Archive through September 03, 2011
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Tournament Zone:
Tactics Discussion:
Archive through September 03, 2011
So it becomes a game of trying to get range 2 for your shot to minimize the whiffing, or Range 8 at the very end of a turn, to maximize the escape possibilities. But any way you slice it, the reload turn is a nightmare if you don't kill someone with your first shot. This is why I think 40 power would be the way to go. If you hit well with photons, 2 extra power doesn't matter at all. If you miss, the 2 extra power will help you on the off turn.
Troy Latta wrote: True, but Jungletoy was comparing Feds to BP. BP can whiff with all 4 bolts or have someone weasel all 4 torps and be in the same boat as a Fed.
Rarely, have I seen tourney BP dump 4 torps in a single turn unless the unfortunate opponent got tractored. My point was more along the lines of BP three turn arming vs the Fed two turn arming and having sufficient firepower during the reload turn to fend off the attacker. BP has two Ss and two Fs with EPTs and PPTs. They have a lot of tricks and generally put out one torp at time to draw the WW or force you run it out. The Fed on the other hand gets basically one shot and if they connect they will most likely win. If they don't, the opponent will most like hit again turn 2 with a small retaliatory phaser strike from the Fed for it's trouble. This is the beginning of the end for the Fed. Against drones your return fire turn two is going to be diminished by defensive drone fire. Power starvation limits maneuver, tractor auctions and drones take what little power you have left, dogs and cats living together.... 
Turn 2 is so frustrating and complex that I can see why very few people like the Fed TCC, it needs something a little more potent for that morning-after hangover other than rolling over and playing dead (which it is very good at). The single P-G would help against all races and the G-rack would help against D&D races. Either way it needs just a little help turn 2.
FWIW to counter Peter Bakija's claims that the Fed has middle of the road statistics in tournament play, a look at the evidence suggests that a claim of "middle of the road" can only be made with important caveats.
Statistics published for all games for the Fed played by players of any skill level from SFBOL and other tournaments show a win loss record of 425 to 637, or a winning percentage of only 41% and a *dead last* ranking of 18/18. In comparison, the Klingon has a record of 746-794 with 49% percentage - definitively in the middle of the pack ranking 8 or 9 out of 18.
When the records are culled to include only the so called "ace players" (removing ~2/3 of the players with the worse records) the Fed improves to a record of 182-200 or 48%, putting it about 11/18 now (which is somewhat more consistent with Peter's claims). The Klingon record is now 327-315 with a winning percentage of 50%. Aces play the Klingon somewhat more often than the Fed.
Doing a little algebra suggests that the Fed wins in non-ace games only 37% of the time.
I think that this points to a couple of interesting hypotheses:
1) The Fed is requires a highly skilled knowledge of the game just to play short of 50/50.
2) The Fed is an unmitigated *deathtrap* for newbies. Unsafe at any speed. Might as well be pumping cigarette smoke through the life support system.
3) Newbies and aces have about the same success rate flying the Klingon. The Klingon is much more rewarding for newbies to fly.
4) As a "prototype ship" the Fed, in particular, has been left behind, in part due to the capability inflation of its rivals.
This brings up some interesting questions: Should the tournament ships be be balanced for just the best aces (say by considering the distribution of only tournament winners) or for overall victory percentage for all playes?
The Fed is going to be one of the 2 or 3 ships first played by a newbie (the numbers support this) - yet the dismal nature of the fed in ace vs. newbie battles could very well exagerate the frustrating "shark tank" experience. Demoralizing newbies who are understandably sentimental for the source material sends a pretty funny message. Kind of like, yeah, we know in the source material the Feds seem pretty competent, but here in the SFU the Feds kind of stink. For the senitimental guy who doesn't care as much about the rest of the stuff he might get discouraged before he learns to like the new stuff too. Is this more of a tournament problem - FWIW probably yes, but the tournament has been a big part of the first impression for decades.
The other difference between the Fed and BP is that plasma can be used defensively to encourage your opponent to avoid closing and failing that as movement control to make it harder for the opponent to chase you.
Photons have no similar ability.
David wrote:
>>FWIW to counter Peter Bakija's claims that the Fed has middle of the road statistics in tournament play, a look at the evidence suggests that a claim of "middle of the road" can only be made with important caveats.>>
These are not my claims. They are the claims of the Powers That Be, who, when for years players said "The Fed is weak. It needs an upgrade.", they were countered with "The Fed has perfectly acceptable win/loss statistics and is inside the window of average. It doesn't need a fix."
I think every race except the Feds has some sort of maneuver influencer . The Feds are only 'influencing' with 4 full OLs at R5 or less. 
Maybe a Photon 'capacitor' that could store the turn 1 arming energy for two tubes and permit the fast load of 2x standards only. Then you could choose to allocate 4 of the 8 points of overload given in tournament rules to this capacitor at the start of a match. Sure you still have to corner dodge turn one to overload 4 tubes but a least you might have a shot at living 3 or more turns. If your frugal you could fire 2 OLs and 2 standards Turn 1/2 then counter with your phaser suite and 2x standards on 2/3...
For the sake of clarity, there is no possibility at all of any sort of special/new/tournament only rule fixing the Fed, including, but not limited to:
-Mini Photons.
-Photon Capacitors.
-Special re-rolls.
-Anything other than normal, plain, brown rules.
This is not me making this claim. It has been made clear by The Powers That Be that they aren't interested in special/new/tournament only rules to fix things.
The two at all remotely likely (and by "at all remotely likely", I mean, "will not be immediately dismissed out of hand and we might be able to convince TPTB to let us play test them) Fed upgrades are:
A) +2 Power (AWR?)
B) G-Rack with limited load out.
I suspect the best plan, if there is one, is to focus on one of these.
CF. It's all about the Fed TCF!
Brook tried several editions of the TCF and it died on the vine. Barry has been a one man band with the omega stuff. Any playtesting needs to be blessed from on high. Given that there are probably 75 players cycling in and out of tourney sfb, mostly online, there is no business motivation for TPTB to take action on any of this. The only real possibility is that they allow us to playtest and make changes based on consensus.
In my opinion there are several ships that have a better argument for upgrade before the Fed is touched (LDR, SEL, TKE, AND). I enjoy flying the tourney Fed, and don't think it's quite the dog everyone makes it out to be. I know this is a minority opinion.
Ken wrote:
>>In my opinion there are several ships that have a better argument for upgrade before the Fed is touched (LDR, SEL, TKE, AND).>>
Well, the problem here is that the first three (LDR, SEL, TKE) are all kind of fringey ships that don't really need to be particularly more competitive than they are now (especially the TKE, as it is particularly problematic). The AND is super difficult to fix.
The Fed is, as noted, the flagship of the game. I can see the argument that is "The Fed should be a bit more competitive simply 'cause it is the Fed" as a reasonably valid one.
I mean, yeah, I agree that the Fed isn't as bad as a lot of folks make it out as. But I also agree that it could probably use a minor tweak up.
Yeah, I understand that argument - I can see wanting to make the flagship be competitively in the top half. Some people talk like it's the worst ship in the field though, LOL...
Oh, heh, yeah, I don't think that there is a rational argument to be made that the Fed the worst ship out there.
I think it is a particularly hard ship to be good at. And very newbie unfriendly. And unforgiving in general. And, at best, very average and middle of the pack.
But I certainly have sympathy for the argument that it should be a *little* better, what with it being the Fed and all.
A funny thing about the Fed is that it can also be newbie friendly as well if they get lucky. It's one of the few ships where even a moderately skilled player has a reasonable chance to win IF they get lucky. Lucky Klingon Alphas can be annoying. Lucky Fed alphas can be a game finisher.
Still, I still like the ship despite it's flaws. It only does a few things, but it can do those things well. Of the available fixes, I like the G rack. It fits historically, helps against drone ships (which give the Fed trouble), and will at least protect a precious phaser on the DAC.
Moving along from that, Brook did have a pretty cool 3 photon fast Fed. I don't think I'd replace the current Fed with that ship, but I'd certainly be open to having it added to the tourney stable as an alternative. It plays pretty differently than the old bruiser and games with it usually involve more quick movement and less sit and spin/weasel turns. Which lead to more fun IMO.
Statistically, the Fed has the worst overall winning percentage of any tournament cruiser.
Dead last.
(perhaps discounting the AND statistics as the ship configuration is not stable, otherwise the order of wynning percentage is)
WBS: 0.56
WAX: 0.55
HYD: 0.55
ISC: 0.55
ORI: 0.52
AND: 0.52
ZIN: 0.51
GRN: 0.51
KLI: 0.49
TKR: 0.49
LYR: 0.48
ATC: 0.48
SEL: 0.47
LDR: 0.46
RFH: 0.46
TKE: 0.43
THN: 0.43
FED: 0.41
18th out 18
This is based on a scientific, not based on opinion, dead-nuts rigorous, iron-clad, objective, statistical analysis of the win-loss records of over *7000* tournament games.
The FED is the worst.
Can you change the sampling space and restrict it to only rated aces and fleet captains and will the FED do better? Maybe...
But it would seem to me you giving credence to the overall win-loss record is a a reasonable argument. In fact, it would seem to me to require pretty compelling reasoning to be ignored or discounted.
The FED is the worst performing tournament cruiser bar none.
'dead-nuts'! Wow, I haven't heard that one since my first wife divorced me 
Yeah but Dave, that's not adjusting for player strength. The main focal point of Robert Schirmer's analysis is to simultaneously take into account both ship strength and player strength. When you do that, the Fed ranks either 12/18 using all games (link 1 page 11), or 10/18 (link 2 page 6). Sure, it's a little below the average, but hardly the worst.
Schirmer All games
Schirmer Ace games
Schirmer Method
Does the 7000-game sample include demo players? They often play Fed (I believe it is the more popular of the two permitted ships) and, of course, they almost always lose.
Quote:Does the 7000-game sample include demo players? They often play Fed (I believe it is the more popular of the two permitted ships) and, of course, they almost always lose.
And that's a large part of the argument, IMO. The ship that most new players use at one point or another is also one of the weakest. That almost certainly is not helping to draw new players to SFB tournament play.
I'd be far more inclined to look at the Ace vs Ace statistics rather than the All Games Ever statistics. Not 'cause game you necessarily need to look at games vs "top" players, but 'cause the Ace vs Ace games are working from the basis of players being of similar skill levels by default. In the Ace vs Ace statistics, you get:
1) WBS
2) HYD
3) KLI
4) ISC
5) ZIN
6) WAX
7) GRN
8) AND
9) ORI
10) FED
11) RKR
12) RFH
13) SEL
14) LYR
15) THN
16) THA
17) TKE
18) LDR
I mean, these numbers also fly in the face of most conventional wisdom too (I find it difficult to imagine that the HYD is the best original TC; that the THA does worse than the THN; that the SEL is better than the LYR; that the RFH is #12 on the list; etc.), but the Fed comes out in the middle, rather than dead last.
In games of players of widely varied skill, I can imagine that the Fed is plain horrible (which, as Brian points out, is one of the reasons that the Fed could use a tweak up), but with players of relatively even skill, the Fed seems pretty average.
William wrote:
>>Does the 7000-game sample include demo players?>>
Unlikely. Robert collects data from recorded games (RAT, NK, WL, FTF games that get reported). He doesn't, IIRC, collect data from random one off games, unless someone goes out of their way to give him the data (i.e. there is no automated data collection--he just uses what is posted or sent to him).
Are we looking at Schirmer's table 24 of ship vs ship with equally skilled players? This is how I read it. Winning percentages against 17 opponents:
WBS 15w
ZIN/HYD 13w
ORI 12w
WAX 11w + 1 tie
RKR/ISC 11w
KLI 9w
GRN 8w
THA/AND 7w
SEL 6w + 1 tie
FED/RKE 6w
LYR 4w
RFH/THN 3w + 1 tie
LDR 2w
In this list all ships below the klingon have a losing percentage (ie GRN is 8w - 9l against 17 opponents). Although I do wonder about the LYR with only 4w, it seems in recent RATs that most players are choosing to fly ships in the top half. While I agree that the FED as the icon of our game needs a little upgrade, it would be nice to tweak all the ships near the bottom just to add greater variety in our tournaments.
Clayton wrote:
>>Are we looking at Schirmer's table 24 of ship vs ship with equally skilled players?>>
I don't know? Where is that table? I don't recall seeing a table of exactly 17 games.
Not 17 games but 17 opponents. Actually 18 ships but ship vs same ship is always 50%/50% in wins/losses. Go to Schirmer Ace games from Ken's link above and scroll all the way to the bottom.
My point was that an entirely reasonable argument can be made that the Fed is the worst ship. In the overall statistics it absolutely is the worst ship.
Furthermore, the overall win/loss record is the most basic and some way purest baseline measuring stick (I was not appealing to Schirmer's Bayesian analysis, just his data). All the others, ace-v-ace win/loss, or the application of Bayseian statistics to generate a player skill corrected win/loss prediction are parsing and massaging the data in a way which, which, I think, requires substantial explanation and justification about what the *consequences* of deviating from the baseline measurement might be.
If you do take the ace vs ace statistics and compare them with the overall numbers, the conclusion that the Fed is a 50/50 ship in the hands of fleet captains and rated aces but a death trap in the hands of newbies and intermediates would have some pretty unfortunate consequences. This means that a whole population of players historically have taken the Fed on a sentimental basis and faced far worse odds while playing an ace than (far beyond just the difference in ratings) when the would have been far better off just flying the Klingon. Could the ace lose? Of course, we are talking odds, not certainty, but much better odds for the ace than his skill alone would predict. But the really unfortunate kicker is that the aces can point out that when ace vs. ace games are considered, the Fed is more even. And then this justifies the preservation of a pool of marks and maroons who stumble into playing the Fed - providing a neat and tidy group of easy kills for the aces. Now, I'm not saying those experts who say they prefer some other method than overall win loss method to justify maintaining status quo on the Fed were motivated to preserve their personal pool of easier games. Rather, I'm just pointing out that the comparison of the statistics from the two pools point to that unintended consequence.
Putting it a more positive way, if you are a newbie or intermediate playing an ace, do yourself a favor, play the Klingon, Kzinti, or Gorn. Don't play the Fed until you are an ace (and then you won't want to play it anyway).
Furthermore, while I think Schirmer's methods are generally sound, I have a few quibbles, such as the prior distribution (a mathematical assumption made in Bayseian analysis) is far too large, and as a consequence exaggerates the player rankings for those who have fewer games (less than a few dozen).