BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships

[Sigoroth]

You point out the flaws in your own argument.  You acknowledge that a Bakka player can have 10ac at 1000pts, which is why your method is obviously flawed and you call it "flexibility." You are having to bully people out of allowing the Jovian and Enforcer to make it work and everyone sees it. I would much prefer to limit people to 2/500pts which they will most likely max out if it keeps them from squeezing the not so restricted version. I can't believe I am arguing against Sig for harsher restrictions and less flexibility for carriers in Bakka. 

This isn't a flaw, it's the beauty. Bakka fleet lists will have, on average, less AC than other lists. A beardy player playing Bakka cannot get more AC out of it than he could any other list. At most a Bakka list could get 10AC out of 1k whereas a normal list could get 18AC. So on average, less AC. At the most beardy, a lot less AC. This is perfect. The fact that at its most beardy it can have more than someone else bringing a medium amount is fine.

Hell, even with your method a Bakka player could bring 4AC at 1k points and their opponent could choose to field none. So what then? You going to put in a rule saying they can only bring in AC if their opponents have more?

As for bullying people out of the Jovian and Enforcer, well the Jovian simply shouldn't be in this list. At all. No way should anti-carrier Bakka get the only IN pure carrier available.

As for the Enforcer, assuming that we could get that ship balanced without invalidating other ships, I could see it being used in Bakka, as a reserve. I'm sure it would do fine on lone patrols, providing logistical support to planets and guarding against raiders and whatnot. However they'd be few and far between and they'd also be the least likely to answer a call to muster a battlefleet, since they'd be indispensable in their current roles. So it could be available as a reserve. But if it's going to be a reserve ship then there's no need to put it in the Bakka list, just put it in another list and Bakka can just reserve it in like any other ship. It's not needed here.

[BaronIveagh]

Ok, here's the link. 

http://darkreign.org/forum/index.php?topic=5901.0

[Sigoroth]

It that were true, you've have been banned on this board years ago.  So would I, come to think of it. 

Rubbish. I'm questioning your competency at making reasonable and reasoned rules, not your right to spew forth your crazy ideas. I'm not even being unreasonable in my objection either, if it were up to you SMs would have lances.

Then read some of the things I have in mind rather than jump to conclusions.   Though I *do* support it having certain silly ships you do not like, Jovian is not one of them.

The Cardinal is worse than the Jovian.

Actually that has not been decided yet.  We really need to look at what ships would go into it and how best to balance it.  I think that Jovian needs to go, but how to balance the AC issue I'm not entirely sure.  That was one of the reasons that I like the committee idea is that there are other people who have other takes on the idea.

And what I don't like about the committee idea is that it's stacked with people that like a lot of the horrendous crap that came from original Bakka of which you're the worst. If you're ideas are similar to mine and I should just give them a go, proving that you're so reasonable and whatnot, then I should be on that committee with you. We're coming up with "similar" ideas after all. If yours aren't unreasonable then ergo mine aren't either. I doubt that ideas are like mine though, as I'm sure that the man that suggested a 4AC, 4T +1 on RO Defiant even after all the discussion saying why it couldn't be so has little in the way of reason.

So either we're both similar and reasonable and therefore just as eligible to join the committee or we're not similar at all and the committee could do without either of us.

No offense ment to anyone but I also agree that Sig and Baron have a bit too much interest in this to make objective decisions. Im not saying you guys wouldnt be a great help with your personal views and input, just that if anything you two would be best used as more of a sounding board on anything that may be objectionable or out of character for the list.

*shrug* Actually it should be apparent that I'm quite capable of making dispassionate decisions about the fleet list.

All my decisions are objective. They're not "dispassionate", but they're objective. If I have an intense dislike for something (such as the Defiant for example) I'll list my reasons for it. My original suggestion regarding the Defiant was to bin it. There were so many problems with it that it wasn't worth fixing. However, people wanted to do so anyway. So, a HUGE amount of discussion later we have a ship that 75% of people are 60% happy with. Fine, it'll do.

Case in point, the suggested 2/500 AC limit. Sure, it'll work. It won't be very fun. It's not terribly elegant. But it'll work. So why do I "passionately" push the alternative? Because the alternative is more elegant. It's also the simplest method. So objectively, the method I am suggesting is simply better.

If we are absolutely resolved to give Bakka a variety of easy to acquire carriers then we are forced to use an alternative method of restriction such as the 2AC/500 pts. It's not as elegant. It's clunky and it doesn't explain why Bakka has to have these carriers. {Note: since this seems to be the assumption and the point of contention can we get a justification of these carriers in Bakka?}

It is similar with the FDT. This is AM tech that can't be maintained by IN ratings and so requires a closer than usual relationship with the AM (hence the close ties in the 2010 version). A much simpler thing to do would be to just go with a straight forward easy to do refit that can be handled "in house" by the IN, i.e., a turret upgrade. So why would Bakka want to put themselves in bed with, and at the mercy of, the AM to get a FDT when a turret upgrade would do? This doesn't make sense.

Of course, a potential answer could be that they are so gimped that they absolutely need this on top of the turret upgrade. Well I don't think this would be the case if we just removed the 2AC/500 limit and simply avoided giving them an unrestricted carrier. So this suggests that people are trying to deliberately gimp Bakka so much in order to justify including this rule.

It's like doing 6 different things to achieve an outcome that can be done with 2 things. Both will get the same result but one takes more effort, is more convoluted and harder to understand the reasoning.

What I can't make a objective decision about is suggestions and positions espoused by Horizon and Sig, because I feel that I absolutely cannot trust them in any situation that involves game design as far as Bakka is concerned.  No matter how innocuous, there's this nagging sensation that it's some sort of trap that I'm just not seeing.

I don't doubt you feel this way. It's because you have agendas and so expect others to have them too. I, on the other hand, just let the rules I espouse speak for themselves. Hell, I even try to spell out all the possible consequences such as in the TTS discussion.

My objections to Bakka are simply rooted in the over-abundance of pure horrible, and the amount of work that would be needed to fix it. Exactly like the Defiant. What we came up with for the Defiant is ... meh. It'll do. Mind you, I actually think that Bakka has more potential than the Defiant. The Defiant was screwed no matter which direction we turned, it was too tightly hemmed in. There is potential in Bakka to make a reasonable and themed list, I just don't see it happening due to people's love for the crap that holds it back.

[BaronIveagh]

Rubbish. I'm questioning your competency at making reasonable and reasoned rules, not your right to spew forth your crazy ideas. I'm not even being unreasonable in my objection either, if it were up to you SMs would have lances.

My position was and still is that if they're going to have them, they should balanced the same as every other weapon, and not written to deliberately punish the player for taking them.  Making noob traps and deliberately bad options is not good game design.

The Cardinal is worse than the Jovian.

That's quite an assertion.

And what I don't like about the committee idea is that it's stacked with people that like a lot of the horrendous crap that came from original Bakka of which you're the worst. If you're ideas are similar to mine and I should just give them a go, proving that you're so reasonable and whatnot, then I should be on that committee with you.

So either we're both similar and reasonable and therefore just as eligible to join the committee or we're not similar at all and the committee could do without either of us.

*sigh* Fine, get someone (besides Horizon) to nominate you, and I withdraw my objection.  I'll add though that the first outburst from you and I won't save you from the mods either.   You will be on your best behavior or I will let Kage2020 feed you into a chipper shredder.

It is similar with the FDT. This is AM tech that can't be maintained by IN ratings and so requires a closer than usual relationship with the AM (hence the close ties in the 2010 version).

Minor detail, that's not official fluff, that's what the HA came up with to explain their compromise between previous rules and your demand for total removal. 

I don't doubt you feel this way. It's because you have agendas and so expect others to have them too. I, on the other hand, just let the rules I espouse speak for themselves.

Considering how many times you've been dressed down by others for bullying, or that fact I get fan mail from several people now every time I stand up to you...

There is potential in Bakka to make a reasonable and themed list, I just don't see it happening due to people's love for the crap that holds it back.

I think that a certain amount of compromise is possible.  However, I also hold up that I can generally disagree with others without calling the things they like 'crap' or otherwise disparaging them.

[afterimagedan]

In would be willing to move the Jovian to the Gothic sector list, 0-1.

Sig, we won't be agreeing on this restriction stuff so let's just stop.

[BaronIveagh]

In would be willing to move the Jovian to the Gothic sector list, 0-1.

Sig, we won't be agreeing on this restriction stuff so let's just stop.

He's arguing just to argue at this point.  Hell, I just agreed with him and he tried to pick a new fight about agreeing with him.

[afterimagedan]

In would be willing to move the Jovian to the Gothic sector list, 0-1.

Sig, we won't be agreeing on this restriction stuff so let's just stop.

He's arguing just to argue at this point.  Hell, I just agreed with him and he tried to pick a new fight about agreeing with him.

I never said he isn't a bully or argumentative.

[afterimagedan]

That's not to say that I don't respect the hell out of him.

[BaronIveagh]

I never said he isn't a bully or argumentative.

Yeah, he was the number one objection from the Admins at Dark Reign when I pitched the idea of holding the committee meetings there rather than here.  Which is what that link is, btw.  I set up a special thread in DR's BFG section for the committee to hold meetings someplace the mods were not involved in the debate.

If Sig tries the same crap there that he does here, Kage2020 will be on him like the white on rice.

[afterimagedan]

And will stop you when you for doing the same? Pick somewhere neutral.

[horizon]

BaronI,
did you just give a head start or did you enter the commitee?
I mean, we nominated people, right? Is that voting?

[BaronIveagh]

And will stop you when you for doing the same?

Yes, actually.  Not that I would.  Unlike Horizon here, I lose money as well as respect if I act like a jerk.  Losing an entire paycheck does put one on one's best behavior.

BaronI,
did you just give a head start or did you enter the commitee?
I mean, we nominated people, right? Is that voting?

*shrug* I invited everyone that got nominated to that thread to share their thoughts on the issue, I'm sure all of us have ideas on how to fix it.  At the time, I had thought the issue my membership settled, but I can see that's not the case.

In the interest of openness though I also posted the link here, so that if anyone has any question about the process, they can examine the record themselves.




Edit:


At Dragon Lord's suggestion, I'll decline the nomination on the stipulation that Sig also is not a candidate.

[Tyberius]

In would be willing to move the Jovian to the Gothic sector list, 0-1.

Sig, we won't be agreeing on this restriction stuff so let's just stop.

I agree about the jovian.

I Don't agree to disregard Sigoroth opinions, they are logical, informed and wise most of the time (when he's not being rude).

Me, being an imperial "I want all those pretty ships in my fleet" freak I curiously always seek for sig's opinions to make me put my feet on the ground.
I respect him as one of the most wise critics in this forum, so I'm so grateful to have him as the wall where we're all crashing when we get rules that might otherwise make this game a crap like  warhammer 40k...

[afterimagedan]

In would be willing to move the Jovian to the Gothic sector list, 0-1.

Sig, we won't be agreeing on this restriction stuff so let's just stop.

I agree about the jovian.

I Don't agree to disregard Sigoroth opinions, they are logical, informed and wise most of the time (when he's not being rude).

Me, being an imperial "I want all those pretty ships in my fleet" freak I curiously always seek for sig's opinions to make me put my feet on the ground.
I respect him as one of the most wise critics in this forum, so I'm so grateful to have him as the wall where we're all crashing when we get rules that might otherwise make this game a crap like  warhammer 40k...

Tyberius, please re-read what I said. I am not calling for anyone to disregard Sig's perspectives, I am calling for and end to the argument. It's over. Please let it be.

[Tyberius]

In would be willing to move the Jovian to the Gothic sector list, 0-1.

Sig, we won't be agreeing on this restriction stuff so let's just stop.

I agree about the jovian.

I Don't agree to disregard Sigoroth opinions, they are logical, informed and wise most of the time (when he's not being rude).

Me, being an imperial "I want all those pretty ships in my fleet" freak I curiously always seek for sig's opinions to make me put my feet on the ground.
I respect him as one of the most wise critics in this forum, so I'm so grateful to have him as the wall where we're all crashing when we get rules that might otherwise make this game a crap like  warhammer 40k...

Tyberius, please re-read what I said. I am not calling for anyone to disregard Sig's perspectives, I am calling for and end to the argument. It's over. Please let it be.

  Sorry, I wasn't quoting you about sig, I was talking in general,  I'm not even taking part on the actual discussion, if it's over is over, This was only my opinion about a member of the board. let's move on...