7 hours ago, Church14 said:If somehow FFG found a way for Armada to allow a two activation build to be competitive, I would say that they’ve balanced it nearly perfect.
UK National Championship 2nd place was a two activation fleet. I'd say that's pretty competitive.
A badminton racket is perfectly balanced, despite the two ends being completely different.
What weighs more, a tonne of feathers or a tonne of steel?
Something I've thought might help the last-first problem, was if Initiative was determined not by points, but by number of ships (or maybe activations- looking at you, SAd) . The player with fewer ships/activations would get to decide first or second player, and in the event of a tie it could fall back on points.
This would mean that a player could only achieve a last-first if their opponent had fewer ships and chose to give them first player. It would also largely remove point bids, which is a mechanic I have always hated.
However, a downside would be that it would further push MSU lists out of favor.
Edited by Lochlan17 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:A badminton racket is perfectly balanced, despite the two ends being completely different.
Is it? Despite the top end having all the fun and the bottom end getting all the sweat?
1 minute ago, Lochlan said:Something I've thought might help the last-first problem, was if Initiative was determined not by points, but by number of ships (or maybe activations- looking at you, SAd) . The player with fewer ships/activations would get to decide first or second player, and in the event of a tie it could fall back on points.
This would mean that a player could only achieve a last-first if their opponent had fewer ships and chose to give them first player. It would also largely remove point bids, which is a mechanic I have always hated.
However, a downside would be that it would further push MSU lists out of favor.
Yep. Everyone pushing for max activations just to choose first and last-first as much as he can. That's would be the consequence.
19 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:What weighs more, a tonne of feathers or a tonne of steel?
In space? It will depend on the speed (somehow).
4 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:In space? It will depend on the speed (somehow).
This thread (and many recently)
4 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:Yep. Everyone pushing for max activations just to choose first and last-first as much as he can. That's would be the consequence.
No, the player with FEWER ships chooses initiative. So if I have 3 ISDs and you have a 7 ship swarm, I get to choose to go first. Even if my list is 400 points and yours is 385.
15 minutes ago, Lochlan said:No, the player with FEWER ships chooses initiative. So if I have 3 ISDs and you have a 7 ship swarm, I get to choose to go first. Even if my list is 400 points and yours is 385.
Would one relatively small change be to have a rule that a ship can't activate twice in a row? So first player can still be first just not do a double move.
What if we all tried playing the game instead of turning this into another thread about how Last-First is broken and unbeatable and needs to be changed?
Boy I sure wish there were upgrades in wave 7 that automatically let you go last or automatically first in one specific round! If only those existed!!!
Just now, geek19 said:What if we all tried playing the game instead of turning this into another thread about how Last-First is broken and unbeatable and needs to be changed?
Boy I sure wish there were upgrades in wave 7 that automatically let you go last or automatically first in one specific round! If only those existed!!!
But that would be broken and would threathen our very way of life, sir!
Surely, pugs (yes, PUGS) would fly ans dogs would lay with cats!
Really, it boils down to what your definition of "balanced" is.
For some people it's being statistically evenly distributed in high level play in terms of faction, activations, fighters, whatever else data is collected. The trend of activations vs chance of being the top four at a regional last year comes to mind as a pretty easy to identify imbalance.
From a design perspective, it's whatever convinces people to buy more tiny(and not so tiny) plastic spaceships. When players were using effectively the same rebel fighter list for a very long time, I posited the question "What could be released that would make you change your fleet"(read as buy more and varied stuff). The answer seems to have been that FFG couldn't figure out a way, so they just did a FAQ that reduced it's power.
The trick is releasing new content without power creep, or making FAQs that nerf combos too much too fast and annoy the playerbase.
8 hours ago, jocke01 said:Armada is balanced in a large picture. Internal balance is a bit wacked.
There exist several squadrons that never sees play and feels overcosted or poorly designed. Han solo for example, rouge gets overshadowed by his ability and such high cost for a non scatter cost makes him hard to field.
Some ships pretty much work thanks to a single title. Demolisher, yavaris for example.
I have some gripes with the general rules in armada like the importance of initiative, I far prefer the system in legion.
Lastly with the latest expansion I find that they pointfortress problem have come to armada. Isd or mc80 with reinforced blast doors, brunson/lando and spamming enginering commands can hold over 200 points locked away. I find msu have big problems with this since you get 0 points if that ship stands on 1-2 hp at the end of round six. The activation advantage is no longer there thanks to strategic advisor and pryce.
Han solo just got to top 8 of US Nationals, so I'm not sure where that comes from. Han and Hera and many other Rogues are seeing a resurgence with the changes to Relay.
If you are talking at the highest skill levels than I would say yes it is, if you are asking at the lowest skill levels than I would say no it is not. Where it becomes balanced it a question that I do not have an answer to. I feel that the Rebels are much easier to build a good fleet around as they have lots of options that are all good, the Empire takes more skill as they do not have near as many all round good options, but in some ways have more synergy. I also feel that there is a Empire tax on some of there stuff, whether it is intended or not I can not say, but think it is not just a unconscious Rebel biased. So back to the original question, final answer, my thought is kind of, but not fully. Or about as good as you can get with a game but also easy to exploit the parts that are not if players try to.
This question is impossible without an explication of what you mean by "balanced."
I don't say that too be snarky, but because there are so many different common notions of "game balance" that are used by people.
If you mean:
In meetings of two roughly equally skilled players where Imperials are paired against Rebels, will the win rate for each faction be about 50%?
That is a very different question from:
For the most part, between players of relatively equal skill, are games decided more by on-table decisions or more by the pairing (lists) and/or the dice (variance)?
Which is still different from:
Generally speaking, is it possible to build competitively viable lists using the majority of the ship, squadron, and upgrade options available to a fleet, or are some options over-efficient or under-efficient?
Personally, I think the answer to these questions is No, No, and NO. But, to be fair, compared to relative s---shows like X-Wing 1.0 or Attack Wing, Armada is better balanced in all regards than those games. But that's a pretty low bar and kind of like a race to the bottom. I've certainly played much better balanced games by these metrics, too (e.g. Blood Bowl, LRB edition).
I have found the game balanced and matches with canon sources.
9 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:If you mean:
In meetings of two roughly equally skilled players where Imperials are paired against Rebels, will the win rate for each faction be about 50%?Which is still different from:
Generally speaking, is it possible to build competitively viable lists using the majority of the ship, squadron, and upgrade options available to a fleet, or are some options over-efficient or under-efficient?
These 2 points mainly, I don't expect every list to compete equally well against all possible lists.
I do think that the Rebels have better internal balance, because they arguably don't have ships that need fixers.
1 hour ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:This question is impossible without an explication of what you mean by "balanced."
I don't say that too be snarky, but because there are so many different common notions of "game balance" that are used by people.
If you mean:
In meetings of two roughly equally skilled players where Imperials are paired against Rebels, will the win rate for each faction be about 50%?
That is a very different question from:
For the most part, between players of relatively equal skill, are games decided more by on-table decisions or more by the pairing (lists) and/or the dice (variance)?
Which is still different from:
Generally speaking, is it possible to build competitively viable lists using the majority of the ship, squadron, and upgrade options available to a fleet, or are some options over-efficient or under-efficient?
Personally, I think the answer to these questions is No, No, and NO. But, to be fair, compared to relative s---shows like X-Wing 1.0 or Attack Wing, Armada is better balanced in all regards than those games. But that's a pretty low bar and kind of like a race to the bottom. I've certainly played much better balanced games by these metrics, too (e.g. Blood Bowl, LRB edition).
Question 2 cannot be answered with Yes/No
It's balanced enough.
By the sheer fate of game design you don't have good cards, units or ships without there inherently being bad ones by comparison.
8 hours ago, Green Knight said:Question 2 cannot be answered with Yes/No
It could easily be rephrased as such?
I guess I missing your point?
2 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:It could easily be rephrased as such?
I guess I missing your point?
It was a snide way of saying 'I don't agree with a single word of what you wrote'.
Sorry.
I used to think Victory was weak. I used it as a carrier for my Sloane fleet (along with Demolisher), won 3 tournaments with it last year and I changed my mind.
I used to think Interdictor was weak. After trying out the Brunson / Targeting Scrambler / Heavy Ion Emplacements combo I have a healthy dose of respect for that ship.
I used to think that Phantoms are gimmicky and pointless. After Ginkapo showed me what they can do with Sloane I no longer think so.
I used to think Pelta was weak. I won European championships with it this summer. It is one of my favorite ships now.
The longer I play this game the more I come to the conclusion that there are no weak ships in this game. Only those you haven't found good use for yet.
Armada is in a pretty good spot balance-wise.
4 minutes ago, Lightrock said:I used to think Victory was weak. I used it as a carrier for my Sloane fleet (along with Demolisher), won 3 tournaments with it last year and I changed my mind.
I used to think Interdictor was weak. After trying out the Brunson / Targeting Scrambler / Heavy Ion Emplacements combo I have a healthy dose of respect for that ship.
I used to think that Phantoms are gimmicky and pointless. After Ginkapo showed me what they can do with Sloane I no longer think so.
I used to think Pelta was weak. I won European championships with it this summer. It is one of my favorite ships now.
The longer I play this game the more I come to the conclusion that there are no weak ships in this game. Only those you haven't found good use for yet.
Armada is in a pretty good spot balance-wise.
anecdotes ?
?
13 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:Han solo just got to top 8 of US Nationals, so I'm not sure where that comes from. Han and Hera and many other Rogues are seeing a resurgence with the changes to Relay.
Cool, i just find dash or 2 b-wings way more effective. Maybe I'm wrong