Jump to content

Alex Mann

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Alex Mann last won the day on February 29 2020

Alex Mann had the most liked content!

About Alex Mann

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

2,948 profile views
  1. @Stoobert With some modifications it's a good system,: No requirement to change existing stats (TL0 = 360 degrees, TL1 = 270 , TL2 =180, TL3 = 90, TL 4 = 45). No need for waypoints (they'd just slow things down for really not much, if anything, in gain), The turning element also needs restriction, which is easy to do based on the same criteria. Doing this also makes it much easier to explain and demonstrate in pictures. Ships move in a straight line from a-b for purposes of collision detection Essentially decouples turning from speed, which broadens design possibilities No need for templates - ship base is sufficient (except for TL4 which would be rare and easy to fix)
  2. Have to 100% disagree on this one. The key question is: do these differences affect gameplay? The answer to all of these is yes, they do. Scatter weapons are only effective at close range - Sorylians want to close fast, not stay at range - this is a core piece of how they play in game Beams re-rolling 1s being negligible - not in the many games I've witnessed. It might seem a small difference, but again it affects how ships are moved in the game (whether it's desirable or not is another matter) Difference between 8" and 10" is definitely NOT insignificant - anyone who thinks this is missing some nuance of the game or hasn't played Relthoza. At RB3 that's 6" of difference, which (given a large ships movement restrictions) is usually more than enough to dance around the edges without getting caught- again a direct gameplay effect. In game design it's important to consider that how games are played in your area (the local meta) may or may not be the way games are played everywhere. Your experience thus becomes anecdotal, which is why games companies use larger (often global) groups to explore beta tests...it brings up things that have simply not been thought of, because we often find it difficult to take a different mindset. There's another thing here, and I think it's expressed by what happened with a certain RPG involving Dragons and underground vaults... ;-) v4 of that game was a horrible, bloated monstrosity filled with so much "difference" and variance that everything almost became the same. when they released v5, they streamlined - small differences often provide the best opportunities for interesting play. Just because the difference between X and Y is small doesn't necessarily mean the effect of that is. For example, take the Nereid Class Light Frigate - a DR4, CR4 ship...which most people didn't get to start with, except it has the Elusive Target and Reinforced Fore MARs. Now that means Capital class ships are only hitting on 6s, so two 6s destroys them, right? Not if you hit it from the front, when it's suddenly CR5 and will survive that shot - you need another 6. This makes them hard to swot on their fast, direct approach to a capital ship, to get into RB1 and use their rereoll 1 beam weapons to slice and dice... Now there are a bunch of subtleties there that come into that design, using small nuances of existing design rules. Differentiation of weapon types was a huge leap forward for Firestorm, I don't think a v3 needs to go backwards here.
  3. Any system that can't be explained easily in text and pictures needs changing. Whilst videos etc are all great, you have to design for the simplest scenario of "person gets a book and reads it" and can then play. You also need precision if you're going to have anything that has a hope of working in competitive/tournament play, which I believe is a key desire of many players. As soon as you start introducing things like "eyeball", "rough", "imagine" and "optional" things get messy fast. Look at the few optional rules in FSA v2 - they caused all sorts of headaches in play (casual and competitive)
  4. I think the battlelog was one of the really good introductions in v2, and playing without it is a retrograde step. Streamlining the mechanic is a good idea (for instance why are two players altering 2 battlelogs and then comparing the two? Just use one, as a "tug of war" - works just as well and its much easier to see the ebb & flow of battle (making it more "real" to the players) and easier then to implement game effects using it.
  5. That's a good point fracas - I think the main "objection" (if one can call it that) with a d12 is unfamiliarity, but in reality it's probably easier to transition a D6-based system to a D12 without altering "feel" in most respects.
  6. I believe alextroy is referring to standard deviation - this is reported on Anydice.com (which is a great tool, btw) Standard deviation should always be considered in games - why? It informs choices. For example, ask a player in D&D whether they prefer a weapon that does 1d12 damage or 2d6. Both have very similar averages (the D12 is 6.5, 2d6 is slightly higher at 7), but the variation on the D12 is MUCH higher - 3.45 vs 2.42. Essentially this tells you that the 2d6 gives more consistent, higher damage output, whereas the d12 is more "swingy". Of course, with that swing, comes a greater probability of doing MORE damage (at the price of conversely being more likely to also do LESS damage). Now, neither of these is considered better than the other by a large group of people, because people differ - some will go for the more consistent overall output - the "safe" option, if you like, whereas others will go for the single big stakes chance. Reflecting this in-game is important, and I would argue that it is not proven in any sense that gamers prefer less variation - it's how its presented and what their risk profile is. Exclusively catering to one or other of these profiles can dictate how popular your game is.
  7. Yes, Warcradle have specifically stated that Uncharted Seas is being actively worked on
  8. The FFG went with introducing the Black/Blue/Red mechanic as other Spartan games - it allows scalability and differentiation, and can be modelled without being completely predictable. Having said that, for me I'm not wedded to any particular dice, and in a Warcradle development zone I can completely see why the dice could change. I play D&D, and using different dice for different things is not going to break my enjoyment of the game! If, for example, I roll 5d10 instead of 5d6, am I more or less interested in the outcome? Turns out, I don't care what the dice are, because its the outcome that is important. So look at Shields - at the moment in v2 they're digital for a lot of ships - either on or off. Even a ship with 2 shields has a 25% chance of those shields doing nothing at all, which seems...odd. If you changed those shields to Black dice, and upped them by 1, you get a much flatter distribution, and half the chance of them doing nothing - making them more useful for smaller ships that have lower values. Now you do loose the runaway successes, but you can use this to your advantage in game design.... So now Shields use black dice, but you can have the Shield Modulator MAR boost those to Blue dice, making Shield cruisers very useful, without becoming completely OP, and making them useful for ships that already have the MAR, since you can have them boost up to Red dice. Easy way to rebalance the game and add flavour using a pre-existing mechanism. Would this be controversial? Probably! :-)
  9. Well, this falls into the realm of "opinion" rather than "fact" OctopusPrime (on both sides!)...as we don't know the physics to attempt any FTL travel at the moment, we're both just speculating - however, best estimates on 21st century basis suggest inertial dampening would be essential for any long-range space travel, for all sorts of reasons (which are way beyond the scope of this thread!). At the moment, however, I'm happy to settle with you say potato, I say... :-)
  10. HI Aaron, As an alternative viewpoint from Mike's involvement with the Spartan line on v3 and post-folding development, I led FA development prior to the "reinvention" of Firestorm by Spartan in their v3 of the game. We were working on a v2.5 back in 2015, and I can give you some thoughts from that, and what was developed into Fanstorm Armada in 2017 (though never released, since it didn't seem helpful with Warcradle working on the future version to introduce a v2 variant now). In all probability, Warcradle will not follow EITHER of these development paths - they have a completely different set of people working on this and will be coming at it from a different PoV. The community, however, will be involved, so in the end what we get will be Warcradle's development plus our feedback. Here are your questions answered with the original Firestorm Focus Group's development direction (my answers in red italic): General Mechanics Stats still staying the same, or any simplification (AP & CP combined or DR & CR combined) or expansion (MARs made stats) Firestorm has always been a threshold game, so no combination of DR/CR was seen as necessary - this has never come up as "too complex" in any playtesting or battle reports. Stats would likely be tweaked, but fundamentally mo major shifts Will MARS remain and if so how many will be left? Absolutely, but reworked to speed gameplay, with some being combined or trimmed Will Command Distance remain? In v2.5 & fanstorm, yes Will there only be one game system? i.e. no armada AND task force TaskForce was actually my idea, but then Neil had someone else write the rules, using only the name I'd come up with, and it was a dead horse on delivery. The main ruleset was to be adapted to have both a fast-play version AND a mass-fleet mechanic incorporated Will the battle tracker stay? Yes, but combined into a single one for both players Will the System Wars tie in with Planetfall change significantly? Refined and expanded rather than change TAC cards sticking around or moving to a command point system like the 3.0 beta or 40K 8th ed? This was to change to Command Allocation Dice, allowing Commanders to feature more Shunt deployment still in? Yes, but refined Targeted strikes still in? Yes, and made more useful - but limited by the CAD system SRS Will SRS stay as is where they act independently but most remain within command distance of ship? No, SRS were one of the main points of complaint and discussion Will SRS go back to independent elements that roam where they want? No, this was a major cause of extended play times and spamming in v1 Will SRS need to be assigned/attached to enemy ship within range for attack or be attached/assigned to friendly ship within range for PD defense? Attachment was a concept we came up with to mitigate the "PD bubble" problem associated with SRS in v2 Will Fighters/Interceptors be able to escort/defend other Fighters and bombers attacking enemy ships from enemy fighter PD? Yes, this was going to be handled through a mechanic known as "Combined Flights" How many types of SRS? The basic SRS types would not change from v2 - diversification is not really adding to gameplay, Will certain carriers only carry specific SRS as in the beta? Carriers should be able to carry anything - other ships, however, should be restricted - this would solve some of the "OP" nature associated with some races able to carry many SRS Will direct and indirect weapon types remain? Yes, no reason to change this part of the game Will there still be 4 weapon range bands Yes, again no reason to change this aspect of the game Will the beta primary, secondary, and tertiary weapon types from the BETA remain? God no - this was never considered for v2.5, and completely unnecessary How will mines work? Mines simply become secondary weapons with 4" rangebands, moving them into the weapons part of the turn and eliminating "driveby" minings simply How will linking fire work? We looked at this A LOT. The simplest way in the end was to print linked values that weapons gave - simplifying maths and allwing extra design space for easily linked (e.g. scatter) and more difficult to link weapons (e..g kinetic) Cyber Warfare still in? Absolutely! It's a fundamental part of how the Directorate work, but needed reworking to be a more consistent and less "Hero or Zero" mechanic Dice Still a D6 game? Yes, though a d10 system would absolutely work Will the dice mechanics change from buckets of dice to smaller numbers of dice? No Still exploding 6s? Yes Movement How will movement work, still like wet navy movement? Yes, as this is a fundamental part of the way the game works - it's essentially a game of placement and timing If movement stays relatively the same will there be a better/smaller movement template? Yes Will turning become 45 degree turns like halo? No Will movement use turn templates like Xwing? Templates yes, like X-Wing - No Defenses PD stay the same? Yes Shields still roll for effect, or flat modifier? Roll, though using a slightly different mechanic to make them more consistent and less "on or off" Will smaller ships remain harder to hit? Yes Will certain movement or maneuvers increase the difficulty to be hit? No Boarding Will boarding assaults (ship based and SRS based) still be an option? Yes Will boarders only inflict critical damage effects? Only, no Will boarders be able to cause hull point loss? Yes can boarders capture a ship? Yes Damage One critical damage table or multiples for different types of attacks? One How many damage statuses? Slightly less than current to reduce tokens Will crew loss still affect weapon degradation? No Will hull loss still affect weapon degradation? Yes How will weapon degradation affect linking fire? As linking mechanics change, hull loss is easier, since you just remove total hull loss from the total dice pool Ship classes Do you plan on adding to the classes of ships as was suggested in the kickstarter: Escort, Light Frigate, Frigate, Corvette, Drone, Cruiser, Light Cruiser, Shield Cruiser, Destroyer, Gunship, Escort Cruiser, Torpedo Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, Assault Cruiser, R&D Cruiser, Battlecruiser, Carrier, Battle Carrier, Heavy Carrier, Battleship, Dreadnought? No Do you plan on dropping any of the existing ship classes? Light Frigates = Corvettes Do you plan on introducing Leviathans? Yes Models (None of these are relevant to a developed ruleset) Will the models continue to move forward with magnetization in mind? Will the models continue to move forward with modularity in mind? Will there be new SRS stands with multiple 3D SRS on them? Will SRS get unique sculpts for each type Will some models be done in plastic? Factions how many factions major factions do you envision? 8 How many minor factions attached to the main factions? Main factions incorporate minor Will their be a major faction consisting of only minor factions? Yes Will the Saurians from the KS be added to the game? No Will the original Pathogen aesthetic remain, or will the Pathogen transform into all organic looking ships from the KS? Original Are all the existing major factions going to break up with some minor factions joining them while others go away? No Which minor factions are going away None will the RSN merge into the Dindrenzi? All these are specifics not dealt with in rules will the terquai merge into the terrans or aquans? will omnidyne and works raptor merge into the directorate? will hawker merge into terrans? will Veydreth merge into Sorylians? will Ba'Kash merge into Relthoza? will Syndicate and STL merge into terrans? will Ryushi, Xelocians, and Tarakians merge into new a major faction? will some combination of Illosians, Kedorians, Corsairs, and Oroshan merge into a new major faction? Fluff Will the history/timeline change significantly? No Will the original history/timeline remain intact and v3 advance the timeline into the future? Yes Will the Kurak Alliance be retconned to not have formed? No Will the Zenian League be retconned to not have formed? No Will the minor races grudges still exist (ryushi vs. kedorians and terquai vs. illosians) Yes How does shunting work? Is it hyperspace, warp, jump, wormhole tech? FSDs are Alcubierre drives, Relthoza use wormhole generation, others have other methods... Do some of the races have different variations of FTL? Yes Do the factions have inertial dampening tech so there ships can accelerate much faster than the 10 earth gravities humans would be limited to? Inertial dampening would be necessary in any space game involving FTL!
  11. Keep playing the game - keep promoting the game, keep showing your models and mentioning the community! Version 2 will remain for the majority of 2018, until the open beta, so introducing more people to the existing rules and expanding the community at a grass-roots level is a good thing - getting people involved in the Facebook groups and here, showing them that Warcradle is actively developing the game (and that they can be a part of that if they wish) can only be positive, yes?
  12. HI all - if you'd like to hear Stuart discuss the scale change a bit more, try listening to the latest edition of The Hub Systems Podcast, where Stuart spends a substantial period of time talking about all things ex-Spartan, including the AC scale change.
  13. If you want to hear some more on the topic - try Stuart's recent interview on The Hub Systems Podcast - Firestorm and Planetfall are discussed quite a bit!
  14. Here's my Christmas present to everyone - Episode 35 of The Hub Systems is now live, with a long interview with Stuart on all aspects of Warcradle Studios... http://mannmomo.blogspot.co.uk/p/the-hub-systems-podcast.html
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.