Jump to content
S.Derek

Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Captain_Dan said:

What bothers me is the assault system.

So it won´t be possible to capture a ship.  What happens then with factions that rely on assaults and capturing ships as their "way of life", like Corsairs, Ba'kash, Veydreth and Pathogen.  Special mention goes for the Pathogen, not capturing ships removes most of their mechanics.

 

I think boarding system should be kept otherwise is a downgrade of the rules, in my oppinion.

I honestly believe if capturing was removed in v3 Pathogen would get a special rule/ability/exemption to actually still capture and convert as it is their thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest - these are big changes to the game, which I don't understand the rationale behind - why can't I capture a ship? Why do I now need to pay to use my weapons? All of this is sounding unlike the current game :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Meatshield said:

I honestly believe if capturing was removed in v3 Pathogen would get a special rule/ability/exemption to actually still capture and convert as it is their thing.

I am pretty sure Spartan Derek doens't want to increase the number of MARs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Kaptyn Krys said:

His rough concept was a Dind cruiser has 4HP, and there fore, 4 power core points, PCP(?). The rail gun may require 2 PCP to use and the gunrack 1 PCP. so at 3HP/PCP your ship is probably still ok but when you get down to 2 you have to make that decision to fire the railgun or the gunrack. Aquans wouldn't be quite so discoball as after damage they will have to start thinking about what arcs to fire in. He also mentioned the possibility of a support type ship that could shuttle PCP between one ship and another in a squadron. Again, just a rough concept.

As a rough concept...not a fan.  As others noted the concept seems ok in theory for any ship with one main weapon system (Dindrenzi and Directorate, mostly) and one secondary.  But once you get to ships with 4 or more weapon systems, none of which are significantly stronger than others, or ships whose whole design is getting in the middle of an opponent and hitting multiple targets (like all 3 core Kurak alliance factions to one degree or another) you either hit balancing issues (if the cost is expensive) or it's irrelevant (if the cost is low).

Take a Skyhammer, for example, another 4 HP cruiser.  If you say each P/S broadside is 2 PCP, then a single point of damage halves it's firepower (on a ship and SQ built to take some hits on the way in but then get in the middle of the enemy and make up ground).  But if they are 1 point each then the first two points of damage are irrelevant.  Whereas a Terran or Aquan cruiser, even if each arc is only 1 PCP, starts losing firepower immediately (especially a turreted Terran). And if they are two points each they can't even fire all their weapons when undamaged.

Strikes me as one of those ideas that sound great when brainstorming with a beer, but would be a nightmare to actually implement, and for very little gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of Power Core on deeper reflection because it swings the game from degrading overall damage capacity a little to reducing weapons usable with no impact on the weapons used.

It will be a big hit to multiple weapon ships, but no effect on big weapons. Those will become binary, maximum dice or no attack. That will radically change balance in the game along with the feel.

Do I want to see simplier/faster calculations? Yes.

Do I want to eliminate zombie ships? Yes.

Do I still want damaged ships to do less damage on their attacks? Yes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been lurking on this thread for the last couple of days while I've mulled over the ideas being presented here.  I should mention that from a game design standpoint, that I'm considering the ideas being presented in the context of Task Force serving as the faster-paced and simpler version of Firestorm Armada.  In other words, I think that any simplification changes being made to this  game should vastly improve the player experience if they are going to detract from the game's  complexity and depth, which is what originally drew me to this game after I saw the changes from v1.0.  I think that 2.0 really only needs a little bit of tweaking in some areas, rather than what appears to be a much more extensive redesign being proposed.

1) I'd prefer to see TAC cards being altered instead, but I'd possibly be more open to this with more specifics.   There are certainly some individual TACs that don't get used or are of questionable value, but I think that the concept behind them is solid and cinematic which adds to the player experience while not being overly complex.  On  the other hand, C&C sounds like more numbers to keep track of, especially depending on how they interact with FTB.

2) I don't see any issue with this.

3) There is not enough information here for me to make a solid opinion.  However, I'm currently leaning against it because this mostly seems to be an extension of the power concept, which I dislike.

4) I don't see any issue with this.  I also really doubt that anyone would be opposed to getting more ship choices.

5) I think that this  could potentially be okay, but I also think that this falls into "if it's not broke don't fix it".  Aside from the "shields overload" critical effect specifically mentioned here, I do not see any other effects which wouldn't effect certain ships (unless we're talking about the odd ship which doesn't have any AP).  I think the easiest thing to do would be to simply alter the current effects which may not effect something in that general area which will definitely affect something.  For example, instead of shields/cloaking being disabled, perhaps the ship's CR or DR is reduced instead.

6) I'm not in favor of the power core mechanic for reasons already elaborated on here by other players.  That being said, I'm open to some of the other ideas being proposed here as alternatives.

7) This is the area I am most open to in terms of change, as I would to see more diversity in the types and numbers of SRSs being fielded.  That being said, I don't like the idea of ship's SRS loadouts being predetermined by the model.  Like Commodore Jones has already mentioned, I think this detracts from the player experience because it limits option.  I'd like to maybe see our current SRS stats and abilities being adjusted instead (perhaps making interceptors long-ranged but with less attack dice and in conjunction limiting the standard fighter's range being reduced).  I could potentially get behind the idea of ships having set standard, SRS loadouts with the option to upgrade to different SRS types with points.

8) This is another area which I think falls into the "if it's not broke, don't fix it".  It might be an anachronistic idea, but I really do like the idea of taking another ship as a prize.  That being said, I could see something like the proposed boarding concept as an another option for players to use in the game.  Instead of launching one main, all-out assault, perhaps they can launch a number of small, targeted assaults.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I partially agree with you Commodore. On one hand, the complexity always makes more deep the player experience, and allows to enjoy the game during more time. In that sense, things like special effects on critic attacks, the power decreasing of the damaged ships, terrain effects, weapon effects and types....all of this things improve the game experience. But on the other hand, thinking on competitive game, there are other things such as the movement system that makes slower the game, and this fact can be only solved by 2 ways: 

The first one, playing at less points, which allows to play an entire game in 2 hours (800 points could be good, or maybe 850, to unlock the dreadnoughts).

The second way, changing the things that reduces the game speed, in this case, as I said in previous post, the biggest problem in my opinion is the turning squad system, for tier 1 ships is not a problem, and for some of tier 2 ships too, since the squad is composed by 1-3 ships maximum, and move individually each one is not a big problem. But for tier 1 squads of 5-6 ships......I spend around 4 min to move "legally" all ships of the squad, performing the turnings using the scatter, aligning all ships properly....specially care to do not move other ships while I am placing the moved ship.....and the scatter to perform the 1-2 turn limit movements is difficult to place in these cases, since the other ships avoid the easy placing of the scatter on the board.....all these facts results in each movement phase spends easily more than 15-20 min in large games per player, which in fact, results in games of more than 3 hours......at this moment, this is the really big problem of the game I think. Of course, I am a noob of this game, so I would like if experienced or staff players have the same feelings of that thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Endrasalem said:

Can y'all just consider putting Torpedo Spook back on the Terran Dreadnaught so I have a reason to field it again?

If we're gonna talk specifics like that, I see no reason tge Sorylian Dread shouldn't have the Scatter Cannon back, or whatever it's called.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every ship in the fore fixed RB1 (possibly 2?) Got hit with the full AD of the weapon, rolling each seperatly. Giant space shotgun. Ate frigate squadrons.

Edit - I looked it up last night. RB1, roll the AD, apply to every ship in the fore fixed arc.

The Sorylian dread also had a line of for its "Tier 2 weapons systems".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/04/2017 at 4:16 PM, Captain_Dan said:

What bothers me is the assault system.

So it won´t be possible to capture a ship.  What happens then with factions that rely on assaults and capturing ships as their "way of life", like Corsairs, Ba'kash, Veydreth and Pathogen.  Special mention goes for the Pathogen, not capturing ships removes most of their mechanics.

 

I think boarding system should be kept otherwise is a downgrade of the rules, in my oppinion.

Agreed. Getting rid of boarding reeks of an attempt to homogenise playstyles, which will hurt the game in the long run. The sheer variety of options is one of FSA's biggest strengths, and any reduction in that is a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK lets try this again posted this on another thread by mistake this morning sorry about that Kaptyn krys........

Movement: Your friends in Ireland have a saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it" so as you can see I have no problem with movement. the only problem that I can see (and I'll use your Queens English so you get my drift ) GET RID OF THAT BLOODY OVER SIZED CARDBOARD TURNING TEMPLATE. You guys make beautiful models and there is no reason you can't make something smaller out of reason or plastic. I really don't think it'll brake the bank. 

Ad degradation :  I don't know if any of what has been said so far is all that good but I'm willing to keep an open mind and back anything that works better than what we have now. My only thought on this is to half the AD of the ship that is damaged add that to the link pool and half that.simple but don't know if that will work.

SRS: Do not hamstring a carrier by making it only take one or two types of craft. I can see that for a DN or a BB. and I still say that interceptors should have a Mv of 18 not 12. it is an Interceptor not a fighter let it intercept. 

Command points: not enough info was given out to make up my mind on it... from what I gather if you have a TB of 2 like a Terran then you get 10 command points , is that correct? how much command points does command orders coast? does command points regenerate after every game turn or you only get so meany and when there gone there gone? please I would like to have a little more info on this. 

Targeted strike: I like it, don't fix it, if anything give me a 50/50 chance of making my TS. for some of us there is nothing better than to TS a PD on a Dinzy and fallow up with Nuke torps or a bomber attack. " burn baby burn "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you wont be able to capture ships any more do you reckon it mean that dedicated boarding ships and biohazard MAR will get a discount or get upgunned? Like assault carriers assault cruisers or things like relthoza Bc for example? Cause you can only board once and if you can only do a targeting strike but cant capture its kind of a nerf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boarding should still be limited, to get a team of marines too say the engine room to do some damage, in the first place it should be almost impossible considering you have to get past an airlock, security personnel then assume the important areas of the ship have more defence troops, then by that time the boarded ship knows which area too send reinforcements etc etc, really boarding shouldn't be a thing or chance of success should be so slim its unbelievable:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Presidente said:

Boarding should still be limited, to get a team of marines too say the engine room to do some damage, in the first place it should be almost impossible considering you have to get past an airlock, security personnel then assume the important areas of the ship have more defence troops, then by that time the boarded ship knows which area too send reinforcements etc etc, really boarding shouldn't be a thing or chance of success should be so slim its unbelievable:)

Alternatively we could let people who enjoy that part of the game continue to enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing about TAC cards is that they allow generation of fleet commander ,"personality" in campaigns 

for instance: each commander is randomly allocated three TAC cards they can play each game, but he is limited to the same three from game to game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A campaign system would be awesome for firestorm - add some reasons to fsd ect to look after your resources. 

It would be difficult but very much worth it if done right 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way I see boarding could work here would be those factions that make it part of there bag of tricks is thorough command points. with that any one who wants to spend the points can board depending on points spent (and if points regenerate after each game turn ) the same ship could board several times during the game unless the rules say other wise. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.