8 minutes ago, FreakinUnoriginal said:Based on the live stream this summer, ship (and squadron) points would be covered in an updated rules reference when they could get to it, but that was not something they'd be looking at until a while after Clone Wars launch.
I vaguely recall this. Didn't Michael Gernes say they wanted to focus on getting Clone Wars to market before they made any changes to the old factions? Or something like that?
3 hours ago, >kkj said:Eh you so sure about that? I think the majority of the long-time players here have a pretty good feeling about what many of the problematic cards should cost. All the Devs would need to do is make a community survey and bam they have access to the biggest playtesting community ever.
I barely trust the playtesters I know and or work with, let alone random people in the community....
3 hours ago, >kkj said:Very often it feels to me like the Devs only realize/fix problems years after the community already figured them out and had countless ideas for changes. FFG wasnt very good at engaging with the community, so hopefully AMG can go a different route with this and listen to player feedback more often/sooner.
Let's hope so!
Lets just hope AMG doesn't listen to the same people FFG listened to.
Maybe AMG will get all new play testers. Start over with a clean slate.
12 minutes ago, RapidReload said:Lets just hope AMG doesn't listen to the same people FFG listened to.
Wow
Do you think the change is overall negative?
I think the direction Armada went since and including the SSD is mostly (not exclusively) downwards.
13 minutes ago, RapidReload said:I think the direction Armada went since and including the SSD is mostly (not exclusively) downwards.
Then quit.
Just now, Ginkapo said:Then quit.
You are hilarious.
23 minutes ago, RapidReload said:You are hilarious.
I'm not the one who insulted a large part of the community and slagged of the game. If you dont like it, quit. Nobody is making you play.
I did not do that, but people can read for themselves.
Setting your sad and frequent attempts at bullying aside.
48 minutes ago, RapidReload said:I did not do that, but people can read for themselves.
Setting your sad and frequent attempts at bullying aside.
No, you merely said that the hard and dedicated work of a large group of people whose sole aim is to help improve and continue to make the the game better was a failure and that they should all be removed from the role. Not rude at all.
23 hours ago, hufflazon said:I really don't think that's the spirit of the rule because it would mean that if I just didn't bring any exhaust cards all of yours would be single use. You mean I can totally shut down your APTs and ECMs in list building? Yes please. I'm pretty sure they would have thought of that.
Yeah you're making me rethink this. I think it's strangely worded but with that line of thinking you mention, I think you (and the others) are probably right.
7 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:No, you merely said that the hard and dedicated work of a large group of people whose sole aim is to help improve and continue to make the the game better was a failure before you'd even tried using the products of their work and that they should all be removed from the role.
FTFY.
@RapidReload : I'm not shy about the fact that there are things I'm not happy about in the errata, but I'm also not out here disparaging the competence of the people working on it. "I think the pass mechanic coupled with the ace nerf is going to lead to a proliferation of unstoppable dual ISD Christmas Trees" is an concrete objection that doesn't **** on people. "Almost everything since the SSD has been garbage" is not.
Like Gink said: if it's so bad you think that everyone who worked on it should be fired, feel empowered to fire them by not participating anymore. If the community is as firmly crystallized behind your personal opinions as you seem to think it is, it should be pretty trivial for you to write your own custom errata and persuade everybody around you to play that instead.
7 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:FTFY.
@RapidReload : I'm not shy about the fact that there are things I'm not happy about in the errata, but I'm also not out here disparaging the competence of the people working on it. "I think the pass mechanic coupled with the ace nerf is going to lead to a proliferation of unstoppable dual ISD Christmas Trees" is an concrete objection that doesn't **** on people. "Almost everything since the SSD has been garbage" is not.
Like Gink said: if it's so bad you think that everyone who worked on it should be fired, feel empowered to fire them by not participating anymore. If the community is as firmly crystallized behind your personal opinions as you seem to think it is, it should be pretty trivial for you to write your own custom errata and persuade everybody around you to play that instead.
I will also publicly note, as I already did on the Steel Strategy podcast there are elements of the errata I don't agree with either, I would have preferred we address, or would have preferred a subtly different route than what FFG decided. I'll be straight, I don't think of every other tester as a personal friend, nor do I agree with all of them about all of the changes. That said, I respect and appreciate the genuine effort and hard work put forward by everyone, and I will not let casual insults that don't even bother to own up to their nature pass me easily by.
1 hour ago, Ginkapo said:I'm not the one who insulted a large part of the community and slagged of the game. If you dont like it, quit. Nobody is making you play.
Isn't "If you don't like it, quit" basically what the Disney hacks and apologists told Star Wars fans when we justly criticized the Disney Trilogy?
That disrespectfully dismissive attitude is demonstrative of an overly defensive person in deep denial, bordering on delusion.
The first step to solving any problem is recognizing the problem exists. That should be the epitaph of the year 2020.
Based on my reading of the new Rules, the updates are positive overall, however, it seems that FFG's priority was nerfing the great, popular upgrade cards, but completely ignored the less popular cards that needed to be changed to become good and used more often.
For example, the Avenger and Demolisher ship titles have been nerfed, but the Devastator, Dominator, and Insidious titles are un-changed. Doesn't it make sense to improve more cards so they're used more often, thereby providing more variety? Rather than focus only on the cards that are used most often, and deliberately making those cards worse?
The only players who will be "happy" about cards being made worse are opponents . But those opponent-players are probably just as upset that their favourite cards have been nerfed.
Any Armada player expressing disappointment and dissatisfaction about the changes aren't disrespecting FFG and the work they've done; they're simply expressing their opinions, which everyone is entitled to. It certainly won't make the Armada game or Armada community better if dissatisfied players choose to quit the game, rather than offer their suggestons and constructive criticisms about how the game can be improved. It's incredibly disrespectful and insulting to long-time Armada players to tell them to quit the game, just because you are overly sensitive to other people's opinions and constructive criticisms, and misinterpret them as "insults".
8 hours ago, geek19 said:I barely trust the playtesters I know and or work with, let alone random people in the community....
Let's hope so!
I suggested a hard cap on aces like 2 years ago. So hey, maybe I'm not that random xD
1 hour ago, Captain Corvid said:Based on my reading of the new Rules, the updates are positive overall, however, it seems that FFG's priority was nerfing the great, popular upgrade cards, but completely ignored the less popular cards that needed to be changed to become good and used more often.
This is a valid criticism. Casually insulting playtesters like this
4 hours ago, RapidReload said:Lets just hope AMG doesn't listen to the same people FFG listened to.
is not.
1 hour ago, Captain Corvid said:For example, the Avenger and Demolisher ship titles have been nerfed, but the Devastator, Dominator, and Insidious titles are un-changed. Doesn't it make sense to improve more cards so they're used more often, thereby providing more variety? Rather than focus only on the cards that are used most often, and deliberately making those cards worse?
There certainly several cards that are poor enough to justify possible improvement. General Madine comes to mind. The general issue is that if you are trying to improve everything to the level of Demolisher and ECM, you are very likely to remove the capabilities of ships as the driving element of the game, but finding the latest and greatest most powerful combinations of cards. There is no upper limit on "Well let's buff the poor things into line with the greatest things". And you have to go that far, because in upgrade slots with truly dominant options (e.g. DR and ECM), good is not good enough.
Again, there are plenty of cards that probably could have been buffed, but that can't be the only move. Nerfing dominant cards is the other half of good balance management.
1 hour ago, Captain Corvid said:The only players who will be "happy" about cards being made worse are opponents . But those opponent-players are probably just as upset that their favourite cards have been nerfed.
Frankly, on a certain level this is the point. Games are played by two people. One person having fun winning with NPE cards doesn't well justify the other person having the terrible time, not when the game can be moved towards a state where one person can still win without those NPEs and both players can feel that they did well and played well and it wasn't a combination of cards that won but a match of player skill and dice.
1 hour ago, Captain Corvid said:Any Armada player expressing disappointment and dissatisfaction about the changes aren't disrespecting FFG and the work they've done; they're simply expressing their opinions, which everyone is entitled to. It certainly won't make the Armada game or Armada community better if dissatisfied players choose to quit the game, rather than offer their suggestons and constructive criticisms about how the game can be improved. It's incredibly disrespectful and insulting to long-time Armada players to tell them to quit the game, just because you are overly sensitive to other people's opinions and constructive criticisms, and misinterpret them as "insults".
Read the above. Read what he actually wrote, as opposed to what you wanted him to have said. I am personally more than happy to hear constructive criticisms and suggestions to improve the game. That's not what was offered, and that's not what Gink was answering. He was not sensitive, he responded appropriately.
Edited by GiledPallaeon1 hour ago, GiledPallaeon said:Read the above. Read what he actually wrote, as opposed to what you wanted him to have said. I am personally more than happy to hear constructive criticisms and suggestions to improve the game. That's not what was offered, and that's not what Gink was answering. He was not sensitive, he responded appropriately.
Gink's "Armada: Love it or leave it" attitude was just as toxic , and completely inappropriate.
The only time it's acceptable to "like something or get out" is when eating dinner at your mother-in-law's house. š
Everyone can of course express their opinions. However, everyone should own the manner in which those opinions are expressed.
āThis game has gone downhill for a whileā is a criticism for sure. It is not constructive in any way shape or form, other than identifying that one person is dissatisfied. No reasons given. No suggestions on how they would like to see things improve.
Casually devaluing the volunteer work of play testers is for sure going to arouse some strong opinions in response. Thatās life. You can choose to be blunt, obtuse, disrespectful, and unhelpful when you express your opinions. Or you could phrase your criticisms in a less offensive manner. In fact, manners really are the issue here. But I guess itās the internet and Iām old fashioned in expecting everyone to use them.
Now, to the subject of nerfs vs boosts - i agree that it was a missed opportunity. For sure there are titles that could use a boost. I suppose it could be possible that there wasnāt time to do everything they wanted....testing and balancing does take time after all. Rebalancing *everything* is a tall order.
I do hope that we will see the boosts for lesser used cards eventually. Again, a missed opportunity. Cards like Independence remain overpriced and could use a points decrease, if not a reworking of the title.
(See, now thatās constructive criticism š ).
So I'll be more specific since my meaning was admittedly vague. What I am expressing now is my opinion and not verifyed fact so take it as that.
My comment referred to my belief that the decision making process on what changes will be given to play testers was not made by the developers alone but influenced by a small number of people that the game designers had personal contact with and listened too. I come to this belief based on a few interactions with play testers, by the behavior of some people on this forum, by the way in which game designers chose to communicate and/or leak information to the actual community and by the actual changes. I am not saying that the fact that the designers (maybe) did this is necessarily bad, especially if they are not as familiar with the game than some members of the community, I am saying ... this (except):
6 hours ago, GiledPallaeon said:No, you merely said that the hard and dedicated work of a large group of people whose sole aim is to help improve and continue to make the the game better was a failure and that they should all be removed from the role. Not rude at all.
except I do not belief that this is a large group of people as I am NOT referring to the play testers. They "only" test what is given to them and give back feedback which is often mostly ignored as I understand it. Is it rude to say that I belief that the result of the work of these "influencers" (for a lack of a better term) is mostly unsatisfactory and they therefore should not do it anymore? I guess you should ask your boss what she/he thinks. I doubt (hope not) that there is any money involved anyway, so these influencers would just loose some of their ... pride maybe, don't know what exactly they would loose?
I have no issue with play testers. As I understand it their interactions with FFG can be aggravating to them and most of them have little impact on what changes are actually tested by them.
Edited by RapidReloadA bit too much of a rabbit hole here.
Isnt it enough to accept that there were a few super powerful things in the game, and that bringing them back to the fold then creates space for a lot more diversity? Especially for the new factions coming in?
The alternative is ongoing powercreep, which is moaned about far more. If you dont fix yavaris, avenger etc, you have to bring something equally stupid in to the clone wars factions too if you want the game to grow at all.
I think theyve done a great job.
Worst case scenario, they could move to a yearly card pack that updates the most problematic dozen or so cards (up and down). But that wasnt the point of this exercise.
I love the changes, but can someone confirm they left rapid launch bays as it was? The card that for about a year nobody knew how to play, even with more space on the card now, still has the useless text printed on it?
1 minute ago, Xeletor said:I love the changes, but can someone confirm they left rapid launch bays as it was? The card that for about a year nobody knew how to play, even with more space on the card now, still has the useless text printed on it?
It's unchanged.
1 hour ago, Ophion said:A bit too much of a rabbit hole here.
Isnt it enough to accept that there were a few super powerful things in the game, and that bringing them back to the fold then creates space for a lot more diversity? Especially for the new factions coming in?
The alternative is ongoing powercreep, which is moaned about far more. If you dont fix yavaris, avenger etc, you have to bring something equally stupid in to the clone wars factions too if you want the game to grow at all.
I think theyve done a great job.
Worst case scenario, they could move to a yearly card pack that updates the most problematic dozen or so cards (up and down). But that wasnt the point of this exercise.
I'm not sure how much Avenger needed 'fixing', apart from its point cost. Put it up to 12pts, make it a discard if you have to. It's a great card IF you can make it work. The timing, the target, the tokens, all has to be right and it takes some skill to make it work. Considering there's now also Krysta Agate and the Starhawk, so Avenger no longer wipes out all the enemy ship's tokens, but 4 of a possible 5 or 6 - and doesn't Agate bypass Avenger's effect anyway?
13 hours ago, Ginkapo said:If you dont like it, quit. Nobody is making you play.
With that kind of logic you can never criticize anything. You think your doctor should NOT have broken all your teeth instead of fixing them? Dont go to the doctor then. Its a stupid arguement. I can still love this game and agree with the statement that the SSD, Starhawk and Onnager were all pretty boring and overpriced releases that didn't really impact the gamemeta all that much.
Edited by >kkj