A short word on censorship

As people may have guessed, I'm not one to stand in the crowd and listen to things I don't agree with, and not say anything. I also work in an environment where we encourage and foster feedback - positive and negative....why? Because things only improve when you deal with those things that aren't right. I like to improve things, to get things done - better than they were before. It's what drew me to science (which in effect is asking difficult questions and finding the answers, including testing if the answers really hold up), and what appeals to me in Kaizen, Six-Sigma, the Toyota Way and all the other various process improvement, redesign and LEAN tools there are available today.

So let me talk about Spartan Games.

I've been a member of the community since - well, since before the current community even started - I was present in the old forums before they came crashing down in a a great cataclysm...so a long time...about 7 years I guess. I've always been vocal, had some great discussion and got involved with SG because of that.

That seems to have changed now. My prior account was deleted after they gave me a warning point, which was fair enough - I was being provocative, but then they aren't answering the questions the community is asking. I had another account, so used this to wade back in - I watched from the sidelines for a good while before making some corrections to some BS that Spartan Linde was spouting about the former FFG and "bias" or some such. An hour or so later and I find the account is deleted - no warning, no interaction, just deleted.

Is this really the sort of community Spartan are trying to foster? One that cannot take any criticism, one that re-writes the past 1984 style to suit its current members and thinking? If that's really the direction Neil is taking the company, then things really are worse than I feared - he really has lost the plot.

You can't force people to be quiet - the world of social media, blogging, podcasting and more has been around for quite some time now, and is quite established. You might not like what people like me say, but the way to deal with it properly is to address the points sensibly, not just attempt to gag people - that's the sort of lunacy that North Korea attempts (and fails). All that happens is the rest of the world look at you like you're a nutter.

I guess at the end of the day you have to look at what you get out of this - for me, I love Firestorm Armada, it's a great game. I haven't played it for a while now, however, because of the association the game has for me with Spartan and their raft of broken promises and lug-handed "management" (if you can call it that). Looking at the activity (or lack of it) on the "community", I can see that others are equally as turned off as I am...threads go by for weeks or months without being updated, and most of the activity seems to be the batch of new moderators for which involvement of any sort with a games company is still shiny and exciting.

Now I get that I'm now an insurrectionist in the eyes of Mr Fawcett (who can't see over his own ego, or the books of mine he still has) but in business you need to get over yourself and get on with what is best for the game. Business is about application of good practice and process, not hot-headed reactionary emotion. I'm no longer involved in his business, so I get to call the emperors new clothes whenever I like now, which is remarkably liberating. At least talking to a wider audience, someone will realise Spartan's new promises are exactly the same as their old ones - and just as genuine.

Fanstorm Armada - Battlelog part 2

Now the last entry dealt with the easy to fix parts of battlelog, which brings us to (3) - making ships reflect accurately on the BL. Now this one is harder, since the BL categories of "Tier 1" are very broad - a dreadnought is waaay more BL efficient than a Battlecruiser, despite being double the points. Carriers are also inefficient from a BL perspective, and so it goes on....

Now those of you who have followed my contributions to the SG community or this blog for a long time will know that I'm a numbers guy. I always have been analytical, even when I was playing with model soldiers as a kid I thought that there should be a better way of knowing who got shot than my whim, and when I got started in wargaming at around 11 I was dissatisfied with the mechanics presented to me, and started researching armour penetration characteristics for different guns and so on. It's something that's contributed heavily to my present position in business.

Back in v1 of Firestorm there was a very cool custom ship creation mechanic, which disappeared in v1.5, and which I thought I could recreate and make much "fairer" (it was possible to game the old one to create point-efficient "monsters"). As part of that I went into a deep analysis of the game, elements of which I used in the FFG, like the FA probability calculator, which handles probabilities of DR & CR with various AD by overlaying probability curves - so you don't just get a raw number, but the whole vulnerability curve, which you can compare with others...great for ship design! (I'll share that one with everyone at some point).

The upshot of this is that I created a huge (like 50mb or so at last look) Excel sheet to analyse every single ship in the game - it's effectiveness vs every other ship in the game and its vulnerability to every other ship in the game, incorporating SRS, boarding, range and so on. From this you could determine an "effectiveness index", and on examining this it looks very much like what you'd create from a straw poll of the community using the ships, which shows its broadly in the right direction. It is assumptive, of course, but it's assumptive in a standardised way, thus reproducible and adjustable across the board, making it relatively future proof.

Now the next part if this is to create some standard "slots" of BL based on the current BL ranges - currently you have BL alterations from 1 to 11 (+7 on one side and -4 on the other). This seems a bit restrictive given that Dreadnoughts and Battlecruisers are in the same space, so let's extend that to 15 (the reason will become apparent below). Now we can assign every ship a BL value based on its arbitrarily scaled effectiveness, which should make much more sense.

That by itself solves some of the value issues, but how this is applied needs to be looked at too. Let's get rid of the whole "half strength" bit, because it doesn't really mean anything and its awkward in game, so toss it. Now, for Tier 3s let's just say you get their BL value when the whole squadron is destroyed - an easy to remember point in the game and fluff-justifiable. Tier 3s are now more attractive from the viewpoint that it's now actually quite difficult to gain BL from them - large squadrons with the last one performing FSE deny your opponent BL.

Now this won't work for Tier 2s, which are a more solid investment from a fleet perspective, and yielding BL on the full squadron would result in bloodbaths with FSE and no BL. So let's award BL for them being destroyed (again, an easy point to remember - destroy a capital ship, gain BL), plus a bonus for destroying the squadron - yet again an easy "stop point" to adjust BL.

Tier 1s can be handled in different ways, and actually should be, because this adds design flexibility and granularity in differing ships - you can treat a Battleship and a Dreadnought differently from a Carrier or Battlecruiser. For the latter, we can use exactly the same methodology as for Tier 2s, with the Tier 2 contributing it's BL as an accompaniment (more on that below - hold those thoughts!). For the larger Capital ships, 1Bl per HP is a good stand-in, plus a bonus for destroying the ship and/or squadron. This BL loss should not be applied until after the game ends, or the ship is destroyed/captured/escapes, however - that stops Tier 1s being sniped for BL, but still means you can lose a battle at the end because the other player managed to maul but not quite kill your Tier 1s.

So this all sound really complex, right? Well, it's actually easily represented by a number with three other numbers - one for the BL per HP, one for the BL per ship, and one for the BL per squadron - like so;

Retribution 15 (1-2-1)

This means the Retribution is worth 1BL point for every Hull Point you manage to take off it, plus two for destroying the ship, and one for destroying the squadron. How does a cruiser look?

Isonade 7 (0-1-3)

Tsunami 11 (0-2-3)

So our standard cruiser squadron can vary in BL cost from 5 to 7. You get a BL for every ship you kill, and 3 for taking down the entire squadron. heavy cruisers are worth 2 each, but still an extra three for the squadron.

This format gives a lot of design flexibility - so for a start an accompaniment is easily dealt with, since it contributes its individual ship BL...this would be 1 or 2 for most capital ships, and is 0 for Tier 3s. Adding in a heavy cruiser automatically ups the BL cost here, since they're worth 2 points instead of 1, so it neatly gets around any questions of "What is this ship worth in BL in this situation?".

I talked about Battlecruisers and carriers, so let's have a look;

Ares 7 (0-4-3)

The Ares is worth 4 by itself, but you only get that when its destroyed...hey, now carriers look like a better BL choice, don't they? But wait, taking a carrier by itself means that when its destroyed its worth 7 - of course you can mitigate that by adding a cruiser like a Hermes 4 (0-1-1), which would bring the total BL value to 8, but you can avoid half of that if you got the cruiser out after the carrier was destroyed.

Amentum 7 (0-2-3)

Now Battlecruisers are worth less by themselves, but still sit in a higher BL value "bracket", which helps with fleet building, which I'll address in my next Fanstorm blog posting.

The other thing this does is cement the dialog used in game, since you'll probably need to ask the BL value of ships/squadrons as you destroy them - this shouldn't slow down play, since you should have all of that information right to hand (the intent would always be that the BL cost goes into the ship entry.

Here's the current list, have a look over it and see what you think! Always happy to receive feedbacl and discuss in more detail :-)

Complete BL Value list (wip)

Enjoy!

Fanstorm Armada - Battlelog Part 1

Well December is already more than a week old, and Christmas is rushing up to us with the speed of a Dindrenzi rail cannon shot, so I thought I'd better get onto the old keyboard and splurge some more of my thinking of Fanstorm Armada. This time I'm going to look at Battlelog, which was one of my favourite innovations for Firestorm v2.

Now over the past couple of years as the game has evolved, players have gotten used to the system and new ships have been released, some weaknesses have been exposed in the BL system - not inherent flaws, more design weaknesses that didn't take account of tournament hardened players or future releases. Let me lay some of these out there;

1. Working out who is winning can be somewhat confusing, and requires knowledge of the other players battlelog. Now this does create a dialogue (a good thing), but especially in tournament settings it could cause conflict (is your BL really at +8? I thought it should be +5 etc). This is compounded by some effects applying both a positive BL adjustment to one player and a negative to the other.
2. In some games you get "topping out" of one players BL, meaning additional positive effects don't count - making them pointless...not really the intent or reflective of where the game is at. this can act to create more draws or minor victories even when one side is clearly winning by any other measure.
3. Some ships are not worth their BL investment. This is most easily demonstrated with a couple of examples
• Tier 3 ships are easy BL - 1 point for halving a squadron (usually just 2 ships). 2 points for wiping them out. Easy money, as Tier 3s are not too much of an issue to pop.
• Battlecruisers in a Patrol Fleet are a liability - lighter on points than a battleship, but a massive BL swing if destroyed...which is easier than taking down most other Tier 1s. Carriers also have this issue to some degree.
4. Sometimes in the heat of battle it's difficult to remember to apply certain BL events - most usually reducing a squadron to half, a really unsatisfactory point since there are few other negatives associated with this - it's not a really pivotal point that draws attention.

Now obviously (3) is the biggest thing here, since it fundamentally affects how people build their fleets, leaving some ships in the "little used" category, because if used then they can be exploited by other players. This is often shown in minimisation of Tier 3s in many fleets, where their utility for points is also on the low side.

So battlelog is a third element that needs consideration when building a fleet - essentially what players do (those interested in building effective tournament lists, at least) is look at utility (subjective to the player) vs cost vs BL impact before using a ship in their fleet.

So how can we address this issue in a constructive way that solves some of the other minor weaknesses in the BL?

Well (1) & (2) are easy to address - you use a single battlelog for a game - the winner is determined by comparison of battlelog in any case, and it rarely impacts the game in any meaningful manner during the course of play, so why not just get rid of one? A centrally placed BL allows easy understanding of where the game is, and no ambiguity. You still have a dialogue - potentially more so - and it's harder to "forget" events since you're both essentially the gatekeepers of the log. This also eliminates "topping out" since that will indicate a crushing victory and opposing fleet shunt-out (if its not already destroyed!). This helps with (4), but it doesn't solve it entirely - better to address that one separately, which I'll do in Part 2.

I am Spartan Alex...and so's my wife....

Well, I used to be, up until yesterday when I finally decided to hand in my spear, helmet and shield and part ways with the Firestorm steering role I've had for the past few years.

"What? Are you crazy? I'd give my <<insert appendage here>> to be a Spartan!"

Well, be careful what you wish for - working with a games company can be incredibly rewarding, but it can also be enormously frustrating, hard work and gruelling. Sometimes it sucks so much out of you in the game you love, that you don't want to play. Then you wonder why you're putting in the kind of hours you are without pay (yes, this was voluntary!) - this was supposed to be fun!

So why did I quit?

A game system is more than just pretty models and good rules - it's exactly that, a SYSTEM. The leader in the industry got to where they were (and still are in large part) because they had a great combination of models and narrative, backed by good store support and excellent player involvement, all in a very different world to the one we inhabit now. They created a monolithic monopoly which stood for around 30 years before they slipped into getting super-greedy whilst losing grip on rules and getting sloppy with background - just at a time when other companies like SG were springing up in an internet-enabled world. The past 10 years have seen the industry completely change, and they have taken a lot of damage over that time by being inflexible in an increasingly flexible marketplace. Nevertheless, even they are responding - and maybe it is too little too late, but they're also big enough for momentum to carry them a long way.

I tried to help SG in this environment by creating the sort of technological tie-ins, community noise and background pieces (the odd "teasers" I posted from time to time) that I believed were needed for FA - I felt there absence as a player of the game. About 0.1% of what I've written ever saw the light of day over the past 3 years. My motivation for the creating Hub Systems was to talk about Firestorm, as I couldn't represent the company officially elsewhere. I attended Reading Warfare as a demo game under my own steam (with Oscar's help) four years ago because I love Firestorm - this year we'll have the third annual FA tournament there.

So in short, I believe in the community, and the lack of support over the last 18 months or so for those fledgling communities is damaging - and I don't mean in terms of prizes (which SG are pretty generous about), I mean in terms of Spartan's show attendance, regular blog pieces , coherent and un-retconned background, consistent universe technologies and meaningfully planned releases. As the leadership of SG clearly became more detached from that vision of a coherent universe that I had, it was clear separation was in the offing - and best now and cleanly rather than protracted and messy.

Spartan have been getting better in some areas (like show attendance), and I really hope that the game survives long-term. People have expressed happiness about the Amber system, which I completely understand, because there's been nothing for so long. In one sense I'm glad that stuff I was talking about to Neil over a year ago is happening...but (there had to be one) - it's happening in something of a vacuum (knew I could get a space-related pun in there somewhere!). The FFG were not involved in the Amber system development, so as to balance and ongoing unity, where does it leave it? The fluff pieces are nice, but do they tie in with the rest of the universe? Will the next pieces tie in with this?

Now I am anal about this stuff, and pick up on inconsistencies in anything quickly - they jar my suspension of disbelief. The champagne glass in the Sopranos which is filled and half-emptied and then filled again between dialogue is something I noticed first time. Having Dindrenzi officers refer to each other as "Pioneer" as an honorific might be cool, but its never been mentioned in FA before. This either needs something to tie it in or be dropped. Stuff like this might not seem important, but it's indicative of a larger problem - the universe behind everything.

Let's take a brief sojourn - why are there a lot of very successful US TV series at the moment? When you get down to it, it's because of the way they're made. I had absolutely zero interest in a medieval fantasy setting series when my wife asked if we should watch Game of Thrones because "people said it was good". I started watching and was hooked - not because of the setting, but because of the quality of the show - at all levels. It has a compelling, intricate and well-woven plot which is delivered with excellent acting - the actors aren't just making up their lines when they get on set. This leads to amazing moments like the resolution of why Hodor can't say anything other than "Hodor" - and it blows your mind (I won't spoil it if you've not seen it, but OMG!).

This is really what I worry about with the current Amber setting in FA - has it been beautifully crafted behind the scenes as part of a larger tapestry, or has it just been made up on the spot? I have a sneaking feeling that it's the latter, which means that although it might be sweet and glossy, it might stick in the throat later when the wider picture doesn't quite add up. Which would be a shame. Honestly, if I'm wrong, nothing's lost, right?

The joy for me now, however, is that I am unchained to express myself in terms of fan-created background, technology, stats etc - though of course these will no longer carry the weight of being "official", I'll keep working with the members of the community I've grown to develop great respect for and whose input and viewpoints I value - even when they differ greatly from my own - because we have the same destination in sight, and because they improve anything I do! I created military structures for all the core races of the FA universe....I created star systems with planetary bodies for EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM on the FA map - this is how anal I am!

Whilst I'm on it, those individuals of the former Firestorm Focus Group really deserve a huge amount of the community's love, they've worked tirelessly behind the scenes with little in the way of thanks and often massive criticism and quite thoughtless abuse ("Did the FFG even test this, this is so OP" etc etc). It'll be my privilege to work with them again in the International independent Games Design Group, (not a very catchy moniker, I admit!) continuing to produce fan-made support for the game we all love. They're a talented group of guys, and I think we can put some great stuff out for the community.

As such, and as an enhancement to both my blog and The Hub Systems, I've introduced a forum element to this site, selectable on the top right-hand side under Pages. Feel free to go over there and leave a comment and get involved in the discussion - I'll add other sub-forums on there as needed.

Well, I'll save you all from the wall of text now, have fun until the next time - Episode 27 of The Hub Systems is coming soon!