Warcradle Studios are looking for active community members to support the forum upon its relaunch!
If you're interested, drop us an email at forum@warcradle.com.
Xerkics

Disagreement with rules changes

30 posts in this topic

9 hours ago, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

I would like to show them to you.   I promise, its not vaporware...it's just not ready for unveiling as yet.

Why not exactly? The rule changes did far more damage to the game than ship stats ever could since ships are far easier to adjust.

Commodore Jones likes this

Share this post


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

Why not exactly? The rule changes did far more damage to the game than ship stats ever could since ships are far easier to adjust.

Well, I do disagree that the rule changes have damaged the game.  It's different, but not damaged in my opinion.  Ultimately it will come down to a matter of taste on that point I think.

As for ships, well, it takes time to go through each one and make the necessary adjustments.  Primary/Secondary/Tertiary weapons need to be set.  Some MARs are new, others have been removed.  If a ship lost a MAR, is there a replacement?  How does that add/loss potentially affect the balance.  Fixed fore arcs need to be changed where they existed.  Adding appropriate WARs to systems.  Reviewing ship costs.  SRS changes.  And so on.   There isn't a magic switch that just makes it happen.

Mathhammer and Polaris like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

Well, I do disagree that the rule changes have damaged the game.  It's different, but not damaged in my opinion.  Ultimately it will come down to a matter of taste on that point I think.

As for ships, well, it takes time to go through each one and make the necessary adjustments.  Primary/Secondary/Tertiary weapons need to be set.  Some MARs are new, others have been removed.  If a ship lost a MAR, is there a replacement?  How does that add/loss potentially affect the balance.  Fixed fore arcs need to be changed where they existed.  Adding appropriate WARs to systems.  Reviewing ship costs.  SRS changes.  And so on.   There isn't a magic switch that just makes it happen.

You guys know the community doesnt like planetfall why conver a system with a better ruleset  into one thats worse? Some of the changes you  are making make no sense it just feels you are making changes for the sake of changing them when the previous ruleset had just minor flaws that needed to be addressed. IF it aint broke dont fix it. Firestorm already had the best rule set out of all the other systems Spartan used it doesnt need to be more like them thats taking a step back . I mean just look at the red blue dice its ridiculous.Or replacing a rather simple tac cards system with command orders rather than just expanding the tac cards you are over complicating far too much when you should have just been streamlining existing ruleset. I still havent seen an explanation why the cloaking rules which worked just fine needed to be destroyed which will require restating all cloaking ship from ground up unless you want them to be the new Sorylians of 3.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have issues with certain changes - anyone who follows the forums could guess them

Most are a personal preference and I can let it go, one I think will hurt the game, and most of all how I play HARD and I can see being a bad move for no good reason

Right now I've voiced my objections, I don't think it's heard but....until I have everything in hand to actually play-test....I don't know

I agree somethings are very anti-stated objective of streamlining....but I don't know 100% of everything to know how this will work

I'd wish they'd do like warmahoards and a full open beta but we've got a looming kick starter  

I have confidence somethings coming, the communication is better then ever and I salute that, but confidence in 3.0....wavering 

Polaris and Commodore Jones like this

Share this post


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



I'd wish they'd do like warmahoards and a full open beta but we've got a looming kick starter  

Since you said it, I feel it necessary to point out that their experience with the open beta of mk2 specifically led to there being *no* open beta for Mk3, and there were plenty of 'issues' that a subset of the player base voiced about the removal of morale from the game, changes to Tough, reduction of heavy infantry wounds, etc.  And while copious errata and community integrated discussion has fixed most of the outlier problems to make it the best the game has even been, a lot of those aforementioned core rule changes remain.

But in any case, there is more up front community involvement in Firestorm Mk3 than for Warmahordes Mk3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Warmahordes CID is a thing the involves the community, I have friends involved in that. Even if you argue that the CID is just PP previewing stuff to gain feedback with very little room for alteration. 

What do you call this? 

A preview, with little room for alteration, v3 cloaking isn't liked. Guess what, it's going ahead anyway. 

As far as community involvement Warmahordes is way ahead of Firestorm with engagement between community and company.

Xerkics likes this

Share this post


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

The Warmahordes CID is a thing the involves the community, I have friends involved in that. Even if you argue that the CID is just PP previewing stuff to gain feedback with very little room for alteration. 

What do you call this? 

A preview, with little room for alteration, v3 cloaking isn't liked. Guess what, it's going ahead anyway. 

As far as community involvement Warmahordes is way ahead of Firestorm with engagement between community and company.

I'm involved in it a well.  CID is amazing and is ahead of most wargames community involvement in general; but CID is about trying to balance out individual models and theme forces, not the core rules.  I understand what you're trying to say, but a complete 1:1 of CID in Firestorm would mean you getting to say input on the stats and MARS of individual Relthoza ships before they're finalized, not say anything about v3 cloaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really curious now what the beta test looked like I can't possibly believe testers didn't instantly say that a lot of the changes are simply terrible ideas that shouldn't be implemented like new dice command orders new force creation rules to name a few. Is what we seeing a product of the beta test feedback in multiple iterations or the undiluted vision of whoever is in charge of designing new rules? It's just hard to believe that things like new abusable force creation or nerfs to cloaking would go past the testers in the form we are seeing.

Share this post


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

I'm really curious now what the beta test looked like I can't possibly believe testers didn't instantly say that a lot of the changes are simply terrible ideas that shouldn't be implemented like new dice command orders new force creation rules to name a few. Is what we seeing a product of the beta test feedback in multiple iterations or the undiluted vision of whoever is in charge of designing new rules? It's just hard to believe that things like new abusable force creation or nerfs to cloaking would go past the testers in the form we are seeing.

I'm curious about this as well. I've already found several concerning issues just looking at what's been released in spoiler form and this is before I have even began any playtesting. I'm just curious what the progression has been and why these issues weren't caught sooner considering they're already in beta testing and nearing release. A lot looks really good but it seems far from a finalized ruleset ready for print.

Xerkics likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like we are not being negative just because here. You and us both are invested in that  3.0 succeeds . US because most of us have invested significant amounts of money in this game and its the game we love to play and you because its your job . So we are being negative because there are lot of things to be negative about just so we are 100% clear here not just to be contentious. Nobody wants to sell all their models because the game is not fun to play any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the very least change the name of Cloaking to something else that is more appropriate to the proposed new rule. "Internal Shielding" or something like that. It has a fairly small chance at doing anything except stopping the once in a blue moon exploding 6 train. "New Cloaking" does not make you harder to hit (which is kind of the point of cloaking isn't it?) it just keeps heavy damage from becoming catastrophic damage. That is not cloaking in my book.

Imagine...

"Captain! They just destroyed our port gun rack!"

"Well it was good we were cloaked or they would have hit the flight bay too!"

 

 

Polaris and Xerkics like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember who posted it, but credit to who did...anyway they said to them firestorm was best played as  mashup of different versions

you don't have to sell your models if your really can't stand 3.0, just keep playing 2.0, maybe throwing in 1.0 or 3.0 rules here and there, and perhaps you'll like 4.0 better

but 3.0 is far from finalized, and feedback has made changes already, as was said in the designer feedback thread, specifc constructive feedback will be the key to change, point out specific problems and why they are problems

just saying this sucks, won't get us far.

@Xerkics I agree with a lot of what you've said, but try to put the specific problems into there categories, like weapon issues, under weapons ect. and the threads will be a lot more focused in rallying support from the community and getting changes.

cloaks has been brought up in other threads, but that one could probably use it's own thread...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2017 at 9:57 AM, Xerkics said:

I'm really curious now what the beta test looked like I can't possibly believe testers didn't instantly say that a lot of the changes are simply terrible ideas that shouldn't be implemented like new dice command orders new force creation rules to name a few. Is what we seeing a product of the beta test feedback in multiple iterations or the undiluted vision of whoever is in charge of designing new rules? It's just hard to believe that things like new abusable force creation or nerfs to cloaking would go past the testers in the form we are seeing.

My guess is that the game works better than we think with the info we have. If it were as awful as people here are claiming it will be, the testers would've thought so too, right? There are a couple conclusions we can draw from that: The beta testers were completely ignored and it's all garbage, or it actually works well in play. Maybe the things we dislike from the bits we've been given to read are actually fun on the table?

Skyhawk and blut_und_glas like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we have nearly 60- 80% of the rules minus ship stats. Movement, most WARs,most MARs, SRS rules, weapon attack changes, terrain changes, what is left out? a few mars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've seen there is a logic behind a lot of things- command points make sense in a lot of ways, for example, particularly when you factor in Specialist being a thing. Boarding looks like an uphill battle until you look at how defenses will be compiled compared to attacks, and remember that you don't have to try to beat Crew as a threshold for doing more than a point of damage. Breaking down weapon MARs also makes a lot of sense, and being able to use that to introduce variety to the game will be stellar, once ot has been rolled out. The new SRS system keeps them effective while solving many of the problems- Bombers going from too good to nothing for the rest ofbthe game on a lucky defensive roll, PD mountain. Being limited in SRS type, combined with freely switching between types available, will make niche varieties actually make sense to use. I love how fleets in the new edition will be more flexible with Natural Allies- my Ba'Kash will likely see more use now that they can fill minimums for my Relth. The new shunt entry rules are cool, cinematic- maybe I'm alone in this, but I can imagine the ships warping in Star Trek style with this system, rather than being unceremoniously plopped onto the board.

 

Now, I'm saying this because I have a rule I try to follow about making sure any time I'm saying something negative, I'm also shining light onto the positives.

 

The Orders themselves, for instance, need a lot of work and balancing, more balancing in terms of scale of impact but balancing nonetheless. The Crit table's extremes being that swingy plus Crit+Damage PLUS 3 damage being the most common crit result is a mess, it's asking for problems. Any ship could be lost in the blink of an eye with no sense of it happening because of "strategy" or that anything couls have been done about it. Exploding Dice was already swingy, snakeeyes were already swingy, Crit+Damage wouldn't be so bad if the other factors weren't there but they are. In general, this kills the sense of weight behind any given attack- it goes from having a general feel of what an attack can do to having no idea, and speeds up the game specifically by making the ships that were supposed to have the most gravitas into chumps. It's a game of chumps. If you removed Crit+Damage, or pared down the Crit table itself, the presence of the other problem mechanic would not be so hard felt. Cloaks need to be figured out. I see a lot of suggestions that are more trouble than they're worth, and a lot of extremely good suggestions. Keep it SIMPLE, keep it IMPACTFUL. As for Blue and Black dice in general, if they aren't accomplishinh something, don't try to cling to them. I know you are trying to align PF and FSA, but that alignment can survive one mechanic not carrying over, if there's no place for it, okay? And for Shunt Matrix, the most important thing about that rule was that it -felt- like a teleport. The new rule should also -feel- like teleporting, not just additional movement, not just a shunt entry bonus. Whatever the mechanic ends up being, whatever rules for the ship's final location being figured out, you need to pick up the ship and plop it down, ignoring intervening terrain. It's way more than an issue of the rule being balanced and useful- it needs flavor as well. Kinetic sucks for the exact same reason you added a contingency to the crit table for ships a given crit wouldn't affect, which is perplexing. I'm going to make a dumb suggestion. Remove Crit+Damage, have it just be a point of damage or one or more Crits, and have Kinetics enable Crit+Damage. And lastlt, terrain shouldn't be the most OP thing on the table... This is one I know was being looked at specifically, but still. There should be reasons to move through terrain rather than having the most common terrain types being varying degrees of "NOPE."

 

Thank you, I know this was an odd rant. I believe that 3.0 has the potential to be the best version of Firestorm, but it has glaring weaknesses right now that, if not addressed, will kill what could be one of the best wargames out there at present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed, and I would add that if you really do want to line up the 2 games, lets bring the less successful planetfall more in line the more successful Firestorm armada, not the other way around.

I haven't played planetfall, but ive seen multiple posts about inferior mechanics being brought over, i'm not one to judge by a cover, but the mechanics are a bit off.

let plantefall take some tips from firestorm

murphy'slawofcombat likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dice mechanic is hated locally - so bring that from PF is a bad plan

Launching a KS when it feels like V3.0 isn't done cooking yet means locally it's dead in the water - no interest 

I'm beginning to think V3.0 isn't the best vision for FSA but a desired vision by some blinkered person or personages 

....I'll wait for the rules, but I don't have hope 

 

 

murphy'slawofcombat likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been around lately, but I consider myself pretty appt at Firestorm and have a good sense of game design.

Is it too late to get a look at the beta rules and give some feedback?

I've been missing Firestorm and am eagerly looking forward to 3.0 but I'm pretty worried from what I've seen so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2017 at 6:57 PM, CoreHunter said:

we have nearly 60- 80% of the rules minus ship stats. Movement, most WARs,most MARs, SRS rules, weapon attack changes, terrain changes, what is left out? a few mars.

What's left out is that they've played the game with the new rules and ship stats and we haven't. We're reading a script and calling the movie ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

Just to be clear with this. 3.0 is not locked and we are evaluating your comments and some rules will be changed and your feedback embraced, be it Cloaks, Battle Shunt and so on.

I have defined a number of changes in the rules and additions to the game I have requested. Not all are going to sit comfortably with all players, but while some of you think your comments are being ignored, I am telling you here that this is not the case. Additionally, I have already said that the full rules will be handed out for folk to play with before I print any books.

There has been some good feedback and it has been clear that some of my rule changes have needed more consideration/tweaking with their impact.

Cheers,

Neil

 

 

fracas, reddwarf, alextroy and 4 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warcradle Studios are looking for active community members to support the forum upon its relaunch!
If you're interested, drop us an email at forum@warcradle.com.