27 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

@geek19. the bid system makes it possible to create lists that depend on first activation, I hate this type of list because it is not a well rounded fleet that could stand up against other fleets if it had to go second. These fleets are usually super frustrating to play against if you are going second because they always skirt out of danger with their first activation. however, if these fleets get out bid and don't get first activation they usually fold.

The danger of bidding for first and building such is that you CAN get out bid at any point, meaning there's no guarantee of first. You may have a 16 point bid, but what happens when I go 17? If you know your list better, I'm not necessarily guaranteed a victory.

Furthermore, depending on how you built and deployed and play your fleet you might WANT second (fighter lists, for example). If your opponent is skirting away every time, how are they able to do that? Is it that they've got a Demolisher hopping your ships and somehow staying out of every arc ever, or did you give them the ability to find somewhere to hide at?

Lastly, it's not necessarily frustrating if you use good second player tactics. Don't rush those fleets, let them come to you, get as many points from your objectives as you can.

27 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

High activation count/ abuse of the activation system, goes hand in hand with this type of list. Because of how powerful the First/Last situation is. If a player knew going in to a match that they would have a 50% chance of going first, they would rethink this approach, resulting in people playing lists that do not rely on last/first.

It's not hard right now to design a list that doesn't care if it goes first or second. It may WANT one of those, but it doesn't NEED one to necessarily be successful.

27 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

27 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

Last/First is an unfortunate and glaring problem with the current system that allows a ship that in actual ship to ship combat would have no hope of slipping in under the guns of an entire fleet, deliver their salvos, and they escaping without taking any return fire to perform this nonsensical maneuver. It is a shortcoming of the activation system that detracts heavily from the realism of the game for the sake of a game mechanic.

Nope, how things would REALLY work doesn't matter, as we're talking about spaceships and hyperdrive and laser beams. Not to sound like a jerk, but the "I want more realism" doesn't work in a game where each admiral has special powers, sorry. If your opponent has somewhere to jump to, why not get a ship in that spot so he gets shot right afterwards when he lands there?

Indeed, sometimes people build lists that thrive in second. Lists that bring objectives that guarantee a bunch of points thanks to strategic keyword etc.

Any honest, seasoned Armada tournament veteran will tell you, sometimes the luck of the draw is as important as your list.

24 minutes ago, geek19 said:

You may have a 16 point bid, but what happens when I go 17?

That's cute.

There are going to be two sets of players in the coming national tournaments: those who bid over 20 points and those going second.

7 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

That's cute.

There are going to be two sets of players in the coming national tournaments: those who bid over 20 points and those going second.

Numbers were pulled out of my butt, haha. I've personally been just bidding 0 as my crazy Leia lists need all the points!

2 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Numbers were pulled out of my butt, haha. I've personally been just bidding 0 as my crazy Leia lists need all the points!

The problem is that numbers aren't being pulled out of my butt. They're based on real fleet designs I’m seeing in response to emergent list designs.

Frankly, the big change is Avenger Boarding Troopers. It can delete an equally coated ship off the board in one turn and fly away relatively unscathed, and that has made everything a moot point. You either have the ability to stop it on the way in, tank the full hit without issue, or avoid it entirely. And the only way to effectively avoid it is to both outbid it and out-activate it.

geek19 you cannot counter my reasoned arguments with what effectively amounts to "play better,"

my store champ and regionals record will indicate that I do in fact understand these thing and do counter them on a weekly basis as some one who automatically offers player choice to anyone I do not play in a tournament.

The Last/First issue allows ships and commanders do silly things they normally would not be able to do. They are artificially protected by a game mechanic. This advantage comes almost entirely from the list building step of the game. I don't like it because it makes no logical sense to have a ship that slips in untouched simply because there is an extra flotilla 400 klicks away. Also, it is a large advantage the directly affects list building, because the advantage comes from the list building part of the game and not the gameplay part this is a concern. An advantage that powerful casts a exclusionary shadow across the game that makes other normally viable fleets a liability based on how powerful last first is. Activation advantage makes this even more pronounced.

20 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

The problem is that numbers aren't being pulled out of my butt. They're based on real fleet designs I’m seeing in response to emergent list designs.

Frankly, the big change is Avenger Boarding Troopers. It can delete an equally coated ship off the board in one turn and fly away relatively unscathed, and that has made everything a moot point. You either have the ability to stop it on the way in, tank the full hit without issue, or avoid it entirely. And the only way to effectively avoid it is to both outbid it and out-activate it.

Ick, I'm fine going second for a while then if wanting to go first necessitates a flotillas worth of bid. Where are you seeing this, anyways? The 7 ship store championship one? Or somewhere else?

3 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Ick, I'm fine going second for a while then if wanting to go first necessitates a flotillas worth of bid. Where are you seeing this, anyways? The 7 ship store championship one? Or somewhere else?

I'm seeing it in a few places in tournaments and elsewhere as people experiment. And not just with BT Avenger, but that is the one that people are trying to beat out.

1 hour ago, thecactusman17 said:

I'm seeing it in a few places in tournaments and elsewhere as people experiment. And not just with BT Avenger, but that is the one that people are trying to beat out.

I am worried about being out bid by the BT Avenger BS. Gotta make a choice soon if I need first or if I'm ok going second.

The lifeboats have been nerfed, what more do you want? looks at jumpmaster threads on X-wing forums

Nevermind, I don't want to hear anymore of it. Are you sure you don't want to go back to X-wing, you will fit right in with the Nerf-Herding crowd.

49 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

The lifeboats have been nerfed, what more do you want? looks at jumpmaster threads on X-wing forums

Nevermind, I don't want to hear anymore of it. Are you sure you don't want to go back to X-wing, you will fit right in with the Nerf-Herding crowd.

A lot of us (gasp) don't play X-wing, or play only casually.

In this case though, I do actually see the differences in where the problem is.

In X-wing, the current meta has been created by mechanical interactions that were simply too effective for their cost. Jumpmasters made a cheap ship capable of equipping nearly every undercosted ability in the game, so they dominated the meta.

In Armada, the issue is activation advantage and initiative. While there are options to play counter to these strengths, the ship game heavily favors both.

If you set a ship with significant activation and initiative advantage and pair it with abilities to bypass or ignore the primary abilities to counter it, you will inevitably get an unhinged meta that will inform game decisions long past the point where that meta was popular or viable.

And in that sense, X-wing has a more desirable problem: individual units and upgrades are too good and need to be addressed directly. The core game mechanics function fine. At a given pilot skill step, player one goes first and player 2 goes second. Mechanically, is a sound system with advantages and disadvantages for each player.

Armada has a core mechanic problem, and ultimately that's much worse: player one and player 2 are nor or less evenly matched until one of them starts making activations that cannot be responded to. This might be extra ship actions, it might be extra squad actions. The breakdown always happens at the same exact point in every round, in every game. That’s why the current meta trends to favor a concentrated breaking mechanism. Previously it was Rieekan ensuring that all the most important actions occurred after the opponent had finished their normal turn. Before that it was the Demo triple tap, or Fireballs running into the enemy after all their ships had maneuvered.

In short, every single top tier list since wave 1 has depended on stalling out the enemy until it can act without interference. From the GenCon Special to the A-wing ball to the 2-ship fireball to the 2+3 Rieekan Aces.

And my argument is that this core mechanic hurts the game. If a player is guaranteed to go first, then the opponent should have a guarantee that they can choose to go last.

to double down on the theme can it not be concluded that most if not all balance complaints/ issues in armada are centered around activation advantage and who has first turn? Everything I am seeing is indicting that people mostly agree on this.

Solution: A pass mechanic that nullifies activation advantage, and a coin flip for first player. Everyone plays at 400 points and everyone has the same number of activations effectively. It effectively removes the large mechanical hole in the game system. That is about as fair and balanced as you can make it. It also opens up the possibility of 2-3 ship builds again while not restricting any of the current builds being run. What possible downside is there to this besides "it changes the way the game plays," which should be a non-factor. The only people who would not want this are people so insecure in their ability to win an honest fight that they want a system that has such mechanical holes that they can leverage it to make their games easier.

Have you ever played a game against 1-2 very scary ships and a whole swarm of flotillas with second player? Have you ever stopped and thought to yourself, "If this was a real fleet battle or RTS, this would be a joke because everyone at the table knows that all the second player has to do is pour all their fire into one ship, and yet because of the activation system and the bid system, some how the fleet of useless support craft far away from the fight allow that 1-2 hard hitting ships to slip in and deal their damage and magically slip away without every having to face the potent long range fire power of the enemy fleet that would surely be smart enough to shoot at the only viable target as it zooms in to deliver its short range payload. Any RTS player can see how ridiculous this is.

People who build fleets like this don't want an actual ship to ship slug fest, they want to win by using this unfortunate gimmick to bend this otherwise very strategic game to their advantage, usually because they don't like having to be as smart as their opponent to win. It is much easier to make good positional choices when the enemy has already had to show all their important moves. The game is a much more beautiful chess match when activation advantage is negated due to equal activations. As pass mechanic insures such an outcome every time. Why would we not want this? Stop letting people build lists that reduce the skill needed to do well with them and make them actually play on even footing with their opponent.

18 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

Solution: A pass mechanic that nullifies activation advantage, and a coin flip for first player. Everyone plays at 400 points and everyone has the same number of activations effectively.

This makes objectives pointless.

19 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

The only people who would not want this are people so insecure in their ability to win an honest fight that they want a system that has such mechanical holes that they can leverage it to make their games easier.

Yea, tell this to your opponent who bids hard and then still wrecks you going second.

20 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

Any RTS player can see how ridiculous this is.

This is not an RTS game. If you want to play an RTS game, go play an RTS game.

21 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

People who build fleets like this don't want an actual ship to ship slug fest, they want to win by using this unfortunate gimmick to bend this otherwise very strategic game to their advantage, usually because they don't like having to be as smart as their opponent to win. It is much easier to make good positional choices when the enemy has already had to show all their important moves. The game is a much more beautiful chess match when activation advantage is negated due to equal activations. As pass mechanic insures such an outcome every time. Why would we not want this? Stop letting people build lists that reduce the skill needed to do well with them and make them actually play on even footing with their opponent.

This is just not true. A skilled player will make the best of any situation. You don't rely on a gimmick to win. You win because you outplay your opponent. This is why objectives are extremely important.

There are fleets that are designed to go first or second and they will consistently win because the play knows how the fleet is supposed to work.

I really don't think what you're saying here adds up mate...

55 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

People who build fleets like this don't want an actual ship to ship slug fest, they want to win by using this unfortunate gimmick to bend this otherwise very strategic game to their advantage, usually because they don't like having to be as smart as their opponent to win

Slug fests aren't strategic.... like... at all...

Using every mechanic to your advantage to plan the overall battle not just the interaction between two individuals is strategic. I don't see how you can claim the person taking advantage of a mechanic that can bring them victory is the less intelligent one. Isn't one of the greatest truths of conflict that you must adapt to survive?

55 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

Stop letting people build lists that reduce the skill needed to do well with them

Part of skill required to play this game well is fleet building, if anything, I would venture it takes a much sharper mind to make a successful fleet out of ships that have no quality in their activation. Especially compared to the opponent who has made every ship capable.

1 hour ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

Solution: A pass mechanic that nullifies activation advantage, and a coin flip for first player. Everyone plays at 400 points and everyone has the same number of activations effectively.

No, everyone does not have the same number of activations under a pass system. All a pass system does is invert the sign on activation advantage. The few, big ships can wait for the many fast ships to close, then unload. Next turn, the few big ships activate at their first opportunity, and kill more light ships, then fly away. Trading the current system, where all-small & mixed large/small fleets work, for one where only all-large ships are viable is not an improvement.

A rule that says that an unarmed flotilla that doesn't execute a squadron command doesn't consume an activation would at least eliminate the empty GR-75 transports, but wouldn't prevent blue/black swarm fleets from functioning.

2 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Yea, tell this to your opponent who bids hard and then still wrecks you going second.

This is just not true. A skilled player will make the best of any situation. You don't rely on a gimmick to win. You win because you outplay your opponent. This is why objectives are extremely important.

There are fleets that are designed to go first or second and they will consistently win because the play knows how the fleet is supposed to work.

In my experience @Space_Cowboy17 is usually willing to let his opponents pick first or second regardless of bid.

I'd look at his tournament record before questioning @Space_Cowboy17 's skills or ability to outplay your opponent the guy's d*** good. I've been playing him pretty regularly for a year and still haven't beaten him. Not that I'm that good of a player but **** even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then and any time he does lose even in casual games it's a big enough deal for people to send me multiple texts bragging about it. It' become my personal goal in this game to beat him just once. I don't necessarily agree with everything he said (I don't want a coin flip to determine first) but I do think as a community it's worth listening to high skill level players like him and @WWPDSteven when they say that last first is a bad mechanic for the game moving forward and not just tell them to "git gud"

Just now, Megatronrex said:

In my experience @Space_Cowboy17 is usually willing to let his opponents pick first or second regardless of bid.

I'd look at his tournament record before questioning @Space_Cowboy17 's skills or ability to outplay your opponent the guy's d*** good. I've been playing him pretty regularly for a year and still haven't beaten him. Not that I'm that good of a player but **** even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then and any time he does lose even in casual games it's a big enough deal for people to send me multiple texts bragging about it. It' become my personal goal in this game to beat him just once. I don't necessarily agree with everything he said (I don't want a coin flip to determine first) but I do think as a community it's worth listening to high skill level players like him and @WWPDSteven when they say that last first is a bad mechanic for the game moving forward and not just tell them to "git gud"

I agree the first/last thing can be abused. But to say that all players who bid to go first are unskilled, insecure in their ability, and need to game the system to win is BS.

I know nothing about space cowboy, nor do I follow peoples win streaks. Just because he's the best in your area means nothing to me and doesn't reflect upon the game systems.

Undead Guy

1. having first activation is still powerful when activation numbers are even, it just cannot be used to allow a ship to close without the enemy getting a chance to counter it. Missions are still the key to balancing out the advantage of first activation.

2. If someone beats me without abusing a game mechanic then I tip my hat to them and move on, people who intentionally attempt to use the crutch that is out activating people do not earn my respect when and if they beat me, fair fights are the only ones worth winning. Out activation people makes the tactical decisions your fleet has to make a lot easier giving you an unfair advantage over your opponent.

3. no RTS has this level of ship to ship combat, (Empires at War tries, but does not have the depth I am looking for) in a game that simulates space combat, (this is crazy I know) I want my game to reflect closely, and match up tactically, with what it would actually be like to command a fleet. 1-2 Rambo hero ships and a fleet of flotillas makes no sense in any logical context of fleet combat. Those 2 ships would get focused down without other combat ships backing them up

4. you are basically saying "get gud," because obviously anyone with a different view point then yours could not possibly understand how to perform well as first or second player

9 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

I f someone beats me without abusing a game mechanic then I tip my hat to them and move on, people who intentionally attempt to use the crutch that is out activating people do not earn my respect when and if they beat me, fair fights are the only ones worth winning. Out activation people makes the tactical decisions your fleet has to make a lot easier giving you an unfair advantage over your opponent.

No true Scotsman would use game mechanics to beat me! His win is invalid because he had more ships and a bigger bid than me, which, based on the rules of the game I play which I consider arbitrary, means he got to use those rules to his advantage! How dare he use rules in that way, to advantage him and not me!

2 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

1. having first activation is still powerful when activation numbers are even, it just cannot be used to allow a ship to close without the enemy getting a chance to counter it. Missions are still the key to balancing out the advantage of first activation.

I agree first is powerful, and last/first even more so. Your idea to remove bidding and select a person at random to have initiative doesn't fix the problem. Rather, it makes it more difficult to make a composed fleet and play to your strengths. Demo Avenger wants first. Defiance Ackbar wants second. Understanding fleet builds is important in building your own list so you can construct a fleet in order to beat those. How can you do that if it's a random selection of initiative? You're also allowing those fleets that bid 20+ points to get those points back and have 50/50 at going first.

5 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

2. If someone beats me without abusing a game mechanic then I tip my hat to them and move on, people who intentionally attempt to use the crutch that is out activating people do not earn my respect when and if they beat me, fair fights are the only ones worth winning. Out activation people makes the tactical decisions your fleet has to make a lot easier giving you an unfair advantage over your opponent.

Seriously? So if I show up with 5 ships and outbid you by 1 point against your 3 ship list, I suddenly don't earn your respect? What? I don't even know how to respond to this.

7 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

3. no RTS has this level of ship to ship combat, (Empires at War tries, but does not have the depth I am looking for) in a game that simulates space combat, (this is crazy I know) I want my game to reflect closely, and match up tactically, with what it would actually be like to command a fleet. 1-2 Rambo hero ships and a fleet of flotillas makes no sense in any logical context of fleet combat. Those 2 ships would get focused down without other combat ships backing them up

This isn't an RTS game. Stop trying to compare a turn based game to an RTS game. You will always be disappointed.

8 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

4. you are basically saying "get gud," because obviously anyone with a different view point then yours could not possibly understand how to perform well as first or second player

This is not true. Very rarely will I tell someone to just "git gud" as a way to beat something. Frankly, I'm more likely to call BS when someone else says that. It's pretty **** obvious that if someone has a different point of view than yours, you instantly lose all respect for them because of some arbitrary honor code you follow.

You can make a fleet that is designed to go second just like you can make a fleet designed to go first. You ever play against a fleet with 6 activations and wants to go second? It's freaking hard. They either match you in activations or have more. They can use their padding to force you to move your ships into range of theirs. And the same is true for the player with 6 activations and first. In order for a fleet to have initiative means they are cutting things. Squads, ships, upgrades. Build a fleet that exploits that. Pick objectives that make it hard for your opponent.

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

I agree the first/last thing can be abused. But to say that all players who bid to go first are unskilled, insecure in their ability, and need to game the system to win is BS.

I know nothing about space cowboy, nor do I follow peoples win streaks. Just because he's the best in your area means nothing to me and doesn't reflect upon the game systems.

Maybe you took what he said this way but I think it was in reference to players whose list relies solely on that single tactic to win. Maybe it is specific to my area but I do keep reading a lot of complaints about it from other areas. Maybe you don't agree but I think it's a good idea to at least listen to the players who have established themselves as high skill when they have complaints about core mechanics. I'm not saying you should agree with him but dismissing him out of hand and saying he just needs to play better seems to be the go to response on these forums here lately as opposed to open minded discussion and I don't think that's what's best for this community or the game.

Also, I DONT want a pass mechanic. @Truthiness has tested it and he says it turns the game back into 3 large ships vs 3 large ships, which is not healthy for the game.

1 minute ago, Megatronrex said:

Maybe you took what he said this way but I think it was in reference to players whose list relies solely on that single tactic to win. Maybe it is specific to my area but I do keep reading a lot of complaints about it from other areas. Maybe you don't agree but I think it's a good idea to at least listen to the players who have established themselves as high skill when they have complaints about core mechanics. I'm not saying you should agree with him but dismissing him out of hand and saying he just needs to play better seems to be the go to response on these forums here lately as opposed to open minded discussion and I don't think that's what's best for this community or the game.

The only people who would not want this are people so insecure in their ability to win an honest fight that they want a system that has such mechanical holes that they can leverage it to make their games easier.

People who build fleets like this don't want an actual ship to ship slug fest, they want to win by using this unfortunate gimmick to bend this otherwise very strategic game to their advantage, usually because they don't like having to be as smart as their opponent to win. It is much easier to make good positional choices when the enemy has already had to show all their important moves. The game is a much more beautiful chess match when activation advantage is negated due to equal activations. As pass mechanic insures such an outcome every time. Why would we not want this? Stop letting people build lists that reduce the skill needed to do well with them and make them actually play on even footing with their opponent.

If someone beats me without abusing a game mechanic then I tip my hat to them and move on, people who intentionally attempt to use the crutch that is out activating p eople do not earn my respect when and if they beat me, fair fights are the only ones worth winning. Out activation people makes the tactical decisions your fleet has to make a lot easier giving you an unfair advantage over your opponent.

How did I take his message out of context? Looks pretty clear to me.

Where did I tell him to play better? I said fleets can be designed to go second. And I agree last/first can be abused.

And for the record, I do think a pass mechanic would be good for the game, just not in the fashion he described. First player should have first, second player should have last.

17 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Also, I DONT want a pass mechanic. @Truthiness has tested it and he says it turns the game back into 3 large ships vs 3 large ships, which is not healthy for the game.

see

3 hours ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

People who build fleets like this don't want an actual ship to ship slug fest, they want to win by using this unfortunate gimmick to bend this otherwise very strategic game to their advantage, usually because they don't like having to be as smart as their opponent to win.

Don't you know that that's the only way to play strategically? Slugfests are the only legitimate way to play a strategy game, using other mechanics is just gimmicky, and anyone who plays that way is not smart.

[SARCASM SELF TEST COMPLETE]

24 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

The only people who would not want this are people so insecure in their ability to win an honest fight that they want a system that has such mechanical holes that they can leverage it to make their games easier.

People who build fleets like this don't want an actual ship to ship slug fest, they want to win by using this unfortunate gimmick to bend this otherwise very strategic game to their advantage, usually because they don't like having to be as smart as their opponent to win. It is much easier to make good positional choices when the enemy has already had to show all their important moves. The game is a much more beautiful chess match when activation advantage is negated due to equal activations. As pass mechanic insures such an outcome every time. Why would we not want this? Stop letting people build lists that reduce the skill needed to do well with them and make them actually play on even footing with their opponent.

If someone beats me without abusing a game mechanic then I tip my hat to them and move on, people who intentionally attempt to use the crutch that is out activating p eople do not earn my respect when and if they beat me, fair fights are the only ones worth winning. Out activation people makes the tactical decisions your fleet has to make a lot easier giving you an unfair advantage over your opponent.

How did I take his message out of context? Looks pretty clear to me.

Where did I tell him to play better? I said fleets can be designed to go second. And I agree last/first can be abused.

And for the record, I do think a pass mechanic would be good for the game, just not in the fashion he described. First player should have first, second player should have last.

I took his statement to be directed at people who rely solely on last first to win. I don't see anything in your highlighted parts to contradict that.

No you didn't come out and tell him to play better. That's me being guilty of reading too much into what you said here...

This is just not true. A skilled player will make the best of any situation. You don't rely on a gimmick to win. You win because you outplay your opponent. This is why objectives are extremely important.

There are fleets that are designed to go first or second and they will consistently win because the play knows how the fleet is supposed to work.

...my bad I completely misread this. Maybe it's just me getting my back up and seeing hostility that isn't there if so then I apologize. I do agree with spacecowboy that having a mechanic as easily abused as last first is getting really old and would love to see some way to eliminate that. I also agree with you that a die roll as opposed to a bid would seriously neuter objectives and with this point "First player should have first, second player should have last."