Jump to content
cnemmick

IA Continuity Project - Our Community-Focused Effort to Improve Skirmish

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Rikalonius said:

Perhaps I missed it, but is there someplace I can see some charts, or proof of some kind of in-depth work that justifies all these cost reductions?  I'm not saying they are incorrectly arrived at values, though it does tell me power creep is alive and well in Imperial Assault despite the chorus of boos to the last time I suggested such a thing.  How about some cost increases instead.  I see you've increased Sabine by 1, and I don't discount that, but how abut Ezra  I think he needs to be bumped up at least one point, if not two.  Would there be less characters that would need a cost increase to balance out the available figures?  Than this many reductions?  And this only season 1.  We already know Boba and RGC are too expensive.  Also, what is the baseline?  I was always told E. Stormtroopers and E. Probe Droids are the baseline, but there is a reduction of E. Stormtroopers by 2 points?  This sounds like a recipe for just having bigger groups, which would slow down the game.   It would be my earnest suggestion that a baseline is established and those figure are NOT changed, if the object of this project is game elegance and not a series of perpetual rule changes forever chasing an unattainable balance.  

Our baseline is the Heart of the Empire meta. This meta saw Han Rangers for rebels, Scum hunters for scum, and Vader/riots for imperials. At this time eProbes and eStorms are extremely irrelevant to the meta (eStorms have been irrelevant since the points per figure change when Jabba's realm was released, I'm not sure eProbes were ever relevant). 

As far as the work to justify these reductions: that is the purpose of season 1. Season 1 is a collaborative effort between the community to see if these changes can add to the meta. Think of these changes as the steering committee's suggested changes, it's up to the community to suss them out. We will make changes during the season if there is some obvious imbalance, but we'd like to see if playtesting leads to interesting solutions as well. 

You have some very reasonable concerns about meta bloat with lots of cheap figures, and we hear that for sure! this is something we've thought about from the beginning and is one of our bigger concerns. Originally some community members asked for a complete rebalance to every figure in the game, which is completely unrealistic. Our goal is to have 2-3 playable archetypes per faction. We believe this goal isnt overly ambitious. We hope the archetypes change per season, we don't think it's realistic that an archetype stays relevant forever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bitterman said:

Sorry to harp on about this, but I'm still unclear. (It's possible that this is a wider problem with attacks being much more complicated than you realise, when you look at them really closely, rather than your OtL change itself).

So... the "Declare Target" step in "Steps of an Attack" on RRG p5 says that the attacker declares a target. The new OtL must be played immediately, "before any attacker abilities" - so before a Trandoshan Hunter's Relentless, for example, which is used "when you declare an attack", and it therefore does not take effect (assuming the OtL move makes the target invalid). I can even see that due to the Timing section on RRG p2, conditions like Focus (which according to the FAQ p6 are "treated as mission rules for the purposes of timing conflicts") come before attacker effects, so OtL comes after mission rules/conditions, but before attacker abilities, which is itself before defender abilities which is where the defender might play other Command cards. So, the OtL card creates an entirely new timing step, for that card only, implied only by the words "before any attacker abilities", and relying on an understanding of rules on at least three separate pages across at least two documents (plus the card itself).

I think I'm talking myself into believing it works as intended (so there may not be a question here after all!)... but it's non-obvious at first glance, at least to me. Wouldn't it be simpler just to play it at the same time as other defender's abilities, "when you are declared as the target of an attack"? That would still be before dice rolls, rerolls, and many "during an attack" abilities, so tones down some of the strongest effects OtL can have; and it means mission rules, conditions, power tokens, "when you declare an attack" Command cards, etc. all get treated the same way so it's easier to understand, there's less need for a forensic knowledge of obscure rules interactions.

I was about to ask what a "Tarkin weapon" is, too, but I guess that must be the mission-specific Tarkin Initiative Labs weapons as described on the mission card. Surely that's a mission ability, though? It's... literally part of the mission rules, not an attacker ability, and therefore should surely be expended in the same timing step as conditions, not decided after OtL like power tokens, in contrast to what you say here. Unless there's some ruling on this somewhere I can't find (not in the FAQ)?

It's not just you, lots of folks are finding the wording of our OtL change confusing. (And I think I am wrong about the Tarkin Labs weapons effects being an attacker effect.) I think what we wanted to do with this change is ask the question, "What is a fair punishment for an attacker when he risks attacking a Smuggler who has OtL?" But the way we worded the change just confused everybody.

So... to you and everybody else: What is a fair punishment for an attacker when he risks attacking a Smuggler who has OtL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brettpkelly said:

Our baseline is the Heart of the Empire meta. This meta saw Han Rangers for rebels, Scum hunters for scum, and Vader/riots for imperials. At this time eProbes and eStorms are extremely irrelevant to the meta (eStorms have been irrelevant since the points per figure change when Jabba's realm was released, I'm not sure eProbes were ever relevant). 

As far as the work to justify these reductions: that is the purpose of season 1. Season 1 is a collaborative effort between the community to see if these changes can add to the meta. Think of these changes as the steering committee's suggested changes, it's up to the community to suss them out. We will make changes during the season if there is some obvious imbalance, but we'd like to see if playtesting leads to interesting solutions as well. 

You have some very reasonable concerns about meta bloat with lots of cheap figures, and we hear that for sure! this is something we've thought about from the beginning and is one of our bigger concerns. Originally some community members asked for a complete rebalance to every figure in the game, which is completely unrealistic. Our goal is to have 2-3 playable archetypes per faction. We believe this goal isnt overly ambitious. We hope the archetypes change per season, we don't think it's realistic that an archetype stays relevant forever. 

Thank you.  Very reasonable.  I still think, and they may just be personal opinion, that I'd rather see figures that are too cheap, especially HoTE and later, be increased in cost, rather than a huge swath of reductions.  I think, and I could be wrong, ToL has been especially egregious with incorrectly costing figure.  Obviously some of the early figurers like Boba Fett and RGC are too expensive by modern standards, and need a reduction or a change.  I get what you are saying about having viable lists for each faction, and that would be my goal as well.  However, I think the idea of returning to a certain meta is a bit of a fools errand. I'd rather see figures costed fairly, and CC that are, for lack of a better word, game breaking, modified, and then let the meta play out naturally, rather than targeting a meta.  The command cards affect the meta as much as the units do.   The problem, or 'a' problem, is that in order to fairly set costs for units, there needs to be some agreement on how much everything costs.  I.e. how much is a unit of speed worth?  How much is a unit of health worth, etc. etc.  I have tried to work some of this out before, but it has been frustrating to say the least, which is why having a baseline unit is essential.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, cnemmick said:

So... to you and everybody else: What is a fair punishment for an attacker when he risks attacking a Smuggler who has OtL?

Make it "on declare". I realize it only slightly weakens it, but it's still some. Also, it 'improves' the timing of the card! :)

3 point cards are incredibly strong. Assassinate, Grenadier, On The Lam, Crush, Son Of Skywalker, New Orders. All of those are power houses. Some of the others less so, but can be in the right circumstance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, aermet69 said:

Make it "on declare". I realize it only slightly weakens it, but it's still some. Also, it 'improves' the timing of the card! :)

Agreed.

The attacker's Focus/Hidden/Tarkin weapons/other mission rules would be wasted either way.

The attacker's power tokens and "when you declare an attack" Command cards* and abilities** would not be spent and wasted by the Continuity Project proposal, but would be spent and wasted by this proposal. OTOH some attacker abilities aren't "wasted" but actually take full effect, e.g. Relentless would mean the defender does suffer strain, several abilities give the attacker Focus, etc.

Everything else (defender's power tokens and abilities, good or bad dice rolls (including Dodge or insufficient range letting the defender keep the OtL card), and many "while attacking" or "while defending" Command cards and abilities) are all wasted by the card as it currently stands, but not by any variant of "declare" timing.

So the difference is basically that the attacker might waste up to one power token and zero or more Command cards; but the benefit is clearer timing and consistency with other cards and abilities. Seems a good trade to me.

* : Drokkatta's Arcing Shot, BT-1's Ballistics Matrix, Deathblow, Element of Surprise, Explosive Weaponry, Jyn Odan's One in a Milllion, Primary Target, Tools for the Job, Wild Attack.
** : Diala's Shattering Blow, Greedo's Slow on the Draw (hilariously), Scavenged Weaponry. Most other abilities don't spend any resource, so don't matter if they don't take effect.

Edited by Bitterman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, brettpkelly said:

Our baseline is the Heart of the Empire meta. This meta saw Han Rangers for rebels, Scum hunters for scum, and Vader/riots for imperials. At this time eProbes and eStorms are extremely irrelevant to the meta (eStorms have been irrelevant since the points per figure change when Jabba's realm was released, I'm not sure eProbes were ever relevant). 

As far as the work to justify these reductions: that is the purpose of season 1. Season 1 is a collaborative effort between the community to see if these changes can add to the meta. Think of these changes as the steering committee's suggested changes, it's up to the community to suss them out. We will make changes during the season if there is some obvious imbalance, but we'd like to see if playtesting leads to interesting solutions as well. 

You have some very reasonable concerns about meta bloat with lots of cheap figures, and we hear that for sure! this is something we've thought about from the beginning and is one of our bigger concerns. Originally some community members asked for a complete rebalance to every figure in the game, which is completely unrealistic. Our goal is to have 2-3 playable archetypes per faction. We believe this goal isnt overly ambitious. We hope the archetypes change per season, we don't think it's realistic that an archetype stays relevant forever. 

Three paragraphs to answer the opening question from @Rikalonius with "No, there isn't." is pretty impressive.

And a fairly big red flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, brettpkelly said:

I should probably also detail some thoughts about our philosophy over all. I want to reiterate that we're pushing out these changes in what we're calling "seasons". We have not extensively tested these changes, we're asking for the communities help to see if these changes can open up the meta a little more. Our goal is to add a couple more playable archetypes to each faction. A game like IA requires a meta to change or else it will get stale over time. We feel that banning SC will revert the meta to hunters and Vader and we'd like to introduce changes to open that up for force users, imperial troopers/droids, and mercenary beasts. We are not trying to make every figure in the game meta-viable at this time as we feel that is an impossible task. The changes we're proposing are as noninvasive as possible to open up the meta as much as possible.

First, let me say: I have a lot of respect for what you are doing here, and especially for you, Brett, for being the best in the world. And I would really love to see this project being successful.

All my experience in game balancing tells me, this cannot work. You're making too many changes at once. You are not rebalancing a good game, you are creating a new one.

There are certain baselines in this game, you are ignoring completely. E.g.: There is a maximum number of figures per army of twenty. The game designers achieved that by making the cheapest figure cost 2, e.g. regular Stormtroopers. This baseline is set by the Core Box. When you say you want to rebalance the game by taking the Jabba / HotE meta as a reference and changing everything else, e.g. reducing the cost of the Elite Stormtroopers, this will lead to reducing the cost of the Regular Stormtroopers to less than 2 points per figure. This will not work. Take the core set as a reference. Take the designers' reference figures as reference. Or else this project is dead before you really start.

By the way: Elite Stormtroopers actually are balanced. The meta just shifted away from 3 point / 5 health figures, because they were too easy to one-shot in a hunters meta. When you are making changes to how the hunters work, and change the cost of Stormtroopers at the same time, you cannot get valid data.

"We feel that banning SC will revert the meta to hunters" I would suggest to try that and get some data in first. Make one change, test, make the next change. Do not make several changes at once. Or else you will not get valid data.

"The changes we're proposing are as noninvasive as possible" ... actually, you are wrong here. You are far too fast and far too invasive by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, brettpkelly said:

Our baseline is the Heart of the Empire meta. This meta saw Han Rangers for rebels, Scum hunters for scum, and Vader/riots for imperials. At this time eProbes and eStorms are extremely irrelevant to the meta (eStorms have been irrelevant since the points per figure change when Jabba's realm was released, I'm not sure eProbes were ever relevant). 

1. Probes were relevant. They were a significant choice for the first meta list called 9act.

2. When the points per figure Errata came, the Elite Stormtroopers changed from OP to still very good. When the hunters meta came, and hunters were able to one-shot them, they became irrelevant, because Hunters were OP. Hunters were OP because of focus plus command cards. Maybe, you just make Hunters less OP by by changing the ability of the Rebel Care Package of buffing mercs, which has been suggested like a thousand times by many community members. Then you have a good solution, that is far less invasive, and supported by a large part of the community. And then you test that, and see, if you need further adjustments.

Edited by DerBaer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DerBaer said:

1. Probes were relevant. They were a significant choice for the first meta list called 9act.

2. When the points per figure Errata came, the Elite Stormtroopers changed from OP to still very good. When the hunters meta came, and hunters were able to one-shot them, they became irrelevant, because Hunters were OP. Hunters were OP because of focus plus command cards. Maybe, you just make Hunters less OP by by changing the ability of the Rebel Care Package of buffing mercs, which has been suggested like a thousand times by many community members. Then you have a good solution, that is far less invasive, and supported by a large part of the community. And then you test that, and see, if you need further adjustments.

Or alternatively give imperials access to focus. See Somos at 6 (+1 for Adv Com Sys). We should also give rebels access to tokens. Possibly through cheaper Saska bringing in Clawdites.

I think storms lost their OP status due to power creeping of figure defense. Passive bonus that adds evede/block and tokens made that BG+Reroll too bad. It can barely get 2 DMG pass defense. Definitely focus from viable Somos will help and Thrawn giving damage tokens away should make storms dangerous again.

We'll see how that goes...

Edited by Trevize84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I love this!  This is kinda what I was hoping someone would do.  I've been saying something like this would be good for a while but for various reasons I couldn't be a huge part of it.  Thanks for all the effort.  I can see this growing and improving in the future.

Here's a few ideas/suggestions/questions though. 

1. First of all, just too much at one time.  I personally think that 1 or 2 more figures per faction would be plenty to start with and test.  That's why I said in another post maybe just Boba Fett, RGC and some rebel (like Diala -- I like what you've done with her by the way).  I think some others agree with me:

25 minutes ago, Jarema said:

But I also think, similarly to DerBaer, that suggested changes are already too many at one time

 

2 hours ago, DerBaer said:

You're making too many changes at once. You are not rebalancing a good game, you are creating a new one.

 

2 hours ago, DerBaer said:

"The changes we're proposing are as noninvasive as possible" ... actually, you are wrong here. You are far too fast and far too invasive by now.

Maybe some others commented that too, not sure.  I really think (but take my opinion or leave it) that you need to start smaller.  Think about it this way.  Just banning SC will shake things up and that is super easy to do.  We've never had Kanan, Ezra, Sabine, Zeb, Thrawn, Hondo, DTs or Loth cats without SC.  SC pretty much blocked all the fun non-SC combos and lists just because it was too good.  So we already have lots of new (non-SC) stuff to work with. 

Fixing about 3 new deployment cards actually mixes it up quite a bit.  Each one interacts in different ways with all the stuff we already have. 

That being said, it is a bit simpler to just change the costs like you guys did.  But if you did do just 3 fixes they could be a bit more substantial (like the cool Diala attachment) rather than just changing costs.  Maybe changing costs is better and easier.  I'm not sure.  But I do think it's just too many. 

2. Also is there some way to vote on it or is the final say just up to the 6 or so of you guys?  I was hoping for more of a site that would somehow tally up community votes so everyone would get a say and we'd end up with some kind of community decided fix.  Granted that might be pretty hard to do and a small committee can easily get things done.  Still, what about a vote to see who even gets fixed/nerfed.  One from each faction.  (and it doesn't have to be Fett or RGC.  Whatever.  Then you could accept submissions.  Then out of the best 10 or so Boba Fett fixes you have a big vote or something.  Maybe a testing period before the vote.  I think that would be better accepted.  Oh, and Brett just gets to make one himself because he won at worlds! 

3. I love the site's feel.  Pretty cool.  Kudos.

4. I don't like the hunter card rule at all.  Just weird.  I understand the motivation but it just doesn't feel consistent.  Also, I like hunters ;) so maybe I am biased.  But seriously, just changing a core rule like that for just one trait doesn't sit right.  If you run hunters and you get lucky like that then good for you.  Really don't like that proposed change.

5. I guess I don't get the nitty gritty of the OtL rule but I also don't like that one.  It's a good card.  So are tons of other cards.  I know it changes the way you play just knowing the other player might have it but that's part of the fun.  So does SoS.  So does Blaze.  Heck, so does white defense die.  Sometimes I'll pick another target just because I'm afraid of a dodge!  I feel like those kind command card rule changes are overstepping what the project should be doing.  Fixing deployment cards with fun attachments is one thing but this seems too much.

I also totally don't want to sound too negative.  You guys have made a really good start.  This is all just my opinion but I do think it would be great to somehow vote or something and be a part of the decision too.  I'm also just some dude who loves the game.  Anyway.  Good start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, dysartes said:

Three paragraphs to answer the opening question from @Rikalonius with "No, there isn't." is pretty impressive.

And a fairly big red flag.

The season is essentially the beta testing phase. After the season there will be plenty of data to figure out if the price changes are warranted.

 

5 hours ago, DerBaer said:

1. Probes were relevant. They were a significant choice for the first meta list called 9act.

2. When the points per figure Errata came, the Elite Stormtroopers changed from OP to still very good. When the hunters meta came, and hunters were able to one-shot them, they became irrelevant, because Hunters were OP. Hunters were OP because of focus plus command cards. Maybe, you just make Hunters less OP by by changing the ability of the Rebel Care Package of buffing mercs, which has been suggested like a thousand times by many community members. Then you have a good solution, that is far less invasive, and supported by a large part of the community. And then you test that, and see, if you need further adjustments.

1. Balancing around a newer meta requires much less change than going all the way back to when probes and storms were relevant. The game has undergone significant changes since then.

2. We feel that nerfs to the RCP in merc is maybe a warranted change, but we believe it's much more invasive to the meta than our suggested hunter fix. We have our eye on Gideon, and we've heard suggestions to make him rebel only, but we feel that this change limits mercenary options to taking Jabba, a 6 cost support unit, which will cut back on list diversity. We're still considering changes in this area, but we'd like to see how our suggested fix works in season 1, then think about other fixes moving forward if our fix is insufficient or causes other problems. If the community doesn't accept the hunter change at the end of the season, we'll scrap it.

5 hours ago, DerBaer said:

There are certain baselines in this game, you are ignoring completely. E.g.: There is a maximum number of figures per army of twenty. The game designers achieved that by making the cheapest figure cost 2, e.g. regular Stormtroopers. This baseline is set by the Core Box. When you say you want to rebalance the game by taking the Jabba / HotE meta as a reference and changing everything else, e.g. reducing the cost of the Elite Stormtroopers, this will lead to reducing the cost of the Regular Stormtroopers to less than 2 points per figure. This will not work. Take the core set as a reference. Take the designers' reference figures as reference. Or else this project is dead before you really start.

We're very conscious of the problems that arrive when you reduce too many cheap figures like regular stormtroopers. We have no plans to reduce regular stormtroopers at this time and we will certainly not ever reduce figures to below a figure cost of 2. We don't think it's practical for every unit in the game to be balanced. We are not trying to change every figure over time, we're trying to change a few figures for a limited amount of time and then revert the changes in order to keep a balanced meta that doesn't get bloated with cheap swarms but also stays fresh enough to maintain community interest. Changes that are really good will stay in the game. Don't see the stormtrooper change as a lead in to other changes, just a temporary buff so they will see play this season. If they're oppressive we will revert them sooner than later.

The core set as a reference is impractical for a number of reasons. The core set was a campaign set with skirmish simply tacked on. Skirmish at the time was not well balanced or fleshed out. In fact there have been rule changes since then, namely the points per figure rule change. No figures in the current meta are balanced around the core set as a baseline. There has been plenty of power creep, especially around the Jabba's realm box. Balancing around the latest good meta requires much less change than balancing around the original broken meta. 

Quote

By the way: Elite Stormtroopers actually are balanced. The meta just shifted away from 3 point / 5 health figures, because they were too easy to one-shot in a hunters meta. When you are making changes to how the hunters work, and change the cost of Stormtroopers at the same time, you cannot get valid data.

Elite stormtroopers used to be balanced. The meta didn't simply shift away, there was significant power creep. Stormtroopers are not efficient compared to Elite Jet troopers for example. To us Jets are the new baseline unit in the imperial faction, not stormtroopers.

Quote

"We feel that banning SC will revert the meta to hunters" I would suggest to try that and get some data in first. Make one change, test, make the next change. Do not make several changes at once. Or else you will not get valid data.

We have done plenty of testing of the current meta without SC. Hondo, Thrawn and Sabine are 3 good figures that fit nicely into existing archetypes (scum hunters and Vader specifically). Ezra, Kanan and Zeb are underpowered and do not work in top tier rebel archetypes. Elite Lothcats took us all by surprise at worlds, turns out they fit in scum hunters as well. That being said all of the current non-SC scum and rebel lists rely heavily on the hunter package which limits the options in those factions. We have heard concerns that Vader lists are going to dominate the early season 1, we're keeping an eye on that and thinking of potential solutions if that happens. We're hoping the re-introduction of Diala in rebels may help, as well as the previous dominance of the mercenary faction now with Hondo.

Quote

"The changes we're proposing are as noninvasive as possible" ... actually, you are wrong here. You are far too fast and far too invasive by now.

The way that seasons work we're hoping that we can make aggressive changes to keep the meta fresh, while not permanently affecting what we believe to be a decently healthy meta. We hear your concern, but we're tracking a waning interest in this game and we feel aggressive changes are needed to combat that. The rule changes we are recommending (hunters, lam) are noninvasive. The point changes we hope will shake up the meta a bit.

 

2 hours ago, Mandelore of the Rings said:

2. Also is there some way to vote on it or is the final say just up to the 6 or so of you guys?  I was hoping for more of a site that would somehow tally up community votes so everyone would get a say and we'd end up with some kind of community decided fix.  Granted that might be pretty hard to do and a small committee can easily get things done.  Still, what about a vote to see who even gets fixed/nerfed.  One from each faction.  (and it doesn't have to be Fett or RGC.  Whatever.  Then you could accept submissions.  Then out of the best 10 or so Boba Fett fixes you have a big vote or something.  Maybe a testing period before the vote.  I think that would be better accepted.  Oh, and Brett just gets to make one himself because he won at worlds! 

These changes are by no means final. We are suggesting the changes we put out in the announcement. During the season the community gets a chance to test these changes and then the community votes on them. We want all changes to be community informed, but it takes time for testing. We've received a lot of immediate feedback and we're going to be tracking those concerns through testing. We will make immediate changes if we find that we've messed things up. At the end of the season all changes will be reverted unless approved by the community. The steering committee does not get the final say. Also we are listening to community suggestions for certain figures for next season. 

Edited by brettpkelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but somehow it feels like you're just defending your approach, and that you do not even consider any of the suggestions made here.

We have some guys here that would really like to help you by playtesting your ideas. But I will not waste my time testing rules, when I know on first sight, that those rules will not work, or that they won't see any acceptance especially in my local community or in the overall community.

When will season 2 start? (Maybe I'll be back then.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, DerBaer said:

Sorry, but somehow it feels like you're just defending your approach, and that you do not even consider any of the suggestions made here.

We have some guys here that would really like to help you by playtesting your ideas. But I will not waste my time testing rules, when I know on first sight, that those rules will not work, or that they won't see any acceptance especially in my local community or in the overall community.

When will season 2 start? (Maybe I'll be back then.)

We have a lot of suggestions coming at us on different forms. Some of them are asking for more figures to be changed, others are asking for less. We just put our announcement out friday so we're hoping for people to just give us a chance. We're internally talking about the community response to the rule changes and we're not unwilling to rethink our approach but it's been 2 days since the announcement and we feel these changes have not seen enough testing yet. The steering committee is very invested in both ia and the ia community. 

Edited by brettpkelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, brettpkelly said:

We have a lot of suggestions coming at us on different forms.

Try to focus all information into one open channel. This makes things easier, e.g. you don't need to say things twice. This official forum seems to be a good place for this.

1 hour ago, brettpkelly said:

We're internally talking ...

At the moment, everyone is upset about FFG, because they are so non-transparent. This is why this project started in the first place. I'd suggest, you don't make the same mistake, and discuss openly ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DerBaer said:

Try to focus all information into one open channel. This makes things easier, e.g. you don't need to say things twice. This official forum seems to be a good place for this.

At the moment, everyone is upset about FFG, because they are so non-transparent. This is why this project started in the first place. I'd suggest, you don't make the same mistake, and discuss openly ...

Different members of the community prefer to communicate through different channels. By allowing all forums a place to provide input we're not excluding anyone. 

I'm trying my best to communicate the internals of our process out to the community. That said, it's important we have an internal channel to discuss the direction of the project. We believe a small steering committee is the only way to be able to push changes out with the frequency we want. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/6/2019 at 2:05 AM, Bitterman said:

I've created a patch file for season 1 to use with the Kensei Imperial Assault Tools Suite. To use it:

  1. Download the IA Continuity Project Season 1 Kensei patch file.
  2. Find the folder where you installed the for Kensei Imperial Assault Tools (usually something like C:\Program Files (x86)\Kensei\Kensei Imperial Assault Tools Suite).
  3. Find the Patches subfolder, and copy the patch file into it.

The various tools in the suite (in particular, the Skirmish List Builder) will use the new values. (Card art images will still show the old points values and text of course, but for the logic of building a list it will use the new values).

@cnemmick, I'll usually be happy to generate a patch file for you if you let me know about it, but if in future you want to do it yourself (if you'd prefer to keep control over ownership perhaps, or if I don't respond) you can create a patch file as follows:

  1. From any of the tools in the suite, choose Tools -> Export Game Data... and save that file somewhere.
  2. In that file, using a JSON editor or general-purpose text editor (e.g. Notepad), delete any cards that aren't included in your changes, modify existing cards as needed, add brand new cards of your own as appropriate. Stick to the existing format and it should be straightforward (or see what the file linked above does), give me a shout if you encounter problems.
  3. Make the file available for download and tell people about it, with instructions similar to those above.

I might have a think about whether this can all be handled more elegantly, but for now this should work broadly as intended.

I found that Exile Redeemed has deployment cost 4 instead of 0. Also, I can't find the Alliance Smuggler.

Edited by Trevize84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Trevize84 said:

I found that Exile Redeemed has deployment cost 4 instead of 0.

No idea how I got that wrong. Try again now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

33 minutes ago, Trevize84 said:

Also, I can't find the Alliance Smuggler.

Can't see any problem with this?

I have noticed that Spectre Cell is still available, though, which it shouldn't be... removing cards is not something supported by the current patch system so I'll need to think about how to handle that better. For now people will just have to remember not to use it...!

Edited by Bitterman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Bitterman said:

Can't see any problem with this?

I just don't have any Alliance Smuggler in the list. Do I need to do anything to add it? Thanks for the fixes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Trevize84 said:

I just don't have any Alliance Smuggler in the list. Do I need to do anything to add it?

No, nothing to do, it'll just be there. Unless you've already added the maximum number of them already, or have selected an Imperial or Mercenary list, or typed something that doesn't match in the "Type to filter" box. Otherwise, it'll be there. Anything else missing? Does it appear if you turn off Auto-filter, or type "smuggler" in the "Type to filter" box? Anyone else had this problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, cdelucca said:

 (Even the Rancor can't push large figures!)

Not with Throw, but Rancor can push Jabba, Terro, Dewback etc. by moving on top of them. (Just not other massive figures.)

Edited by a1bert

Share this post


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

Exile Redeemed--Force Throw: perhaps this should be limited to another small figure only, like other push effects? (Even the Rancor can't push large figures!)

That was a mistake by us. Force throw should only be able to target small figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2019 at 12:47 PM, DerBaer said:

Try to focus all information into one open channel. This makes things easier, e.g. you don't need to say things twice. This official forum seems to be a good place for this.

We have a survey link on the website so people can send us their initial impressions and playtest results.

 

On 4/7/2019 at 12:47 PM, DerBaer said:

At the moment, everyone is upset about FFG, because they are so non-transparent. This is why this project started in the first place. I'd suggest, you don't make the same mistake, and discuss openly ...

We will continue to use the website to make announcements and we will come to the forum and the slack to discuss with the community. We truly believe in being open and honest with our process and we take community feedback seriously.

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...