Just now, jorgen_cab said:First of there were Tie-fighters engaging the fleet before you saw the Tie for the shiekdgate in Rouge One...you only see what you want to see.
There are just too much cannon material to disregard the importance of fighters in the Star Wars universe. Gunship only battle simply are not Star Wars theme.
With the removal of the old books, there's not much canon material related to ISD fleet engagements.
1 minute ago, jorgen_cab said:First of there were Tie-fighters engaging the fleet before you saw the Tie for the shiekdgate in Rouge One...you only see what you want to see.
There are just too much cannon material to disregard the importance of fighters in the Star Wars universe. Gunship only battle simply are not Star Wars theme.
I count one squadron's worth on screen..... between 2 ISDs.... sure it's all that's shown, and there were likely more off screen but to deny those ISDs were depending heavily on a station for fighter support in the Scarrif engagement is sheer folly.
Hi, i have question about rieekan. His ability to use any one ship , once per turn ? You can choose, do not use it on the first destroyed ship. I wait, on second ship ? Or i must use it only on first ship ?
thanks
As a matter of fact, I would even go as far to say the squadron to ship ratio of the battle of endor proves my point too.....
I did a count (as best I could) of what's shown on screen:
37 ISDs
1 SSD
6 Tie/F squadrons
5 tie/Int squadrons
So 38 large ships 11 squads... lets round those number up say 40 ships 12 squads...
10/3 ratio.... 10 ISDs for every 3 squadrons shown....
So yeah, I stand firmly by my point....
Imperials, thematically, DID use multiple large ship fleets with little to no fighter coverage....
It's also important to note... the imperials lost.... every time... to fighters....
So what is balance? lol
27 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:I count one squadron's worth on screen..... between 2 ISDs.... sure it's all that's shown, and there were likely more off screen but to deny those ISDs were depending heavily on a station for fighter support in the Scarrif engagement is sheer folly.
Very little of the actual battle is shown so it is really hard to know how many fighters were engaged in the fight.
The point is moot, Star Wars have been full of fighter combat between the books, movies and the TV series.
As for the battle of Endor the answer is simple and a direct result of limitation in special effects. The numbers of fighters on both sides are limited on screen.
There are enough material to show the importance of fighters on both sides. The Empire did not use their fighters as a primarily offensive weapon, that was the trade mark of the Rebelion and the Old Republic before them as well. The Empire did rely on heavy cruisers to destroy enemy ships but not without fighter support.
Edited by jorgen_cabI've been primarily playing what I consider balanced fleets for the past few months. They generally look something like this:
I find this mix to be the most fun for me. It offers plenty of options tactically and can adapt to different situations. I find that I'm competitive against most any build out there and have done well with this style fleet in 4 recent tournaments (2 wins, 2 3rd place). I've won against high activation and low activation with this fleet type, 130 points of squadrons and 0. Each requires different tactics, but balanced fleets can do this
In my mind, this type of fleet should always be competitive in Armada and I think it is now. I realize that is just my opinion though.
Playing squadronless you can win, but it is a challenge. That seems fine as you are choosing to play without a significant part of the game. There should be a disadvantage to that. Theoretically the low squadron player should be able to balance out that disadvantage by reinvesting those points in their ships I've seen players that are very good at just that.
On the other hand, I think the hide in a corner and use Relay tactic has taken away the primary disadvantage of going full squadron, which is the higher risk of being tabled. Just as playing squadron free is a type of skew, so is playing 130+ points in squadrons, but one is currently less risky than the other. I think the greater risk of being tabled when playing full squadron is nearly non existent right now
I would say that the risk of no squadrons is currently much higher than the risk of full squadrons at the very least.
2 minutes ago, shmitty said:I've been primarily playing what I consider balanced fleets for the past few months. They generally look something like this:
- 1 Large Ship
- 1 Medium Ship
- 1 Small Ship
- 1 Flotilla
- 6 Squadrons
I find this mix to be the most fun for me. It offers plenty of options tactically and can adapt to different situations. I find that I'm competitive against most any build out there and have done well with this style fleet in 4 recent tournaments (2 wins, 2 3rd place). I've won against high activation and low activation with this fleet type, 130 points of squadrons and 0. Each requires different tactics, but balanced fleets can do this
In my mind, this type of fleet should always be competitive in Armada and I think it is now. I realize that is just my opinion though.
Playing squadronless you can win, but it is a challenge. That seems fine as you are choosing to play without a significant part of the game. There should be a disadvantage to that. Theoretically the low squadron player should be able to balance out that disadvantage by reinvesting those points in their ships I've seen players that are very good at just that.
On the other hand, I think the hide in a corner and use Relay tactic has taken away the primary disadvantage of going full squadron, which is the higher risk of being tabled. Just as playing squadron free is a type of skew, so is playing 130+ points in squadrons, but one is currently less risky than the other. I think the greater risk of being tabled when playing full squadron is nearly non existent right now
I would say that the risk of no squadrons is currently much higher than the risk of full squadrons at the very least.
I would agree that a fleet that have a bit of everything and don't overextend in any area should allways be competitive because it have no real weaknesses, but also no real strengths. It will be more down to the players skill rather than finding an opponent where my particular list is a rock to his scissor. I also think it is harder to win tournaments because there will allways be someone that show up with the best rock list to mostly scissor fleets that hog most of the points, the problem with tournament systems overall in my opinion.
A fleet with no fighter support that just happen to go up against a list with 134p of bombers are obviously a very extreme example to pick but a good example why extreme lists are not a good idea.
36 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:It's also important to note... the imperials lost.... every time... to fighters....
So what is balance? lol
I guess you should start using fighters in your Pulse Tap fleet and you'll be unstoppable
2 hours ago, Undeadguy said:I guess you should start using fighters in your Pulse Tap fleet and you'll be unstoppable
Whoa whoa whoa buddy, do ya know who you're talking to? I'm called a Jank master for a reason ya know. Lol
Jokes aside I wish it were that simple.
Currently, I run a PT that's 1L 1M 2x S ships with 5 squads, and quite painfully I hate to say, it's just not enough.
The painful part, is that I had no difficulty getting the PT off, the supposed "weakness" of the PT fleet of keeping out of both ship arcs is just difficult with this layout. The fleet, for all **** I take for running it, functions flawlessly.
But that downgrade to a medium size ship to afford me those squads really crippled it. Not just in lack of firepower but threat dispersal. (If only if only... the VSD could reach speed 3)
Wave 6 will be opening some opportunities that will allow me to compensate for this soon. D-caps on raiders could easily open up the PT... and sloane with a quasar full of ties and Intel looks to eliminate the pulse from the tap, so there's some fun to be had there too...
Unfortunately, I do not believe the PT will ever be a viable option.
10 hours ago, Darken said:Hi, i have question about rieekan. His ability to use any one ship , once per turn ? You can choose, do not use it on the first destroyed ship. I wait, on second ship ? Or i must use it only on first ship ?
thanks
You get to choose
On 21/6/2017 at 10:15 PM, n00bzilla99 said:Just because your meta doesn't spam / use Rieekan doesn't mean the other 99% of metas don't. You cannot claim something is true for everyone else based on your own personal experience.
You know this argument works both ways dont you? US cannot claim Rieekan aces is a wolrd meta for everyone when in the rest of the world is not.
Edited by xerpoXerpo, you should write a strongly worded Yelp review of FFG HQ about how it's not accessible to everyone in the world.
10 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:Whoa whoa whoa buddy, do ya know who you're talking to? I'm called a Jank master for a reason ya know. Lol
Jokes aside I wish it were that simple.
Currently, I run a PT that's 1L 1M 2x S ships with 5 squads, and quite painfully I hate to say, it's just not enough.
The painful part, is that I had no difficulty getting the PT off, the supposed "weakness" of the PT fleet of keeping out of both ship arcs is just difficult with this layout. The fleet, for all **** I take for running it, functions flawlessly.
But that downgrade to a medium size ship to afford me those squads really crippled it. Not just in lack of firepower but threat dispersal. (If only if only... the VSD could reach speed 3)
Wave 6 will be opening some opportunities that will allow me to compensate for this soon. D-caps on raiders could easily open up the PT... and sloane with a quasar full of ties and Intel looks to eliminate the pulse from the tap, so there's some fun to be had there too...
Unfortunately, I do not believe the PT will ever be a viable option.
Why do you have a medium ship? With DC coming out, you should be running Raiders and Avenger, which I'm sure you already do. But DC Raider is more threatening than either Imp medium ship IMO. Better yaw, faster, cheaper, kills squads.
You could also drop Screed and switch to Sloane. Drop the pulse and use Tie/D and aces to trigger Avenger. That's what I'm currently trying to do in the Vassal tourny. It's alright but my fleet is not the best.
On 6/21/2017 at 3:36 PM, geek19 said:It's not just Minnesota though. Players came from Canada and all over America to play there. Like, you can SAY it was just Minnesota, but that's not true, even if you want it to be.
Rieekan was such that, the guy who won world's dropped his imperial rhetoric to play rebels solely because he could find no competitive way to deal with that style list. A die-hard, steadfast imperial was degraded to flying a rebel list. It was a very sad day when he hung up his demolisher for a freaking AFmkII . (OK, maybe getting a bit ridiculous near the end, but the start is legit)
33 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:Why do you have a medium ship? With DC coming out, you should be running Raiders and Avenger, which I'm sure you already do. But DC Raider is more threatening than either Imp medium ship IMO. Better yaw, faster, cheaper, kills squads.
You could also drop Screed and switch to Sloane. Drop the pulse and use Tie/D and aces to trigger Avenger. That's what I'm currently trying to do in the Vassal tourny. It's alright but my fleet is not the best.
Well... raiders even with tua and ECMs simply aren't survivable enough to deliver a tap in wave 5, like I said, wave 6 will open up TONS of opportunity (once it's out). (I actually think I mentioned both suggestions you made lol except I don't think I'll do defenders, I bought 6 jumpmaster 5ks and I plan on running some swarm ties with a quasar... I ran test rolls over 2 activation (quasar then ISD avenger) I can typically disable 4 defense tokens and deal 6 damage.... that's a better rating than my 2nd ISD ever hit with a PT.... so there are plans in motion)
The short answer for using mediums or 2x ISDs with no squads at this point is I don't often play in vassal so my hands are tied until wave 6 actually releases lol
It seems that a lot of the disagreement here is because we don't all have the same idea of what a well-balanced Armada should look like. Until then, we are talking past each other.
Question. For the game to be balanced, which of these necessary?
Until we know what "balance" looks like we can't have a meaningful discussion about it.
Edited by Democratus2 minutes ago, Democratus said:It seems that a lot of the disagreement here is because we don't all have the same idea of what a well-balanced Armada should look like. Until then, we are talking past each other.
Question. For the game to be balanced, which of these necessary?
- An all-large ship fleet have an equal chance of defeating an all-small ship fleet
- A non-squadron fleet be on equal footing with a squadron-heavy fleet
- Any combination of ships and upgrades at X points is on an equal footing with another of equal points
Until we know what "balance" looks like we can't have a meaningful discussion about it.
As I've been led to believe from when I was a playtester is that "relative" balance is when two players of equal skill can take almost any list and perform on equal footing.
There is a problem when it comes to balance in that there's no real way to do it well. Heck, even in chess which is often touted as the best and most balanced game around there's still a slight advantage for the player going first.
So when I speak about balance, I would like to see all ships have a place in the meta, somewhere. It may only be a single build (i.e. Raider with Flechettes and ordnance experts), but that's better than not seeing it at all. I want to see two ISDs on the table across from 8 CR90s and have a good, fun match. People should be able to take almost anything they want and still feel like they're not losing in the list building phase.
But hey, I'm just one guy who hasn't done playtesting in half a decade.
12 minutes ago, ricefrisbeetreats said:As I've been led to believe from when I was a playtester is that "relative" balance is when two players of equal skill can take almost any list and perform on equal footing.
There is a problem when it comes to balance in that there's no real way to do it well. Heck, even in chess which is often touted as the best and most balanced game around there's still a slight advantage for the player going first.
So when I speak about balance, I would like to see all ships have a place in the meta, somewhere. It may only be a single build (i.e. Raider with Flechettes and ordnance experts), but that's better than not seeing it at all. I want to see two ISDs on the table across from 8 CR90s and have a good, fun match. People should be able to take almost anything they want and still feel like they're not losing in the list building phase.
But hey, I'm just one guy who hasn't done playtesting in half a decade.
The problem is what type of setting you are trying to put the fleets in. In a tournament setting you need a fleet able to win big and loose small which require a different type of list than just winning will.
In a tournament setting it is very important to pick something that can trump whatever you are playing against and when going up against something that beats you to loose small.
In a different setting where you just want to win and the margins don't count you need a more balanced list so you have as few weaknesses as possible and there are no hard counter lists. Now it is more or less your skill and some luck that will guide you to your victory. But this will never give you enough points in a tournament to place in the top, even if you win all your games, at least not in bigger tournaments.
Campaign games give an even more different balance to think about when ships can gain veteran status.
So balance are greatly depending on the setting. Different ships, lists and combination will vary in effectivnes.
Edited by jorgen_cab1 minute ago, jorgen_cab said:So balance are greatly depending on the setting. Different ships, lists and combination will vary in effectivnes.
Which is why I think (and I tend to ramble, so I probably didn't make the point) that true balance is probably not going to happen and we need to work towards giving people viable, competitive options for campaign play and tournament play. Let people shake out what they want to fly and tweak as necessary while trying to avoid power creep and rules bloat.
If your game becomes too sterile, it dies due to boredom. If it becomes too much of a power creep, it will turn off the mid-level players who don't feel like keeping up with the cult of the new.
But yes, you are very right in your statement that balance varies based on what type of game setting you're playing in. I tend to play much more defensive in campaign play that punishes destroyed ships over one-off games where the only thing that determines victory is me losing fewer points than my opponent and there are no long-lasting effects.
16 minutes ago, ricefrisbeetreats said:People should be able to take almost anything they want and still feel like they're not losing in the list building phase.
This is at the heart of all the balance issues with CCGs/LCGs and list building miniature games. Folks don't mind losing (for the most part
) but they do mind feeling like they never had a chance. How much of "feeling like you never had a chance" is on you and how much is on the design of the game and the pieces available is the grand question.
23 minutes ago, Democratus said:It seems that a lot of the disagreement here is because we don't all have the same idea of what a well-balanced Armada should look like. Until then, we are talking past each other.
Question. For the game to be balanced, which of these necessary?
- An all-large ship fleet have an equal chance of defeating an all-small ship fleet
- A non-squadron fleet be on equal footing with a squadron-heavy fleet
- Any combination of ships and upgrades at X points is on an equal footing with another of equal points
Until we know what "balance" looks like we can't have a meaningful discussion about it.
You'll never reach "balance" in any game. Balance changes based on the meta, and the meta changes to throw away balance.
Star Craft 2 is an excellent example of changing meta and balance since Blizzard is always patching the game. One archetype will grow dominant, and a nerf or buff will occur that changes the meta. Blizzard is striving to keep Star Craft balanced, but it's literally the devs vs players. Players will always try to win in the most efficient way possible, and when you have thousands of players moving towards the same goal, someone will eventually find the "broken" way to play. Back when Star Craft 2 first came out, I remember always getting stomped by MMM (Marines, Marauders and Medivacs). It was just **** hard to beat. Blizzard stepped in and fixed it, but doing so will open up new builds that could not work previously since they were hard countered by MMM.
The same will happen in Armada. FFG will step in and nerf something, which opens up a new archetype for players. Eventually, almost like natural selection, one of these archetypes will become the dominant fleet. Wave 2 was Clonisher Demo fleets. Wave 3/4 was large ship and 3+ flots. Wave 5 was Rieekan Aces and Relay Delay Demo. Wave 6 will be a new fleet that someone will figure out and share. The only consistency is high activation.
Ideally, the best Armada balance would be all ships n squads, in some variance, being able to win tournaments. The issue is some ships, squads, and upgrades are not viable because they are under powered. Dominator, Redemption, YV-666, PDR, QLT, Vics, and Interdictors.
The game will never be balanced.
8 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:You'll never reach "balance" in any game. Balance changes based on the meta, and the meta changes to throw away balance.
You've already missed the point. The post you are quoting is just asking what it is we mean when we ask for balance. We can't have a useful discussion if we're using the same words to mean different things.
You're correct for the rest - balance is a journey, not a destination. But unless we can decide which direction we're going, we don't even have a journy.
10 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:You'll never reach "balance" in any game. Balance changes based on the meta, and the meta changes to throw away balance.
Star Craft 2 is an excellent example of changing meta and balance since Blizzard is always patching the game. One archetype will grow dominant, and a nerf or buff will occur that changes the meta. Blizzard is striving to keep Star Craft balanced, but it's literally the devs vs players. Players will always try to win in the most efficient way possible, and when you have thousands of players moving towards the same goal, someone will eventually find the "broken" way to play. Back when Star Craft 2 first came out, I remember always getting stomped by MMM (Marines, Marauders and Medivacs). It was just **** hard to beat. Blizzard stepped in and fixed it, but doing so will open up new builds that could not work previously since they were hard countered by MMM.
The same will happen in Armada. FFG will step in and nerf something, which opens up a new archetype for players. Eventually, almost like natural selection, one of these archetypes will become the dominant fleet. Wave 2 was Clonisher Demo fleets. Wave 3/4 was large ship and 3+ flots. Wave 5 was Rieekan Aces and Relay Delay Demo. Wave 6 will be a new fleet that someone will figure out and share. The only consistency is high activation.
Ideally, the best Armada balance would be all ships n squads, in some variance, being able to win tournaments. The issue is some ships, squads, and upgrades are not viable because they are under powered. Dominator, Redemption, YV-666, PDR, QLT, Vics, and Interdictors.
The game will never be balanced.
I suppose you are mainly talking about tournament balance when you mention things like the Victory or the Interdictor for example?
The Victory are quite competitive if you don't need to table your opponent and the Interdictor can be very useful in higher point games... just a few examples where balance of the game becomes quite different.
17 minutes ago, JgzMan said:You've already missed the point. The post you are quoting is just asking what it is we mean when we ask for balance. We can't have a useful discussion if we're using the same words to mean different things.
You're correct for the rest - balance is a journey, not a destination. But unless we can decide which direction we're going, we don't even have a journy.
I haven't missed the point. You cannot define game balance because it is always changing. More importantly, people want different things from the game. You can't provide a definition to that. It would be like shooting an arrow at a target while everyone is pulling it in their own direction and hoping you hit the bulls-eye.
The best thing you can do is make sure everything has a viable chance at being useful, but that fluctuates based on the meta. If no one used squadrons, Flechette Torps would be useless. How do you balance that? How do you make people use squads? Buff them. Ok now people don't use large ships since they can't effectively deal with Norra + 2 BCC and Flechette Torps is under powered since it only has 1 viable ship. How do we swing it back to less squads? Nerf BCC. But now we have wave 6 coming out which will shake up the meta and reveal a new dominant fleet. How do you prepare a balance for that? You have no results, no data.
What is balance? How do you predict the meta and adjust the game for that? The only thing you can do is wait for the results to come in and make adjustments, after the damage has been done.
You can't have a meaningful discussion because people want different things. Armada is different for every person. Some want it to be thematic with Tie/F swarms and ISDs. Others want it to be a deeply strategic game. Others like to play it and drink beer and push around Star Wars models. How do you balance a game for multiple groups and keep everyone happy?
24 minutes ago, jorgen_cab said:I suppose you are mainly talking about tournament balance when you mention things like the Victory or the Interdictor for example?
The Victory are quite competitive if you don't need to table your opponent and the Interdictor can be very useful in higher point games... just a few examples where balance of the game becomes quite different.
Tournament results are really the only thing that matters because FFG will make adjustments based on that data. They don't care if you win a game with 3 Interdictors until you win at a tournament, and they value that more the higher up the structure you can do it. Hence why Rieekan Aces was a problem. It can win at every scale, from casual to Worlds.