2 minutes ago, xanderf said:

But I don't even think that requiring squadron vs squadron play is 'disincentivizing combat'.

I see where you're coming from (and I'm only mildly interested in thematics versus mechanics so I'm ignoring that, but that's me) and honestly Relay doesn't bother me personally that much. It's high-risk high-reward if you set your flotillas up to run away from the word go and your whole strategy is linchpinned on your Relay squadron(s) to make them relevant.

That said, I totally understand why it's a negative experience playing a game of Armada against ships that don't intend to ever get at range of an enemy ship ever and are doing everything in their power from the very beginning to avoid that.

Just now, svelok said:

uhh...

Yeah, that one really doesn't work well with entire squadrons - it basically caps out at 4-ish ships a side (more or less), which doesn't do the scale of any of these battles.

Also: totally misses the point of asymmetrical combat, where the goal is not to destroy the enemy fleet every time you see them, but instead to achieve specific objectives at the lowest cost possible. (Definitely one of the things I like best about Armada - it ties well with historical naval combat, where ships are usually not lost that often, so much as simply damaged...attrition units being lost...in achieving specific mission objectives)

1 minute ago, Snipafist said:

That said, I totally understand why it's a negative experience playing a game of Armada against ships that don't intend to ever get at range of an enemy ship ever and are doing everything in their power from the very beginning to avoid that.

I guess I don't see how that's a 'negative play experience'. I mean, this isn't X-Wing, which is always-deathmatch-all-the-time. The goal of a game isn't to destroy all the enemy ships, per se, it's to achieve your objective goals. Sure, there are objectives that amount to 'I'm here to destroy all your ships', but if the enemy doesn't want to play the game that you built your entire list to win...well, you can hardly blame them for that, right? Indeed, 'I don't have to play the game my enemy wants to play' seems to me the entire core of why Armada is better than X-Wing.

41 minutes ago, SpaceC0wboy said:

I feel their cost and pain when you lose them balances them nicely.

This precisely. They are particularly well balanced by their faction.

Sure, imperials get relay 2, but none of their cost effective squads can do multiple roles well. Considering that the current meta has revived quite a few carrier builds, sending 4+ squads at a time, only using relay 2 puts your squads at risk of being vaporized quickly... Meaning they have to spend 30 points to activate 4 squads out of range at a time... but that also means 30 less points to put into the squads... at some point they're cutting aces or sacrificing bombers for AA squads... it's a balance.

Meanwhile the rebels, who have point efficient multi-role squadrons have a 1 for 1 relay ratio. Meaning they have to sink 30 points minimum to activate 2 squads off relay with GR75s... or up to 60 points to push a 4 squad swarm that way.... at that point the power of their actual squadron ball is cut in half.... the only bonus I can give rebels for such a low relay rating is that the VCX is tanky, and with a few upgrades can make a decent AA ball.

Relay squadrons balance themselves...

There's just not enough power when you're only using 100-80 points in squads as your main damage output. especially if the opponent brought 60-100 points of squads themselves...

(I just recently had a tournament match where the player tried to spam Jendon steel and a swarm of bombers and advanced through Gozantis that dispersed the map, I had a quasar running a 69 point AA screen that killed jendon and sank his chances of victory round 3.)

I may be the only person, but I like relay right where it is.

41 minutes ago, SpaceC0wboy said:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the transport fix put forth by the Comms Noise podcast crew; make them part of the squadron cost. Including transports and their upgrades in the squadron cost is a very elegant solution as it limits the number you can run AND cuts down on the number of fighters you can bring.

This is where you lose me mate.

I'm even against the very gentle nerf of making them not count against tabling.

I think Flotillas are exactly where they need to be.

17 minutes ago, svelok said:

uhh...

Careful bud, you could rustle some jimmies like that

My life is an utter train wreck - please stand by...out

Nice to know. My stuff is in storage now but the latest FAQ is enough to make me want to trade my X-wing in for Armada.

On 10/26/2017 at 8:30 AM, Undeadguy said:

I dislike ET ram because you can abuse it. It doesn't need to win consistently, or be the number 1 fleet. It's gamey because you can spend 47 points to deal 2 undisputed hull damage to any target you want. That's half an MC30. It's a broken mechanic and just because you enjoy it doesn't mean it should be allowed. That's equivalent of me saying Rhymer shouldn't be nerfed because I'm having success with it.

Except there is no empirical evidence to suggest it's broken. ET ramming isn't even close to prominent. It never was. Rhymer was. He was in every single Imperial squadron list. The only reason to change it is you dislike it. Just because you dislike it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. It me, it thematically represents a ship gunning its engines just before impact.

The hilarious part of this is I'm not doing CRambos anymore because they're too inefficient. I'm still doing ETs, but I'm doing it with TRC90s. TRCs shoot ships, ETs take care of flotillas, maybe finish off the last couple points of damage on a big ship, and most importantly give me absurd speed, flexibility, and manueverability with Madine. I don't bring RBDs. I'm also the only idiot crazy enough to be doing this. Nobody else is using this. You why? Because it doesn't need fixing.

26 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

Except there is no empirical evidence to suggest it's broken. ET ramming isn't even close to prominent. It never was. Rhymer was. He was in every single Imperial squadron list. The only reason to change it is you dislike it. Just because you dislike it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. It me, it thematically represents a ship gunning its engines just before impact.

The hilarious part of this is I'm not doing CRambos anymore because they're too inefficient. I'm still doing ETs, but I'm doing it with TRC90s. TRCs shoot ships, ETs take care of flotillas, maybe finish off the last couple points of damage on a big ship, and most importantly give me absurd speed, flexibility, and manueverability with Madine. I don't bring RBDs. I'm also the only idiot crazy enough to be doing this. Nobody else is using this. You why? Because it doesn't need fixing.

How often are you going speed 5 with them? How good is it?

27 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

Except there is no empirical evidence to suggest it's broken.

More importantly, it's simply not fun to play against. You have no reaction to it. Especially when you play Madine and can whip a speed 4 CR90+RBD+ET into a ship and ram it.

It's simply not fun to play against.

Yavaris is 5 points! It's vastly under costed. I wouldn't mind seeing FFG jack up the price. It's not like people still wouldn't use it either.

3 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Yavaris is 5 points! It's vastly under costed. I wouldn't mind seeing FFG jack up the price. It's not like people still wouldn't use it either.

I don't think FFG makes nerfs by changing point costs. I really would like them to come back and fix a lot of cards by adjusting their cost though.

2 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

More importantly, it's simply not fun to play against. You have no reaction to it. Especially when you play Madine and can whip a speed 4 CR90+RBD+ET into a ship and ram it.

It's simply not fun to play against.

Of course you have a reaction to it - be inside their turning radius. Or block their attempted ram on a valuable ship with positioning of a cheaper escort. Or destroy the ramming ship before it can ram. Or tractor/Interdictor/Konstantine it to prevent it getting the speed it needs (although all three of these things REALLY need a buff). etc

But, in any case, my job on the table isn't to give my opponent a fun time, obligingly fighting the battle on their terms. It's to achieve my mission objectives.

I mean, early Naval Admirals were so offended by the submarine they were perfectly happy to try to and ban them, as they were not 'civilized' weapons that followed the 'rules of war'. But let me tell ya...if you have battleships and all I have are submarines, better keep your eyes peeled for periscopes and torpedo wakes...

31 minutes ago, xanderf said:

my job on the table isn't to give my opponent a fun time

True enough, that's part of the ethics of playing.

As much as it is a game, you are there just to get yours.

Unless you're a masochist like me.... who does whatever it takes to build a community. I'll admit to a fair bit of sandbagging to get folks hooked.

I honestly don't even give a **** to respond anymore.

39 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Of course you have a reaction to it - be inside their turning radius. Or block their attempted ram on a valuable ship with positioning of a cheaper escort. Or destroy the ramming ship before it can ram. Or tractor/Interdictor/Konstantine it to prevent it getting the speed it needs (although all three of these things REALLY need a buff). etc

But, in any case, my job on the table isn't to give my opponent a fun time, obligingly fighting the battle on their terms. It's to achieve my mission objectives.

I mean, early Naval Admirals were so offended by the submarine they were perfectly happy to try to and ban them, as they were not 'civilized' weapons that followed the 'rules of war'. But let me tell ya...if you have battleships and all I have are submarines, better keep your eyes peeled for periscopes and torpedo wakes...

It's certainly not any player's job to make sure their opponent has a good time, that job belongs to FFG. While I don't have a problem with ET ramming I can see where @Undeadguyis coming from. It's not unbeatable or uncounterable but if I was dealing with it game after game, or even just on a somewhat regular basis, I would get very tired of playing Star Wars Demolition Derby. Sure you could take tractor/Interdictor/Konstantine, but then you're going to struggle hard against any other kind of list. I've got a friend who used to run nothing but ET TRC CR-90s and it annoyed the s*** out of me not because I couldn't beat it but because it made our games feel stagnant. I was so glad when they nerfed TRCs and he finally tried something new.

1 hour ago, Megatronrex said:

It's certainly not any player's job to make sure their opponent has a good time, that job belongs to FFG. While I don't have a problem with ET ramming I can see where @Undeadguyis coming from. It's not unbeatable or uncounterable but if I was dealing with it game after game, or even just on a somewhat regular basis, I would get very tired of playing Star Wars Demolition Derby. Sure you could take tractor/Interdictor/Konstantine, but then you're going to struggle hard against any other kind of list. I've got a friend who used to run nothing but ET TRC CR-90s and it annoyed the s*** out of me not because I couldn't beat it but because it made our games feel stagnant. I was so glad when they nerfed TRCs and he finally tried something new.

I think this, this is what @Undeadguy was getting at. Sure the data may not show that it is being overused and is a real problem but it becomes very frustrating to face the same thing over and over again. I think some of this may be a meta problem and therefore not something FFG needs to fix. But if there are things that are easy to do and fairly common that seem antithetical to actual gameplay then maybe they do need to address them. We have stretches where we play very similar things over and over again and it makes it extremely tedious but since it’s just the two of us playing we can agree to mix it up and try different things without much trouble.

26 minutes ago, durandal343 said:

I think this, this is what @Undeadguy was getting at. Sure the data may not show that it is being overused and is a real problem but it becomes very frustrating to face the same thing over and over again. I think some of this may be a meta problem and therefore not something FFG needs to fix. But if there are things that are easy to do and fairly common that seem antithetical to actual gameplay then maybe they do need to address them. We have stretches where we play very similar things over and over again and it makes it extremely tedious but since it’s just the two of us playing we can agree to mix it up and try different things without much trouble.

But the thing is that's not inherent to ramming so much as inherent to the meta. Ramming fleets aren't doing great at major events, for example. I don't know how FFG can do anything about meta sameyness. That's really incumbent on the people in that meta having a conversation about particular builds becoming boring to keep playing against.

When our meta gets a bit too stagnant, someone usually says something about how they're getting a little bored of X type of fleet and then you'll start to see alternatives, usually from several of us putting our heads together on counter-builds or alternatives that still address the same problems build X was doing, etc.

I understand that some people find how ramming works to be frustrating, but it's not a complaint I hear very often. It's not nearly as common as the concerns about Relay, for example. Or flotillas or Rieekan pre-nerf.

15 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

That's really incumbent on the people in that meta having a conversation about particular builds becoming boring to keep playing against.

Yeah, that’s what I was trying to say. Things can be very frustrating but they don’t really need to change until they are affecting the state of competitive play. I think it’s valid to share frustrations in personal play, and I enjoy hearing those problems because I often share them, you just can’t expect FFG to do anything about it. At home we can do whatever we want and if we’re stuck with some friend who only does it one way and it’s bothering us we can solve the problem personally.

An idea to try for fun: Throwing his ships across the room and saying ‘Just helping your lifeboats get further from the fight!’ or ‘thought you might want to see how well they really ram! A wall!’

38 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

But the thing is that's not inherent to ramming so much as inherent to the meta. Ramming fleets aren't doing great at major events, for example. I don't know how FFG can do anything about meta sameyness. That's really incumbent on the people in that meta having a conversation about particular builds becoming boring to keep playing against.

When our meta gets a bit too stagnant, someone usually says something about how they're getting a little bored of X type of fleet and then you'll start to see alternatives, usually from several of us putting our heads together on counter-builds or alternatives that still address the same problems build X was doing, etc.

I understand that some people find how ramming works to be frustrating, but it's not a complaint I hear very often. It's not nearly as common as the concerns about Relay, for example. Or flotillas or Rieekan pre-nerf.

Exactly.

I understand if someone doesn't like how a particular thing in the game works, but if it does 'work' (IE., isn't winning all the major events, taking over the meta and preventing balance or variety at a competitive level), then...I dunno?

If something isn't winning major events, then it's really not broken, regardless of whether the resulting game play is your favorite match type or not.

Rieekan and Rhymer were 'broken', for contrast - in that nearly every winning list for the respective factions used them. Relay and ramming are not. Heck, people have tried to run 'broken' ET ramming lists in an effort to prove their danger, and failed to place. Yes, they result in a different style of play, having to deal with them, but...well, that's actually the ideal, to my way of thinking.

It's not that et ramming is such a big problem in the game. More that it feels so lame. Moreso than anything else. But it's just my personal feelings - it's not a meta problem afaik.

4 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

It's not that et ramming is such a big problem in the game. More that it feels so lame. Moreso than anything else. But it's just my personal feelings - it's not a meta problem afaik.

This.

You don't need something to win consistently to change it. You can change it because it makes the game more enjoyable.

It's not about the meta.

It's not about the win rate.

It's not about the gross unbalance.

It was never about this.

It has always been about how boring/lame/un-fun it is to play against.

2 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

This.

You don't need something to win consistently to change it. You can change it because it makes the game more enjoyable.

It's not about the meta.

It's not about the win rate.

It's not about the gross unbalance.

It was never about this.

It has always been about how boring/lame/un-fun it is to play against.

My counter to that argument is that it's unfun/boring/whatever as well to play against Demolisher at all, or Yavaris getting to unload B wings into me. Why don't we nerf THOSE?

Reductio ad absurdum, of course.

Just now, geek19 said:

My counter to that argument is that it's unfun/boring/whatever as well to play against Demolisher at all, or Yavaris getting to unload B wings into me. Why don't we nerf THOSE?

Reductio ad absurdum, of course.

Well, personally, *I* find it un-fun to play against Rebels when they bring more than 200 pts against my 400 pt fleet. We should change that rule, too. (Since we are, apparently, arbitrarily deciding on what is 'fun' or not based on personal opinions, rather than on any kind of objective data such as win rates/balance/meta - and obviously nobody can have differences of opinion on what is 'fun' or not, so this should be easy to do!)

In the ways that any game with six add-on waves can possible be fine, I think we are actually pretty fine here.

CN-301 (Operating Number)