Spartan Derek

Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread

131 posts in this topic

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.

Huai likes this

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.

 

Stoobert and CorroPredo like this

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now