2 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

There is always going to be people crying about something. It's the nature of the world.

I guess. I mean, I've certainly moaned my fair share about squadrons.

8 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

There is always going to be people crying about something. It's the nature of the world.

And theres always people that refuse to acknowledge that the game can be improved

Just now, PartyPotato said:

And theres always people that refuse to acknowledge that the game can be improved

^

3 minutes ago, PartyPotato said:

And theres always people that refuse to acknowledge that the game can be improved

"Improved" is an awfully perspective term.

People are gonna disagree with what your definition of "improved" is, and frankly, they may be right.

Just remember someone thought this was an improvement.

3 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

"Improved" is an awfully perspective term.

People are gonna disagree with what your definition of "improved" is, and frankly, they may be right.

Just remember someone thought this was an improvement.

I can use the same strategy to illustrate my point as well... remember that some people thought there was nothing wrong with this.

1 minute ago, PartyPotato said:

I can use the same strategy to illustrate my point as well... remember that some people thought there was nothing wrong with this.

I loved blockbuster

Just now, Darth Sanguis said:

I loved blockbuster

Apparently you and your neighbors wallet thought differently. Improve/adapt... or die. I want armada to live and appeal to the most people.

Funny how we both want the same thing but disagree about how to get there... man this is seems a lot like politics.

I love the suggestion by the OP, simple and elegant and takes the sting out of the most potent setups.

11 minutes ago, PartyPotato said:

Apparently you and your neighbors wallet thought differently. Improve/adapt... or die. I want armada to live and appeal to the most people.

Funny how we both want the same thing but disagree about how to get there... man this is seems a lot like politics.

Okay, yes, but what we're talking about isn't the same. Blockbuster existed through 3 different media creations, they did great when VHS and DvDs were first introduced but once online streaming became a thing they died. They hadn't invested in developing the capabilities to do that, at the time, there was no way to sell off assets quick enough to compete with the digital streaming marke, which it was basically just Netflix who created that market entirely on their own by focusing their investments on streaming. (Netflix didn't have 40-80% of their assets already invested in walk-in facilities).

At this point your metaphor would be more apt at suggesting that we scrap tabletop mechanics and go make a video game version of it that isn't turn based. The evolution of an industry is hardly comparable to releasing a new expansion or "flavor".

Sorry mate, we disagree.

I prefer the freedom this system allows. You don't need max activations, and activation padding only helps so much, because padded activations don't have value. I rarely run more than 2-4 activations and I do just fine against the MSU admo/demo/BTA 1st lasters.

14 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Okay, yes, but what we're talking about isn't the same. Blockbuster existed through 3 different media creations, they did great when VHS and DvDs were first introduced but once online streaming became a thing they died. They hadn't invested in developing the capabilities to do that, at the time, there was no way to sell off assets quick enough to compete with the digital streaming marke, which it was basically just Netflix who created that market entirely on their own by focusing their investments on streaming. (Netflix didn't have 40-80% of their assets already invested in walk-in facilities).

At this point your metaphor would be more apt at suggesting that we scrap tabletop mechanics and go make a video game version of it that isn't turn based. The evolution of an industry is hardly comparable to releasing a new expansion or "flavor".

Sorry mate, we disagree.

I prefer the freedom this system allows. You don't need max activations, and activation padding only helps so much, because padded activations don't have value. I rarely run more than 2-4 activations and I do just fine against the MSU admo/demo/BTA 1st lasters.

Haha you're right... you where talking about New Coke from 1985 and I mimicked your debate style by picking an analogy equally as worthless to the current discussion. Although theres an relevance that a company will always have to innovate in order to survive... blockbuster didn't and now they're gone. Debating how it wasn't fair because of how they invested their capital is irrelavent to the fact that they're gone now.

You think the game is fine (well you pointed out you dislike the squadron game, so maybe you think just first/last mechanic is fine and other aspects of the game need improvement?), while I think FFG has room to improve how the game handles the first/last mechanic. Think the OPs suggestion is a clever idea worth looking at because I think it will provide more diversity and variability to what would be considered competivily viable.

You disagree. Fair enough. But New Coke isn't helping your cause.

25 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

At this point your metaphor would be more apt at suggesting that we scrap tabletop mechanics and go make a video game version of it that isn't turn based. The evolution of an industry is hardly comparable to releasing a new expansion or "flavor".

The so called video game version you refer to would be Empire at War which is the whole reason i got in to Armada to start with.

3 minutes ago, PartyPotato said:

Haha you're right... you where talking about New Coke from 1985 and I mimicked your debate style by picking an analogy equally as worthless to the current discussion. Although theres an relevance that a company will always have to innovate in order to survive... blockbuster didn't and now they're gone. Debating how it wasn't fair because of how they invested their capital is irrelavent to the fact that they're gone now.

You think the game is fine (well you pointed out you dislike the squadron game, so maybe you think just first/last mechanic is fine and other aspects of the game need improvement?), while I think FFG has room to improve how the game handles the first/last mechanic. Think the OPs suggestion is a clever idea worth looking at because I think it will provide more diversity and variability to what would be considered competivily viable.

You disagree. Fair enough. But New Coke isn't helping your cause.

Except, that someone thought that a cute little innovative idea like a new flavor would make things better.

It didn't .


Sorry but calling the OP idea an improvment is just as much perspective as anything else. You can try to dismiss that, but it's still perspective.

What you view as improvement isn't an improvement to everyone, to some, it's just whining about a feature you don't like.

1 minute ago, PartyPotato said:

I think it will provide more diversity and variability to what would be considered competivily viable.

But because of last/first, ABT IS now viable. Avenger used to be A ship you COULD bring, but now it's respectable (and actually worth considering). The Demo nerf has made other builds viable as well, and it's not like last/first builds are completely dominating Regionals so far. Like, last first may be an issue in some local metas, buts it's not sweeping the nation completely.

Is the issue here that last-first is breaking the game PERIOD or breaking the game for you (general you, not specifically targeting anyone here). Because I don't think most people agree with the former.

2 minutes ago, geek19 said:

But because of last/first, ABT IS now viable. Avenger used to be A ship you COULD bring, but now it's respectable (and actually worth considering). The Demo nerf has made other builds viable as well, and it's not like last/first builds are completely dominating Regionals so far. Like, last first may be an issue in some local metas, buts it's not sweeping the nation completely.

Is the issue here that last-first is breaking the game PERIOD or breaking the game for you (general you, not specifically targeting anyone here). Because I don't think most people agree with the former.

Speaking locally, the 1st/last activation mechanic has had little to no effect on our meta.

Even the regionals were relatively unaffected, and that included players from 4 states.

I don't think it's broken at all.

@Darth Sanguis I never once tried to imply that my opinion was fact. I guess I figured by stating "I think x" it was implicitly implied that it was my opinion and therefore perspective. Exactly the same how you saying "OPs suggestion will not improve the game" is your opinion and also perspective. But I love the internet because we can come together and exchange ideas. Simply be going over this thread you'll see that your position doesn't have a monopoly how what is an "improvement" because there are a multitude of posters that agree with the OP... me being one of them.

@geek19 I agree with you that Last/first makes avenger very viable... almost too viable and I also agree with you that nerfing demo made other builds viable so taking that same logic and applying it to tweaking first/last and wondering if it will make a greater amount of lists viable? I think so.

3 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Speaking locally, the 1st/last activation mechanic has had little to no effect on our meta.

Even the regionals were relatively unaffected, and that included players from 4 states.

I don't think it's broken at all.

Same at Vancouver. I don't know details on everybody's games, but I know #1/24 went second all day, and I at #3/24 first once and second twice. @Tirion could tell you how it went for him in second.

2 minutes ago, PartyPotato said:

I agree with you that Last/first makes avenger very viable... almost too viable and I also agree with you that nerfing demo made other builds viable so taking that same logic and applying it to tweaking first/last and wondering if it will make a greater amount of lists viable? I think so.

Changing demo hurt 1 list and improved many.

Removing last first may help many, but it hurts many as well. So I disagree that after the change an empirically greater number of lists will be "viable."

But I highly doubt we agree on what "viable" means as well.

38 minutes ago, geek19 said:

But because of last/first, ABT IS now viable. Avenger used to be A ship you COULD bring, but now it's respectable (and actually worth considering). The Demo nerf has made other builds viable as well, and it's not like last/first builds are completely dominating Regionals so far. Like, last first may be an issue in some local metas, buts it's not sweeping the nation completely.

Is the issue here that last-first is breaking the game PERIOD or breaking the game for you (general you, not specifically targeting anyone here). Because I don't think most people agree with the former.

I agree with the former, IF by breaking you mean that it is substantially limiting style of play.

32 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Same at Vancouver. I don't know details on everybody's games, but I know #1/24 went second all day, and I at #3/24 first once and second twice. @Tirion could tell you how it went for him in second.

Did your list specifically build for going second? Did it revolve around points generation through token movement by VCX or shuttles?

7 minutes ago, ryanabt said:

Did your list specifically build for going second? Did it revolve around points generation through token movement by VCX or shuttles?

It was a 4 MC30/3 GR75 fleet. So no, I was picking first when I got the opportunity.

14 minutes ago, ryanabt said:

I agree with the former, IF by breaking you mean that it is substantially limiting style of play.

Is it though? I'm an engineer, show me data proving as such and I'll change my tune.

2 minutes ago, geek19 said:

I'm an engineer, show me data proving as such and I'll change my tune.

I'll see what I can do to get a hold of your diploma, but it may be difficult proving you're an engineer.

In all seriousness, I'm not seeing anything suggesting that last/first is substantially limiting style of play. Right now the lists that are coming in from Regionals seem to show that a number of top placing lists aren't relying on first/last. We are having very diverse lists showing up.

As someone who is pretty new to the game, I will say that first/last is an easy concept to grasp and enact, and I do think it hits above it's weight when you consider skill level vs damage dealt. But by itself, it doesn't hold up against superior skill. Nearly every game has a strategy like this that is easy to get a hold of, but can be outplayed with experience and skill.

Are we really arguing about house rules again?

We clearly need more articles.

Doing some data crunching of previous wave data.

Wave 5

Winners
Avg ship count: 4.73
Avg deployment: 8 Min/max deployment: 5/10
Avg squad: 6

Top 4
Avg ship count: 4.51
Avg deployment: 7
Avg squad: 5.91

Bottom 1/4
Avg ship count: 3.96
Avg deployment: 7
Avg squad: 5.89

Full Data
Avg ship count: 4.23
Avg deployment: 7 Min/Max: 3/12
Avg squad: 5.98 Max squad: 18

And Wave 4. I won't do graphs because it's time consuming, but I can do it tomorrow night if people want me to.

Winner

Top 4

Bottom 1/4

Full Data