Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: Vaaish on March 09, 2013, 09:33:48 PM
-
Having been away for a bit after the 2010 FAQ and not being part of some of the discussions on BFGR until lately, I've been trying to get up to speed on whats changed and where things are going. I understand the desire to simplify and fix some of the lingering issues with BFG and that's an awesome thing to attempt not to mention a pretty daunting task. Kudos to you for trying to do this. Truthfully, though, I'm more than a little disappointed in some of the changes. It feels very much that the desire to simplify has caused a loss of flavor and fixing things goes beyond things that actually need fixed. It feels very much like change for the sake of change.
I'm not posting this to bash on anyone, but I do strongly feel that BFGR is moving past fixing and into tinkering. And I believe that tinkering is something that should be approached with an entirely different mind set than what I see in the discussions at the moment and even then tinkering shouldn't be a focus of the project.
1. "Fan made" Ships.
I like fan ships just as much as everyone else because of what they bring to the table. They help spice things up a bit and that's a good thing. However, these really shouldn't be scattered in with the official ships. They need a section of their own to help new players understand what's what. I'm also disappointed at seeing ships added to races that the creators of BFG left out ON PURPOSE (Chaos light cruisers, I'm looking at you). We should respect the creator's wishes when it's clear that a decision was intentional especially when that is a core tennent of a fleet. This is especially true if BFGR is to be seen as an enhancement to the core BFG+FAQ2010 rules.
My suggestion: Put all fan made ships in a separate section at the end of the document.
2. Upgrades.
Why are these showing up? For instance, why did the Vengeance class get access to upgrades? The vengeance isn't an unbalanced ship to start out with although some of her sisters have some issues. The place for upgrades, if any, would be a case like the Exorcist. Leave it alone and allow it to upgrade to 6LB, although it's a fine ship at 4lb and I don't see why it required change to begin with especially since it boosted the cost with the change. Upgrades shouldn't be used as a compromise solution especially in the case of rewriting a ships stats. Use upgrades only sparingly and have a good reason for adding them.
3. Lack of Focus
This is a big one. Right now it seems things pop up and as soon as they get put on the table there is no going back. This is bad because it assumes that everything that gets mentioned needs to change and it creates a mind set of "what do I change this to" rather than "should we even change this." The Bakka discussions are a good example of this.
We should be looking at this instead as what the fewest number changes that are needed to balance aspects of the game that aren't working. BFG has been played for years and there is consensus about things that DO need to change, but the reasoning for changing one ship or list should NEVER be that the same change was made to a different ship or list. The burden should fall on the person wanting a change to support and prove why a change needs to happen before even thinking about what to change about a ship or list. The burden of proof shouldn't be to prove that a change isn't needed.
My suggestion: Agree on how a list should play and then analyze the list through that. Prove a change is needed before you do anything else. If you can't make a clear reasoned position for why something needs to change, don't discuss changing it and certainly don't change it. When you DO vote always leave the option for no change at all. If you only present options for change you force people to pick one or abstain entirely. Neither gives an accurate result.
I started to make a list of things I thought were good changes made by BFGR... unfortunately, I only got as far as the NC changes, Admiral costs (this is marginal at best not broken but the new system doesn't make it worse), Retribution, Oberon, Dictator, and Firestorm changes before I ran out of things I can completely agree with in IN. The Apoc turned into a hot mess from the simple fix to change the rule for firing over 30cm to add a BM instead of a crit. The Vengeance class has added and unneeded upgrades. The Exorcist has a boost in LB with added cost that isn't optional. The Tyrant is now effectively a Dominator or the Dominator is a Tyrant that gets a 10 point discount on a NC. The Endeavor series gets a better prow but that alone isn't enough for 15 points more than a dauntless.
-
Having been away for a bit after the 2010 FAQ and not being part of some of the discussions on BFGR until lately, I've been trying to get up to speed on whats changed and where things are going. I understand the desire to simplify and fix some of the lingering issues with BFG and that's an awesome thing to attempt not to mention a pretty daunting task. Kudos to you for trying to do this. Truthfully, though, I'm more than a little disappointed in some of the changes. It feels very much that the desire to simplify has caused a loss of flavor and fixing things goes beyond things that actually need fixed. It feels very much like change for the sake of change.
I suppose you haven;t seen Plaxor's documents then. They had so many changes, most of which were not voted on. Since Plaxor dropped out, I am trying to bring it back to the original votes and go with a voting system of all those who care to take part. I am starting to think there are some that think that BFG:R needs to stick to the original focus of BFG:R and maybe that is not what we are doing. Personally, I would like to see the name of the project renamed so that people don't lump us in with the original BFG:R. What I am hoping to do is finish and tone back what Plaxor was doing. A lot of it was awesome, but he wasn't taking votes on a lot of stuff, and I think that was the wrong way to approach it. Plus, it overloaded him.
I'm not posting this to bash on anyone, but I do strongly feel that BFGR is moving past fixing and into tinkering. And I believe that tinkering is something that should be approached with an entirely different mind set than what I see in the discussions at the moment and even then tinkering shouldn't be a focus of the project.
Fixing and tinkering are pretty subjective. Anyways, yes, there are a decent amount of changes happening. If you would be comfortable with us changing the name of the project to something else so it can be altogether separate from BFG:R or whatever the original intention was, we can do that. People who want to change the lists are here to vote, and we go with the vote and make the change. We don't have to be bound by any "original purpose" if those who actually want to take part want something else.
1. "Fan made" Ships.
I like fan ships just as much as everyone else because of what they bring to the table. They help spice things up a bit and that's a good thing. However, these really shouldn't be scattered in with the official ships. They need a section of their own to help new players understand what's what. I'm also disappointed at seeing ships added to races that the creators of BFG left out ON PURPOSE (Chaos light cruisers, I'm looking at you). We should respect the creator's wishes when it's clear that a decision was intentional especially when that is a core tennent of a fleet. This is especially true if BFGR is to be seen as an enhancement to the core BFG+FAQ2010 rules.
My suggestion: Put all fan made ships in a separate section at the end of the document.
That would be a good idea if we were trying to make something official, but I don't care about official, and I don't know if that is what people are going for. New players should be told that this is a community made project and not official in any way. So what of it? Look, when it's all said and done, I am probably going to put a big ass post on the front page of the document saying "FAN MADE AND UNOFFICIAL" and a nice explanation inside of what this project is.
2. Upgrades.
Why are these showing up? For instance, why did the Vengeance class get access to upgrades? The vengeance isn't an unbalanced ship to start out with although some of her sisters have some issues. The place for upgrades, if any, would be a case like the Exorcist. Leave it alone and allow it to upgrade to 6LB, although it's a fine ship at 4lb and I don't see why it required change to begin with especially since it boosted the cost with the change. Upgrades shouldn't be used as a compromise solution especially in the case of rewriting a ships stats. Use upgrades only sparingly and have a good reason for adding them.
Ok.
3. Lack of Focus
This is a big one. Right now it seems things pop up and as soon as they get put on the table there is no going back. This is bad because it assumes that everything that gets mentioned needs to change and it creates a mind set of "what do I change this to" rather than "should we even change this." The Bakka discussions are a good example of this.
We can go back and change anything. Who says we can't? If people think there should be a change, they bring it up and if there is some consensus on it, we vote.
We should be looking at this instead as what the fewest number changes that are needed to balance aspects of the game that aren't working. BFG has been played for years and there is consensus about things that DO need to change, but the reasoning for changing one ship or list should NEVER be that the same change was made to a different ship or list. The burden should fall on the person wanting a change to support and prove why a change needs to happen before even thinking about what to change about a ship or list. The burden of proof shouldn't be to prove that a change isn't needed.
My suggestion: Agree on how a list should play and then analyze the list through that. Prove a change is needed before you do anything else. If you can't make a clear reasoned position for why something needs to change, don't discuss changing it and certainly don't change it. When you DO vote always leave the option for no change at all. If you only present options for change you force people to pick one or abstain entirely. Neither gives an accurate result.
People do provide reasons, except some don't except them as reasons. That's why there is voting. If people don't buy the reasons, they won't be persuaded. You may not like the reasons I put for changing the Victory, and that's ok, you don't have to vote for my side. But I don't think most people post changes for no reason.
I started to make a list of things I thought were good changes made by BFGR... unfortunately, I only got as far as the NC changes, Admiral costs (this is marginal at best not broken but the new system doesn't make it worse), Retribution, Oberon, Dictator, and Firestorm changes before I ran out of things I can completely agree with in IN. The Apoc turned into a hot mess from the simple fix to change the rule for firing over 30cm to add a BM instead of a crit. The Vengeance class has added and unneeded upgrades. The Exorcist has a boost in LB with added cost that isn't optional. The Tyrant is now effectively a Dominator or the Dominator is a Tyrant that gets a 10 point discount on a NC. The Endeavor series gets a better prow but that alone isn't enough for 15 points more than a dauntless.
A decent amount of those were right out of the original BFG:R voting, so they were just integrated by me when I started making the documents up.
I just think there is a different approach to things going on here, and that's ok. Vaaish, if you would like me to put together new PDFs with just the original BFG:R votes and call that BFG:R, that would be fine by me. We can call the BFG:R that we are doing here something else. Plus, did any of these complaints come up when Plaxor and the original BFG:R people were coming up with the changes?
Here is the original list of BFG:R changes (http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=4903.msg37400#msg37400)
-
I've been seeing these Plaxor documents referenced enough here to wonder in some confusion: what are the base ship profiles you are working off? Faq2010 or Plaxor?
Are Plaxor's changes being taken as guidelines? In other words are his choices being modified, or are his former choices guiding the modifications to FAQ2010?
Why is Plaxor referenced anyways? Respect to the man, to be sure, but it seems not many agree with these hinted extreme changes. :-\ Is this what Afterimagedan means by: "Personally, I would like to see the name of the project renamed so that people don't lump us in with the original BFG:R,"?
Cheers all,
Duke
-
First BFG:R (during FAQ 2010 days)
Second BFG:R (plaxor days)
Third BFG:R (now)
Too many of them. Basically, I went back to the original rules that Plaxor and the community started with in the link above this post. There are some things from later on that have been voted on and implemented from Plaxor's stuff. One of the big problems in my mind is that the original BFG:R and the Plaxor BFG:R has their good stuff in them. Plaxor actually dared to touch the Tyranid document which no one seems to give a crap about. The original BFG:R just seeming omitted the Tyranids. Yet, Plaxor's BFG:R made massive and unvoted changes. So, when I started this BFG:R up again (not trying to take credit here), we started with the original voted on BFG:R stuff and sought to finish the documents entirely, Tyranids and all. If people want to start the game with the official stuff, use the stuff from the GW website. If they want the near-official stuff, use 2010. If they want to use entirely unofficial but some would say more fun overall, they can use BFG:R if they want to or just pieces of it.
If people want me to put text boxes on each ship's page saying what changes we made to it, I would be happy to do so. That might actually be a good idea.
-
Credit is given then: :). Really, thanks for bringing these back and back again.
So... you're bringing up some of Plaxor's personal changes up for a vote? Are you considering his changes as... reliable indicators of needed adjustment?
We might want to ask a mod: if we do a search and make a list of all the voting threads & all the discussion threads (only BFG:R 1.3, aka current), would they make a sticky of the list? Your blog notes 39 votes and their details in 2012, but it would be nice to see the thread for each change.
-Duke
-
It's all right HERE (http://afterimagedan.blogspot.com/p/as-any-of-you-know-i-am-supporter-and.html)
The blogs that are not listed are ones that were undone and now irrelevant.
-
Yes I know. You kindly keep it linked in your sig. ;)
My questions weren't answered, unless what you mean by "The blogs that are not listed are ones that were undone and now irrelevant," is that nothing by Plaxor is considered anymore.
But as if to make my point, the ADmech pdf you keep isn't coherent internally, and is incomprehensibly priced, making me wonder whether there were multiple writers of that revision (Plaxor et al). To contribute to the revision process, one must read up on threads detailing those price changes hence my inquiry: is there a demand for a sticky of all BFG:R 1.3 vote and discussion threads?
I might as well and go ahead gathering them. Will see.
Cheers! :)
Duke
-
That would be a good idea if we were trying to make something official, but I don't care about official, and I don't know if that is what people are going for. New players should be told that this is a community made project and not official in any way. So what of it? Look, when it's all said and done, I am probably going to put a big ass post on the front page of the document saying "FAN MADE AND UNOFFICIAL" and a nice explanation inside of what this project is.
My point with this is you would probably like the end result accessible to newer players. Throwing everything into a big pot makes it difficult for new players who might not be as familiar with BFG to pick out what's fan made and what's not without putting some effort into it. This is especially true when you have ships that look very similar to their official versions.
Fixing and tinkering are pretty subjective. Anyways, yes, there are a decent amount of changes happening. If you would be comfortable with us changing the name of the project to something else so it can be altogether separate from BFG:R or whatever the original intention was, we can do that. People who want to change the lists are here to vote, and we go with the vote and make the change. We don't have to be bound by any "original purpose" if those who actually want to take part want something else.
No, not subjective at all. Fixing is indicative of addressing a problem and providing a solution. Tinkering is indicative of messing with something for no better reason than curiosity.
We can go back and change anything. Who says we can't? If people think there should be a change, they bring it up and if there is some consensus on it, we vote.
Just because people think there should be a change doesn't make it so. All that is is a good way to make sure BFGR sways wherever the wind blows, and not necessarily in any reliable or balanced fashion.
People do provide reasons, except some don't except them as reasons. That's why there is voting. If people don't buy the reasons, they won't be persuaded.
This is just the issue. People aren't providing reasons why they are changing things, they are posting changes and the coming up with reasons why their changes are better than someone else's. There is no litmus tests that says, look this isn't broken to begin with, lets talk about something that actually needs fixing.
A decent amount of those were right out of the original BFG:R voting, so they were just integrated by me when I started making the documents up.
I really don't care whose is at fault for some of those changes. It's still changes like that that are creating some of the problems right now.
Vaaish, if you would like me to put together new PDFs with just the original BFG:R votes and call that BFG:R, that would be fine by me. We can call the BFG:R that we are doing here something else. Plus, did any of these complaints come up when Plaxor and the original BFG:R people were coming up with the changes?
Actually I would prefer that we have a straight up BFGR that fixes the lingering issues that the HA were unable to fix with FAQ2010 and nothing else. By that I mean ships that have long had consensus as needing a fix. For instance, the Apoc crit rule or the Oberon. I honestly don't know if any complaints came up. I dropped off the forums a couple of months after the FAQ's were finished and lost track of the threads. All I know is that right now there are a lot of changes happening and very little proof that they need to happen which are made worse by everything being in flux at the same time leaving no baseline to balance to.
-
Some of plaxors persona changes that then community wanted have been voted in. I honestly don't other know if plaxor made there adjustments at first or now. My response to your statement that says "Your blog notes 39 votes and their details in 2012, but it would be nice to see the thread for each change" was the reason for my response.
-
That would be a good idea if we were trying to make something official, but I don't care about official, and I don't know if that is what people are going for. New players should be told that this is a community made project and not official in any way. So what of it? Look, when it's all said and done, I am probably going to put a big ass post on the front page of the document saying "FAN MADE AND UNOFFICIAL" and a nice explanation inside of what this project is.
My point with this is you would probably like the end result accessible to newer players. Throwing everything into a big pot makes it difficult for new players who might not be as familiar with BFG to pick out what's fan made and what's not without putting some effort into it. This is especially true when you have ships that look very similar to their official versions.
I'm sorry, it's not that hard, Vaaish. You get the documents from GW if you want official. If not and you want something more, get 2010 or BFG:R.
Fixing and tinkering are pretty subjective. Anyways, yes, there are a decent amount of changes happening. If you would be comfortable with us changing the name of the project to something else so it can be altogether separate from BFG:R or whatever the original intention was, we can do that. People who want to change the lists are here to vote, and we go with the vote and make the change. We don't have to be bound by any "original purpose" if those who actually want to take part want something else.
No, not subjective at all. Fixing is indicative of addressing a problem and providing a solution. Tinkering is indicative of messing with something for no better reason than curiosity.
And I suppose you get the magic want of knowing objectively which changes are needed and which are not? You say objective like there are total right and wrong changes that need to be made and you somehow know what they are. It's entirely subjective because what you think it tinkering, someone else may thing is fixing. When you look at the list of the original BFG:R changes, did you think those were objectively right? Objectively "fixes?"
We can go back and change anything. Who says we can't? If people think there should be a change, they bring it up and if there is some consensus on it, we vote.
Just because people think there should be a change doesn't make it so. All that is is a good way to make sure BFGR sways wherever the wind blows, and not necessarily in any reliable or balanced fashion.
How else would you like to determine which changes should and shouldn't be made? Again, do you have that magic wand? I completely disagree with what you just said. When you say that just because the people want a change doesn't make it so implies that some who are the "best fit" should determine the changes. Everyone else can go to hell. No, the people who are still dedicated to this small dying game of toy space ships get to make the changes they want. You are saying the collective voice of the fans of this game, determined through voting, is just "a good way to make sure BFGR sways wherever the wind blows" as if there is some objective way to keep it "stable" by everyone's standards in a community voted change. Vaaish, your contribution to the BFG community has been near unrivaled, but your opinion as to what changes are "fixes" and what are "tinkering" are not going to stop people from voting on what they think needs to be changed. If you have a better way, I suggest you mention it.
People do provide reasons, except some don't except them as reasons. That's why there is voting. If people don't buy the reasons, they won't be persuaded.
This is just the issue. People aren't providing reasons why they are changing things, they are posting changes and the coming up with reasons why their changes are better than someone else's. There is no litmus tests that says, look this isn't broken to begin with, lets talk about something that actually needs fixing.
And who gets to determine the results of the litmus test? You? Me? Plaxor? Sig? Voting does.
A decent amount of those were right out of the original BFG:R voting, so they were just integrated by me when I started making the documents up.
I really don't care whose is at fault for some of those changes. It's still changes like that that are creating some of the problems right now.
Many would disagree. You are the best determiner of that?
Vaaish, if you would like me to put together new PDFs with just the original BFG:R votes and call that BFG:R, that would be fine by me. We can call the BFG:R that we are doing here something else. Plus, did any of these complaints come up when Plaxor and the original BFG:R people were coming up with the changes?
Actually I would prefer that we have a straight up BFGR that fixes the lingering issues that the HA were unable to fix with FAQ2010 and nothing else. By that I mean ships that have long had consensus as needing a fix. For instance, the Apoc crit rule or the Oberon. I honestly don't know if any complaints came up. I dropped off the forums a couple of months after the FAQ's were finished and lost track of the threads. All I know is that right now there are a lot of changes happening and very little proof that they need to happen which are made worse by everything being in flux at the same time leaving no baseline to balance to.
Again, this current attempt at BFG:R is the community trying to figure out what those lingering issues are and making the changes. You don't like the Apoc new rules? Many before you did. They saw it as a "fixing" issue and you see it as a "tinkering" issue. That's why we should keep the process to voting.
-
Let's not put on airs here. When you say 'the community' is doing this, in reality it's the handfull of people voting. A gradually shrinking handful at that.
I'll be the first to admit, I have an agenda with my voting. And bluntly, if any one else here claims they do not, they're liars or hopelessly naive. If you get enough people with the same agenda, they tip the balance of the vote, particularly with so few participants. This can be good, this can be bad, but this *is* the truth of any vote (bfg or otherwise).
Everyone has their own idea about how to make the game 'better' but what they really mean is 'better for them' if they're honest with themselves.
-
I want this to be better for me.
Ok I had to squeeze that in there ;)
I dont see anything wrong with what your saying Vaaish. I agree that people should explain why they want to see a change and I think everyone has so far. Now if someone gives you a reason why something should be changed doesnt that put the ball in your court to explain why you think it shouldnt?
I am already comming across some things that have been voted on that really need to be addressed and they will Im sure but thats why you change stuff. If its not working you try something different to see if that fixes it you dont just ignore it!
Im not really a fan of where the Tyrant went for example, it should have maintained the 6/4 30cm/45cm layout in my opinion and been dropped to 180 but it was voted to go to 12@30 instead. This is a good profile but it does take away from the flavor of the ship. There are many other things Im not to hot about (Retribution and Voss CL's pop to mind) but like I said these are issues we need to go over in testing.
-
And who gets to determine the results of the litmus test? You? Me? Plaxor? Sig? Voting does.
Even if you refrain from voting yourself, setting up the votes, deciding on the particular questions that get asked (or which don't), the options, and the way the questions are phrased, is an enormous power in itself. More influence than any single vote, certainly. Vaaish already wrote well about the trouble with this.
One example I can think of is a recent vote on the Jovian (to flog a dead horse), where the options were basically 'Include the Jovian as a reserve everywhere' or 'No, it needs more work'. But in this case 'No' could be (and obviously was) interpreted to mean 'It needs more work before it can be included'. There was no conservative choice which clearly said: 'No. Just don't touch anything. Leave it the way it has always been!'
Basically you can see the worry some have: There is an inherent bias towards change, if any ship or list can fall prey to a vote in which there is no clear choice not to make any change, pages and pages of discussion about which change is the best gets people in the mindset that they must choose one change or another. And every little change beyond what's obviously necessary alienates some player somewhere a bit more.
(I understand your objection above: How can we decide what is obviously necessary? Of course we need to find a balance between the will of the voters and the faithfulness to the original. A great facilitator of the voting itself is important there.)
Sorry to sound so critical. I'm saying this stuff because I want the process to work, and BFG:R to succeed. I just don't yet know what success is supposed to look like: Is the purpose of BFG:R to appeal to as many players as possible, or is it something else?
Everyone has their own idea about how to make the game 'better' but what they really mean is 'better for them' if they're honest with themselves.
I think some people take a longer view of what's 'better for them' than others do.
In my own view, BGF:R being 'better for me' means that with the end result, I can find the maximum number of players who can still get on board with the superior BFG:R ruleset, even if I can't field exactly the list that I want. It's a compromise.
What's your idea of 'better for BaronIveagh', if it isn't the same as my view of 'better for Casus belli'?
-
I'm sorry, it's not that hard, Vaaish. You get the documents from GW if you want official. If not and you want something more, get 2010 or BFG:R.
It's harder than you think. We know we can get the docs of GW, but a lot of people still ask where to find the rules. This get compounded when there is also the HA's "official" FAQ and now BFGR. What's what and why do all three list different costs and stats for some the same ships? That kind of thing causes confusion which is off putting to new players. It's naive to assume that it's not that hard and people will just "know" what to use.
And I suppose you get the magic want of knowing objectively which changes are needed and which are not? You say objective like there are total right and wrong changes that need to be made and you somehow know what they are. It's entirely subjective because what you think it tinkering, someone else may thing is fixing. When you look at the list of the original BFG:R changes, did you think those were objectively right? Objectively "fixes?"
I'm glad we are jumping to conclusions... You are correct though, there are totally right and totally wrong changes. Totally wrong changes contribute to power and feature creep which are bad for balance. Totally right changes fix quantifiable issues with ships or lists. These are things that solid reasons for why a change is needed can be given. For instance, Bakka is supposed to be a low AC fleet yet the 2010FAQ version still has reliable access to carriers. You can prove that is the case by posting lists showing it to be so. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I sure as heck want to have a solid reason for making a change to a ruleset that has had over 10 years for players to pick it apart.
How else would you like to determine which changes should and shouldn't be made? Again, do you have that magic wand? I completely disagree with what you just said. When you say that just because the people want a change doesn't make it so implies that some who are the "best fit" should determine the changes. Everyone else can go to hell. No, the people who are still dedicated to this small dying game of toy space ships get to make the changes they want. You are saying the collective voice of the fans of this game, determined through voting, is just "a good way to make sure BFGR sways wherever the wind blows" as if there is some objective way to keep it "stable" by everyone's standards in a community voted change. Vaaish, your contribution to the BFG community has been near unrivaled, but your opinion as to what changes are "fixes" and what are "tinkering" are not going to stop people from voting on what they think needs to be changed. If you have a better way, I suggest you mention it.
Usually you would have a rules committee made up of seasoned players that reviews proposed changes. Even then their task is to guide the development not mandate it. They do have the power to shut down ideas that fall outside the scope of the project. Once a list or change has been determined with internal playtesting (done by the list custodian on the epic side), it needs to be vetted in at least 6 games against other approved lists by multiple game groups before it gets consideration for "official." This is how Epic works and I believe how Blood Bowl runs.
I am absolutely saying that there needs to some leadership here. Just because your dedicated doesn't mean you have the experience or knowledge to make a good call and being dedicated doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. That's going to breed anarchy. If this game is dying then we need to preserve and safeguard the rules. That means careful, well thought out, incremental changes targeted to specific problems we are trying to solve. Just throwing everything up in the air because someone mentions it does the hard work Andy, Jervis and, more recently, the members of the HA a disservice.
Many would disagree. You are the best determiner of that?
I don't claim to be the best, but the discussions on the victory certainly point to the changes done to the Apoc as a large contributor to the perception that the victory needs changes. I'm sure that's not the only example either.
Again, this current attempt at BFG:R is the community trying to figure out what those lingering issues are and making the changes. You don't like the Apoc new rules? Many before you did. They saw it as a "fixing" issue and you see it as a "tinkering" issue. That's why we should keep the process to voting.
I would prefer you stop setting up my answers for me so you can shoot at them. You've done this with nearly every response in your last post.
The change to the BM on the Apoc was an issue that needed to be fixed (it was quantifiable that the rule was bad) I don't agree with the fix because it practically nullifies the entire downside to shooting at long range with the Apoc. The change to the Dorsal battery could be either but no one seems to have any solid reasons why the dorsal batteries are getting upgraded. Adding options to the CG's is pure tinkering; no one thought that the CG's were too slow or that they needed +1 LD it doesn't fix any flaw.
-
I dont see anything wrong with what your saying Vaaish. I agree that people should explain why they want to see a change and I think everyone has so far. Now if someone gives you a reason why something should be changed doesnt that put the ball in your court to explain why you think it shouldnt?
Unfortunately I haven't seen this myself. There's a lot of explanation as to why people think their change is the best option but very little that I've seen dedicated to saying why the change needs to happen at all. The mindset seems to be that broaching the subject is tantamount to proof that some change needs to happen. There is a very strong bias towards always making SOME change.
-
And who gets to determine the results of the litmus test? You? Me? Plaxor? Sig? Voting does.
Even if you refrain from voting yourself, setting up the votes, deciding on the particular questions that get asked (or which don't), the options, and the way the questions are phrased, is an enormous power in itself. More influence than any single vote, certainly. Vaaish already wrote well about the trouble with this.
I don't know if you have been around the whole time where I have been trying to avoid being the final say that some people have encouraged me to be. I am doing the best I can and I am trying to be as fair as I can be. If you or someone around here wants to put in the time to facilitate the voting instead of me, I would be happy to hand it over. The only reason I took it up is because Plaxor quit.
One example I can think of is a recent vote on the Jovian (to flog a dead horse), where the options were basically 'Include the Jovian as a reserve everywhere' or 'No, it needs more work'. But in this case 'No' could be (and obviously was) interpreted to mean 'It needs more work before it can be included'. There was no conservative choice which clearly said: 'No. Just don't touch anything. Leave it the way it has always been!'
Please step up and tell me if I make this mistake again. It was not my intention to frame any voting in any particular way. I have to just do the best I can.
Basically you can see the worry some have: There is an inherent bias towards change, if any ship or list can fall prey to a vote in which there is no clear choice not to make any change, pages and pages of discussion about which change is the best gets people in the mindset that they must choose one change or another. And every little change beyond what's obviously necessary alienates some player somewhere a bit more.
(I understand your objection above: How can we decide what is obviously necessary? Of course we need to find a balance between the will of the voters and the faithfulness to the original. A great facilitator of the voting itself is important there.)
No, because that would give the facilitator too much power over outcomes. If people want to bring up a vote, they should mention it, and if there is some agreement from people, it should get voted on. Again, who decided who makes the call when something is faithful to the original or not? You? Me? Vaaish?
Sorry to sound so critical. I'm saying this stuff because I want the process to work, and BFG:R to succeed. I just don't yet know what success is supposed to look like: Is the purpose of BFG:R to appeal to as many players as possible, or is it something else?
It is to make the lists into the lists that the voting community sees as the best, most interesting, and appropriate lists. Please give me a break here, I am not perfect but I am trying to do my best. If I screw something up, please just let me know right then instead of later.
Everyone has their own idea about how to make the game 'better' but what they really mean is 'better for them' if they're honest with themselves.
I think some people take a longer view of what's 'better for them' than others do.
In my own view, BGF:R being 'better for me' means that with the end result, I can find the maximum number of players who can still get on board with the superior BFG:R ruleset, even if I can't field exactly the list that I want. It's a compromise.
We all have to make compromises in this.
What's your idea of 'better for BaronIveagh', if it isn't the same as my view of 'better for Casus belli'?
-
I'm sorry, it's not that hard, Vaaish. You get the documents from GW if you want official. If not and you want something more, get 2010 or BFG:R.
It's harder than you think. We know we can get the docs of GW, but a lot of people still ask where to find the rules. This get compounded when there is also the HA's "official" FAQ and now BFGR. What's what and why do all three list different costs and stats for some the same ships? That kind of thing causes confusion which is off putting to new players. It's naive to assume that it's not that hard and people will just "know" what to use.
Are you advocating we just cut BFG:R? If BFG:R exists, this issue will exist to some degree. Yes, I agree that some people can get confused, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make changes because of it.
And I suppose you get the magic want of knowing objectively which changes are needed and which are not? You say objective like there are total right and wrong changes that need to be made and you somehow know what they are. It's entirely subjective because what you think it tinkering, someone else may thing is fixing. When you look at the list of the original BFG:R changes, did you think those were objectively right? Objectively "fixes?"
I'm glad we are jumping to conclusions... You are correct though, there are totally right and totally wrong changes. Totally wrong changes contribute to power and feature creep which are bad for balance. Totally right changes fix quantifiable issues with ships or lists. These are things that solid reasons for why a change is needed can be given. For instance, Bakka is supposed to be a low AC fleet yet the 2010FAQ version still has reliable access to carriers. You can prove that is the case by posting lists showing it to be so. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I sure as heck want to have a solid reason for making a change to a ruleset that has had over 10 years for players to pick it apart.
Well, I'm just wondering because you claim that there objective changes that need to be made. Yes, I think there are objectively wrong changes that make ships off balance. Granted. You just make my example in a later sentence about Bakka in that you think the 2010 list is not accurately portraying Bakka and it objectively needs changing. This is a subjective option, Vaaish.
How else would you like to determine which changes should and shouldn't be made? Again, do you have that magic wand? I completely disagree with what you just said. When you say that just because the people want a change doesn't make it so implies that some who are the "best fit" should determine the changes. Everyone else can go to hell. No, the people who are still dedicated to this small dying game of toy space ships get to make the changes they want. You are saying the collective voice of the fans of this game, determined through voting, is just "a good way to make sure BFGR sways wherever the wind blows" as if there is some objective way to keep it "stable" by everyone's standards in a community voted change. Vaaish, your contribution to the BFG community has been near unrivaled, but your opinion as to what changes are "fixes" and what are "tinkering" are not going to stop people from voting on what they think needs to be changed. If you have a better way, I suggest you mention it.
Usually you would have a rules committee made up of seasoned players that reviews proposed changes. Even then their task is to guide the development not mandate it. They do have the power to shut down ideas that fall outside the scope of the project. Once a list or change has been determined with internal playtesting (done by the list custodian on the epic side), it needs to be vetted in at least 6 games against other approved lists by multiple game groups before it gets consideration for "official." This is how Epic works and I believe how Blood Bowl runs.
Fine but why haven't any of these "seasoned players" stepped up to do any of this? There has been this list of BFG:R changes from quite a while back, but no one has stepped up and taken the lead. I don't want this job, but I do want a completed BFG:R. If some of the seasoned veterans around here want to step up and take over, be my guest, seriously. Just send me a PM. No one was doing it and Plaxor just bailed, so I picked it up because no one else would, and I am not claiming to know the answers to a lot of these issues so I am doing it by community voting because no experts or seasoned veterans have offered to do it.
I am absolutely saying that there needs to some leadership here. Just because your dedicated doesn't mean you have the experience or knowledge to make a good call and being dedicated doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. That's going to breed anarchy. If this game is dying then we need to preserve and safeguard the rules. That means careful, well thought out, incremental changes targeted to specific problems we are trying to solve. Just throwing everything up in the air because someone mentions it does the hard work Andy, Jervis and, more recently, the members of the HA a disservice.
The rules are nice and secure on the GW site. Where are the seasoned players making this happen, Vaaish? It has been made clear that the HA could not make some of the changes and counted on the BFG:R group to make some changes because they wanted the 2010 stuff to pass by GW. I don't think we are doing them a disservice. You yourself said earlier that you want Bakka to be less carrier friendly than the 2010 version, and that would not be doing a disservice to the HA based on your argument?
Many would disagree. You are the best determiner of that?
I don't claim to be the best, but the discussions on the victory certainly point to the changes done to the Apoc as a large contributor to the perception that the victory needs changes. I'm sure that's not the only example either.
I don't understand where you are going with this. The Apoc changes came from the earlier BFG:R and so we ran with it assuming that that was accepted at that period of time.
Again, this current attempt at BFG:R is the community trying to figure out what those lingering issues are and making the changes. You don't like the Apoc new rules? Many before you did. They saw it as a "fixing" issue and you see it as a "tinkering" issue. That's why we should keep the process to voting.
I would prefer you stop setting up my answers for me so you can shoot at them. You've done this with nearly every response in your last post.
I feel like my point from before stands on its own. I am trying to make the point that people will not always agree on what is tinkering and what is fixing, I don't know how that's setting up your answers. I apologize if it seems like I am doing that but it's not my intention. If I am setting up arguments, I am not putting those words in your mouth, only trying to explain my reasoning. Still, you didn't comment on my argument you quoted about the fixing and tinkering.
The change to the BM on the Apoc was an issue that needed to be fixed (it was quantifiable that the rule was bad) I don't agree with the fix because it practically nullifies the entire downside to shooting at long range with the Apoc. The change to the Dorsal battery could be either but no one seems to have any solid reasons why the dorsal batteries are getting upgraded. Adding options to the CG's is pure tinkering; no one thought that the CG's were too slow or that they needed +1 LD it doesn't fix any flaw.
Are you against adding any ships to any race? Dark Eldar or Tyranids for example? Necrons? Would that be tinkering that shouldn't happen? Many people think that there needed to be more options for those fleets to be as awesome/fun to play as the others. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to add options, assuming they are properly priced and generally agreed upon through voting. Again, I think you and I have different pictures of what BFG:R is supposed to be.
This wouldn't be a concern to you if you didn't have any stake in BFG:R or what becomes of it. That's why I am wondering if the project should be called something else. In my mind, preserving the fleets/rules in not as much a priority as having fixed ships and having all fleets enjoyable to play by the majority of the people who vote. If people want to add vessels to the Necron fleet, why not let them do that in BFG:R, where we are changing some thing up anyways in this unofficial document? If this project was titles BFG:Ammended, would you be ok with people "tinkering" and adding ships and changing stuff up and even changing rules? My point is, why do you care at all that people are making a version of the rules/fleets that are different from the original and 2010 stuff? Why not just let people do what they want? Is it because it is on this forum? Of do you just not like when people make new documents? I am still not understanding why you are so bothered by this. People always have the option to play 2010 and GW rules. BFG:R is not meant to replace the GW fleets or 2010 fleets in the community of BFG players, but it is an option for players who don't want to use GW or 2010 fleets.
And I am serious, if you want to get together a group of seasoned players to work on a version of tweaked 2010 rules, I would be unbelievably happy about it just as I was when I found out that BFG:R existed and that people will still refining the lists.
-
I dont see anything wrong with what your saying Vaaish. I agree that people should explain why they want to see a change and I think everyone has so far. Now if someone gives you a reason why something should be changed doesnt that put the ball in your court to explain why you think it shouldnt?
Unfortunately I haven't seen this myself. There's a lot of explanation as to why people think their change is the best option but very little that I've seen dedicated to saying why the change needs to happen at all. The mindset seems to be that broaching the subject is tantamount to proof that some change needs to happen. There is a very strong bias towards always making SOME change.
I agree with this. I think it is appropriate to put one of the voting options for each vote "This does not need changing." "No, needs more work" does bias toward change. Please hold me to this if I forget.
-
Are you advocating we just cut BFG:R? If BFG:R exists, this issue will exist to some degree. Yes, I agree that some people can get confused, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make changes because of it.
No, I'm say keep in mind what you are doing so that it doesn't cause new players avoidable confusion. If we can make things more accessible and avoid confusion then why would we intentionally do something else?
You just make my example in a later sentence about Bakka in that you think the 2010 list is not accurately portraying Bakka and it objectively needs changing. This is a subjective option, Vaaish.
I beg to differ. If we know Bakka is supposed to be a low ac fleet (fluff, HA, previous versions) and we know that the average IN fleet has 8LB, then we can say objectively bakka isn't working as intended if we aren't seeing bakka fleets with average numbers of LB in an IN fleet.
I don't think we are doing them a disservice. You yourself said earlier that you want Bakka to be less carrier friendly than the 2010 version, and that would not be doing a disservice to the HA based on your argument?
You didn't read what I posted or didn't completely understand it. Changes in and of themselves aren't the cause of disservice, it's the haphazard and anything goes attitude that does the disservice. There is no control to what gets changed and no baseline to integrate it because everything is in flux. That does disservice and damage to the rules we have. Structured, well reasoned and tested changes serve to enhance the game we are trying to preserve.
I don't understand where you are going with this. The Apoc changes came from the earlier BFG:R and so we ran with it assuming that that was accepted at that period of time.
I was simply explaining how I came to the conclusion, that it was the previous change that is causing issue not me just deciding arbitrarily.
Are you against adding any ships to any race? Dark Eldar or Tyranids for example? Necrons? Would that be tinkering that shouldn't happen? Many people think that there needed to be more options for those fleets to be as awesome/fun to play as the others. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to add options, assuming they are properly priced and generally agreed upon through voting. Again, I think you and I have different pictures of what BFG:R is supposed to be.
I'm not against adding new ships and all options, but that should be separated from the core game and fixes to official ships. Even then proponents need to prove their case WHY the option in the case of official ships should be added. The desire for more options isn't an adequate reason to consider a change especially with the official profiles or with additions to fleets that contradicts the known intentions of the original authors.
-
Thanks for your reply afterimagedan. I think I get your position now, and your goals for BFG:R.
I think it is appropriate to put one of the voting options for each vote "This does not need changing." "No, needs more work" does bias toward change.
This would totally satisfy any complaints I had about the process [Edit: Well, at least the part of the process which you yourself have a hand in.]. Sorry not to mention this kind of thing earlier.
-
In my own view, BGF:R being 'better for me' means that with the end result, I can find the maximum number of players who can still get on board with the superior BFG:R ruleset, even if I can't field exactly the list that I want. It's a compromise.
What's your idea of 'better for BaronIveagh', if it isn't the same as my view of 'better for Casus belli'?
Well, getting more players ISN'T about a superior rule set (and in all honesty it's 'superior' status is questionable to me at this point. I can't say I've seen any sign of it other than the bug fixes). It's about visibility and community. That's why I said in another thread that we were all wasting our time and energy with BFG:R if we were not actively pursuing raising the visibility of the game in the public eye.
As far as your second point, I don't know you or how you think BFG 'should' be, so I'll use Sig since he made his position very clear earlier.
Sig thinks what's good for him (and thus, good for BFG) is the removal of the entire bakka fleet list.
I disagree and think that we should go back to how Bakka was before this forum got it's claws on it with FAQ2010 and start over from there rather than the FAQ 2010 version.
Both are equally good and bad for the game, in all honesty.
A whole lot of what gets pitched here has no absolute 'good or bad' for the game. It's almost entirely based on perception.
-
Are you advocating we just cut BFG:R? If BFG:R exists, this issue will exist to some degree. Yes, I agree that some people can get confused, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make changes because of it.
No, I'm say keep in mind what you are doing so that it doesn't cause new players avoidable confusion. If we can make things more accessible and avoid confusion then why would we intentionally do something else?
I just disagree that there is any confusion and have offered some ways to help prevent against that.
You just make my example in a later sentence about Bakka in that you think the 2010 list is not accurately portraying Bakka and it objectively needs changing. This is a subjective option, Vaaish.
I beg to differ. If we know Bakka is supposed to be a low ac fleet (fluff, HA, previous versions) and we know that the average IN fleet has 8LB, then we can say objectively bakka isn't working as intended if we aren't seeing bakka fleets with average numbers of LB in an IN fleet.
Then why haven't you provided solutions for it in the Bakka thread? The average of 8 is what people tend to take, it still does not make your claim objective.
I don't think we are doing them a disservice. You yourself said earlier that you want Bakka to be less carrier friendly than the 2010 version, and that would not be doing a disservice to the HA based on your argument?
You didn't read what I posted or didn't completely understand it. Changes in and of themselves aren't the cause of disservice, it's the haphazard and anything goes attitude that does the disservice. There is no control to what gets changed and no baseline to integrate it because everything is in flux. That does disservice and damage to the rules we have. Structured, well reasoned and tested changes serve to enhance the game we are trying to preserve.
If you think this process is haphazard and "anything goes" then you don't have to be a part of it. Would you tell someone who is creating a mod for Skyrim that they are doing a disservice to the creators, even if they are making it haphazardly and making mistakes? We just disagree about the approach.
I don't understand where you are going with this. The Apoc changes came from the earlier BFG:R and so we ran with it assuming that that was accepted at that period of time.
I was simply explaining how I came to the conclusion, that it was the previous change that is causing issue not me just deciding arbitrarily.
Ok then bring this up as an issue and we can discuss it. Problem is you haven't done that and instead complain that you don't like the way things are going. You have contributed to the changes in BFG:R a lot and we are grateful for that. You are pointing something out that you think is an issue, so use the system we are working with (discussioin leading to voting) and propose some changes. No one is stopping you.
Are you against adding any ships to any race? Dark Eldar or Tyranids for example? Necrons? Would that be tinkering that shouldn't happen? Many people think that there needed to be more options for those fleets to be as awesome/fun to play as the others. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to add options, assuming they are properly priced and generally agreed upon through voting. Again, I think you and I have different pictures of what BFG:R is supposed to be.
I'm not against adding new ships and all options, but that should be separated from the core game and fixes to official ships. Even then proponents need to prove their case WHY the option in the case of official ships should be added. The desire for more options isn't an adequate reason to consider a change especially with the official profiles or with additions to fleets that contradicts the known intentions of the original authors.
BFG:R IS seperate from the core rules and fleets Vaaish!! I don't understand this in the slightest. You need to separate in your mind that BFG:R is NOT 2010 or GW rules, it is a fan made version of new ships and fleet lists. It does not need to be separated from the official ships that we have in the documents because the entirety of the BFG:R document in itself is unofficial and not mandatory to use in the slightest. It's like Book of Nemesis: totally unofficial and option. Why didn't you bring this up when Plaxor was doing what he was doing? He was going WAY beyond what we are doing here. And actually, the desire for more options is totally adequate if the majority agree that is will be a meaningful change to the game and something that will make things more fun overall, which includes balance, proper point costs, and upgrades that will be used.
I hear your concerns, Vaaish. I do think we need to be playtesting this stuff as much as possible, and to be conservative of changes. But the game does have its set of official rules that people can bank on and learn with. That isn't going anywhere. I am going to make sure there is a voting option to say "this is not a necessary change to the game" in BFG:R voting so that people can vote that way. I thank you guys for bringing that up. I also take your concerns about how adding changes that are not needed to the game. I would argue that there are some things that should be added merely because they make the game more enjoyable and add meaningful options for people to use. I believe the upgrades to the Grand Cruisers are in that category, as well as the new Tyranid, Dark Eldar, Necron and Eldar vessels (this includes MMS, which is a fan made MASSIVE change to the way Eldar works). I'm sorry if we don't agree on this but neither of us seem to be willing to be pursuaded. BFG:R, at this point, because no one else is working on it or willing to pick it up, has been something that I have not been comfortable being the "tyrant" of, as Plaxor liked to claim of himself (jokingly I'm sure). The only way I know how to do it that will keep it close to some level of community involvement is through the voting system I have been doing. If you don't like it, I'm sorry, but I see no other way. THe "seasoned players" haven't taken this up, nor have the HA. So, I am doing the best I can to make documents with the changes the voting community wants. It's a living document that can be changed and molded as more playtesting happens. The votes to "finalize" are basically to say "we are done working on this, let's move to the next fleet." We can come back and still make changes. We have done that already.
I will let you have the last word, Vaaish, but I don't see the point of this conflict anymore because I don't think we will come to an agreement on this. I am totally willing and open to your input, as I am sure most are. I love your contributions and feel like our debates about the Victory, Admech, and Bakka have been fantastic and have bore some good fruits. I will confess that this conversation has been very discouraging to me and has made me question all of what we are doing. But I don't want to stop this process. We are getting things done. It's not going to be perfect. No BFG rules document is going to be perfect. But we are doing the best we can with the people we have to make this entirely unofficial document, not intending to overshadow the original or 2010 documents community wide. We should all take your encouragement to keep it to the basics and really evaluate what is needed to make BFG:R the best balanced game with the most enjoyable but controlled options.
-
Ergo: democracy doesn't work, people want a power hungry moder.... eh dictator to tell them what is right. ;)
kidding aside:
BFG:R at the core is fiddling with stats & point costs of ships. Nothing else.
Democracy means that some outcomes I agree with and others I don't.
-
I just disagree that there is any confusion and have offered some ways to help prevent against that.
That's not a very good way to look at it. Try putting yourself in a new players shoes and forcing yourself to think like they would. It's far more confusing than you believe.
Then why haven't you provided solutions for it in the Bakka thread? The average of 8 is what people tend to take, it still does not make your claim objective.
Erm... I believe that was the point of adding in the rule that ships with LB could only be taken via reserve rules in bakka. The rest of what you are saying makes little sense. An average is based on data data isn't subjective. If a fleet that is supposed to have aversion to AC ends up regularly taking the average of 8LB then there is something wrong. That's not subjective.
If you think this process is haphazard and "anything goes" then you don't have to be a part of it. Would you tell someone who is creating a mod for Skyrim that they are doing a disservice to the creators, even if they are making it haphazardly and making mistakes? We just disagree about the approach.
No, I don't have to be part of it. I do think the core idea is good and would like it to succeed. If I cared enough I might mention that they were making mistakes. If your approach is be haphazard and make mistakes then, yes, we do disagree with the approach. :)
Ok then bring this up as an issue and we can discuss it. Problem is you haven't done that and instead complain that you don't like the way things are going. You have contributed to the changes in BFG:R a lot and we are grateful for that. You are pointing something out that you think is an issue, so use the system we are working with (discussioin leading to voting) and propose some changes. No one is stopping you.
I believe I've mentioned it a couple of times in the discussions and votes relating to the Victory. I didn't know we needed a separate thread to even talk about it.
BFG:R IS seperate from the core rules and fleets Vaaish!! I don't understand this in the slightest. You need to separate in your mind that BFG:R is NOT 2010 or GW rules, it is a fan made version of new ships and fleet lists. It does not need to be separated from the official ships that we have in the documents because the entirety of the BFG:R document in itself is unofficial and not mandatory to use in the slightest. It's like Book of Nemesis: totally unofficial and option. Why didn't you bring this up when Plaxor was doing what he was doing? He was going WAY beyond what we are doing here. And actually, the desire for more options is totally adequate if the majority agree that is will be a meaningful change to the game and something that will make things more fun overall, which includes balance, proper point costs, and upgrades that will be used.
Perhaps I didn't bring it up because I wasn't available to be part of those discussions at the time? I believe I've mentioned that several times.
Look, you aren't hurting anything by splitting this into two sections. One for core fixes to official ships and rules and one for completely fan made material. It makes it easier for new players to understand what's changed and it makes it easier for veteran players who might not want all the extra stuff to access what they need rather than scrolling through a larger document. It makes it more accessible and more accessible means that more people are likely to use it. Why wouldn't not want that?
My intent is not to discourage you in the least. I debated even posting the topic for a long while; I want this project to succeed, I really do. Take what I've said as observations about what isn't working in the process and do what you can to fix it. In the simplest terms, throw an extra step into the process. Instead of jumping right to discussions of what changes to make, start with discussions and votes on if changes are needed (needed is different than wanted) at all. Once that's been determined, then move into discussions on how to fix something. Think through use cases when options come up. Ask yourself under what circumstances would I use this option or will making this change invalidate peoples lists and collections.
As to a rules committee, we should speak to the HA and have them appoint fleet moderators for the available races to guide discussion and changes.
-
As much as I want to reply, I gave you the last word on it. Would you like to contact the HA about this? If they want to work on BFG:R, they can certainly do so. Have the come vote and lead discussion. However, I don't think leaving a voting system is the way to go so that might be a problem. Have them email me at dangleason1@gmail.com if they want to discuss.
-
Ergo: democracy doesn't work, people want a power hungry moder.... eh dictator to tell them what is right. ;)
Eh.... democracy works as well as communism and for the same reasons. As long as everyone wants the same things and no one is trying to work the system or hose their neighbors in search of a bigger piece of the pie. Or deliberately sabotaging the situation because they don't like the guy that got elected.
If you want a government that can rapidly respond to changing situations and writes simple, easy to understand rules, yeah, dictatorship is the way to go. Unless you're in Germany or Russia, because even then the legal system gets as convoluted as the grammar even under the simplest governments.
I've never seen a masterpiece painted by committee.
-
Would you like to contact the HA about this? If they want to work on BFG:R, they can certainly do so. Have the come vote and lead discussion. However, I don't think leaving a voting system is the way to go so that might be a problem. Have them email me at dangleason1@gmail.com if they want to discuss.
I can try to contact them. I'd be looking for them to assign Fleet custodians that help to guide the process rather than out right work on BFGR.
-
As long as stuff gets done, which I doubt, honestly. They seemed remarkably absent in the Plaxor BFG:R days.
-
The change to the BM on the Apoc was an issue that needed to be fixed (it was quantifiable that the rule was bad) I don't agree with the fix because it practically nullifies the entire downside to shooting at long range with the Apoc. The change to the Dorsal battery could be either but no one seems to have any solid reasons why the dorsal batteries are getting upgraded. Adding options to the CG's is pure tinkering; no one thought that the CG's were too slow or that they needed +1 LD it doesn't fix any flaw.
Care to explain this? The critical hit penalty from the 2010 FAQ isn't a penalty at all. It only takes effect when firing over 45cm (so, like once or maybe twice in a game) and even then it doesn't do anything because it'll very most likely be repaired before it has any consequence whatsoever. You don't even take an extra hit damage. So no penalty whatsoever from the crit. The real penalty comes from only having 30cm range if you fail your LO. This makes it far too unreliable as a long range weapons platform. Given its speed of 15cm it is also too slow to be used as a linebreaker.
The current fix provides reliability as well as a decent consequence. You can reliably fire out to 60cm, thereby validating its role as a long range weapons platform. If you fire over 30cm (not 45cm!) then you'll lose a shield and some speed next turn. If your opponent chooses to fire upon you and causes at least one point of hull damage then this means that this downside has, in effect, caused 1 hit of damage due to the loss of the shield. If he doesn't then it hasn't. Either way you won't be able to steer next turn without use of BR or a gravity well.
The dorsal WB increase is for a couple of reasons. Firstly, all the original BBs with dorsal WBs had a pitiful strength. Nowhere near the parity with the lance option. This is terrible as a constraint. So, in effect, some ship or other needed to have at least 9WB dorsal to establish the proper precedent. In the case of the Victory one can account it as a suboptimal BB. The Emperor and Oberon are only carriers and so don't need the extra guns. The Desolator is a fast BB and has CB level firepower anyway. The Apocalypse however is a pure gunship and is meant to be able to compete with the Retribution in terms of firepower. So changing this to 9 establishes a proper precedent and brings it in-line with upgraded Retribution.
As for the CGs, well one of the things that bugged the hell outta me was that they had no dorsal or prow weapons. All IN/Chaos CBs and BBs have both (ignoring Bakka crap) and the only other CG, the Repulsive, has both also. So why would five ships be so conspicuous by the absence? It never made sense to me. I understand flavour and whatnot, but the notion that these ships never had any prow or dorsal emplacements when all other ships their size do is hard to swallow.
However, they don't really need any more guns, for balance that is. And to just whack on torpedoes, say, and bump up their costs would be unnecessary and break their flavour. So I thought "why not give them a choice of a few different prow/dorsal upgrades?" My idea was that they could take one upgrade with the further caveat that no two Vengeance type CGs could take the same one. These would have been experiments by the IN at making the Vengeance series CGs more viable. Ie, bring them out of mothballs. Unsuccessful experiments.
So that way you could run them as their base profiles or, if the bare spots irked you, you could take some sort of nominal upgrade at inflated cost. However, back in the original BFG:R people rejected the majority of upgrades I proposed and added in the extra speed upgrade. Therefore the point of the exercise got shifted from "filling in the inexplicable gaps" to "yay, upgrades!"
-
The speed upgrade does make sense for the Avenger but its overshadowed by the torpedoes. Personally i hate the CG's model and layout but they are pretty cheap for what you get.
-
@Sigoroth I find myself agreeing with you on the grand cruisers.
Wow...I go away for a weekend and this happens. I find myself pretty damn disappointed with this community, particularly certain individuals who are deliberately filibuster-ing the entire procedure.
BFG:R obviously means different things to different people, and I get that. We all do. This is a community project, in terms of the fact that everyone has a voice. But what I really hate about the current situation is that everyone seems to think that they can just step in and overhaul the entire system of voting and discussion. Whilst everyone seems content to poke and prod at afterimagedan, constantly complaining about the scope of the project and his methodology, I remember how this started. Quite a while back already, me and Thane had been sifting through the scrapyard of disjointed rules that BFG:R was at the time of Plaxor's era, looking for rules and additions to improve our game. Out of nowhere this guy, afterimagedan comments that it's pretty sad that we have to pick through the failed remnants of a great project. I remember thinking, "Who the hell is THIS guy?" ::) ;D
Soon afterwards, the ball starts rolling. Dan gets community interest in the project, implements a very functional and robust voting system and gets in contact with people who can effectively edit and compile the documents as we finish them. He is the entire reason this project is reborn, and pretty much the only thing pushing it forwards thanks to the petty dissension that is threatening to strangle this child in the womb. So why the hell should I care if his name comes first in the credits, if he is technically in charge, despite the fact that he has not went against a single community decision or edit? It may be a community effort, but I love how there are so many fools here that think they deserve equal credit to him. Where were these simpletons when BFG:R was wallowing in its shallow grave? Where were they when he put in the hours to make this happen? Complaining, that's what. >:(
I have the highest respect for the HA, I really do. But if they wanted to get involved they would have. Why should we surrender our right to vote on these decisions to a couple of elected discussion moderators/tyrants when we have a (fairly slow) but functional system? Vaaish seems pretty keen to hand over the reins of the project over to the HA, even though the HA has never shown any interest in any rule set after FAQ 2010, knowing that GW would never approve anything if not that hallowed document. But the truth is, afterimagedan may not be the leader of this or the dictator in chief, but he is the director at the very least, a coordinator if you will. If he wants to hand it off to the HA, then fine, that's his choice. But it's pretty disgusting that people are trying to enforce anything of the sort on him, like a bunch of lapdogs hoping for some of the crumbs of glory that this project will leave in his absence (a hilarious notion, to say the least).
People are free to make their own projects, and they can be equally good. I know that, even if I disagree with Vaaish on pretty much everything, if he were to start and develop his own project I would be right behind him.
TL;DR This is a community project, but as the guy who does all the freakin' work, afterimagedan gets to decide the scope and direction of it. Want to be that guy? The start your own project.
@horizon Despite the harsh words this is within forum acceptability limits, yes? If not PM me and I will edit any offensive words.
-
Aside of all the dramaqueens, and "who-has-the-biggest...-prow" talkings all is well. ;)
So that's good.
-
I don't like to brag, but if you must know the retribution's prow is based off of my own, but due to ineffective energy transfer it had to be downgraded to retain its functionality. Such is the price of having superior size and durability...you are doomed to tower above your contemporaries. ;D ::) :P
-
Thanks Horizon. Glad to know you can have some conflict on these forums and not be criticized by a moderator... :-[
-
Care to explain this?
Sorry, I was referencing the pre-FAQ2010 rule. The updated rule itself is fine giving the BM instead of the crit but I think the ship becomes too reliable since it has a natural 60cm range and no longer requires LO to fire that far.
Prior to the update no one wanted to fire past 30cm because of the crit damage. With just the change to BM when firing there isn't as big of a deterrent but you still have to decide if it's worth trying due to the lock on constraint and your LD value since failing would require a reroll or end any other SO that turn. Now it requires little thought. If something is out at 60cm, go ahead and shoot it, at worst you are aren't going to be able to turn and you have 3 shields. Why even bother with the added rule for firing past 30 at this point?
In it's prime the Apoc was a long range gunship, but at this point it's long past those days and has suboptimal ranges with moments of the former glory.
The dorsal WB increase is for a couple of reasons. Firstly, all the original BBs with dorsal WBs had a pitiful strength. Nowhere near the parity with the lance option. This is terrible as a constraint. So, in effect, some ship or other needed to have at least 9WB dorsal to establish the proper precedent. In the case of the Victory one can account it as a suboptimal BB. The Emperor and Oberon are only carriers and so don't need the extra guns. The Desolator is a fast BB and has CB level firepower anyway. The Apocalypse however is a pure gunship and is meant to be able to compete with the Retribution in terms of firepower. So changing this to 9 establishes a proper precedent and brings it in-line with upgraded Retribution.
Ok, I can see the reasoning here, but out of curiosity did you consider that the Retribution was the odd man out with too much dorsal firepower since, counting dorsal arms only, all of the remaining IN BB have s5-6 WB to the Ret s9wb equivalent?
As for the CGs, well one of the things that bugged the hell outta me was that they had no dorsal or prow weapons.
So things kinda snowballed off course? Looking at the models though they do have that odd double decker weapons configuration and very little space on the spine for weapons emplacements. It kind of seems like the the dorsal arms got shifted outboard and above the regular weapons emplacements.
-
@Talos-wow...now THAT'S a rant! ;D
But he does have a point. I'm a newcomer to the whole forum thing (BFGR being the reason I finally took the plunge), however, I've been a lurker long enough to see the presence of an "old guard". This is never good. Has anyone even heard from the HA in recent years? Do they even WANT the title any-more?
I know a big complaint on BFGR is that some stuff isn't getting tested thoroughly, but a playtesting log is up for use! Get stuff posted, get it discussed, get it stamped/fixed. That is a better way than endless brow-beating! I wish I could do more, but things get in the way, you know work, sleep...little things ;)
As for the GC's Hardpoints, I think the idea was to have two decks per side rather than than the standard side-side-top-front format. I think they tried to go for the characterful route than anything else.
-
BFG:FRE has a nice ring to it. "Fan-made Remake Edition."
Makes it totally obvious what it actually is for the new and old players alike. No confusion, no muss, no fuss.
-
@ Bessemer Thank you? I think? :o ;)
I think the idea behind this GC is that they are older vessels, and you will note they are very similar in design to vessels from the age of sail. Exception is the repulsive, but they go into great detail in the RT core book explaining how its an anomaly, not the norm. Of course, in that book a GC would have about 50% more firepower per broadside, and although I have not examined their stats closely/recently I don't think they are quite that high, which is odd considering they have twice the components per side in BFG.
-
@talos the vengeance CG line represent gap in the evolution between the old style IN (now chaos) ships and the modern armored prows.
-
@Vaaish I am aware of that, but thank you. I was referring more to the actual design rather than the fluff behind said design.
-
Where were these simpletons when BFG:R was wallowing in its shallow grave?
Well, some of us were made unwelcome enough that we left. Others had it made clear by plaxor and certain other posters involved that our input was unwanted in this project.
Dan is probably not guilty of anything, but picking up BFG:R comes with a lot of baggage as well, and not all of it was in plaxor's design decisions and I can see why no one took it up for some time.
-
Not very familiar with plaxor or his cronies (sorry plaxor ;)), since I was not into BFG back in the day, but I am merely illustrating that voting and discussing is easy. Dan gets to choose the direction and scope because he does all the hard work.
Despite my harsh words, I don't mean that everyone is stupid just because they did not resurrect BFG themselves. It's a monumental endeavour and I think Dan should get some credit for it, that's all.
-
Sorry, I was referencing the pre-FAQ2010 rule. The updated rule itself is fine giving the BM instead of the crit but I think the ship becomes too reliable since it has a natural 60cm range and no longer requires LO to fire that far.
Prior to the update no one wanted to fire past 30cm because of the crit damage. With just the change to BM when firing there isn't as big of a deterrent but you still have to decide if it's worth trying due to the lock on constraint and your LD value since failing would require a reroll or end any other SO that turn. Now it requires little thought. If something is out at 60cm, go ahead and shoot it, at worst you are aren't going to be able to turn and you have 3 shields. Why even bother with the added rule for firing past 30 at this point?
Alright, so the issue seems to be not the effects of the crit/bm since the BM idea fits somewhere between the original (ow!) crit and the updated (yawn) crit. Your sticking point seems to be the "thrill" of wondering whether or not you're going to get to shoot this turn.
This uncertainty absolutely had to go. The Apocalypse used to be just plain rubbish. Total garbage. Originally you had to worry about whether you would be able to hit anything at all and even then you got punished by taking a point damage. This got slightly better with the 2010 FAQ in that the crit wouldn't hurt you and since it only took effect at over 45cm it was so inconsequential they may as well have just removed it altogether.
You still couldn't be sure your 365 pt flagship was going to decimate your enemy or just act like a paperweight instead. If you adopt an approach designed to take advantage of the 60cm range then chances are you're going to need to shoot at >30cm. But you need to be locked on in order to get off a single shot. Of course you actually want to be locked on, but what if you failed a RO check earlier and don't even get a chance to attempt it. What if you get a chance to attempt it but just fail. The consequence of a normal ship failing its lock-on attempt is that it only has roughly 67% of the firepower it could have had. The Apocalypse dropped to like 16% effective firepower. Way too harsh.
Note: If you lose fire from this rule even once (that's 6 lances lost!) then you've basically lost 2 turns worth of locking-on (locking on gives ~+3 lances worth of fire).
Let's compare the 365 pt original Apocalypse sans-crit to the 345 pt original Retribution. Torps/NC is a lock, no appreciable difference. Assuming both took the same approach and managed to LO the Apocalypse has 3 lances vs the Retributions 6WBs. That's a decent gain. Then again, the Apocalypse is 20 pts more expensive and the 12WB Ret was a piece of poo. But moving on. Now consider if they don't manage to LO. The Ret gets 3L and 6WB over the Apocalypse. As well as being 20 pts cheaper. Oh, and it's faster. This last minor fact allows the Retribution to manoeuvre under fire and increases its ability to close with the enemy and use its offside guns.
So the original Apoc didn't even compare all that well against the crappy Ret, even when we totally remove the effect of the crit. This is because it was too unreliable.
Now, let's say we kept the unreliability for the BFG:R version. What would we have to do to make it viable? Well, let's say we up the speed, that way it can be used as a linebreaker like the Ret and its range would be more incidental. So then we have an artillery ship (NC) closing with the enemy at full speed. Hmm. Ok. It costs more than a Ret. It has shorter natural range, but longer potential range. Hmm. So, what we'd really have to do to keep the unreliable range increase is drop its cost, up its speed and give it torps instead of a NC. Blech.
It's safe to say that I, for one, can't stand the variable range rule. But you brought up 2 issues. One was your preference for the variable range, which I have been discussing, and the other was the consequence of the current rule. You reckon that without the variable range there is no practical downside and the BM rule may as well just be dumped, right?
I can't help but think that you've underestimated the consequences of that one BM. Sure, when you're looking at extreme range then it's hard to imagine the enemy having sufficient long range fire to be able to really capitalise on that BM. I mean, presumably they'll be shooting at something though, right? So maybe they'll take a shot at one of your 2 shield cruisers or maybe they'll take a shot at your 3 shield BB instead. It's only 1 shield the difference and it might be worth it simply for brace effects, ie, either you're not going to brace your BB because it has a higher crippling threshold and extra shield (in which case they might get more hull hits than shooting at a softer target) or you will brace it (in which case they made you brace a significant portion of your fleet). Either way, you're pretty much locked on course since you can't turn naturally.
However, leaving extreme range aside, how does the BM rule come into play when your enemy isn't 60cm away but is instead, say, 33cm away? Sure you can shoot at them, but their movement next turn could potentially put 1 or more ships into close range of you, depending on their speed and approach. So while losing that one shield may not matter too much at 60cm range it will certainly have an impact when you're looking at the business end of a couple of locked-on Slaughters at close range into your aft. Particularly since you're not likely to be turning to bring guns to bear on your next turn.
In effect the BM rule allows you to choose between 2 different profiles for your ship. You can choose a 3s, 10cm, 0 turns, 6L@60cm ship or a 4s, 15cm, 1 turn, 6L@30cm ship.
Ok, I can see the reasoning here, but out of curiosity did you consider that the Retribution was the odd man out with too much dorsal firepower since, counting dorsal arms only, all of the remaining IN BB have s5-6 WB to the Ret s9wb equivalent?
I'll start out with a pet peeve of mine, slightly off-topic. The strength 5WBs of the Emp/Oberon is anethema to me. I can see having suboptimal guns on these carriers, that's fine. But to me the dorsal guns should have been strength 6. Given the prow antenna array I'd have accepted strength 4 there, giving the same total of 10, but 5 is really quite a weird choice. [ /rant]
That out of the way, and to answer your question, yes I did consider it. However, when you look at the the dorsal lances of the IN and Chaos CBs you'll note that not only is it just a natural progression to increase to strength 3 for a BB, since a BB "should" have greater firepower than a CB, but also those CBs actually have better firepower than the WB armed BBs. We all know that 2L is roughly worth 6WB, but that only holds true up to 30cm. Beyond that the lances are considerably better. So a Hades or Armageddon has a flat out better dorsal weapon than every IN BB except for the "odd man out" Retribution. That seems backwards to me.
Also, the Retribution is not the only ship to have 3 dorsal lances. Both the Despoiler and the Repulsive also have 3 dorsal lances (albeit at a somewhat truncated range on the latter). So while I can get behind the notion of some ships having subpar dorsal weaponry for reasons such as being "just a carrier" (Emp/Oberon) or being a light battleship (Desolator/Victory), I can't get behind the notion of "oh, it's a BB with dorsal WBs, sorry WBs are limited to 6".
So things kinda snowballed off course? Looking at the models though they do have that odd double decker weapons configuration and very little space on the spine for weapons emplacements. It kind of seems like the the dorsal arms got shifted outboard and above the regular weapons emplacements.
Yeah, snowballed as usual. And yeah, design considerations could be a justification for their bare tops. However there is still ample room for at least CB level firepower, even if at suboptimal strength/range due to power requirements, etc. These ships were all mothballed and the IN did try to bring them out of mothballs, so I would imagine that the most obvious way to make them worthy for active duty would be to try some sort of dorsal weapon refit ala Lunar -> Armageddon.