Jump to content
S.Derek

Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, WestAustralian said:

The Main thing I want is for the Teir 3 choices to be more impactful in games. 

I am tired of players taking minimum strength T3 squadrons and TAC joining them. Every level, every ship should be worthwhile 

At this point I fill my T3s with Light Cruisers just about every game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WestAustralian said:

The Main thing I want is for the Teir 3 choices to be more impactful in games. 

I am tired of players taking minimum strength T3 squadrons and TAC joining them. Every level, every ship should be worthwhile 

Well some of have to do this given the price of our T3 ships. As a Hawker (and Tarakian) player there are common point spreads that force you to take the TAC-joining in order to meet your minimum squadron requirements.  The immediate -1 to Battle Log is more than a fair price to pay for this, I'm sorry you have players who abuse it, but don't screw me into crippled or downgraded fleet builds just because you're lucky enough to have cheap T3's, and don't like some min-maxer's annoying habit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WestAustralian said:

The Main thing I want is for the Teir 3 choices to be more impactful in games. 

I am tired of players taking minimum strength T3 squadrons and TAC joining them. Every level, every ship should be worthwhile 

Some t3 are better than others like Terran or Dindrenzi. Also i think it would go a long way if we had something more concrete in regards to what is in the beta test so far . Also some people here suggested that if 3.0 is bad we carry on playing with 2.0 rules. Are new ships going to be 2.0 compatible rules wise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Commodore Jones said:

Well some of have to do this given the price of our T3 ships. As a Hawker (and Tarakian) player there are common point spreads that force you to take the TAC-joining in order to meet your minimum squadron requirements.  The immediate -1 to Battle Log is more than a fair price to pay for this, I'm sorry you have players who abuse it, but don't screw me into crippled or downgraded fleet builds just because you're lucky enough to have cheap T3's, and don't like some min-maxer's annoying habit!

Hey Bro chill, I was never suggesting that players be forced to max their T3 in their games. I just want the problems like you have resolved. Overpriced ships, underpowered T3's that kind of thing. I have no problem with taking minimums in a build, sometimes it's the only wise choice, I just wish it wasn't the only wise choice.

The Improbable Ideal is a Game where there are no "must haves" and no "must avoid". 

I can dream

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, CoreHunter said:

I will be selling quiet a bit of terrans for cheap.

Oooooo, More Terrans to paint:D! Your loss is my gain!

12 hours ago, Xerkics said:

Also some people here suggested that if 3.0 is bad we carry on playing with 2.0 rules. Are new ships going to be 2.0 compatible rules wise?

If they aren't, we will make them work! Besides they have a point. If you don't like the new ruleset stick to the old one. Surely the community can come up with ways to make them better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, WestAustralian said:

Hey Bro chill, I was never suggesting that players be forced to max their T3 in their games. I just want the problems like you have resolved. Overpriced ships, underpowered T3's that kind of thing. I have no problem with taking minimums in a build, sometimes it's the only wise choice, I just wish it wasn't the only wise choice.

The Improbable Ideal is a Game where there are no "must haves" and no "must avoid". 

I can dream

Sorry, just so used to people's first reaction to the issue is banning the Regroup TAC or banning being able to use it that way.

I don't think the Hawker frigate is overpriced, it's well worth its cost. But it's not worth having drop a Carrier or Cruiser squad in exchange for a frigate squad just because you go from a 800 to 900 point build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

does anyone remember Brian Schumacher aka DarkExcaliber42 he came up with DX42'S HOUSE RULES and was downloaded to the blackocean's site. I am sure we can come up with something even if it is a updated version of DX42's . The full title is DX42's HOUSE RULES perfecting the V2 changes & including lost V1 content. DX42 gave up fighting with spartan and moved on from firestorm. I have been here since V1.5 and my first handle was wanklesnavy. I guess my point is I've seen a lot come and go and I feel there is nothing WE can't fix. even though spartan's  V3 could a bust. yes it would be nice to have rules for turnament play, but there is always the old V2 to fall back on. or something like DX42's house rules to base turnie rules on. So lets take a wait and see what happens with the new rules before everyone has a **** hemerage. there is still a lot of queations that need to be answered by Spartan. I still do not know how command points are to work, so I will ask my origenal question. Command points is based on your tac bonus points. again is your command points regenerated after each game turn or once you use them there gone ????? come on Spartan throw us a bone here. all I have been told is that it is now part of the new rule set.  we need more info to keep positive input flowing. I would have been nice if basic rules that were being concsidered for up dates posted and not kept us in the dark. granted it is your company and you have the right to run your business the way you want. BUT  from my point of view if you want a healthy debate of the new rules on an open forum information on the direction you intend to go in is a must. I will not get into the so called updates we never got as part. enough has been said about that already. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still remember him!

But I have seen fan based rules in other Systems, with no Support from the Company, (or even with the companies gone)
A Group of fans can will not be able to support a game in the long term, so this Kind of effort is futile. Those who don't like the changes can stay at V2 and Play that in their Group and most Groups should be able to deduce V2 stats for  potential new ship.

The only game I know of that has survived without full Support of the original Company is Bloodbowl, but in this case several small companies provided their own Fantasy Football rules and sold the Teams so Players could play Bloodbowl with them. and of course GW, will do a new print every few years, to earn some Money.

The Fan base for FSA is not big enough for something like that, at least not in Germany, and I doubt that it is in UK and US.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The new Critical Hit Table and embedded Sub-systems Critical Table is also stable, with results that cover non-effects now registering a detrimental effect too - Dindrenzi Ships with no Cloaking System or Shield Array now take a Disorder Marker on the Defences Offline Result, for example.

I like this!  We're going to implement this in v2.0 right now! With one minor exception, the Disorder Marker gained this way will only affect the hit ship instead of the whole squadron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hahnc77 said:

I still remember him!

But I have seen fan based rules in other Systems, with no Support from the Company, (or even with the companies gone)
A Group of fans can will not be able to support a game in the long term, so this Kind of effort is futile. Those who don't like the changes can stay at V2 and Play that in their Group and most Groups should be able to deduce V2 stats for  potential new ship.

The only game I know of that has survived without full Support of the original Company is Bloodbowl, but in this case several small companies provided their own Fantasy Football rules and sold the Teams so Players could play Bloodbowl with them. and of course GW, will do a new print every few years, to earn some Money.

The Fan base for FSA is not big enough for something like that, at least not in Germany, and I doubt that it is in UK and US.

 

 

On 5/19/2017 at 9:19 AM, Frans said:

hahnc77 is correct the fan base isn't big enough here in thew US or for that mater else where to support the game, on that level, and who's fault is that. this could be bigger than 40k. and we all know it is a much better game even with all it's bad points. We should have the number 1 game out there. But that does not stop me from giving  everything I have in making it so. I guess what I am saying Spartan needs to be more forth coming with information on how they or in what direction they want to take the game. Spartan isn't or hasn't given full disclosure on any of the new rules they want to add. At least I haven't seen everything they intend to add. all we have seen is what they are willing to give up. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@murphy'slawofcombat you could have signed up as beta tester!

It is not bigger then 40k, and will never be!
Even if it is my favourite game, it is still a niche and will stay there, most Spacenerds here are either collectiing Star Wars or Star trek, the IMO better series like Babylon 5 or Battlestar Galactica are already very rare, so the Firestorm Univers is not drawing much Attention.

I know several Players that  started here with the inted to use the rules together with ships from their favourite faction, or wanted to use the ships in Battle fleet gothic (since those ships are  expensive and rare on ebay. From there they are then slowly drawn into FSA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just going to answer a couple of questions

"Will V3 releases be V2 compatible?" - highly doubt it. any new ships will be designed around V3! Why would Spartan support two versions of the same game? 

 

@murphy'slawofcombat - I'm sure Derek has posted about command points somewhere.... here or over in the Planetfall section. I think he put up the alpha version of the Sorylian Faction commands? In short the number of command points you start with depends upon your faction and the size of the game. There is also a cost to buying more. There will be some sort of inverse relationship with the FTB.

They are a limited pool, spend them wisely. I like to think of them as a more flexible, reactive, TAC system. OK, there is no "buy back" but 9/10 it was the player who was in the lead doing this to compound their victory. It was also nearly always Drives to Max and Intel Gathered. Some people *looks around* dont seem to like the concept of "placed shots" (Focus Fire) being introduced into Armada with the different weapon types/ranges and think every one will just focus fire, focus fire, focus fire all the time. You can... but you will quickly run out of command points and be cursing yourself later in the game. Seriously, like really bad words.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kaptyn Krys, so if the problem with placed shots was that if you sat still you could throw then out turn after turn, then the issue is solved- at least in theory- by being restricted to certain range bands based on a weapon being Primary, Secondary, or Tertiary, and the fact that it'll use a resource that is limited and useful for other actions. Do the testers have any games where a player masses Command and tries to claim the bonus for every shot in the game? Is there any evidence that it wouldn't be worthwhile to take the 1/4 or 1/3 smaller fleet and have every attack have the +1 to hit?

 

Hypothetically that's a .2 hits-per-die increase. In other games I might dismiss that out of hand, but since this game uses damage thresholds, that's a more marked increase than it looks. I'm not convinced it's worth it, though, given the cost, particularly outside of the 5pts per Command factions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK thanks for clearing up the point on command points and here is and interesting thought on placed shots. as a Terran player and packing nukes almost all the time. A placed shot on PD with a fallow up with nukes and or bombers..:D.....Now I will assume that the 4" rule will still be kept around a 4" planet....ie  when around a planet and within 3" of said planet you gain an extra 4" to your movement if you want it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Kaptyn Krys said:

Placed shot on PD? 

Think your getting mixed up. Focus Fire is +1 to hit in a specific ranged band. Targeted Strikes are a seperate Firing Option with a -1 to hit, much like now. 

Ahh, so even in V3 nobody is ever going to use Targeted Strikes unless you're Aquan or Directorate, same as it is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I finally started using my Facebook page and discovered how this $#!t sucks.

Quote

Mines as they are have gone. No more drive byes or weird swing maneuvers to spit mines out. Most ships that had mines now have range band 1 rear arc torps with scatter. Should keep those corvettes cautious.

Mines were fine, the only thing they needed in V2 was some way to counter!  SRS detonation from V1.0, or maybe give Support Shuttles a mine-disarming ability or something. 

But complete removal!?!?  Now look at what you whining wussy's have done! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Commodore Jones said:

Well I finally started using my Facebook page and discovered how this $#!t sucks.

Mines were fine, the only thing they needed in V2 was some way to counter!  SRS detonation from V1.0, or maybe give Support Shuttles a mine-disarming ability or something. 

But complete removal!?!?  Now look at what you whining wussy's have done! 

I couldn't agree more. Mines offered an out of sequence defense method that threatened squadrons. Certain factions could abuse them (which naturally should have been addressed in V3 and many solutions were proposed), but as a corvette squadron (or any other), I wouldn't be scared of a RB1 torpedo weapon, just shoot my target after it has been activated... If it's the same strength as mines today... Aaargh. Must... stop... theorystorm....

Maybe I shouldn't be so negative, so I'll do some testing, but removing interesting parts of a game isn't the same as addressing the problems they cause (in my book at least).

*gathers toy spaceships and buckets of dice grumbling something about testing some s**t out*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If what Commodore Jones has cited is true about mines well that is quite frankly a negative response to the issue of mines.

RB1 torpedoes with Scatter? That's not a unique and tactical weapon system, that's homogenization and picking the lazy way out. So now Dindrenzi can't mine a terrain chokepoint that they pass through at the start of a match to deter flankers that may arrive from shunt or reserves from exploiting the typical Dindrenzi weakness.

IIRC the chief complaint was drive-by mining with placement/timing issues being a second concern, there were options and fixes presented that addressed drive-bys and to varying degrees dealt with the second issue.

Instead we get the total removal of a unique weapon system that had value and unique tactical options and replaced with a torpedoes that have Scatter. The shift in game dynamic is unwarranted compared to the "issue" mines presented and from a consistency point of view Scatter torps, but only on the rear arc is just logic breaking. So a Titan/Ares can have all-around torps, but only, only the super special Aft ones are Scatter because it requires a super special launcher/ammo/mechanism that no-one has figured out how to employ in any other capacity. Also the fact they won't link.

This removal of mines is simply the lazy way out of a not even large problem the weapon system presented. SRS causes more problems in game than mines in my experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh, mines! I think I have a trauma about aquans and their mines drive-byes :(:rolleyes:

IMO it will be enough (and logical) to check if a mine is detonated just in the moment they are deployed, so no drive by unless you want to blow up too

 

Another possibility is to have the mines wait for one turn to arm themselves (their token will have an armed/un-armed side, so they are flipped at the end of the turn.

Edited by Captain_Dan
Another idea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • 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.