@Undeadguy I wouldn't sweat it these internet conversations too much. FFG is going to do what FFG is going to do. Which is do what will sell the most product.

In fact I love the heated arguments. How can you deny the fun factor in reading the old Admiral Nelson or Lyr vs HERO threads? Those were the good old days my friend.

I've been an active reader of the forums and occasional poster for a long time now and I can pretty much tell you exactly which users will agree with me and which users I know I'll agree with. Most the time I don't have to post because I know you or @Megatronrex has beaten me too it.

Most importantly we need people to keep the group think in check.

I've got more thoughts on this issue than time to try and put them into words. Plus, a lot of you are saying what I'd like to say better than I would anyway. I simply came here to share a personal observation (yes, yes, one example never proves anything... still sharing).

One of my friends used to love Armada, to the point that he worked to set up and TO all the tournaments at 2 local stores. We drove 4 hours across the state (and if you've ever driven I80 across Nebraska, you know how boring the drive is...) to play at a lowly store championship, because we both loved the game and wanted to grow it. When the Demo first/last craze hit, he started to have serious doubts about the game. We worked past it, he kept playing. The last time I ever saw him play Armada was the first tournament after BT dropped. He faced a 7 activation first/last BTAvenger, losing soundly. I don't think his Armada minis have left his basement since.

You could call him a sore loser and ask him to "git gud", but his argument is sound and I have a hard time arguing. First/last BTAvenger offers little in the way of counterplay. It's the blue deck from Magic or the Protectorate from Warmachine, winning by not letting your opponent make impactful decisions.

Armada is my favorite game. It's probably the best minis game I've played in my gaming lifetime of 16 years, in my opinion. ...but it's not perfect.

1 minute ago, PartyPotato said:

@Undeadguy I wouldn't sweat it these internet conversations too much. FFG is going to do what FFG is going to do. Which is do what will sell the most product.

In fact I love the heated arguments. How can you deny the fun factor in reading the old Admiral Nelson or Lyr vs HERO threads? Those were the good old days my friend.

I've been an active reader of the forums and occasional poster for a long time now and I can pretty much tell you exactly which users will agree with me and which users I know I'll agree with. Most the time I don't have to post because I know you or @Megatronrex has beaten me too it.

Most importantly we need people to keep the group think in check.

I still like it when you add your two cents. We can all use more Potato Wisdom.

6 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:

I still like it when you add your two cents. We can all use more Potato Wisdom.

Totally off topic... but how the freak do you have time to post as much as you do? Its a full time job to keep up with the forums. A major reason I post as little as I do is simply time! Most of the time reading the forums is how I decompress from the day where everything relevant has been said and theres not much to add and if I did people would probably get upset with me for necroing a week old discussion.

@IronNerd I can't recommend vassal enough to you and your friend. There is some weird stuff out there. When you dont have the constraint of money or the hyper competitiviness of tournaments you will really get some off the wall lists that are so much fun to play especially when your own list is equally absurd. The non standard vassal tournaments that people host on here are currently why I continue to play armada. Let the tournaments keep their first last and top meta lists. For the rest of us there's festivus...

5 minutes ago, IronNerd said:

...but it's not perfect.

Of course not. No system is. A puzzle this complex, with so many moving parts, necessitates compromise and sacrifices here and there. Generally speaking, a game needs to strike the right mix of theme, balance, accessibility and excitement, and you can't really change one without affecting another.

We've heard it all by now, from people who wanted a more thematic experience (e.g. "TIEs without hyperdrive should have to always launch from ships") regardless of the added complexity / tedium / imbalance this may bring, just as often as from those demanding better balance (e.g. "alternate initiative and play without objectives") even at the expense of theme and excitement.

Ultimately, your thoughts of what would make Armada "better" all boil down to which is the optimal mix of features for you. But the changes that get implemented (e.g. the Great Nerfing, the Lifeboat ruling, and the various tweaks to Tournament scoring) depend entirely on how FFG defines the success of Armada as a game. It's not objective. It's entirely subjective - but we're not the subjects.

15 minutes ago, PartyPotato said:

Totally off topic... but how the freak do you have time to post as much as you do? Its a full time job to keep up with the forums. A major reason I post as little as I do is simply time! Most of the time reading the forums is how I decompress from the day where everything relevant has been said and theres not much to add and if I did people would probably get upset with me for necroing a week old discussion.

When I'm at work this forum is one of the tabs on my computer that always stays open. When I'm not at work I'm constantly on my phone checking it out. My girlfriend makes fun of me for spending so much time on here. She keeps hoping that when she asks me what I'm doing that I'll tell her I'm watching porn instead of doing this.

17 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

@Undeadguy

Okay here's what I don't get.

Supposedly, there's a large number of people who have an issue with this core mechanic, enough so that they feel it is ruining the experience enough to leave.

Why are they bringing this issue here and expecting something to change?

You're getting hurt because your (otherwise) friends on the forums find the mechanic fine the way it is and are disagreeing with your input, but in all reality, no one here has any real control over the game mechanics, especially something that has existed since core release. Why are you leaving the community and getting pissed at them for disagreeing (especially since this has been a feature since the start)?

They have no control over this.

If disagreeing with someone about the state of the game is considered "driving out" how is anyone supposed to discuss anything?

If this group of people really feels so strongly about this, why have they not made their case to FFG? They own the IP not anyone on this forum.

Instead you've come on to a forum, stated an opinion, and, whether consciously or not, expected people to support that opinion. Maybe I'm wrong for saying but that's a hella unrealistic goal. Even if you expected argument, just because no one is budging on their opinion doesn't mean they're "driving folks out". We just disagree.

Frankly, every person I've gotten into an argument with on these forums I have respect for, and I don't ever expect them to come away agreeing with me, or that my input, no matter how researched, is gonna change the state of the game. It's just a way to share ideas.

I'd hate to see ya leave mate, you and I agree on a lot of issues.

I don't care if people agree with me or not. I'm not looking for 100% approval. What pisses me off is the inflexibility of the community to acknowledge that there might be a problem. I've spent some time reading the older flame threads and it's the same. Someone says X and others say they are wrong because the "data" doesn't support it. There's not discussion afterwards. It's black or white, no grey.

Blail said squads were a problem for months. He caught so much heat for that until he was right and Rieekan Aces took Worlds. Only then did the nay-sayers see there was a problem. There was like one real discussion on if squads were a problem because the "data" thrown around wasn't accurate or large enough to draw any conclusions from. The rest were flame threads and contained anecdotal stories and no one believes those because they create a mundane counter to those fleets.

People say BTA isn't an issues because you just stay out of the front arc. That's not a ******* solution to the problem. It's stating you know how to counter it and it doesn't effect you so it's actually not an issue, when in fact it is because there are a lot of threads talking about it. And it's the same ******* people who are saying the same thing.

This community is unable to objectively discuss a topic in an effort to proactively fix the game. Any topic, not just BTA or activations. They would rather wait until the game is in such a bad state, like Rieekan Aces, before acknowledging a change must be made. That's the issue I have. That's why I'm leaving.

There was a letter written to Michael Gernes a while back. It was written and signed by multiple ranking players. They voiced concern about the activation issue and the domination of flotillas in fleets. The received a letter back saying their concerns had been heard and changes would be made. As it turns out, that "fix" is this mysterious pass activation officer. Maybe it will fix the game, maybe it won't. But the damage has already been done. Some of those players quit.

Despite what people think, FFG does check the forums. Anyone find it odd about how familiar some of these upgrades are? People wanted boarding upgrades, and we have 2. After that, people wanted a boarding Vader. Check wave 7. Same for Thrawn and more ISDs, specifically ISD I remake, but the Chimeara is pretty **** close. The HH having a ram theme - Garel's Honor. Life boating nerfed. There are more examples. Do you find this to be coincidence? That the community is guessing what FFG is producing? Either FFG is checking the boards or the play testers are reporting it to FFG.

So yes, what we discuss does have an impact on FFG. I've seen Michael Gernes reading the threads. In fact, he was just on an hour ago.

Getting on the forums isn't exciting. It's stressful. Honestly, I just don't care anymore.

1 hour ago, draco193 said:

Agreed. The community needs lots of voices. It helps keep thinking from getting stale.

I think one of the most telling things here is the disparity in inclusion of flotillas, and medium based ships. Flotillas were present in basically every fleet, whereas medium bases only found homes at the bottom of the lists.

The rebels only have one....

One that imo isn't that great.

65% of all ships are small so you're going to see a lot of small.

18‰ of all ships are medium so it's not a surprise they aren't prevalent. Especially when they are fiddly

8 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

Of course not. No system is. A puzzle this complex, with so many moving parts, necessitates compromise and sacrifices here and there. Generally speaking, a game needs to strike the right mix of theme, balance, accessibility and excitement, and you can't really change one without affecting another.

We've heard it all by now, from people who wanted a more thematic experience (e.g. "TIEs without hyperdrive should have to always launch from ships") regardless of the added complexity / tedium / imbalance this may bring, just as often as from those demanding better balance (e.g. "alternate initiative and play without objectives") even at the expense of theme and excitement.

Ultimately, your thoughts of what would make Armada "better" all boil down to which is the optimal mix of features for you. But the changes that get implemented (e.g. the Great Nerfing, the Lifeboat ruling, and the various tweaks to Tournament scoring) depend entirely on how FFG defines the success of Armada as a game. It's not objective. It's entirely subjective - but we're not the subjects.

This is essentially my point of view. For better or for worse, we don't decide what happens for this game. We're left with a choice, take what we have, or to move on. When Aceholes took Worlds, Blail was vindicated, but to no end. We didn't fix Aceholes, the nerfbat did, and while we might have lit a fire under FFG I really don't think we made an enormous/measurable difference. That's why I usually refrain from posting on these threads, because they're often very heated to very little gain. We may affect FFG's future game balance concerns, but given the length of the development cycle, I'm not expecting much of it in 7, though it might arrive in 8 or 9, who knows.

I'm sympathetic to those who left over squadron balance, and those who want different thematic elements, or think watching Avenger torch Paragon without a way out isn't fun. All that said, there are still alternatives and I believe overall the game is more than healthy enough that I will continue to support it. Where I am disappointed is that the dearth of apparent FFG support for this game has left the community in an awkward and uncomfortable position that is creating division and losses among the player base. @Undeadguy I'm sorry the forums are more stress than happy, and I'm sad we can't have our traditional second round matchup for the World Cup. Hopefully I'll see you at NC Regionals.

2 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

They would rather wait until the game is in such a bad state, like Rieekan Aces, before acknowledging a change must be made. That's the issue I have. That's why I'm leaving.

I mean, that's your prerogative, but that makes absolutely no sense.

We could acknowledge an issue all day we would still have to wait for FFG to do something. We have no say.

5 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

So yes, what we discuss does have an impact on FFG. I've seen Michael Gernes reading the threads. In fact, he was just on an hour ago.

If this is true then why does it matter if people disagree with you? If enough people come forward, if letters have been written, then you've done all you can. FFG knows, and it's in their hands. You can't control what other people are going to do, only you.

Rage quitting because people don't see the state of the game as bad, and/or refuse to acknowledge it isn't going to change anything.


You'll be missed. :/

2 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Getting on the forums isn't exciting. It's stressful. Honestly, I just don't care anymore.

I hate to hear that you feel that way man. You were one of the first people that I felt some sort of kinship with when I started posting on here. I hate that it's no longer exciting and is stressing you out. I doubt that there's anything that I could say to make you care about it again but if you do go I sincerely hope that you know you will be missed.

10 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

So yes, what we discuss does have an impact on FFG. I've seen Michael Gernes reading the threads. In fact, he was just on an hour ago.

UNNNNNLIMITED POWAHHH!!!

...Sorry, couldn’t resist.

Can I stop being impugned both by name and by vague repeated references because MY analysis of the data presented disagrees with someone else's analysis of the data presented? That would be nice.

9 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Can I stop being impugned both by name and by vague repeated references because MY analysis of the data presented disagrees with someone else's analysis of the data presented? That would be nice.

Your analysis of MY data presented disregarded a portion of the data. Nor did you provide any evidence to back up your claim that the bottom quarter doesn't matter because you have subjective feelings on the matter.

All data is significant until proven otherwise.

4 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Can I stop being impugned both by name and by vague repeated references because MY analysis of the data presented disagrees with someone else's analysis of the data presented? That would be nice.

There's definitely something to be said for "I parsed the data one way and my conclusion was X, you parsed the data another way and your conclusion was Y; I hold with conclusion X due to (whatever)" being preferable over claiming the people who disagree with you can't read the data set properly because they're biased/dumb/disagreeable/an unthinking groupthink drone and them expressing their disagreement with you in a discussion forum is "shouting you down." You're not going to get very far with the latter approach when it comes to changing anyone's minds.

For what it's worth, I personally think it makes more sense to look at the top 25% rather than winners-only because the larger your number of data points, the more confidently you can present your conclusion as average or reflective of a trend. Event winners are by definition going to be much lower in number than the number of fleets in the top 25%, and I think we can all agree a top 25% showing is still pretty good. If someone can present an argument to the contrary as to why we should be disregarding the top 25% in favor of analyzing only the winners data compared to the bottom 25%, I'm willing to listen.

I'm also going to agree with @GiledPallaeon that it's been my experience that these types of threads produce a lot of rage but very little actual change so I've largely tried to avoid them in favor of putting the same amount of effort into the blog or my local community or something more constructive.

It is to me seems like quantity is the quality that many of the mechanics reward. Just as an observation. High point single ships aren't necessarily on the same ground as many cheaper ships. This is of course subjective and situational.

Michael Gernes isn’t going to change the game based on anyone’s stats but FFG’s, and he’ll choose carefully how he interprets them. When additions / changes are made to Armada, they generally do a pretty good job at keeping the game balanced. Rieekan? Fixed. Rhymer? Fixed. Lifeboats? Fixed. Demo? Fixedish... If BTAvenger and last / firsting is a problem, I fully trust FFG to deal with it. Which means maybe we should try not to get too worked up about this. Please, remember we’re talking about statistics for a plastic spaceship game (even if it is a really really good plastic spaceship game.)

3 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Yes, in concept it is a good design. But when it can be abused is when the problems come up like the Demo triple tap.

Is the potential abuse a bad play experience? Should FFG remedy the situation? A lot of people have asked about the activation system. It happened right after Worlds, and it's happening now.

Is it great game design when a few experienced players are able to navigate the activation game but the new players struggle with it? If you and I and all the other good players don't struggle with taking on a 7 ship fleet, why would we not change the game so newer players can? Why not change the game so someone doesn't have to struggle against BTA or Demo or Yavaris? Or should we continue to tell them that they are wrong and can't ask for a game change because "we" don't want that because "we" believe the game is perfect?

This is why people quit. You get people who have the loudest platform who scream the game is fine and we shouldn't change it unless the data proves it, and then people like @geek19 blatantly disregard the data to continue to support their own position.

Armada is a **** good game. But I've watched a lot of people leave because of these issues. So go ahead, continue to pat yourselves on the back for touting the game is perfect and the game design is great.

I'm done though. This community is incapable of even acknowledging there MIGHT be a problem with the game. There is never a discussion to be had. It's literally a shouting match until the person who asked the question has given up. How many times was @Blail Blerg told he was wrong in his squadron analysis? Or of @Reinholt when he was concerned about flotillas? I'm not without blame either.

At least you can still bump this thread though.

Enjoy your time without me.

I'll really miss you.

Don't go. =(

--

(But yeah, go if you need to for the mental break. You can always rant to me if you'd like.)

Hey guys, this is really important. Really important. My aim for all my griping was to inform all the players that this was an issue. It was beyond the standard deviation of game health. and.... it was about recognizing the issue and getting FFG to fix it. This is my goal. This is my euphoria. They fixed it. (This has nothing to do with us fixing it. FFG needed to fix it.) Yes, it took Rieekan to 5/8, mirror match worlds and multiple regionals and nationals. But it happened.

The game survived. I kept playing.
Change is real.

Our local game group did not survive though I think (though, there's considerable inertia in the first place, so its not all Rieekan's fault). People got whomped enough to know that mass mass squadrons was simply the game.
What ended up happening is, I also created a Biggs build to go even harder on anti-mass-squadron via mass squadron. That turned out to be the name of the game with Gallant Haven. Squadron survival, next level mass mass squadron.

--

@Snipafist @GiledPallaeon. I know we don't quite agree. But I wanted to be very clear as to what I was hoping to do, as that seems to be unclear.

--

@Undeadguy, Hey man. I really wished we got more diverse options for Imperials. I'm really really sad about Wave7 not coming until rumored March (if even that). I know the feeling of utter disgust about what the game and the community reaction feels like opposed to what you wanted it to be. (We seem to be idealists). If/when you feel like coming back, I hope you find some fun in the game again.

7 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

You should be checking winner vs bottom 1/4. Actively not considering is bias on your end and you are skewing your own interpretation. You're also giving motive to the players that showed up, which again, you cannot do.

Looking at the full data vs the top 4 or winners is not a good analysis of the data because the full data contains the top 4, so that data set will fall in between the top and the bottom. Essentially what you are doing is looking at the top vs the average, when you should be looking at the top and bottom.

The difference between winners and bottom 1/4 for wave 5 is around .75, which is almost an entire ship.

Undeadguy, statistics dictate that outliers should be checked for variance against population averages. You do not compare two opposite outliers, you compare the outlier to the overall population to see if there is a significant variation to determine if it a contributing factor or not.

With all due respect, Geek was correct in his approach.

Edit: Take a group of people, line them up in height order. Now with a standard group of people the tallest person is a bit taller than average but with the tolerance of the variation that is present in the overall population. However, comparing just the shortest and tallest person you can see a massive difference! This is to be expected.

Now add an NBA player to your group. Now the tallest person is abnormally tall compared to the overall variance and average of the population.

What the regional data shows is that the winners are not abusing activations significantly more than anyone else. Many players have views of whether a 4.5 average ship count is healthy for the game, however no amount of statistics will give any judgement on this. Where the line between helpful activations ends and needless activation padding begins is a subjective choice which varies from person to person. Thats why these discussions are so vitrolic, because it never seems to be acknowledge that its a subjective discussion.

I think he's noting a trend though, that its consistently downward in ship numbers and placing. How would you statistically show that this pattern continues down into the bottom 25% then?

It seems like you're willing to compare top25 to mid. But not mid to bottom25. And then, by inference, top25 to bot25.

7 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

I think he's noting a trend though, that its consistently downward in ship numbers and placing. How would you statistically show that this pattern continues down into the bottom 25% then?

It seems like you're willing to compare top25 to mid. But not mid to bottom25. And then, by inference, top25 to bot25.

What would it prove if there is a difference between the mid and bottom 25?

Correlation does not equal causation which is the problem. It becomes subjective again, so I personally see no benefit in even checking.

Comparing bottom to the overall average is a legit test.

8 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

What would it prove if there is a difference between the mid and bottom 25?

Correlation does not equal causation which is the problem. It becomes subjective again, so I personally see no benefit in even checking.

Comparing bottom to the overall average is a legit test.

I didn't say anything about causation.

So, why wasn't it talked about?

37 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Hey guys, this is really important. Really important. My aim for all my griping was to inform all the players that this was an issue. It was beyond the standard deviation of game health. and.... it was about recognizing the issue and getting FFG to fix it. This is my goal. This is my euphoria. They fixed it. (This has nothing to do with us fixing it. FFG needed to fix it.) Yes, it took Rieekan to 5/8, mirror match worlds and multiple regionals and nationals. But it happened.

The game survived. I kept playing.
Change is real.

Our local game group did not survive though I think (though, there's considerable inertia in the first place, so its not all Rieekan's fault). People got whomped enough to know that mass mass squadrons was simply the game.
What ended up happening is, I also created a Biggs build to go even harder on anti-mass-squadron via mass squadron. That turned out to be the name of the game with Gallant Haven. Squadron survival, next level mass mass squadron.

--

@Snipafist @GiledPallaeon. I know we don't quite agree. But I wanted to be very clear as to what I was hoping to do, as that seems to be unclear.

--

@Undeadguy, Hey man. I really wished we got more diverse options for Imperials. I'm really really sad about Wave7 not coming until rumored March (if even that). I know the feeling of utter disgust about what the game and the community reaction feels like opposed to what you wanted it to be. (We seem to be idealists). If/when you feel like coming back, I hope you find some fun in the game again.

I know what your intent was, and I hope that you know that I immensely respect you for sticking to your guns. Both @Snipafist and I have been there, him over Raiders, and my ongoing, if rather quiet, crusade to make dual Large a thing. We'll never know how much difference your effort made, but I'm more than happy to say that it probably had some effect, though we'll never know how much for sure. I will remain quietly patient about BTAvenger, at least until the rest of Wave 7 gets here or we have a majority of Regionals reporting in.

3 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

I know what your intent was, and I hope that you know that I immensely respect you for sticking to your guns. Both @Snipafist and I have been there, him over Raiders, and my ongoing, if rather quiet, crusade to make dual Large a thing. We'll never know how much difference your effort made, but I'm more than happy to say that it probably had some effect, though we'll never know how much for sure. I will remain quietly patient about BTAvenger, at least until the rest of Wave 7 gets here or we have a majority of Regionals reporting in.

I'm with you for cheering for Raiders and dual Larges.

2 ISD 3 Gozanti is a thing. 6AA squads. large bid
2 MC80 Ackbar is a competitive T1 thing. For real. If you want a list, lemme know.
2 Liberties..... is really not a thing. And I wish it was.

Raiders are fun, just really really hard to make work. Unknown to me if they are too easy to kill and could use an actual dedicated buff/fix, or if they're just very difficult to use, but consistent if you know how.