table) because data-sync issues are a pain.

 

 

Let me know if I need to write up a diagram.

[Democratus 1,698]

21 minutes ago, FoaS said:

In a word, yes? - to be honest, I'm self-taught, so I'm not sure that KDY v1 is even really using a good DB structure, but at the end of the day it works.

Basically, here's how it's structured:

I've got an Items table that contains common values for ships, squadrons, damage cards, and what not. Each type of content also has a detail table of it's own containing specific values. I do a join to get the complete contents of an item. Easy so far. I've also got a few other tables containing things like Ship/Squadron silhouettes, Upgrade Types, Dice Types and what not. Obviously different pieces of content join on various IDs based on that.

So, what I'm trying to decide is if using a common table with a join is a good idea in the first place, and if so, should non-item things (like new Upgrade Types) be placed in that same common table instead of being completely independant table.

Pro: if I use a common table just right it'll be a lot easier to select from the common table for a "view all" list.
Con: I'm not sure everything will fit the common table's schema, like Articles, without just a little bit of work. For single-item views, it seems unnecessary to select from the common table and then join with the detail table in order to display a single record.

I'm also trying to re-structure it with a REST-style API in mind. It seems... wierd to use "api.kdyards.com/swa/items/(hashId)" instead of say "api.kdyards.com/swa/ships/(hashId)" - if I do the former, then the expected structure of the JSON I'm returning will change based on the type of item that it's returning - which is bad. If I do the latter I'm still finding things in the common table and joining, which is likewise annoying.

I also don't want to do a duplicate-data pattern (where the contents of the common table are duplicated in the detail table) because data-sync issues are a pain.

 

 

Let me know if I need to write up a diagram.

Diagrams are the best! I can barely work without a whiteboard. 

As for the API, I think the latter is the better way to go. When you call /swa/ships/<id> you can cast the return JSON to a Ship object. Likewise you can cast /swa/objectives to an Objective object. This works so long as both inherit from a parent class of some type. But I'm a Java coder so I tend to lean heavily on inheritance and DAOs. Just an idea.

The data structure is as much a "religion" issue as a technical one. Having a separate table for each kind of object simplifies retrieval but results in redundant data. Having a central "common fields" table with custom data in linked tables (normalized / data mart) avoids redundant storage but results in more complex queries.

Are you looking to re-build the whole shebang, or do you want to modify what you have already in place? Because that might determine your course for you. 

Feel free to message me. We just might drive our fellow forum members nuts if we go into this on a thread about Armada frustrations. 

[GhostofNobodyInParticular 2,493]

24 minutes ago, Democratus said:

Feel free to message me. We just might drive our fellow forum members nuts if we go into this on a thread about Armada frustrations. 

If you do take the conversation to PMs, could I listen in? I do not know if I'll be of any help (as Democratus clearly knows way more than I) but I feel that it would be educational.

Edited November 22, 2017 by GhostofNobodyInParticular

[Tirion 2,223]

On 11/8/2017 at 5:27 PM, Drasnighta said:

Its not great already?

Sure, the progress is slow.

But as Governor Pryce on "Thrawn" regards, it doesn't matter how long the path takes, as long as the path is the correct one.

Disagree if you lose players due to how long it takes then it does matter.

[The Jabbawookie 5,610]

Are we really trying to get a fresh round of this started?

[MandalorianMoose 1,862]

2 hours ago, Democratus said:

Feel free to message me. We just might drive our fellow forum members nuts if we go into this on a thread about Armada frustrations. 

I’m actually quite enjoying this conversation

[ThatRobHuman 1,794]

Why not. It seems like there is enough interest from people for me to start up a thread about the inner workings of KDYv2.

[Megatronrex 2,867]

13 minutes ago, FoaS said:

Why not. It seems like there is enough interest from people for me to start up a thread about the inner workings of KDYv2.

I'm interested but I swear you guys are speaking some weird alien language.

[Drasnighta 26,831]

2 hours ago, Tirion said:

Disagree if you lose players due to how long it takes then it does matter.

My Honest Opinion?  Players who actually leave over delays were likely to be finding a reason to leave anyway.

So no skin off my nose, really.

 

I know that sounds harsh, but it is how I feel.

I contend, first of all, that Armada is a game of Patience.  It is not a game of snap decisions like X-Wing, in fact, its the main defining feature (I believe) that sets them apart.  

You need to have your plan, set it 3-4 turns in advance, watch that play out over an hour or so of playtime, and then see your results - hopefully making minor changes to later turns, which themselves can take over 30 minutes and game turns to take effect.

 

I really do feel (again, my elitism showing), If you don't have patience, or don't want to learn patience, Armada is going to be a tricky game for you to enjoy.   

Not impossible, but certainly more tricky than someone who is already prone to beard-stroking, as I am.

Because of that, I can't personally stand the round-by-round seemingly snap-decisions of X-Wing with no defined endgame but destruction.  I know it is a really enjoyable game for a lot of people, but it doesn't suit me...  Perhaps because I have too much patience for its adrenaline factor.  To each their own.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Drasnighta

[Green Knight 9,731]

8 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

My Honest Opinion?  Players who actually leave over delays were likely to be finding a reason to leave anyway.

So no skin off my nose, really.

 

I know that sounds harsh, but it is how I feel.

I contend, first of all, that Armada is a game of Patience.  It is not a game of snap decisions like X-Wing, in fact, its the main defining feature (I believe) that sets them apart.  

You need to have your plan, set it 3-4 turns in advance, watch that play out over an hour or so of playtime, and then see your results - hopefully making minor changes to later turns, which themselves can take over 30 minutes and game turns to take effect.

 

I really do feel (again, my elitism showing), If you don't have patience, or don't want to learn patience, Armada is going to be a tricky game for you to enjoy.   

Not impossible, but certainly more tricky than someone who is already prone to beard-stroking, as I am.

Because of that, I can't personally stand the round-by-round seemingly snap-decisions of X-Wing with no defined endgame but destruction.  I know it is a really enjoyable game for a lot of people, but it doesn't suit me...  Perhaps because I have too much patience for its adrenaline factor.  To each their own.

Really?

You need patience to enjoy Armada?

And patience is best learned by soaking up product delays?

Again, really?

[Drasnighta 26,831]

2 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

You need patience to enjoy Armada?

And patience is best learned by soaking up product delays?

 

No.  Not what I said.  You infer my statements.

 

That is a leap of thought that I didn't explicitly state.

I feel you do need patience inherently to enjoy the style of game Armada is...  More-so than other games.

 

At no point do I state that patience is best learned by soaking up product delays.  At all.  

I don't even state that it is learned by doing so.  I do think it would be, as part of the experience, but I also know patience is burned by that sort of thing as well.

 

What I said is that I feel, patience is at the core of the Armada experience...  Its like saying that you need to have the ability to think tactically to play a tactics game.  its just part of the process.

People have varying levels of patience.  Some games play to others more-so than other things.  

In fact, I do contend that Armada can be enjoyed by people with no patience, or do not want to learn patience.  That was part of my quote.

 

Not to say there are not legitimate reasons to quit playing Armada.  There certainly are.  We've seen quite a few of them over the years - dissatisfaction with the activation mechanic, the 'same'ness of fleets and such.  But I just personally believe that of all of them, delays in releases isn't a strong one.

Now, couple it with other things - the lack of communication and such, sure, you build a case more in my mind.

 

But if you really want to argue personal opinions, GK...  You're welcome to.  You Really Are.

 

 

 

[Darth Sanguis 6,324]

11 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

My Honest Opinion?  Players who actually leave over delays were likely to be finding a reason to leave anyway.

I think this is true. In some sense anyways. The players who talked about leaving Armada locally when they heard about the delay had discussed the idea before, simply from lack of available play time or dying interest. 

Here's what bugs me though, some of these players were quite involved. What if a wave 7 reveal was just enough to reignite that passion? Every player has a breaking point, people like you (and myself), who have dedicated so much to Armada are likely to weather it out, but for the players who don't organize events, master rules,  dedicate their time to teaching and encouraging new members, every little straw adds up to the point of breaking. 

I really hate to see folks go who have done such amazing things, because passions burned out over delays and lack of play time. One of the Ohio guys was part of Expanded Hanger Bays, they did amazing work with squadrons, the delay made him feel like he should sell. I just really hate to see guys like that go.

[Tirion 2,223]

52 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

My Honest Opinion?  Players who actually leave over delays were likely to be finding a reason to leave anyway.

So no skin off my nose, really.

 

I know that sounds harsh, but it is how I feel.

I contend, first of all, that Armada is a game of Patience.  It is not a game of snap decisions like X-Wing, in fact, its the main defining feature (I believe) that sets them apart.  

You need to have your plan, set it 3-4 turns in advance, watch that play out over an hour or so of playtime, and then see your results - hopefully making minor changes to later turns, which themselves can take over 30 minutes and game turns to take effect.

 

I really do feel (again, my elitism showing), If you don't have patience, or don't want to learn patience, Armada is going to be a tricky game for you to enjoy.   

Not impossible, but certainly more tricky than someone who is already prone to beard-stroking, as I am.

Because of that, I can't personally stand the round-by-round seemingly snap-decisions of X-Wing with no defined endgame but destruction.  I know it is a really enjoyable game for a lot of people, but it doesn't suit me...  Perhaps because I have too much patience for its adrenaline factor.  To each their own.

I understand the differences in the games as I'm sure those that are leaving do to. 

 

Leaving for lack of support and a sudden drop off in product, in no way is an indication of someone's patience or their ability to play/comprehend the intricacies of the game.

[geek19 6,557]

21 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I think this is true. In some sense anyways. The players who talked about leaving Armada locally when they heard about the delay had discussed the idea before, simply from lack of available play time or dying interest. 

Here's what bugs me though, some of these players were quite involved. What if a wave 7 reveal was just enough to reignite that passion? Every player has a breaking point, people like you (and myself), who have dedicated so much to Armada are likely to weather it out, but for the players who don't organize events, master rules,  dedicate their time to teaching and encouraging new members, every little straw adds up to the point of breaking. 

I really hate to see folks go who have done such amazing things, because passions burned out over delays and lack of play time. One of the Ohio guys was part of Expanded Hanger Bays, they did amazing work with squadrons, the delay made him feel like he should sell. I just really hate to see guys like that go.

I can somewhat sympathize with this, as one of my friends is going through a similar burnout for various reasons. He's been wanting Raddus for so long that the delay is making him depressed that he can't run him yet.

However, there very well could be extenuating circumstances in these players cases that are also contributing (and there is in my buddy's case, for that matter). Let's use Warmachine as an example, as I used to play. There were several releases that took a while to come out after preview for some reason or another. But my main reason I quit was A) my friends had quit and B) the game wasn't fun for me/us anymore. The RULES in Warmachine and opponent interaction were what turned me off of the game, not a delayed product release. And it wasn't really anything 1-2 new units could do to fix THOSE issues.

So while I do agree that losing players is sad, sometimes the way the game works just isn't for them. The Rieekan nerf I think kept some people playing, as the game was more viable for most commanders. And while I can agree that "NO COMMUNICATION" sucks and isn't helping people's issues, maybe there's some cards next wave that will answer those concerns? I know we're waiting on a preview article, but until something shows, it's a bit of limbo there.

I also think that a large amount of people didn't care for the Quasar/HH and thus "FFG HASNT DONE ANYTHING FOR ME THIS YEAR!" which, no, you just didn't like what they did. Imp squad players and Rebel swarmers are probably happy with the releases. I know I like my hammerheads.

[Eggzavier 1,689]

Patience is all well and good, and those of us who have been here a while are familiar with waiting and most of us don't mind.

But there's also nothing wrong with pointing out things that you're frustrated by and would like to change.

Change doesn't come about by patience with the status quo, but through persistence and patience with moving things forward.

So I guess patience comes in many forms, it's just what you want out of things.

[Tirion 2,223]

34 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

No.  Not what I said.  You infer my statements.

 

That is a leap of thought that I didn't explicitly state.

I feel you do need patience inherently to enjoy the style of game Armada is...  More-so than other games.

 

At no point do I state that patience is best learned by soaking up product delays.  At all.  

I don't even state that it is learned by doing so.  I do think it would be, as part of the experience, but I also know patience is burned by that sort of thing as well.

 

What I said is that I feel, patience is at the core of the Armada experience...  Its like saying that you need to have the ability to think tactically to play a tactics game.  its just part of the process.

People have varying levels of patience.  Some games play to others more-so than other things.  

In fact, I do contend that Armada can be enjoyed by people with no patience, or do not want to learn patience.  That was part of my quote.

 

Not to say there are not legitimate reasons to quit playing Armada.  There certainly are.  We've seen quite a few of them over the years - dissatisfaction with the activation mechanic, the 'same'ness of fleets and such.  But I just personally believe that of all of them, delays in releases isn't a strong one.

Now, couple it with other things - the lack of communication and such, sure, you build a case more in my mind.

 

But if you really want to argue personal opinions, GK...  You're welcome to.  You Really Are.

 

 

 

I don't think it was crazy for gk to think you were inferring that. Otherwise what was the point of the tangent about patience in the game? 

If you were not inferring that then I see how one would be confused about a seeming random breakdown of the role patience plays in Armada. When you were replying to his post.

 

 

[Drasnighta 26,831]

1 minute ago, Tirion said:

I understand the differences in the games as I'm sure those that are leaving do to. 

 

Leaving for lack of support and a sudden drop off in product, in no way is an indication of someone's patience or their ability to play/comprehend the intricacies of the game.

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect here between delay and cancellation.

Wave 7 is delayed.  Its still coming, its going to be here.  What does it take on our side to get it here?  Nothing.  But it takes patience to wait for it.

 

If you're leaving - again, specifically because there are delays, what are you doing other than, seemingly, confirming a lack of patience to wait?  (Because, either that patience never existed in the first place, or that patience has been strained to breaking or burned).

 

Either way, that's how I see it.  

Am I interpreting things wrong?

 

 

[The Jabbawookie 5,610]

4 minutes ago, Tirion said:

I understand the differences in the games as I'm sure those that are leaving do to. 

 

Leaving for lack of support and a sudden drop off in product, in no way is an indication of someone's patience or their ability to play/comprehend the intricacies of the game.

What sudden drop off? Objecting to FFG’s MO is valid (I sure do), but the point of the thread is this is nothing new. If you’ve played this game for more than a year, you should at least be expecting it, and probably would have already quit if that was enough.

[Tirion 2,223]

3 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect here between delay and cancellation.

Wave 7 is delayed.  Its still coming, its going to be here.  What does it take on our side to get it here?  Nothing.  But it takes patience to wait for it.

 

If you're leaving - again, specifically because there are delays, what are you doing other than, seemingly, confirming a lack of patience to wait?  (Because, either that patience never existed in the first place, or that patience has been strained to breaking or burned).

 

Either way, that's how I see it.  

Am I interpreting things wrong?

 

 

Who is saying cancellation?

And again patience doesn't necessarily play apart you are generalizing. If a person only had x amount of gaming resources and support is important to you then it would make a lot of sense to drop Armada and pick up a game with better support. This doesn't mean you are impatient it just means you enjoy support, and comparatively Armada is seriously leaking in that area.