Jump to content
S.Derek

Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Skyhawk said:

I don't want lasers, they are unrealistic. I don't want FSDs, their unrealistic. I don't want nanomite cloaks, their unrealistic. I don't want shields, their unrealistic. I don't want spaceships, their unrealistic. 

Please present a good reason for players to give up boarding, that is a legitimate reason. 

I gave you plenty of good “legitimate” reasons, but the fact you think the use of lasers in future space combat is as plausible as the use of boarding turns this discussion into a rather pointless affair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Skyhawk said:

I second Bessemer's comment.

If the template is the problem, modify it!

I use a modified “template”, and while rather handy in regular use it doesn’t solve the crowding problem because the size of the bases, and not your tactical skill, still dictates were you ships can and can’t end up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion about boarding is down right ludicrous. 

So lets present good solid reasons why boarding should be removed or modified from a gameplay perspective.

Lets leave out the parts about how unrealistic it is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Charbe86 said:

The maneuverability issue tepends a fair bit on fluff, but hostile boarding actions still take place in wet navies, pirates and smugglers etc, I see no reason why you couldn't scale up, especially with automated piloting systems and other similar systems.  

 

I don't know if I agree with your PD estimates, torpedoes still get through, and they can't dodge.  Again this depends on fluff though, PD turret sizes, weapon type etc.  

 

Ship bulkheads are designed to withstand ship grade weapons from the outside, not the inside, I think you may be overestimating hull strength too there do need to be considerations to inertia and economy.  It's also easier to make a weapon that will punch through something than it is to make something that can withstand a weapon, I'll cite history there.  

 

I'm sure ship crews would wear environmental suits when in combat, but engineering staff wearing powered armour seems both inefficient and expensive, and an entire crew carrying side armsseems likely to lead to unacceptable accidents.  

 

I would like to point you to two hard sci-fi series, the honor harrington series, and the expanse.  Both series point out, much better than I can, why boarding in space battles is possible, potentially very effective, but not very common.

Ah well, just give me some twentieth century examples of the crew of a warship boarding an enemy warship in the midst of a naval battle then.

Torpedoes in FA are guided weapons, and the tech level in FA is way to high to expect “dumb” final approach tactics on these guided weapons.

There also exists a huge difference in targeting difficulty between a target zooming past and/or trying to hit you at incredible speed, and a target attempting a soft landing next to your PD systems.

Bulkheads are internal, their main purpose is to contain the damage of weapons that defeated the ships armour and explode inside the ship.

Regarding the armed crew; Yeah, you can’t trust crew members that can effectively kill the wrong ship, even their own, with a simple mistake, with something as dangerous as a side arm of course...

And if I remember correctly boarding is a post-battle affair in the HH universe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Skyhawk said:

This discussion about boarding is down right ludicrous. 

So lets present good solid reasons why boarding should be removed or modified from a gameplay perspective.

Lets leave out the parts about how unrealistic it is.

They are already on the table; boarding invites combat distances the movement system can't cope with, and tactics wise it adds nothing something more workable wouldn't be able to add too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boarding seems to be contentious, the argument about realism and logic aside lets focus on game mechanics and value which means it boils down to only two key points that I see:

Quote

 

They are already on the table; boarding invites combat distances the movement system can't cope with, and tactics wise it adds nothing something more workable wouldn't be able to add too.

 

 

 

Quote

tactics wise it adds nothing something more workable wouldn't be able to add too.

This is an opinion and not objective data, it also doesn't have any constructed working alternatives included.

Tactics are subjective based on your point of view, combat engagement doctrine and personal code/morals/ethics/whathaveyou. What isn't a tactic for you is a tactic for an opponent. Plenty of real world examples exist.

 

Movement system can't cope.

-Terrans are RB1, movement system can't cope with their majority combat doctrine. Dindrenzi have to get closer to keep their gun pointed, system can't cope. Objectives require ships in proximity, close proximity. SRS require proximity. Squad coherency requires proximity. Mines require point blank moves.

The movement system can't cope regardless of the existence of boarding, stop blaming a non-factor for it. Boarding isn't a scapegoat for a flaw identified in the base movement mechanics.

The flaw you are taking issue with will not be resolved with the absence of boarding, it will only be resolved with the movement system itself.

It adds no tactics.

-A false argument as tactics differ for everyone, just because you don't see it as a tactic doesn't mean others don't. Neither side will make progress with this, your beginning stance immediately shuts down you being receptive to the idea as you personally believe in your representation of it not having a place. Meanwhile the other side personally believes it has a tactical application and any attempt given to support it will simply be dismissed as not a tactic because you personally wouldn't use it as it goes against the way you see it. Just like your anti-boarding stance wont be accepted by the other side as it goes against the way they see it.

 

 

Now by all means the logic doesn't support boarding from a realism point, but if we want to go down there you better remove SRS to because the logic presented to us in the FSA game-verse doesn't support their viability either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It adds nothing that cyber or assault srs and targeted strike cannot do at at least 2x the range.

Terrans working at RB1 is not to say they must be in RB1 to fight just they have some ships optimized for it but can still fight at RB2 almost as well.

Dropping boarding rules for assault are on these ships would more accurately represent what they are doing as every example boarders give refer to shuttles or boarding craft. It would also expand the ranges and flexibility of assault ships by making them combat carriers limited to assault craft.

Make assault srs PD exclusively defensive for the sea themselves and hand them out to Soeylian cruisers and BB. As well as Directorate heavy cruisers. This would allow the removal of short distance boarding via "shuttles".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply making each Sorylian cruiser have a 1x2 assault srs and allowing squares to combine are upon launch would be fine for representing their boarding abilities. Would easily allow for a 1x2 and 1x6 grouping or 2x4 grouping.

Directorate H. Cruisers could get 1x3 or 1x4 each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Meatshield said:

1: Opportunity cost, SRS aren't expensive. 30pts for 18AD or 12PD? 3 escorts cost 45+pts. 30pts is is a Frigate, that's easily workable through judicious hardpoint juggling.

2: "people don't load up on them because they like but they have to protect themselves against SRS and torp spam". 

So to be clear you are stating that SRS such as PD mountain exist to combat SRS and torps, if Interceptors are fine why do people take them over dedicated PD escorts? Your statement supports my point, Interceptors are too good, people take them per your own words whether they like them or not. They're the overwhelmingly best option bar none. When PD escorts are overwhelmingly ignored in favor of finding ways to put SRS in to do the job and do it better you have a problem.

3: Gimping offence? No, not with supportive ship selection. A Tyrant with 3 Interceptors, what offence is it losing? What offence is it gaining by being harder to damage with certain attack methods and therefore maintains better HP?

An Ares loses a once per game 18AD attack by taking 6x Interceptors and 6x Bombers over 12x Bombers. Double bombers are significantly overhyped. With those Interceptors an Ares buys itself and any nearby friendlies extra board time, extra board time = extra attacks, more targets for the opponent to deal with, more denial against your opponent and their viable options. 

4: So you agree with me that bombers are too all-rounder? I stated earlier that bombers should lose the ability to provide supportive PD (they keep it for personal defence). Fighters are supposed to be all-rounder, they're the in-between.

5: Indirect weapons (torps) are overwhelmingly voided by Interceptors, Interceptors aren't supposed to completely null the impact of a weapon type, 30pts isn't supposed to null the investment of about 200pts of torpedo ships, that's what happens presently. Torpedo ships like the Pilgrim aren't weak or lacking, it's that the SRS meta completely nulls their ability to engage effectively. Indirect weapons (torps) wouldn't need nerfing as they right now are severely under-represented due to SRS PD.

6: No Tier 1 ships aren't the only target for torps, conversely Tier 1 ships aren't the only ship SRS protect, SRS protect merely through proximity. Unlike PD escorts I might add.

7: How does nerfing Interceptors nerf escorts? Escorts aren't taken because Interceptors do the job better so overwhelmingly in every way. Nerfing Interceptors actually makes escorts more viable. Additionally you take Escorts to protect against Bombers, Fighters and torps. Escorts are also conveniently vulnerable to all 3 of those. Apollo with 3 Guardians gets attacked by 12 torps. The escort gets attacked by the 12 torps instead. Note the PD totals between these two examples. Interceptors are immune to the above. 

 

Finally replace any of my examples concerning SRS providing PD with escorts providing PD, how much more expensive did it become for those escorts, how many situations is it downright impossible for the escorts to actually do? An Ares pays 30pts to shield itself and Titan as an example. Now to do the same with escorts for those two ships it costs 90pts. 

Interceptors are too good at PD defence and need quantitative PD reduction but can maintain a qualitative edge (3+ stops or reroll 1's). I stated all this earlier.

I was talking about ships like Escort Carriers who are there to launch a token of interceptors to provide a safety bubble to let your fleet get into engagement range with minimum ad loss. Nerfing interceptors would just make them kinda obsolete as they are less good than dedicated carriers at delivering and sustaining offensive wings.

Its contradictory about talking about how good value its to get 18 ad for 30 points and then discounting them just below . The fact is that bombers / fighters are extremely hard to stop by pd alone and yet you completely discount them out of hand saying they are overhyped ? ? Really? By choosing to protect myself from torp spam im forgoing a use of a potent 18 ad attack which can be game changing as opposed to having interceptors and not facing mass srs or terrans in tournament. If your having issues with interceptors in your local meta surely its a result of what you are running by forcing them to run so many. There are other weapons on terran ships other than torps you know they are not primary weapons. You dont have to spend the entire game in your deployment zone spamming torps maybe then people wouldnt see interceptors as such an issue.

P.S : Nerfing something usually never solves anything it just breaks other things. Nerfing interceptors would just cause other problems. Like maybe reworking torps so they could be obstructed and needing los would make there be less need for interceptors to be as strong as they are now and warrant a rebalance. I know they already working on making things like bombers less spammable so thats a right move by restricting what kind of srs what ships can take. Like maybe youd need to run escort carriers to have access to interceptors and battleships being able to run only support shuttles or fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/05/17 at 6:19 AM, Meatshield said:

Now by all means the logic doesn't support boarding from a realism point, but if we want to go down there you better remove SRS to because the logic presented to us in the FSA game-verse doesn't support their viability either.

Thankyou for your honesty. 

On 05/05/17 at 6:58 AM, CoreHunter said:

Simply making each Sorylian cruiser have a 1x2 assault srs and allowing squares to combine are upon launch would be fine for representing their boarding abilities. Would easily allow for a 1x2 and 1x6 grouping or 2x4 grouping.

Directorate H. Cruisers could get 1x3 or 1x4 each.

This sounds like a good way to accomplish boarding.

And for the record, I am a Terran player and I don't board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Xerkics said:

I was talking about ships like Escort Carriers who are there to launch a token of interceptors to provide a safety bubble to let your fleet get into engagement range with minimum ad loss. Nerfing interceptors would just make them kinda obsolete as they are less good than dedicated carriers at delivering and sustaining offensive wings. As opposed to the awesome powerhouses they're right now?

Its contradictory about talking about how good value its to get 18 ad for 30 points and then discounting them just below . I stated the specific instance of double Ares bombers as overhyped, but by all means extend that to an incorrect generalization to every bomber token in game. The fact is that bombers / fighters are extremely hard to stop by pd alone and yet you completely discount them out of hand saying they are overhyped ? ? Really? No, because you jumped to an incorrect solution applying a global assumption to one specific mentioned instance of SRS purchase. Yes they are hard to stop, by ship based PD because it can't accumulate, they're easy to stop with SRS. That is the literal reality of something that is too strong, Interceptors are too strong because they're the only answer to SRS. You can continue misrepresenting the the examples I cite such as applying Ares double bomber is overhyped to every SRS bomber token. I "dismiss" Ares double bomber because my own Ares variant is the perfect counter to it. I gave an example to support my argument, a reference point, instead of taking that reference point you have decided it's a global truth I preach, yet you don't provide examples. You only misrepresent my examples. By choosing to protect myself from torp spam im forgoing a use of a potent 18 ad attack which can be game changing as opposed to having interceptors and not facing mass srs or terrans in tournament. You claim 18AD is game changing yet you immediately dismiss the game change impact of 6 Interceptors (can I now apply incorrect assumptions and contradictory?), you don't need to face mass SRS or Terrans for 6 Interceptors to be game changing. No boarding for Directorate, no torps for the multitude of other factions that have equal or better torps than Terrans. Terrans are not the king of torps in FSA v2. If your having issues with interceptors in your local meta surely its a result of what you are running by forcing them to run so many. Start a poll about the 3 SRS types, get forum users to vote which of the 3 is the one breaking the game meta, I'm confident in the result: Interceptors. It's not a "my meta" thing, other players have noted the impact. There are other weapons on terran ships other than torps you know they are not primary weapons. You dont have to spend the entire game in your deployment zone spamming torps maybe then people wouldnt see interceptors as such an issue. Assumptions with no evidence and not actually discussing the issue at hand, actually this seems to be constructed as an assumption that I only play torp spam ships and never move forward (Tyrant and Ares are torp spam ships now?), yet further reading into my posts here immediately disproves that, like the line where I talk about Terrans and RB1, the opposite of staying in deployment. By all means continue to extrapolate incorrect results when evidence otherwise exists, I frequently cite Terran ships as an example because they're my "go to" for reference and its pretty much reflex.

P.S : Nerfing something usually never solves anything it just breaks other things. Nerfing interceptors would just cause other problems. Nerfing works when it addresses the correct problem. Like maybe reworking torps so they could be obstructed and needing los would make there be less need for interceptors to be as strong as they are now and warrant a rebalance. So Indirect fire weapons aren't indirect fire? I know they already working on making things like bombers less spammable so thats a right move by restricting what kind of srs what ships can take. Like maybe youd need to run escort carriers to have access to interceptors and battleships being able to run only support shuttles or fighters. These are called nerfs, which you state "usually never solves anything", yet you then immediately support widespread nerfs to many ships throughout the game that would impact things.

 

 

Quote

It adds nothing that cyber or assault srs and targeted strike cannot do at at least 2x the range.

Except for capturing ships in the case of cyber and targeted strikes. Also boarding is available to EVERY ship with AP, every ship can utilize it should an opportunity present itself, so removing it means you a removing the opportunity option from a lot of ships. 4 Frigates can use their AP to finish off a lone Frigate survivor and focus their weapons on more overtly dangerous/vital targets, effective use of resources made possible by boarding. Need I remind people that 4AD can accomplish result, 4AP is the equivalent of 4AD.

Quote

Terrans working at RB1 is not to say they must be in RB1 to fight just they have some ships optimized for it but can still fight at RB2 almost as well.

So removing boarding will magically stop my Titan, Apollo, Marshals, Ares and any other ships from tripping over bases........

This also completely fails to address any other point raised in that same section, about mines, and SRS, and the general flaw with the movement mechanics forcing closure.

Removing boarding wont improve your tabletop cluster fest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are suggesting is flat out nerfing the interceptors what i was suggesting is making picks meaningful where the srs themselves still powerfull but are not spammable so their deployment is more meaningful which is coming from where the Spartans are already taking the ships as they said not me. Thats all. Where is all this butthurt wall of text coming from? Im sensing so much anger in your post im sorry if its a sensitive subject for you and i upset you .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/05/17 at 11:12 AM, Meatshield said:

4 Frigates can use their AP to finish off a lone Frigate survivor and focus their weapons on more overtly dangerous/vital targets, effective use of resources made possible by boarding.

I never thought of it that way.........

As far as bases I am not sure what the best solution is. You could make the bases different sizes like they did in taskforce which will help(Yes I am aware that others have made similar suggestions) somewhat. Makeing a shorter narrower turning tool?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Xerkics said:

What you are suggesting is flat out nerfing the interceptors what i was suggesting is making picks meaningful where the srs themselves still powerfull but are not spammable which is coming from where the Spartans are already taking the ships as they said not me. Thats all. Where is all this butthurt wall of text coming from? Im sensing so much anger in your post im sorry if its a sensitive subject for you and i upset you .

Yes flat out nerfing interceptors is exactly the point. If a every Terran ship had 10 shields would you nerf the Terran ships or restructure the rest of the game around their OP state? An extreme example I grant but it illustrates my point. Spartan's teased method so far isn't going to make SRS picks meaningful, they're going to dictate what ship you pick to compete. They aren't fixing the problem they're moving it around, hence my 10SH Terran example. Restricting what SRS ships can carry doesn't fix the SRS, the problem is the SRS themselves not the ships. Spartan's revealed alteration so far is shown as a significant change to a system that only needed tweaking, they're taking a problem and creating new problems to solve in addition to the original one. 

SRS will still be spammable or are Aquans, Relthozan, Syndicate, Ryuushi and others going to lose SRS? SRS spam will still exist. The entire point of the SRS discussion here is that the players based on the information provided are worried that Spartan has incorrectly identified a problem and are moving in a fashion that won't fix it, people have identified the issue brought it to Spartan and so far the appearance and response is not to address the issue but to move it around and "ignore" it for the sake of a new way of doing things. 

Spartan has taken things in a bad direction before, that's the point, that's why SRS are being discussed, players are worried about the game being actively harmed. 

My wall of text isn't butthurt, it's addressing points in turn, many of which were actually pointing out misrepresentations of examples and references I made, you didn't actually do any real refuting of my points, you only criticised my alleged playstyle. For the record I don't play torp heavy Terrans, I tend to play Tier 1 heavy. 

I have also played numerous other factions. 

There is no butthurt, I'm blunt and people know when I'm butthurt, you would know, and this thread would probably get horribly derailed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interceptors with 1PD is not fixing anything just making them useless unless you start nerfing all the other srs as well. I see no problem making fighters and interceptors the only ones able to defend other ships and most of us are atleast trying to provide alternative or atleast creative choices other than screwem with the nerf bat. the change to boarding not being able to cap is a designe choice sparten is looking into so no amount of brickwall criticism is going to help.

My idea to change it to assault srs may not be the best but it is different and could work. Most pro fluff talk mentions assaulters using O.o short ranged shuttles to reach the target anyway so why not just give assault heavy fleets access to them in a larger array of ships.

If the carrier fix is anything like the Distopian blog it does not limit what srs are taken just the number and formation of the wings. It also seems to allow the rearming of the tokens into different rolls mid battle. A rather nice buff and may allow Carriers to perform in a more flexible roll acting more as a true fleet support command ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Skyhawk said:

Makeing a shorter narrower turning tool?

I have been using this one for some time now:

FA%20Hockeystick%20001_zpsdy4tq75l.jpg

FA%20Hockeystick%20002_zpsbfblfwpe.jpg

Works much better than the official cardboard one, but it doesn't solve the bases getting in each others way problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, CoreHunter said:

Interceptors with 1PD is not fixing anything just making them useless unless you start nerfing all the other srs as well. I see no problem making fighters and interceptors the only ones able to defend other ships and most of us are atleast trying to provide alternative or atleast creative choices other than screwem with the nerf bat. the change to boarding not being able to cap is a designe choice sparten is looking into so no amount of brickwall criticism is going to help.

My idea to change it to assault srs may not be the best but it is different and could work. Most pro fluff talk mentions assaulters using O.o short ranged shuttles to reach the target anyway so why not just give assault heavy fleets access to them in a larger array of ships.

If the carrier fix is anything like the Distopian blog it does not limit what srs are taken just the number and formation of the wings. It also seems to allow the rearming of the tokens into different rolls mid battle. A rather nice buff and may allow Carriers to perform in a more flexible roll acting more as a true fleet support command ship.

How are Interceptors with 1PD which has a 6" radius that stops hits on a 3+ or reroll 1's useless in the context of bombers having no supportive PD (they still have 1PD for personal defence) and fighters only having 1PD of a lesser quality. 

This also goes in hand with ship PD hits on SRS accumulating on a squad basis rather than a ship basis.

Again you took a snippet out of context and didn't encompass the whole discussion entailing alterations. So please tell me how Interceptors are useless with 1PD of a higher quality, are useless in context to what? If you believe they are rendered useless provide what will replace the now obsolete Interceptors. Escorts? How often do you take Escorts now? The whole point is to make it a valid competition between Escorts and Interceptor SRS, right now it's not a competition at all.

What alternative non-nerf choices to SRS have been provided here? I went back a number of pages and I saw instances of reduce to 1 PD, I saw SRS stat adjustments which included PD reduction to Interceptors as an example, I saw your idea of letting Fighters strike first which Commodore Jones succinctly pointed out would be nullified by sheer number advantage of the Interceptors having 2PD. It also doesn't logically track that the dedicated craft is "inferior" to the multi-role craft at its dedicated job. I saw people mentioning what Spartan is talking about but Spartan hasn't provided a clear picture, a hazy vague representation is a poor alternative. I see no actual properly constructed non-nerf alternative.

I didn't argue boarding from a fluff view, maybe you aren't aiming that at me, I didn't take that stance I focused on the game side. Boarding has been integrated in the game since FSA inception, it is integrated in other Spartan games, I see no reason to remove it abruptly now as it has a place and factions have been built around it. 

 

The entire carrier/SRS discussion could be rendered moot by more information from Spartan, but we don't have that yet, until that happens this is one of the most valid avenues here in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a 6 strong wing of interceptors hitting on 3+ vs. a 6 strong wing of bombers. Interceptors will kill maybe 1 and run maybe 3 so 5 bombers through. droping their PD reduces their ability to kill other srs by reducing the number of 6s that can be rolled and unless you run the wing off it will be useless as even with 3+ it will prove hard to do with only 6 dice.

A fix for escorts: you could allow them to combine PD against a srs that is engaged by at least a single escort in the squad and possible allow the escorted ship to link in its dice or roll seperatly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CoreHunter said:

a 6 strong wing of interceptors hitting on 3+ vs. a 6 strong wing of bombers. Interceptors will kill maybe 1 and run maybe 3 so 5 bombers through. droping their PD reduces their ability to kill other srs by reducing the number of 6s that can be rolled and unless you run the wing off it will be useless as even with 3+ it will prove hard to do with only 6 dice.

A fix for escorts: you could allow them to combine PD against a srs that is engaged by at least a single escort in the squad and possible allow the escorted ship to link in its dice or roll seperatly.

Instead of a 3+, make it a +1 to the roll. Effectively the same result, exceeeeept that a natural roll of 5 is now a six as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, CoreHunter said:

a 6 strong wing of interceptors hitting on 3+ vs. a 6 strong wing of bombers. Interceptors will kill maybe 1 and run maybe 3 so 5 bombers through. droping their PD reduces their ability to kill other srs by reducing the number of 6s that can be rolled and unless you run the wing off it will be useless as even with 3+ it will prove hard to do with only 6 dice.

A fix for escorts: you could allow them to combine PD against a srs that is engaged by at least a single escort in the squad and possible allow the escorted ship to link in its dice or roll seperatly.

Which is fine when you account for ship PD, remember you choose when to intercept an attack, you can intercept after the bombers have already run the gauntlet of ship PD, but before the actual attack, if a couple of bombers have been killed by ship PD driving off is lot more valid. Again context, Interceptors by definition of their CMD range yoke can never actually be away from another source of PD so they work in concert with the ships PD, whole picture, not vacuum situations. It should be about synergistic complimenting setups. Right now Interceptors are point and click in their implementation.

Or as Hive stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Frans said:

Ah well, just give me some twentieth century examples of the crew of a warship boarding an enemy warship in the midst of a naval battle then.

 

I've started another thread to continue this if you want Frans, but if you wouldn't mind getting thing rolling again there that would be great, as my technical skills are quite lacking in regards to the forum and I have no idea how to quote between threads.

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.