Just now, Blail Blerg said:

That or make strategy articles to help specifically counter these problem spots of the game. This forum decided to vote to NOT WRITE STRATEGY POSTS. You all decided it wasn't worth your time.

This is what we can do. And that wasnt the decision of all of us.

Lets teach each other how to use the tools we do have.

Just now, Blail Blerg said:

You all decided it wasn't worth your time.

In one point of view.

In another, we were just told that Strategy Posts were the only thing that was worth a ****, and that the time we spent trying to codify and explain rules was stupid and that no-one should ever have any authority other than FFG.

Some of us can't write Strategy, because its intuitive to us. I wish I could. I've tried, I've failed.

So I am very sorry I am worthless in your eyes.

:(

@Undeadguy

For reference, that's not true. I am completely willing to listen to what you have to say. As WuFame said, context is key. What I am not willing to do is listen to the Michael Jordan argument ("I'm right because I am better and you can't hack it") from anyone who is not, in fact, Michael Jordan.

Telling people they don't have creativity or skill had better be backed up by results the others cannot replicate. Otherwise, you have to get off the pedestal and accept you are no better than anyone else, and you can't win by talking **** or getting louder.

As to what can be done? Quit and play 5e D&D appears to be the answer, but since FFG has treated me well, I thought it was worth explaining my thoughts on the way out the door. Maybe they listen; maybe they don't. Their call, not mine.

Edit: to the post below me, one might argue the problem is that the ISD was in that situation in the first place and the flotilla has now become mandatory because it is a band-aid put on a core game mechanic that does not work properly. This is why I am a proponent of the IA passing rule and have tested it quite a bit. I think unlocking the current situation we are in requires a core rules change to activations.

Still don't feel that flotillas are a problem. Yes I use them, others use them, some people run away with them and save generals, I charge in with them and murder squads. They up the average activation count, but that has allowed me to bring bigger ships in and changed the quality of each of my individual activations. And now when I see an ISD, AS LONG AS THEY GOT FLOTILLAS, I actually have to 'play' it. Instead of just waiting for it to go so I can shoot it dead after two moves.

Thematically, they belong in the game.

Strategically, they provide interplay and options.

Tactically, they can do cool things that I want to happen for me AND my opponent.

There are counters that Nerf bat them in the face. (h9?)

I'm usually on the boat for nerfs and fixes. This is not one of them I'd even consider. This FIXED a different problem in the game and I've seen solid data that supports it, and can confirm it with my own observations. If I did anything it would be movement and the concentrate fire command, and maybe the upcoming boarding cluster mess, we'll see.

I'm the LAST person on Earth who will tell you to 'get good'. Even now I won't, I challenge you to adapt your tactics. I won't say what you'll find. I'm not going to say you can make your previous fleets work again. Mine don't. I've had to adjust build, objectives, ships, squads, maneuvering ... Basically everything. But I'm back to winning most games, so it worked. I have confidence that with effort all can do the same. Now 'Relay' on the other hand... I've got to get done more data on that thing

5 minutes ago, Reinholt said:

As to what can be done? Quit and play 5e D&D appears to be the answer, but since FFG has treated me well, I thought it was worth explaining my thoughts on the way out the door. Maybe they listen; maybe they don't. Their call, not mine.

I still find it odd how different our views have become on this when they used to be pretty sync'ed up. I've come to a place in Armada where activation advantage just isn't very important to me, where it used to be the main thing I went for. I also think that flotillas were a great patch for players that wanted to have lots of activations and a large ship or whatever.

You seem to feel activations are more important than ever and flotillas have flooded the game to its detriment.

Sorry to hear you're stepping away as you have good insights to the game when you share them.

17 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

In one point of view.

In another, we were just told that Strategy Posts were the only thing that was worth a ****, and that the time we spent trying to codify and explain rules was stupid and that no-one should ever have any authority other than FFG.

Some of us can't write Strategy, because its intuitive to us. I wish I could. I've tried, I've failed.

So I am very sorry I am worthless in your eyes.

Its okay. *pat pat. I don't think you're worthless. =)

(Is this rules forum discussion you're referring to? Or something I said? Cuz some of that rules forum stuff is just nuts. )

21 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

This is what we can do. And that wasnt the decision of all of us.

Lets teach each other how to use the tools we do have.

Well. It didn't seem like anyone was willing to counter that majority decision. And even then, as a majority, that's some scary cool-aid. All I got in that thread was more personal bashing.

Some thoughts;

1. There is a ton of strategy content in this community. Its just that a lot of it doesn't take the form of forum posts, instead manifesting as blogs or videos. But I mean, Biggs just opened the floodgates on underused objectives and if the rest are half as deep as Park's was we are gonne be seeing some fine stuff. There is far more crunch here than most gaming forums. Don't let falling short of an ideal blind you to the good in the real.

2. "We can't do anything about X" is sort of a strange take. Of course we can do stuff. We can post about the issues we are seeing on the forums, because we know that FFG reads them. Its been borne out time and again. So whichever side of the fence you fall on, imo if you percieve an issue, then absolutely post about it.

3. As to the flotes themselves, I don't really have a huge issue with them. If the issue is activation padding its more about the core rule then the flotes, because that was already happening. If anything, they just allowed certain fleets to mitigate that problem some. I remember having a pretty long discussion with JJ about how to deal with the emerging issue in wave 2, before flotes were announced. If players are currently discouraged from engagement due to the value/interaction of strategic, scoring objectives, relay, delay, etc; then my preferred method for addressing the issue is to release cards/models/objectives which incentivize breaking that mold. I've played a lot of games, and experience tells me that when you start mucking about in the core rules you risk breaking everything into tiny pieces.

1 minute ago, Blail Blerg said:

Well. It didn't seem like anyone was willing to counter that majority decision. And even then, as a majority, that's some scary cool-aid. All I got in that thread was more personal bashing.

You made a thread which was, "I'll do nothing, you lot go and fix my problems for me". Its irrelevant whether the idea was good, you put it across terribly and didnt want to lead from the front.

Thats why we didnt react very well.

I will also add, I have made a few strategic threads recently. They gather a lot of likes very quickly, and also tank of the main page very quickly. People seem much happier responding to posts in misery threads rather than adding constructive comment to strategy ideas.

Just now, Blail Blerg said:

Its okay. *pat pat. I don't think you're worthless. =)

(Is this rules forum discussion you're referring to? Or something I said? Cuz some of that rules forum stuff is just nuts. )

Yes and No.

To try to explain:

What you appear to be after was a unified effort or front of people - our self styled 'experts' - to write strategy articles and thus, provide a baseline of how to do things.

Now, wether or not that was intended, that was how it come across. Reinforced now by your statement of "decided not to do that."

I was thusly harkening back to the previous discussion on the Rules Sub-forum, where someone raised the point of having 'experts' write out a non-official faq that could be used as a baseline for rules discussion and how to do things.

Almost exactly the same thing as you were asking for.

What that resulted in, was some people declaring who they thought the experts should be, and then some of those experts (myself included, but not alone) to be told that we would be wasting our time because the only thing that matters is FFG. That the well reasoned and well though opinions of experts, even when they were presented as opinions, if they were codified in a single place, were going tobe a product of ridicule and debasement.

Because, I mean, because I was name dropped (it wasn't my thread, or my intention, or even my desire), I got two messages telling me that I was wasting my time, and one which called me a "fukkn c*** ass" because I thought I was better than everyone else.

So.

Yes.

Some of the people who are good at strategy, who also happen to be in the rules sub-forum a fair bit, were more than a little gun-shy, from what I can tell from some back-and-forth PM messages.

I think the makers of our more frequent blogs - Concentrate Fire, Can't get your ship out, are doing admirably... But like most things, these take time and incentive, rather than pure demand, if that makes sense.

Also, I'm well aware that, at least for the time being, I'm useless.

The Rules Forum doesn't need anyone, since things have been discussed to death.

2 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

Some thoughts;

2. "We can't do anything about X" is sort of a strange take. Of course we can do stuff. We can post about the issues we are seeing on the forums, because we know that FFG reads them. Its been borne out time and again. So whichever side of the fence you fall on, imo if you percieve an issue, then absolutely post about it.

For me, Its not so much "What can we do", its more "What can we do that is constructive and makes a difference?"

Because there's always stuff you can do.

its just not always a good thing

Just now, Drasnighta said:

For me, Its not so much "What can we do", its more "What can we do that is constructive and makes a difference?"

Because there's always stuff you can do.

its just not always a good thing

Well but posting about it, sans vitriol, is constructive.

Posting about the same stuff over and over, sure, not so constructive.

5 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

You made a thread which was, "I'll do nothing, you lot go and fix my problems for me". Its irrelevant whether the idea was good, you put it across terribly and didnt want to lead from the front.

Thats why we didnt react very well.

I will also add, I have made a few strategic threads recently. They gather a lot of likes very quickly, and also tank of the main page very quickly. People seem much happier responding to posts in misery threads rather than adding constructive comment to strategy ideas.

It goes like this;

*read strategy article*

*thinks "hey that was great. Couldn't have said it better!*

*hits like*

*since it was already good, I have nothing to add beyond "nice job", which is a sentiment I've already expressed by hitting like*

Now, when the article is off base and wrong, it generates a lot more discussion. In misery threads on a forum frequented by fans of the game being criticised, you are far more likely to encounter disagreement. So people are more likely to voice their thoughts, since there isn't a "wtf are you on about" button.

I think a lot of the anger back and forth comes from the fact that we all know FFG is reading these boards and listening to us. When the overwhelming majority of people complained about activations, we got flotillas. When people back in the day talked about squadrons being ehhhhh, we got Intel.

Now we have people mad that flotillas do what they do, and others who find them OK. Knowing that FFG listens to us, we all feel that if we don't articulate our point, the Other Guy with his WRONG opinions is gonna win, and I'm going to see the game I play change for the worse because my opinions were either listened to or not, and that ruins everything for me.

I have my own opinions on all these, but a lot of this is all meta dependant. Chicago doesn't HAVE a squadrons meta; from what I've seen I'm it (though we do have a few new Imps interested in the concept). So when Blail posts about squadrons destroying the game I think he's wrong, and he is....in my meta (not attempting to attack you, you're just the loudest voice there). Similarly we don't have a 4 flotillas a side problem here, so I personally don't really think it's a problem. And it may be for your metas!

A large amount of the anger is coming from "flotillas have wrecked everything/get accuracy scrub" threads where one side assumes the other side/side's meta is a walking bundle of morons. Since we can't change opinions of people or people's metas without being there, it's an impasse.

If we want constructive argument and data, is there a way short of just pulling Regionals data that shows more activations always equals better? I don't think so but I'm willing to ask. Not "better players have more activations", but "more activations are better always." Does there hit a point of diminishing returns? is Six activations better than 5 always? (No). What about 6/7 v 4? Everyone has opinions, I'm searching for data. That's the only way this argument ends.

8 minutes ago, geek19 said:

If we want constructive argument and data, is there a way short of just pulling Regionals data that shows more activations always equals better? I don't think so but I'm willing to ask. Not "better players have more activations", but "more activations are better always." Does there hit a point of diminishing returns? is Six activations better than 5 always? (No). What about 6/7 v 4? Everyone has opinions, I'm searching for data. That's the only way this argument ends.

The Data, however, is severely restricted in relative sample size. I mean, even simply defining the variable of "which ones to count" starts straining what is statistically significant and what is not.

The Regionals Data is the most collected Data we have. But even that is a mere fraction of the subset of data to look at... because not every Meta even gets a Regional.

I mean, as an Example: Calgary and Edmonton (Hothgary and E-Cloud-City). Separated by a 2-3 hour drive, you wouldn't think it a big deal and they'd be fairly similar. But they really are not.

And the one opportunity they really had to mix - the Regional Held in Hothgary - you'd think that a 2 hour drive wouldn't be too bad.

... Except it is down the Notoriously Dangerous QE2 Highway, in Blizzard Conditions, because it was mandated to be held in the first week of January.

Now I would have loved to get more people form E-Cloud down here, but honestly... Its not worth them risking their lives over. So basically, even in the reporting system we have, their entire Meta is effectively ignored as influencing the statistical data.

Shmitty does the absolute best job possible - and he's well defined his variables and intentions to get a snapshot of a greater whole.... But the more you expand the vision - the more the data becomes less and less readily apparent, and more and more only useful as a statistic.

At least, In my opinion.

I am heavily biased by my situation, and consequently almost constantly infused with extreme jealousy to anyone who says they ever go anywhere for a tournament.

11 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Except it is down the Notoriously Dangerous QE2 Highway, in Blizzard Conditions, because it was mandated to be held in the first week of January.

Now I would have loved to get more people form E-Cloud down here, but honestly... Its not worth them risking their lives over.

Lousy Canadian Wampas, yelling "Sorry" before they maul you...

54 minutes ago, geek19 said:

I think a lot of the anger back and forth comes from the fact that we all know FFG is reading these boards and listening to us. When the overwhelming majority of people complained about activations, we got flotillas. When people back in the day talked about squadrons being ehhhhh, we got Intel.

Now we have people mad that flotillas do what they do, and others who find them OK. Knowing that FFG listens to us, we all feel that if we don't articulate our point, the Other Guy with his WRONG opinions is gonna win, and I'm going to see the game I play change for the worse because my opinions were either listened to or not, and that ruins everything for me.

I have my own opinions on all these, but a lot of this is all meta dependant. Chicago doesn't HAVE a squadrons meta; from what I've seen I'm it (though we do have a few new Imps interested in the concept). So when Blail posts about squadrons destroying the game I think he's wrong, and he is....in my meta (not attempting to attack you, you're just the loudest voice there). Similarly we don't have a 4 flotillas a side problem here, so I personally don't really think it's a problem. And it may be for your metas!

A large amount of the anger is coming from "flotillas have wrecked everything/get accuracy scrub" threads where one side assumes the other side/side's meta is a walking bundle of morons. Since we can't change opinions of people or people's metas without being there, it's an impasse.

If we want constructive argument and data, is there a way short of just pulling Regionals data that shows more activations always equals better? I don't think so but I'm willing to ask. Not "better players have more activations", but "more activations are better always." Does there hit a point of diminishing returns? is Six activations better than 5 always? (No). What about 6/7 v 4? Everyone has opinions, I'm searching for data. That's the only way this argument ends.

While I am sure that FFG certainly acknowledges our feedback, actions speak louder than words.

If Reinholt's prediction is correct, and flotillas saturate fleets at Worlds, then I might expect FFG to enact a core game play change.

I think FFG's decision to enact a core game play change hinges on one question: Does FFG care enough about Organized/Competitive Play in Armada to enact those changes?

If the answer is yes (which I suspect it is), then we very well could see one of the few changes to flotillas people are talking about.

On the other hand, casual play allows for countless fleet builds, and diversity is not an issue.

But the bottom line is that most people attending Worlds will be there to win.

So the real question is, as Shmitty started to hint at earlier (I think, and please let me know if I am wrong):

Have flotillas flooded competitive play to the game's detriment?

2 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I just want to say that your posts are indeed lightening up the thread and I am enjoying them immensely! Keep up the good work!

Back to regularly scheduled programming and popcorn

37 minutes ago, SkyCake said:

I just want to say that your posts are indeed lightening up the thread and I am enjoying them immensely! Keep up the good work!

Back to regularly scheduled programming and popcorn

Please do it!

I am just trying to add some humor notes where needed while I make my own voice in the community.

Not the Rules Guru, not the Strategic Genius, not the Infamous Fleet Builder... just the Silly Guy of the Inside Star Wars Universe Picture Jokes.

For the topic, Has anyone tested something like this?:

Trying Anti-Flotilla competitive without flotillas (390/400)
===================
Gladiator I-class Star Destroyer (56 + 45)
+ Moff Jerjerrod (23)
+ Ordnance Experts (4)
+ Engine Techs (8)
+ Demolisher (10)
Gladiator I-class Star Destroyer (56 + 12)
+ Ordnance Experts (4)
+ Engine Techs (8)
Raider I-class Corvette (44 + 7)
+ Ordnance Experts (4)
+ Flechette Torpedoes (3)
Raider I-class Corvette (44 + 7)
+ Ordnance Experts (4)
+ Flechette Torpedoes (3)
Raider I-class Corvette (44 + 7)
+ Ordnance Experts (4)
+ Flechette Torpedoes (3)
Ciena Ree (17)
Lambda-class Shuttle (15)
Valen Rudor (13)
Saber Squadron (12)
Tie Interceptor Squadron (11)
Most Wanted
Planetary Ion Cannon
Navigational Hazards

1 hour ago, geek19 said:

A large amount of the anger is coming from "flotillas have wrecked everything/get accuracy scrub" threads where one side assumes the other side/side's meta is a walking bundle of morons. Since we can't change opinions of people or people's metas without being there, it's an impasse.

If we want constructive argument and data, is there a way short of just pulling Regionals data that shows more activations always equals better? I don't think so but I'm willing to ask. Not "better players have more activations", but "more activations are better always." Does there hit a point of diminishing returns? is Six activations better than 5 always? (No). What about 6/7 v 4? Everyone has opinions, I'm searching for data. That's the only way this argument ends.

"better players bring more activations" vs "more activations are better" is nearly impossible for me to determine, but "better players do X obvious thing in fleet building" is very unlikely, in my opinion. Once someone wins with something, other people tend to try to do the same thing to see if they can win with it as well.

However "more activations are better" is something that can be evaluated. We can look at 3, 4, and 5 activation fleets to see how many of each of them appear in the bottom quarter and top 4, compared to their cohort. I've tried to do that just now, and came up with the following:

Bottom Quarter isn't 25% due to rounding issues. However, we can see that 3 ship fleets are substantially underperforming, but 4 & 5 ship fleets are not. (5 is leaning towards overperforming, but not to a statistically significant degree (p=0.25))

However, I don't know that this says much about "flotillas are a problem" because I don't that the complaint is detectable in fleet composition, only in tactics. If people were taking 2-3 flotillas, and dropping slicer tools on them, and then driving into the heart of the fight, would people still be complaining? Or is it just the flotillas hiding at the edge of the board?

11 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

For the topic, Has anyone tested something like this?:

This is what you are searching for:

Author: Ginkapo

Faction: Galactic Empire
Points: 390/400

Commander: Admiral Ozzel

Assault Objective: Most Wanted
Defense Objective: Fire Lanes
Navigation Objective: Solar Corona

Raider-I Class Corvette (44 points)
- Instigator ( 4 points)
- Ordnance Experts ( 4 points)
= 52 total ship cost

Gladiator I-Class Star Destroyer (56 points)
- Demolisher ( 10 points)
- Intel Officer ( 7 points)
- Ordnance Experts ( 4 points)
- Engine Techs ( 8 points)
- Assault Proton Torpedoes ( 5 points)
= 90 total ship cost

[ flagship ] Arquitens-class Light Cruiser (54 points)
- Admiral Ozzel ( 20 points)
- Intel Officer ( 7 points)
- Dual Turbolaser Turrets ( 5 points)
= 86 total ship cost

Arquitens-class Light Cruiser (54 points)
- Intel Officer ( 7 points)
- Dual Turbolaser Turrets ( 5 points)
= 66 total ship cost

Arquitens-class Light Cruiser (54 points)
- Intel Officer ( 7 points)
- Dual Turbolaser Turrets ( 5 points)
= 66 total ship cost

1 Ciena Ree ( 17 points)
1 Valen Rudor ( 13 points)

1 hour ago, Baltanok said:

"better players bring more activations" vs "more activations are better" is nearly impossible for me to determine, but "better players do X obvious thing in fleet building" is very unlikely, in my opinion. Once someone wins with something, other people tend to try to do the same thing to see if they can win with it as well.

However "more activations are better" is something that can be evaluated. We can look at 3, 4, and 5 activation fleets to see how many of each of them appear in the bottom quarter and top 4, compared to their cohort. I've tried to do that just now, and came up with the following:

	B-QTR	Top 4
All	27.6%	22.4%
3	45.9%	8.1%
4	27.7%	20.2%
5	20.9%	29.9%

Bottom Quarter isn't 25% due to rounding issues. However, we can see that 3 ship fleets are substantially underperforming, but 4 & 5 ship fleets are not. (5 is leaning towards overperforming, but not to a statistically significant degree (p=0.25))

However, I don't know that this says much about "flotillas are a problem" because I don't that the complaint is detectable in fleet composition, only in tactics. If people were taking 2-3 flotillas, and dropping slicer tools on them, and then driving into the heart of the fight, would people still be complaining? Or is it just the flotillas hiding at the edge of the board?

Thanks, @Baltanok. Not to beg for more data, but is there a split of 4 vs 5 at a certain time, or is it mostly 4s and 5s across the board (as in, 4 was dominant until December, then top 4 always had 5 or so)? And can I ask about 6 ship fleets with regards to all that, too? I appreciate all your effort on this!

3 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

I mean, as an Example: Calgary and Edmonton (Hothgary and E-Cloud-City). Separated by a 2-3 hour drive, you wouldn't think it a big deal and they'd be fairly similar. But they really are not.

Here in the San Francisco area, we have multiple player groups that are all less than 30 miles from each other but are basically unable to play because of the traffic. And then the only California regional ended up being less than 30 miles from the Mexico border. The only other regional in a nearby area was on the exact same day as that Regional (Las Vegas) and potentially cannibalized players from the Los Angeles and other nearby areas due to the cheaper transportation costs (flights and hotels in Vegas are very cheap during the winter - cheap enough to make anyone with a longer drive than Los Angeles have to seriously consider attending the other just for financial savings).

Back to the matter at hand....

A key reason behind my proposal is that it allows for fleets on both sides to more easily flip the activation script than the current system and I think that's a key component of the activation trouble we are seeing now. I think that most players would agree that if Flotillas were capable of being destroyed almost effortlessly by larger combat ships, that you'd see more flotillas die and the activation advantage for both fleets stabilize faster over the course of a game. It would also have the benefit of promoting more durable light combat ships to have an equal place with Flotillas, as the key defensive property that makes Flotillas a major element of the activation game is gone.

The goal of flotillas seems to be having a cheap, light ship that allows players to catch up in the activation game while also supporting other elements of the game such as squadron and fleet support but in exchange would be knocked out by a stiff breeze. However, scatter means that several ships without easy access to accuracy results actually can't reliably do any damage to them at all without ramming. While some players are thankful that this doesn't give Demolisher another easy target to destroy, I think that this has actually had the opposite effect. Demolisher can't kill them, but neither can anything else that doesn't have a strong chance of rolling an accuracy. This applies to everything that doesn't roll large numbers of blue dice or exceptionally large numbers of red dice, or that doesn't have H9 Turbolasers or a similar accuracy guarantee.

And what this means is that activation advantage is most easily flipped by killing dedicated combat ships which are theoretically more durable but are statistically more likely to be killed by a small number of big attacks, especially at long range.

7 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

So, bear with me here, but...

What if the issue is not flotillas, but the increasingly deadly direction the game is going?

Activation advantage has been a thing since the very beginning. At the very least, it was identified and exploited as a mechanic early in W2 (Clonisher), but it was only really exploited by the most deadly single activation in the game at the time, the completely pimped out Demo.

Think about it: what is it that we're trying to accomplish with activation delays? Part of it is actionable intelligence, knowing where your ships will be before I commit mine. Part of it is trying to force your ships into my threat range. Both of those considerations increase in importance as the treat presented by my ships increases. If I am very likely to kill your ship in one activation if it trundles into range of my ISD2 and Decimators, or my Yavaris B-Wings, it becomes game-winningly critical that you not let that happen.

I dunno, don't really have a point here, just sort of thinking out loud.

You've hit the nail on the head. The current state of the game makes activation delays not just an issue about combat performance (ships and squadrons in attack range) but also about understanding where the game is literally going at the moment. We can see this by comparing the movement and combat systems of X-Wing and Armada. but also, we can see this by the frequent bane of new players which is deployment.

Unlike in X-Wing, the relatively stunted abilities of Armada ships to turn means that turning to track an enemy with your best combat facing or to be in range to activate squadrons is utterly crucial. Out of position ships may never contribute in any capacity to the progress of a given match, especially when the strict 6 turn limit is taken into account. In X-Wing, this is mitigated by relatively high maneuverability and unlimited rounds, so an out of position ship can maximize its speed or maneuverability at will to turn back into the fight or otherwise work to position where they want to be. Because of this, the ability to go early and block an opponent is crucial in X-Wing because it pins them in place for a crucial moment before they can escape. After all ships have maneuvered into position, all ships then open fire at the same time.

In Armada, going first when not in combat range is rarely anything except a hindrance, because it gives properly commanded ships an opportunity to dodge out of the way entirely or even fire onto the ship that just moved. With the exception of Demolisher, it is rarely even possible to do damage unless already in combat range.

A lot of players have this as an issue with additional activations, but my issue is that those activations can't be countered. This is also a reason I am concerned in previous posts about Rieekan. Activation control is a critical element of the game by the nature of its design. If there isn't an ability to mitigate enemy activations, then it is impossible for a person with activation disadvantage to meaningfully reverse or overcome the situation regardless of initiative.

The only method of combating activation advantage in Armada is by killing opposing ships. The simplest way to fix any activation advantage scenario is to kill the ships that are causing the issue. If the primary issue in the game is excessive cheap ship activations, then the only meaningful way to combat that issue is to make those ships easier to kill.

And that is why I'm advocating for removing scatter.