Great thread on the X-Wing forum that is perfectly applicable to Armada

(and many other games)

I love this topic, it gets down to the sad thought I've had boiling in my head for a while now. The way I see it, no game can stay balanced if new items continue to be released for it. It's why I left X-Wing and won't come back, I'm too far behind now. The book/codex systems seems excellent, allowing the ability to make broad changes on a regular basis. I don't know the best way for FFG to implement something like that, but I'd gladly drop a bundle of $$$ to get a pack of re-done cards to re-balance the game, if we reach a point where that's necessary.

Not sure what the post was intended to accomplish?

Discussion?

Enlightenment?

Anyway. You can clearly see how some key early design choices shape Armada to this day.

The last/first mechanic, with Demo on top.

Yavaris continues to affect every rebel squad design since w1. Toryn too.

Rogue is now generally considered overpriced (although many rogues were trash when they hit the table).

More examples exist.

FFG did a poor job of handling this problem with X-wing. Power creep, expensive repaints to get useful cards to make old stuff good again, etc.

They are doing a much better job of handling it with Armada.

Books and codex systems don't work well for a game like Armada. The stats are right there on the cards and cardboard. It's really no different than paying for errata.

What might work, and would actually be nice (as it would solve other issues they have also) is errata reprints. Stick all the non-plastic stuff in a pack the size of most trading card packs you see in stores, stick a $5 tag on it, call it a day. This fixes 3 problems at once and is entirely optional. Lost or damage products? Buy the $5 errata pack and replace those items. Tired of using the old version of cards and having to refer to the ever expanding errata? Buy the $5 errata pack and replace the old with the new. Tired of having to search Ebay for that rare upgrade and you don't want to be 2 more AFMk2 expansion packs? Pick up 2 errata packs instead! None of this stuff would be mandatory, but it would be optional and any loss in duplicate expansion sales for rare upgrades would be more than compensated for by the purchasing of all the errata packs.

Broadly speaking... what would be the “best” format be for a game? I guess put another way what method is the least “worst”?

Infinity comes to mind as they release a single book that contains all the rules for every unit and faction. They’ve deviated from this a bit over time but for the most part they follow the codex method but all in a single book which leads to years between book releases.

I’m curious what other games people have played and method those games employed to combat accretion. As a game designer how do you construct a game with this in mind?

The issue with regards to xwing vs Armada is that xwing is on what, wave 20? And we're just getting 7. As much as we all complain about not getting stuff, I'd much rather they go slow and test things properly rather than the crazy schedule xwing releases seem to have.

With regards to the "fixes," I'd argue that a lot of the best fixes proposed don't necessarily work. I left Warmachine with its yearly new stuff thing because you had to learn like 12 new things every year for all the factions (there's like 14 of em now?) And how x combo becomes unbreakable and what you need to do to counter it, blah blah blah. That's more a failure of Warmachine, though, and its overly complicated ruleset IMO.

I don't think right now we need a full on codex plan either, as I don't need to go out and buy 3 more Nebulons because the latest one just made them OP. FFG hasn't seemed (in Armada) to go for forcing a mess of purchases just to get purchases in. I pray they continue down that path.

Xwing may need nerfs and erratas (I don't play it but I hear things?), but I do feel that Armada has a better system of addressing issues when they occur. There's a lot of complaints about squadrons now, but a lot of new upgrades exist to fight them with. Any major changes that need to happen (Rieekan and Demo nerfs) happen relatively quickly upon realization of the problem. Couple that with the fact FFG seems to be actively engaging us more now that we forumites almost had a revolt against them, and I'd say we're in a pretty good place.

From my understanding, and please correct me if im wrong, a lot of the best X-wing tournaments have the same 5-6 list types show up. Contrary to that in Armada, there's no unbeatable list, no list that EVERYONE is running. Everything has a counter, even the dread 2+3, though it largely comes down to player skill for fighting each other.

I don't think right NOW that we need to worry too much about bloat in Armada. Right now. Let's see what 8 or 9 bring, of course, and their time frame, but I think the fact that we only have 2 factions and get 1.5-2 releases a year on average is slowing that potential tipping point of bloat and sameyness.

I reserve the right to amend this statement when the top 8 at world's somehow becomes 7 Tarkin Cymoon fleets and a Cracken swarm.

6 minutes ago, PartyPotato said:

Broadly speaking... what would be the “best” format be for a game? I guess put another way what method is the least “worst”?

Infinity comes to mind as they release a single book that contains all the rules for every unit and faction. They’ve deviated from this a bit over time but for the most part they follow the codex method but all in a single book which leads to years between book releases.

I’m curious what other games people have played and method those games employed to combat accretion. As a game designer how do you construct a game with this in mind?

However, they also constantly balance and re balance with the official online army builder.

that is a big component to their success, and why I have such a hard time with it... because I hate having to slave to technology to disconnect from technology... I play tabletop games to leave a computer behind.

6 minutes ago, PartyPotato said:

Broadly speaking... what would be the “best” format be for a game? I guess put another way what method is the least “worst”?

There's no such thing, everything has pros and cons, and therefore suits different games and purposes.

40k has codexes, Armada has upgrade cards. You never have to crack a book open and look up a rule you have to see what it does, but you also can't get a re-issue that updates all your rules to be more cohesive over time. (Not that 40k does this with codexes, really; but that's a failure of execution, not design).

2 minutes ago, geek19 said:

With regards to the "fixes," I'd argue that a lot of the best fixes proposed don't necessarily work. I left Warmachine with its yearly new stuff thing because you had to learn like 12 new things every year for all the factions (there's like 14 of em now?) And how x combo becomes unbreakable and what you need to do to counter it, blah blah blah. That's more a failure of Warmachine, though, and its overly complicated ruleset IMO.

That, and it sounds like it's also just not your style of game. The comboing-out and the rules corner cases and the encyclopedic knowledge requirements are a selling point to a lot of players. Different strokes for different folks.

5 minutes ago, geek19 said:

I don't think right NOW that we need to worry too much about bloat in Armada. Right now. Let's see what 8 or 9 bring, of course, and their time frame, but I think the fact that we only have 2 factions and get 1.5-2 releases a year on average is slowing that potential tipping point of bloat and sameyness.

We've already got accretion - you can't release an upgrade/ship without accounting for Luke, Engine Techs, AFFM!, etcetc - which is what the linked post was talking about. A normal, inevitable result of a growing game. It only becomes bloat when it crosses some threshold into being problematic.

6 minutes ago, svelok said:

T hat, and it sounds like it's also just not your style of game. The comboing-out and the rules corner cases and the encyclopedic knowledge requirements are a selling point to a lot of players. Different strokes for different folks.

It was not, not when I left. For various reasons I don't need to get into here, yup.

9 minutes ago, svelok said:

There's no such thing, everything has pros and cons, and therefore suits different games and purposes.

40k has codexes, Armada has upgrade cards. You never have to crack a book open and look up a rule you have to see what it does, but you also can't get a re-issue that updates all your rules to be more cohesive over time. (Not that 40k does this with codexes, really; but that's a failure of execution, not design).

That, and it sounds like it's also just not your style of game. The comboing-out and the rules corner cases and the encyclopedic knowledge requirements are a selling point to a lot of players. Different strokes for different folks.

We've already got accretion - you can't release an upgrade/ship without accounting for Luke, Engine Techs, AFFM!, etcetc - which is what the linked post was talking about. A normal, inevitable result of a growing game. It only becomes bloat when it crosses some threshold into being problematic.

On codexes: you don't need to buy the Codex for another faction or for a whole bunch of other factions in order to get abilities that you need for your own ships. That's a significant difference. And it's not in favor of armada.

As I mentioned on the X-Wing side, my concern is increasing cost of entry for new players one of the posters there said that new players don't need to buy all of the old ships for X-Wing, because so many of them and their upgrade cards are obsolete now. In Armada, you have to own upgrade cards from wave one and up to be competitive with many of the latest releases. This strong dependency, and particularly the way across factions, makes it increasingly expensive for new players to get into the game. That's a real problem for the long-term health of Armada (my original private message was going to have the subject line "Armada contains the seeds of its own destruction").

Similarly, increasing Corner cases and an increasing need for an encyclopedic knowledge of all the upgrade cards presents a significant barrier to entry for new players. If you are as old as I am, and you have played spaceship games for as long as I have, and it played as many of them as I have, you're only familiar with the story of Star Fleet Battles. SFB was a great game, and still is in many ways. However, as the publisher continued to churn out new material for decades, there was so much to absorb that it became utterly intimidating for new players, and much of your chances of victory depended on understanding my new elements of the rules and exactly went to exploit them. If you forgot about just one possible Corner case threat, you would lose. That does not attract new players. SFB continues to survive with an extremely dedicated Core group of players, but that core audience and sales base is a tiny fraction of what Armada has, much less what X-Wing it has.

I suppose the good news is that the FFG license eventually lapse, and the game will "die." (The very concept of "dead" games is just dumb. A game is only dead when no one plays it anymore, and there's no reason to stop playing Armada just because there aren't going to be any more official releases. The community can continue to exist, the models do not simply disintegrate into dust, and it's just a good system. Shapeways and various fan sites show us that it's perfectly possible to introduce new material in vibrant parts of the Star Wars universe without an official license. Of course, if you can't buy the original ships, that can be a problem, but Shapeways hasn't shown that to be impossible. Cards, etc., that's all doable.)

Boy, I've lapsed off topic.

50 minutes ago, kmanweiss said:

FFG did a poor job of handling this problem with X-wing. Power creep, expensive repaints to get useful cards to make old stuff good again, etc.

They are doing a much better job of handling it with Armada.

Books and codex systems don't work well for a game like Armada. The stats are right there on the cards and cardboard. It's really no different than paying for errata.

What might work, and would actually be nice (as it would solve other issues they have also) is errata reprints. Stick all the non-plastic stuff in a pack the size of most trading card packs you see in stores, stick a $5 tag on it, call it a day. This fixes 3 problems at once and is entirely optional. Lost or damage products? Buy the $5 errata pack and replace those items. Tired of using the old version of cards and having to refer to the ever expanding errata? Buy the $5 errata pack and replace the old with the new. Tired of having to search Ebay for that rare upgrade and you don't want to be 2 more AFMk2 expansion packs? Pick up 2 errata packs instead! None of this stuff would be mandatory, but it would be optional and any loss in duplicate expansion sales for rare upgrades would be more than compensated for by the purchasing of all the errata packs.

There may be some issues with the licensing contract that we are not aware of.

Getting into armada is not difficult.

If you pick a faction, get an isd, some squads and another ship, you're good to go.

While you practice this complex game you will buy more expansions to complement your ever increasing skills.

3 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Getting into armada is not difficult.

If you pick a faction, get an isd, some squads and another ship, you're good to go.

While you practice this complex game you will buy more expansions to complement your ever increasing skills.

The counter to this is that armada is still “new”. Could you still say that when armada is on wave 20 like x-wing? I sincerely hope so.

1 minute ago, PartyPotato said:

The counter to this is that armada is still “new”. Could you still say that when armada is on wave 20 like x-wing? I sincerely hope so.

So do I.

I particularly enjoy thus far the fact that, in Armada, one of anything is not a bad purchase.

25 minutes ago, elbmc1969 said:

A game is only dead when no one plays it anymore, and there's no reason to stop playing Armada just because there aren't going to be any more official releases.

I still play Silent Death, myself.

1 hour ago, geek19 said:

The issue with regards to xwing vs Armada is that xwing is on what, wave 20? And we're just getting 7. As much as we all complain about not getting stuff, I'd much rather they go slow and test things properly rather than the crazy schedule xwing releases seem to have.

First off, lets set the record straight. X-wing has 13 waves right now. Armada is about to release 7.

The Aces packs were not waves. They were repainted, pre-released modules released in an attempt to fix units that had already failed miserably. The 1st Aces pack released after wave 3 in an attempt to fix a failing wave 2 ship. The 2nd Aces pack released after wave 4 with fixes for ships in wave 2 and wave 3. X-wing was negating ships upon release or after a single additional wave. They had to make 2 major corrections before their 5th wave.

I'd love to see some statistics for X-wing regionals that show numbers and types of ships. I remember the meta being firmly set back in the early waves to the point where certain ships were almost never seen...and we are talking only 4 or 5 waves in. I can only imagine now that a lot of stuff is just forgotten and likely only sees the light of day if it accidentally becomes overpowered.

Part of the problem has always been the base design of the two games though. Armada has a lot more flexibility to squeeze new content in between other ships. The upgrade system also allows more flexibility.

4 minutes ago, kmanweiss said:

I'd love to see some statistics for X-wing regionals that show numbers and types of ships. I remember the meta being firmly set back in the early waves to the point where certain ships were almost never seen...and we are talking only 4 or 5 waves in. I can only imagine now that a lot of stuff is just forgotten and likely only sees the light of day if it accidentally becomes overpowered.

Part of the problem has always been the base design of the two games though. Armada has a lot more flexibility to squeeze new content in between other ships. The upgrade system also allows more flexibility.

I know there's a better one out there, but I've attached a link to a chart where people actually did plot how often ships were used. There was one that went back all the way to wave 1.

I think both games came from the same design area: both have upgrade slots. The problem came in that as things got further into the game, they had already constrained themselves with the statistics. There are only 2 sets of dice, red for attack, green for defense. You want to show something is more accurate? Add more red dice I guess or make it change dice to hits. You want to show something has more powerful lasers? Add more dice...or make the dice change to hits.

I think the design team learned a TON from their missteps in X-Wing. When it first came out, I remember buying up multiple X-Wings, Y-Wings, and TIE Fighters and thought to myself, "Huh. I kinda wonder what they're going to do to make a TIE Defender seem as powerful as we all remember it being." I could see (and I haven't been doing game design for very long) that they had sort of put themselves in a box that was going to hurt their endgame. Eventually, the pendulum was going to swing to either being too accurate or too hard to hit. Then they would have to adjust and once that momentum starts swinging...

From what I've played of Armada (and even with my experience in the game, I'm still no expert) I think it's largely balanced. There are a few missteps like the flotillas being way better than expected or the Pelta/Arquitens being kind of bummers, but for the most part, I can see a spot for any ship in the Armada line in some list. It might be a one-of, but you don't auto-lose to another fleet unless you have this firm belief that you can fly an all Arquitens fleet and win.

22 minutes ago, ricefrisbeetreats said:

you don't auto-lose to another fleet unless you have this firm belief that you can fly an all Arquitens fleet and win.

Funny you say that, because, while I do think the kitten is crap and haven't actually gotten it to work, my sense is that the answer to making them work is MOAR ARQS. But I have zero evidence for that, so, you know...

So far all the evidence points to the display shelf being the most competitive place for Arqs.

1 minute ago, Ardaedhel said:

Funny you say that, because, while I do think the kitten is crap and haven't actually gotten it to work, my sense is that the answer to making them work is MOAR ARQS. But I have zero evidence for that, so, you know...

So far all the evidence points to the display shelf being the most competitive place for Arqs.

Don’t let @Crabbok hear you say that...

The Arq is a great ship! Love the firepower with the right upgrades. I just drive it like a GSD and get it killed most games.

Just now, Ardaedhel said:

Funny you say that, because, while I do think the kitten is crap and haven't actually gotten it to work, my sense is that the answer to making them work is MOAR ARQS. But I have zero evidence for that, so, you know...

So far all the evidence points to the display shelf being the most competitive place for Arqs.

I like both titles. I've seen the Centicore and 2 VSDs pushing a bomber "bunch" work really well awhile back. I've also seen someone put the Hand of Justice on the far side of an ISD and watch it flip the brace back up after taking a massive hit.

Again, I think there's an argument that can be made that there is one "ultimate" fleet out there that just needs to be found, but overall, I can tell a new player, "Go ahead and buy stuff you like. You'll have fun with it" and not feel like I'm lying to them.

On the other hand, if I said the same thing about X-Wing, I know that there's at least half the X-Wing model line that's just bad or there is something that does the same role better.

I'm of the school of thought that you quit while you're ahead. I'd rather the game end on a high note than end when it's flopping around in the mud and all people remember is how terrible it was.

41 minutes ago, Mundo said:

Don’t let @Crabbok hear you say that...

The Arq is a great ship! Love the firepower with the right upgrades. I just drive it like a GSD and get it killed most games.

Hey @Crabbok , your favorite ship is bad and you should feel bad!

Nah, I kid. Here's my thinking with the Arq: it's unlike the AF2 in that, while it's survivable at range, it's really dependent on keeping things out of close range, because it doesn't have the brace to weather a big shot and then run again like the AF2 often can. Which you could mitigate by putting a close-range threat like a Raider or bombers next to it, but it just doesn't fit too well in fleets with either of those in my experience. So the other option is to put enough Arqs together that you can actually kill things on ingress, because just softening them up isn't enough. If you can manage that, though, suddenly you tip them over the hump from "liability" to "awesome."

Again, though, I'm no Arqxpert--just my opinion.

Your opinion is wrong.

Just now, Madaghmire said:

Your opinion is wrong.

Usually is. Doesn't stop me from offering it as well-informed fact though.

I hear this claim that Armada can be won by 'any' fleet. But is that really true?

Assuming equal skill, how many fleet archetypes are really competitive? Are there just a few, or very many?

What does the winning lists have in common? What are the differences?

If assuming unequal skill, then Armada is a game canny old hand can make a good number of fleet archetypes and walk all over a newbie, but that's hardly relevant in this context.

Just now, Green Knight said:

I hear this claim that Armada can by 'any' fleet. But is that really true?

Assuming equal skill, how many fleet archetypes are really competitive? Are there just a few, or very many?

What does the winning lists have in common? What are the differences?

If assuming unequal skill, then Armada is a game canny old hand can make a good number of fleet archetypes and walk all over a newbie, but that's hardly relevant in this context.

There's a group of 5 or 6 of us with pretty equal skill. On any given night, I've watched a Rieeken fleet get butchered by a Leia all NebB fleet and a Cracken fleet crush whatever the "hotness" was at the time.

But like I said, you could probably develop that perfect list, but unless you are able to test into a vacuum, there's too many variables. For instance, going to a regional where the top players are known to fly a Rieeken Ace fleet is going to meta in a lot of anti-squad pusher or ace fleets like Sloane or the new upgrades coming out. Or if you have a fleet that's one beefed up ship with a bunch of flotillas to allow that really hard punch, well, you might see lists skew that way.