7 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

I don't think a drastic measure is necessary. Rather, find a way to increase the defensive power of ships in general (especially the ability to respond to squadrons) that isn't commander or slot-specific. Not every ship has the defensive upgrade slots, but we do have defensive officers of varying effectiveness on both sides.

If ships in general had more means to be defensive, then you can either save points with a commander like Rieekan or invest in those specific upgrades for everyone. Until then, Rieekan is the surest way to survive being one-shot from anything.

I'd prefer a maximum number of aces per fleet. This would also lead to the much welcome circumstance that you would not see the same 8 Sloane aces all the time (Dengar, Mithel, Howl, Valen, Cieanna, Saber, Maarek, Jendon). At the moment I cannot play imperial squad heavy, because every other combination than those 8 + Sloane seems to me to be so inferior. But those 8 I cannot stand one game more. A maximum of something like 4 aces per fleet would hopefully set free a lot more of fleet diversity.

2 minutes ago, Darth Veggie said:

I'd prefer a maximum number of aces per fleet. This would also lead to the much welcome circumstance that you would not see the same 8 Sloane aces all the time (Dengar, Mithel, Howl, Valen, Cieanna, Saber, Maarek, Jendon). At the moment I cannot play imperial squad heavy, because every other combination than those 8 + Sloane seems to me to be so inferior. But those 8 I cannot stand one game more. A maximum of something like 4 aces per fleet would hopefully set free a lot more of fleet diversity.

If it’s a severely underrated squadron complement you’re after, try Howlrunner and 9+ generic TIEs (bonus points for Flight Controllers.) They die, but man do they get work done, for only 88 points. ?

4 hours ago, ricefrisbeetreats said:

“If the game is no longer to your liking, the door is over there.”

Pointing our the tone comes across as super aggressive I’ve never had someone ‘show me the door’ in a non-combative way.

And sure, maybe people take it a bit too far. We are on a dedicated fan page for a game, though. So I tend to give a lot of grace for people who are passionate about the game.

Coming from me, someone who worked with and around game designers, they want to get negative, constructive feedback. A boring game that sucks to watch on Twitch is not going to draw crowds. Though that really gets away from my point of, we should all be civil with one another.

Did you mean like that?

5 hours ago, 1977Valarian said:

I love, love the fanboy responses. This game has the best fanboy base of any FF game. This is why I just can’t really ever read stuff on this particular forum. It is ALL ? perfect. Like the gods themselves made the game. 5-6 transports no worries mate it is awesome. They will literal allow FF to pee on them and tell you it is beer, Coca Cola, triple cotton candy raspberry devious fruit punch

? it is all cool take your complaints out of here. You must be Admiral Nelson or something. Lol.

My favorite was the very second comment. Lol. He was feeling like quite the little smartass so self righteous and all with his comment.

Pointing to the door seemed kind to me.

2 hours ago, Darth Veggie said:

I'd prefer a maximum number of aces per fleet. This would also lead to the much welcome circumstance that you would not see the same 8 Sloane aces all the time (Dengar, Mithel, Howl, Valen, Cieanna, Saber, Maarek, Jendon). At the moment I cannot play imperial squad heavy, because every other combination than those 8 + Sloane seems to me to be so inferior. But those 8 I cannot stand one game more. A maximum of something like 4 aces per fleet would hopefully set free a lot more of fleet diversity.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you on the aces point.

Id love it to be more like the movies with tons of generic TIEs on the board, however to activate them just isn’t really possible. There are no 2 quasar lists as far as I’ve seen that would really work - and who wants to fly 2 quasars really?

As Sloane was a fighter admiral I was hoping her ability would give say 4+(?) generic fighter unit activations so you could play that monster fighter load that you see in the movies.

40 minutes ago, ISD Avenger said:

I don’t necessarily disagree with you on the aces point.

Id love it to be more like the movies with tons of generic TIEs on the board, however to activate them just isn’t really possible. There are no 2 quasar lists as far as I’ve seen that would really work - and who wants to fly 2 quasars really?

As Sloane was a fighter admiral I was hoping her ability would give say 4+(?) generic fighter unit activations so you could play that monster fighter load that you see in the movies.

Fleet 230 (398/400)
==================
Imperial II-class Star Destroyer (120 + 38)
+ Admiral Sloane (24)
+ Gunnery Team (7)
+ Electronic Countermeasures (7)
Quasar Fire I-class Cruiser-Carrier (54 + 7)
+ Expanded Hangar Bay (5)
+ Pursuant (2)
Gozanti-class Cruisers (23)
Gozanti-class Cruisers (23)
Ciena Ree (17)
Howlrunner (16)
Mauler Mithel (15)
Valen Rudor (13)
9 x Tie Fighter Squadron (9 x 8 )

Fleet 230 (400/400)
==================
Imperial I-class Star Destroyer (110 + 41)
+ Admiral Sloane (24)
+ Boarding Troopers (3)
+ Expanded Hangar Bay (5)
+ Leading Shots (4)
+ Avenger (5)
Quasar Fire I-class Cruiser-Carrier (54 + 11)
+ Flight Controllers (6)
+ Expanded Hangar Bay (5)
Gozanti-class Cruisers (23 + 5)
+ Expanded Hangar Bay (5)
Gozanti-class Cruisers (23 + 5)
+ Expanded Hangar Bay (5)
16 x Tie Fighter Squadron (16 x 8 )

Do or do not. There is no try.?

5 hours ago, ISD Avenger said:

I don’t necessarily disagree with you on the aces point.

Id love it to be more like the movies with tons of generic TIEs on the board, however to activate them just isn’t really possible. There are no 2 quasar lists as far as I’ve seen that would really work - and who wants to fly 2 quasars really?

As Sloane was a fighter admiral I was hoping her ability would give say 4+(?) generic fighter unit activations so you could play that monster fighter load that you see in the movies.

Double quasar won so cal regionals

12 hours ago, BrobaFett said:

It's not unfortunate for Nathan.

To be totally honest, I loved his fleet. Moment I saw it round 1 I impressed by how it really took Rieekan to a peak all comers list with an incredible balance of ship and squad firepower. Watching him play it was a thing of beauty and I was fortunate enough to see most of his games and every one of them was exciting and action packed. Including the first game of the cut.

The final wasn't that kind of game. And unfortunately for anyone that wasnt there that was all they saw.

But to say it's unfortunate that fleet won, eh, I think that fleet and the guy playing it deserved it.

Unfortunate for those who watched the stream I mean.

1 hour ago, MandalorianMoose said:

Double quasar won so cal regionals

Though that was in the sweet spot between wave 7 drop and the flotilla/relay nerf. After the socal regionals I wanted to take that fleet to worlds and tried hard to make it work, but the flotilla and relay nerf 100% killed it. It is now far too flimsy and inflexible to be competitive. Personal opinion, but tie bombers were almost back in W7, but the flotilla and relay nerf puts them all back on the shelf for the foreseeable future.

48 minutes ago, Sybreed said:

Unfortunate for those who watched the stream I mean.

That's a fair clarification. I didn't want to seem like I was piling on you.

7 hours ago, ISD Avenger said:

I don’t necessarily disagree with you on the aces point.

Id love it to be more like the movies with tons of generic TIEs on the board, however to activate them just isn’t really possible. There are no 2 quasar lists as far as I’ve seen that would really work - and who wants to fly 2 quasars really?

As Sloane was a fighter admiral I was hoping her ability would give say 4+(?) generic fighter unit activations so you could play that monster fighter load that you see in the movies.

Who says you need to activate all of them? You only need to activate some or most of them. With that many generic ties you can afford a bunch as a screen to cover your capital ships.

Sometimes you just need some ties to give their lives to the glory of the empire… just maybe not to the glory of tournament victory…

8 hours ago, ISD Avenger said:

I don’t necessarily disagree with you on the aces point.

Id love it to be more like the movies with tons of generic TIEs on the board, however to activate them just isn’t really possible. There are no 2 quasar lists as far as I’ve seen that would really work - and who wants to fly 2 quasars really?

As Sloane was a fighter admiral I was hoping her ability would give say 4+(?) generic fighter unit activations so you could play that monster fighter load that you see in the movies.

It’s very possible to activate them, up to about 13 squads (not that I recommend quite that many.) What’s amazing about TIEs is that they’re cheap. You can field equivalent firepower with more ships at the cost of defense tokens (which your opponent won’t have for long either?.). If a TIE dies shooting the rear of a ship for SP? Good news, you’ve still traded up. Because you aren’t spending 134 points on squadrons, a Sloane list can be ISD/Quasar/Gozanti/Gozanti, potentially activating all of those TIEs and still fielding more ships than aces would allow. You can even sacrifice some command ability to swap the Quasar for Demo. Many TIEs will die, and they need to earn their points back through careful flying, and it might lose to a hardcore aces build, but I’ve had great success against everything else with generics just about since Sloane's release (and yes, I swear that does include tournament victories.)

44 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

It’s very possible to activate them, up to about 13 squads (not that I recommend quite that many.) What’s amazing about TIEs is that they’re cheap. You can field equivalent firepower with more ships at the cost of defense tokens (which your opponent won’t have for long either?.). If a TIE dies shooting the rear of a ship for SP? Good news, you’ve still traded up. Because you aren’t spending 134 points on squadrons, a Sloane list can be ISD/Quasar/Gozanti/Gozanti, potentially activating all of those TIEs and still fielding more ships than aces would allow. You can even sacrifice some command ability to swap the Quasar for Demo. Many TIEs will die, and they need to earn their points back through careful flying, and it might lose to a hardcore aces build, but I’ve had great success against everything else with generics just about since Sloane's release (and yes, I swear that does include tournament victories.)

Also go for the ships that aren't packin gunnery teams...make them choose...shoot the swarm or the capital ship pushing them. The trick is to keep the max firepower for your ship in range of the swarm.

After three to four years (how old is Armada?) of the game being dominated by maxed-fighter fleets, you'd think they'd just knock the Fighter Cap to 100pts and move on, which allows fighter-lighter fleets more of a chance to curtail enemy squadrons without having to just bite the bullet and invest their own 134pts in squadrons.

If a hard cap solution is good enough for flotilla fixin' it should work for squadron fixin' too, yea?

3 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

After three to four years (how old is Armada?) of the game being dominated by maxed-fighter fleets, you'd think they'd just knock the Fighter Cap to 100pts and move on, which allows fighter-lighter fleets more of a chance to curtail enemy squadrons without having to just bite the bullet and invest their own 134pts in squadrons.

If a hard cap solution is good enough for flotilla fixin' it should work for squadron fixin' too, yea?

[Desire to cap squads intensifies]


Even though I want it, because **** squads and the tedious level of fuckery that they involve. I do understand that my preference shouldn't determine other's play styles. I don't think max squads, despite their placing at worlds, is an absolute end all. From what I understand the players in the finals have played those fleets for some time. Being skilled and having massive experience with those fleets likely played a very important role in the results of worlds. There was also discussion of the tournament format being at least partially at fault for the results we saw.

I can't speak with authority on all this, they're just the things I've heard discussed, but what I'm trying to say is there may be multiple variables at work here, a squadron cap could be more detrimental than helpful.

If anything, I think they'd need to play test the absolute **** out of it before implementing it.

When/If Armada gets a 2.0 I hope they consider adjusting the way squadrons work by making them part of a capital ship's upgrades and stats. Numbers would need to be adjusted, upgrades designed, but having them as a separate investment is sort of odd to me.

Ehh. I suggested least year that there should be a max on the number of uniques. I still think this is the best option for the devs. 1 unique per 2 command value of the fleet? That could help promote medium and big ships more and msus can still field some as well. I still need to run the math on that.

Hilarious! We play a game based on Star Wars, where mass Squadrons are omnipresent throughout every fleet in Canon. So, when mass Squadrons are a dominant fleet build, people beg for the Nerf bat to smack down mass Squadrons, rather than just add ways of dealing with mass Squadrons.

Keep going, keep whining for the Nerf bat. Just don't expect those of us who think it's a bad idea, to stay quiet this time.

You are welcome to voice your opinions, just don't pretend you speak for the community at large.

6 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Just don't expect those of us who think it's a bad idea, to stay quiet this time.

There are definite overreactions going on here, but I don't think anyone has ever been quiet about any nerf vs stay the course argument.

1 minute ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

There are definite overreactions going on here, but I don't think anyone has ever been quiet about any nerf vs stay the course argument.

Yeah, but most of the vocalisations on the Flotilla debate from the no-nerf side we're. "There isn't a problem."

The Nerf crowd was way more vocal, thus the Nerf bat came down. I'm not making the mistake of thinking cooler heads will prevail again, when it is quite obvious that the squeaky wheel gets the grease with FFG.

2 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Yeah, but most of the vocalisations on the Flotilla debate from the no-nerf side we're. "There isn't a problem."

The Nerf crowd was way more vocal, thus the Nerf bat came down. I'm not making the mistake of thinking cooler heads will prevail again, when it is quite obvious that the squeaky wheel gets the grease with FFG.

Do you actually think FFG reads and is influenced by this stuff?

9 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Hilarious! We play a game based on Star Wars, where mass Squadrons are omnipresent throughout every fleet in Canon. So, when mass Squadrons are a dominant fleet build, people beg for the Nerf bat to smack down mass Squadrons, rather than just add ways of dealing with mass Squadrons.

Keep going, keep whining for the Nerf bat. Just don't expect those of us who think it's a bad idea, to stay quiet this time.

You are welcome to voice your opinions, just don't pretend you speak for the community at large.

The point of the game is to let the big ships of star wars shine. I find it ridiculous when you're more likely to win by having more fighters than the other guy. What is this, x-wing Epic? That's not why I'm playing this game.

I'd rather fighters be extensions of capital ships than be thier own end-all determinator force.

This is disrupted by 1. Yavaris, a cheaper platform, being more capable than any other carrier regardless of size, and 2. rebel fighters being more autonomously successful than the hyper-specialized and fragile imperial fighters. Both of these, along with rieekan, is why rebel fighter forces tend to be the better archetypes now when playing competitively.

5 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Yeah, but most of the vocalisations on the Flotilla debate from the no-nerf side we're. "There isn't a problem."

The Nerf crowd was way more vocal, thus the Nerf bat came down. I'm not making the mistake of thinking cooler heads will prevail again, when it is quite obvious that the squeaky wheel gets the grease with FFG.

Flotillas were a problem because players were using them purely for the activation advantage to thier Battlestar builds and not to actually support/enhance the fleet as intended. At least flipping one flotilla for strategic advisor means at least one big ship is in the game while retaining the activation advantage.

6 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

Flotillas were a problem because players were using them purely for the activation advantage to thier Battlestar builds and not to actually support/enhance the fleet as intended. At least flipping one flotilla for strategic advisor means at least one big ship is in the game while retaining the activation advantage.

Ok, because this was a valid argument against MSU lists before the Flotilla showed up? Right, we never had Raider/CR90 lifeboats running away to hide in the corner before?

Relay, that was the only thing that actually needed a Nerf this last time around. Everything else was just responding to complaining.

18 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

Do you actually think FFG reads and is influenced by this stuff?

Nerf 2.0 prooved it, as far as I'm concerned. Nothing else explains that heavy handed steaming pile of Nerf they chucked out last month.

16 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Ok, because this was a valid argument against MSU lists before the Flotilla showed up? Right, we never had Raider/CR90 lifeboats running away to hide in the corner before?

Relay, that was the only thing that actually needed a Nerf this last time around. Everything else was just responding to complaining.

Yes, the argument was valid even back then, but action was taken about the time we saw MC80 death pickles starting to show prominence, wasn't it? FFG decided to do something about it, finally, after flotillas were being abused in this way for many waves. I think it should have come sooner, because I saw local players abusing them in this fashion for long before FFG took action about it.

There are many differences between an 18 point flotilla and a 44 point corvette. I'm fine with forcing a player to actually buy a combat ship to get that activation padding, since there may be a time where he/she will eventually fight with it. Useless 18 point activations that sit in a corner at speed 0 I cannot abide.

I'm actually of the mind that Relay didn't have a problem, especially now that flotillas have had their nerf as well. It was too ineffective for the Rebels to use with their superior fighters, and the Empire have too many expensive or vulnerable carriers and needed some workable advantage.

43 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

Do you actually think FFG reads and is influenced by this stuff?

100%, absolutely. No doubt at all anymore.

Its not just the forums, but they definitely play a important part.

People on here whined and bitched for ages for a flotilla nerf - we got one. Despite some admittedly small opposition that got shouted down.

People complained and complained about yavaris and how flotillas are still a problem. FFG listened.

And thats just 2 examples!

Theres proof if you look for it. Though how much of our complaints they listen to is in question, theyre listening.

Adar Tallon +Yavaris (add in Rieekan for insurance) turns one (ace, even more potent) squadron into effectively 3 squadrons (in terms of attack not hull). For the cost of 15 pts (and not moving etc.) you turn one squadron into two more squadrons. Only z-95's can fit in under that point cap, and wedge(for example) x3 is stronger than wedge +2 z-95's. The empire doesn't have anything come even close to replicating this formula. This is such a strong mechanic, and some people still don't understand why Yavaris and Gallant Haven were nerfed...