---

Quote:

A poll is irrelevant. Game design is not a democratic sport. Either the design as a whole fits into the existing game architecture or it does not. No particular answer has any meaning without taking into account how it integrates to every other question.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 06:52 pm: Edit

I think it's an inspired idea, myself. It gives us a good look at where we all are, and a total view of the vision for X2 that certain people share. I was surprised to see that many more people agree on the basics than I would ever have thought.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Mike that was the enire reason to do a Poll. We've been arguing circles for a couple of months now.

With a Poll we might just be able to get somethings nailed down to try. Regardless of what Tos thinks. (I'm not bashing Tos. He's a good guy but I disagree on his take on the Polls validity.)

If ppl can agree to a few basics we can move on to the more complex stuff to get ready for Playtesting. If things dont work we can try something else.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 07:52 pm: Edit

I agree. A poll makes lots of sense, because when SVC reviews these discussions, he'll be looking for consensus amogst us as a guide for what might be salable.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 08:15 pm: Edit

It's a good starting point. But the results shouldn't be taken as The Final Answer.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 08:32 pm: Edit

Yeah...salable...but we mustn't let it be a guide for controlling what we invent and playtest.


I would say that the best move would be to play-test each one improovement and then have a percentage estimate of what increase in the BPV they should be and then the final designs can be develloped by picking and choosing to suit the BPV range that we think is sensible.

Since X2 will be the last of the High Tech modules, I think it'll be fun to not limit ourselves with repect to how high is the high end of BPV but I think I'm the only one.


I want it all...I want it all...and I want it now. Boy...can QUEEN sing egotistical songs or what!?!

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 08:53 pm: Edit

MJC, there's room for two X2 modules.

The first, X2, will cover the Y205 Trade Wars.
The modest improvements can go in there.

The second, X2R, will cover the Y225 Xork Wars.
It can have the crazy stuff.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 09:03 pm: Edit

The thing is the crazy stuff would make it a different tech level.

All we could have would be more of the same stuff or improovements of the stuff that exists ( like change the 3 Point BTTYs for 5 pointers ).

But things like a second ASIF or stealth material hulls would be a new tech level and thus X3, which probably will never come to be.


Perhaps we should revise the Ph-4Jr table to use as the Phaser for these vessels and have a refit for vessels to replace their phasers with those, around the time of the Xork invasion.
But that might make the game seriously unplayable for the GWs ( being abple to destroy GWs out of R8 quite easily ).

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 09:52 pm: Edit

MJC, it may be entirely possible that a Y205 CA that gets converted into a Y225 CC might both the same tech level.

A Y120 multi-role D6 with speed 8 drones is 113 BPV, while a Y180 D7W warship with speed 32 drones is 173 BPV. 3 D6 = 2 D7W, despite both being heavy cruisers from the same tech level.

According to the poll, so far it's a tie between 300-350 and 350-400. So for the sake of arguement, let's put a Y205 CA of 350 BPV. If 3 Y205 XCAs = 2 Y225 XCCs, that puts the Y225 CC at 525.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 11:18 pm: Edit

Jeff,

I agree.

Refeits, guys. SFB loves its refits. We can start with a basic ship and get more complicated.

Look at GW tech. Plasmas started with the G and R-torps, got the S-torp, shotguns, EPT's and sabots. And its all GW-tech. So there's precedent for a decent amount of change at a given tech level.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 12:55 am: Edit

Oh I get it. G-torp for Gorn's torpedo, and R-torp for Romulan's torpedo.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 06:36 am: Edit

Yup and F for Fast and S for Standard IIRC.

I think M is for Medium ( between standard and Romulan ) and L is for long as in a Long range F torp.

And D is for Drone...but I could be wrong.

The S used to be the GII as in Improved G but that got changed to S.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 10:23 am: Edit

Guys I sure dont want the Poll to be considered a straight jacket.

What I thought everyone understood. Was if a particular question gets answer A. 50% of the time. That should be used as the basis for the first round of playtesting. If a Q. doesn't get a clear majority answer, then the Top 2 answers should be debated. And after a while put up for another vote.

That way we can maybe move the discussion forward instead of going round and round over the same topics/issues. (And if initial playtesting says something doesn't work. Go ahead and throw it out.)

This is simply a way to get a feel for how ppl are looking at 2X.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 10:37 am: Edit

This is a Poll to help us decide what to try for the first round of Playtesting.

What playtesting? 4 or 5 people are throwing around all kinds of Xproposals here that aren't even seeing an official response as X2 is so far off the radar screen its not funny. Assuming there will be playtesting of these proposals is nearly as funny.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 03:59 pm: Edit

Then don't playtest.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 03:06 am: Edit

Thanks to:
Ed Cruchfield
John Trauger
MJC
Loren
Jeff Tonglet
Jeremy Gray
Mike Raper
Aaron Gimblet
Carl Magnus Carlson
Geoff Conn
Tony Branes
Jim Davies

Your Vote will help shape the start of 2X. So it is appreciated. (if only to help with a starting place.)

If you voted twice in a particular Question I took your first response. We should wait at least another week before we even consider closing this Poll. (At least the Updated V.)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 09:25 am: Edit

The option to add a write in candidate to any question answers some of my concerns with the poll.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 12:50 pm: Edit

The point being John, this playtest will apparently be of material that ADB hasn't requested nor even looked at. You might want to put it all together and write it up as a formal proposal and have it reviewed before spending that much more time on it.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Geoff I doubt it would be a Full up Playtest. It will be a few small tries at seeing if this conglomeration we have strung together can even begin to work.

Maybe a 2 of battles Vs 2X. 3 or 4 Vs 1X and GW respectively. All for fun.

But we are still a good way from even that stage. A number of questions in the Poll opinion is sharply divided. And we haven't even touched on Drones yet. IMO they need to be defined AFTER we do the basic ship.

I mean the Races I would P.T. from would be Fed Gorn Klingon. Since with those three you basically cover 75% of the races in the Alpha sector.

(I know the Rom's are traditional. But Testing the Cloak could cause bigger problems and should be avoided for now IMO.)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Exactly.

If we can hand the ADB a rough draft that has most of the rough edges at least filed down, we have a much better shot of actually writing X2.

That's how Bruce Graw sold Omega.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 03:45 pm: Edit

Omega had the advantage of being pretty much a self-contained system, however. X2 needs to be able to plug into both existant material and the unknown Xork material.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 04:33 pm: Edit

Which is the "Camel in the tent." That no one is really able to get around or discuss. (Or thats how I remember that expression.)

AFTER a first round of PT we could add in more ships/systems. Or if we find a couple of big problems try something else in those areas and go through it again. 2X will be a project of a couple of years at the least. Before it's ready for even a first presentation to TPTB.

So there is no real rush. The Poll was symply a way for us to stop arguing about the shape of the first table so we could sit down and negotiate the shape of the next table ;) (Using an OLD Diplomat expression.)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 04:52 pm: Edit

While it would be difficult to achieve a playtest of the various options would be interesting. How much better is a ship with a SIF? How much better is a ship that can moves speed 32, tac or HET on impulse 1? How many P5 is the equal of 12 P1? What BPV benefit is there in having 36 hexes of movement vs 42 hexes of movement vs 48 hexes of movement? If we take a CA(X1) and increase battery power to 5x how much more capable is it?

Knowing the answers to these questions would help us eventually derive BPV and might help identify options that are too powerful.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 08:43 pm: Edit

"Saleable?"

X2 has to be a "Wow!" product.

When the Klingon X2 cruiser drops into tactical warp the Federation captain should say: "Oh crap." When the mysterious never-seen-before Romulan ship fires its never-seen-before weapon the 'expletive' should reach deeper. How about an X2 strengthed expletive? I am not talking about just having mega-munchkin damage causing weapons.

Change.

X2 should wow us.

Suprise us.

SSDs should be cooler-not just 'more warp/shield/etc. boxes. '

Going forward might mean going back.

Let's have 'leaner, meaner' ships.

Let's not use similar names of ship classes across the races.

Let's have some races abandon certain tech that 'has run its course'.

Let's have the courage to create new weapons/systems/etc.

The Poll asks about what kind of phaser....
My question is: "Why have phasers for everybody? Why have the "Phaser+Heavy Weapon" Paradigm?

It's scary reading some of these posts. Much of the x2 discussion has run along a predictable course. More warp engine boxes. More sheild boxes. Make my plasmas fire in a single turn. Make my ESG have arcs.

Bigger, stronger and more of 'em is not necessarily 'cooler'. I have visions of bloated SSDs with a predictably higher percentage of more of the same. I get this same vision every time I read about "...let's have 10 Phaser 5's and four (supercalafragalistic)photons..."

ok.

Back in the day, I remember firing a R-torp at my Fed opponent and hearing the "Oh crap!" under his breath. I also remember the fear that some of his overloaded photons might hit as I tried to get under cloak.

That magic and newness has to return.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 09:28 pm: Edit

Roger, I just have one question: What, specifically, did you have in mind?

Help us out. If there's one thing we've proven, we're open to ideas.