Archive through January 23, 2013
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Tournament Zone:
Proposed Ship Changes:
Archive through January 23, 2013
#1 hurts the LDR, which doesn't need the pain. Unlike the Pig, Orion, Lyran, Shark & Gorn it doesn't have the spare power to arm an SS later.
You might need to nerf the Orion, which likes a short game and generally benefits from these changes (except #5, of course).
Given all the other restrictions, I'm not sure #5 is needed anyway.
I always thought the ATC's hardest fight was D&D ships, though it would be nice to resurrect the Neo.
David wrote:
>>The following is a proposed package of alternate tournament rules (and a few changes to the tournament command cruisers).>>
In the name of discussion, I have comments to share.
I will say ahead of time that while games in SFB *can* go too long, certainly, I think the vast, vast majority of the time, they don't. I rarely see games that I play go past 10 turns (which I suspect that most folks will agree is a reasonable length of a game). I rarely see games played or posted that go past 10 turns. It certainly happens. And games can go on for absurdly long periods of time. I usually blame games that go on for a long time on the existence of a cloaking device in the game (not necessarily the *use* of the cloaking device, mind you, but a lot of decisions in games against Romulans come down to "Well, I could do something risky and take some damage to close in and corner the Romulan, but if I do that, and then he cloaks, I probably lose..."; so when I blame cloaks for games going to long, I don't necessarily mean to blame people using cloaks. Just the basic threat of the cloak often results in folks playing more conservatively than they would otherwise). So I certainly understand wanting games to play faster/shorter. But I still think the number one culprit for long games is someone having a cloaking device.
>>1) All ships with shuttles may only have one shuttle prepared prior to the start of the game as either a wild weasel or suicide shuttle (full strength, may not be downgraded). >>
I don't know that effectively limiting folks to a single suicide shuttle is gonna help that much in making folks get closer faster, but it is certainly going to help make the Shark less good.
>>2) No ship, except the Kzinti, may have more than 2 type-B drone racks (which has 4), not including ADD racks.>>
Much like the above, this seems like a convoluted way of kneecapping the WAX and the Shark. Which certainly is not an unreasonable endpoint. But if we just want to kneecap the WAX and the Shark, we might as well just do that.
>>3) The Klingon ADD rack, and all optional ADD racks, are reduced to ADD-6.>>
If the plan is to downgrade the Klingon 'cause the WAX and Shark are less good, I guess this works?
>>4) Each individual plasma launchers is restricted to no more than 4 enveloping plasma torpedo launches per game.>>
This is certainly an oblique way to limit the length of games. But I don't know that I have ever played a game as a Gorn where I launched more than 4xEPTs per tube. I suppose it is possible that in super long games, someone is going to launch more than 4xEPTs per tube. But the only thing that really is going to make games last that long, really, is the cloaking device being there.
>>5) The Federation TCC gains a type-G drone rack holding 4 ADD and 2 type-IM drones. There are no reloads. This drone loadout may not be changed in any way.>>
I like this slight upgrade for the Fed (and advocated for it for a while). But still, it'd need more testing. Especially if all the other drone ships got kicked in the knees.
>>6) PPDs must be destroyed on the second drone hit (if not destroyed on the first).
7) The Archeo-Tholian TCC loses one impulse and one APR.>>
These both seem not unreasonable. I mean, there is only so far one can go to try and make the Neo Tholian seem worth using over the Archeo. The ISC is pretty good, but I don't know that it necessarily needs getting weakened.
Peter, I think you get the general gist of some of consequences. The WAX and GBS are not done any favors, but they are not excluded from doing what they do now - just have a shorter clock. I didn't want to touch the SSDs as much as possible. Plus the GBS 11 becomes more interesting.
Regarding cloak, we have discussed before I have a different perspective. However consider it may be a distinction without a difference. Getting into and out of cloak is best accomplished when your opponent is dissuaded to be close. In the most recent plat hat game, cloaking was not excessive, AND the game lasted ~10 turns after cloak was impractical (energy) due to EPT threat.
I think that limiting EPTs might make cloaking occur more often, since Romulans now have an increased incentive to launch a normal S and cloak whenever they see or anticipate an EPT from the opponent. This gains a firepower advantage in longer games of Plasma vs Plasma, and thus the Romulan has even more incentive to make the game take longer. The limit of 4 EPTs per tube makes this worse, since it's easier to gain the advantage by selectively cloaking only one launcher's EPTs.
At minimum, make the change to 8 EPTs max across all tubes, to prevent the Romulan from trying to run one tube out of EPTs.
I think things are fine the way they are...
You shouldnt use the latest game as an example, first Paul had really bad dice throughout the game that extended the time I felt I could EPT and ballet.
Second, both of us... I think ... chose to play a defensive game. I didnt want to risk ending near him and his p3 and drone advantage, and he didnt want to risk running an ept.
And while it was a long game, we averaged about 30 mins a turn and that included EA.
I ran into 3 EPTs. Also, during at least 20 of our 23 turns I armed and fired disruptors at you. I had a typical plot that moved me around 20 hexes and fired phasers, I think, every turn - close to it anyway. The appearance that I was playing defensively (noted by how slowly I was pilling up damage on you) was entirely the result of my consistent missing (by the end of the game I had fired 47 disruptors with a 1-4 chance of hitting and hit with 20 of those disrutptors (a probability of 6 out every 10,000 games). I also specifically chose not to WW until turn 20, choosing to take plasma damage instead, so that I could maintain an aggressive posture. That said, I agree that nothing should be concluded from one game.
I also agree with Peter, that though these games are rare, they only happen when a cloak is involved. I disagree with what I am inferring from Peter that the cloak is the problem. I have flown the TFH a lot and have simply never been involved in that sort of game.
All that said, looking at Dave's suggestions, I don't particularly care for them.
1. The tournament is very finely balanced right now. Almost perfectly so (with the exception of some ships being much too weak - but that is not a problem that breaks the tournament.)
2. The rule changes appear to me to have the effect of primarily improving a single ship - the Kzinti. I don't get why that would be viewed as in anyway desirable. Schirmer's data does not support the need for this and more anecdotal, the Kzinti has more "Hats" than any other ship.
3. On some specific changes not related to the above:
a. I am in favor of the Fed getting a G-rack, though I also agree it needs testing. (and testing is a difficult thing to accomplish with the quantity of games that can be reasonably played).
b. The PPD rule is just odd, because, really, with few exceptions, the PPD is going to be the first Drone hit that ISC takes. I know those who have not played the ISC regularly think that the special rule on the F-torps (hitting on a Drone and a Torp) is a bonus designed to protect the PPD (and for all I know, that was its intent), but I assure you that special rule makes the ISC much, much worse (and a good thing too!) than it would be without that rule.
c. The ATC does not need further nerfing, though I get the urge to get people to choose the NTC over it. The problem is that the NTC is just poorly designed and its advantages (a large phaser suit, 40 power) just can't overcome that the fact that the phaser arcs just don't fit that ship's optimal play style. People flying the NTC need to fly it differently and that different way of flying is, like the Fed, simply more luck based.
There are currently 17 sanctioned TCCs (not count the Andro) for which there are 136 different matchups. We all know, and much has been discussed that not all of these RPS matchups are 50/50. You probably can win, or lose, with any TCC, but by the same token RPS advantages are sclerotic AND thoroughly arbitary, sort of fixed in place as the tournament has been tuned over the years. Now in the early days, a few extra ships were added, which made it diffficult for the experts to settle in on the RPS terrain, but that effectively ended in '92-'94 or so. Now people know exactly what will happen (how many licks it takes to get to the center of the tootsie pop).
So what I was after was something that would upset the apple cart a little bit and make things interesting - and nudge a few long standing problems. And long games are a long standing problem. Rather than try to take the scapel to each SSD, which kind of makes winners and losers obvious from turn 1, I was trying to come up with some ideas that predominately add *doubt* to how long standing aces might know how long games play out. My most radical idea would be that if I could just ordain the changes without any playtesting, I just might do that, just to get people to play out the games with a certain doubt. Now I know a lot of us are dead certain confident individuals, but an analysis of my proposal will generate hypotheses on the "winners" and "losers" but really require some playing to find out - and I'm suggesting playing while it counts (without the playtesting) might spice things up. OTOH, I think nothing I proposed "breaks" anything - or at least in the sense of "I hypothesize that the Romulan must threaten 20 turns to win or he is broken" - well I sure hope not (it kind of proves my point).
Yeah, and so pegging the Kzinti as a beneficiary may be true (and makes me an easy target - also the Fed is a bigger winner IMHO) BUT of all the droners, the Kzinti simply in the cellar of efficacy compared to the KLI, WAX-11G1, or GBS-BB - the last three undoubtled upgrade with respect to one another, but the ZIN last saw any mods in '87-'88 (which is more of not keeping up with the rising tide). The last ZIN FC was in '93 by the way. But OTOH, lets look closer, while the -current- GBS-BB can make it to turn 11+ with the RFH (the earliest kick in of my torp limit), and yeah the GBS-BB will have a wee different task BUT the ZIN? The ZIN still better have something good going for it by turn 11 vs. a RFH, RKR or GRN. His task is worse vs. a Fed, about the same vs. HYD. The loss of the 4 rounds of ADD might make the KLI think a bit. And so the GBS-BB has to think a bit too.
Again, really, rather than target the Fed or the Zin, though, I was trying to "nudge the playing field of the pinball machine". So enough with all the testing, upset the apple cart already! 
Dave,
Could you re-write paragraphs 2 and 3, above. I have re-read them a few times and still do not apprehend your expostulations.
Using the word "expostulate" in the correct context suggests that the reader is sufficiently clever to interpret my post-modern prose. You were able to read Nietzsche without Cliff notes, No?
I think you mean comprehend? If not, I'm not sure what you DO mean, Paul.
Oh, apprehend is a synonym for comprehend. Perhaps Paul was trying to imply he was having to chase my meaning down rathern than have it come to him?
Paul wrote:
>>I also agree with Peter, that though these games are rare, they only happen when a cloak is involved. I disagree with what I am inferring from Peter that the cloak is the problem. I have flown the TFH a lot and have simply never been involved in that sort of game.>>
Hmm. I don't know that I am understanding you.
What I said was that whenever games go this long, they tend to involve Romulans (although to be fair, I think the longest game I ever played, turn wise, was my Kzinti vs an Orion, where no internals were scored till turn 10. And that was a single control box on the Orion through a cloak shift. But in that game, the big issue was, unsurprisingly, the Orion cloaking. A lot). And Romulans have cloaks. Ergo, the existence of the cloak is likely the key factor in games going super long, when they go super long.
I also said I don't think it is someone necessarily *using* the cloak that makes games go long. Just that the cloak is a factor. That the Romulan has a cloak at all, even if it never gets turned on, leads to people playing in a particular way (see: "Hmm. If I eat this plasma, and corner the Romulan, I can mug him. Unless he cloaks. Then I'll die...").
So when I say "cloaks are the culprit", I don't mean "Romulan players turning on their cloaking devices are the culprit".
I think the mere existence of a cloaking device in a game, even if it never gets turned on, can (and often does) lead to excessively long games. Not necessarily the use of the cloaking device. Or even the person playing the Romulan ship. Just that a ship with a cloak is on the board in the first place.
I tried chasing them down a few times and failed. They are certainly not coming to me. ;)
Since a second penning does not appear to be in the future, I'll respond to that which I have deciphered.
1. "The Kzinti is in the cellar" among drone users.
a. The data does not bear this out. Using a simple rank-ordering and using Schirmer's time-sensitive Ace v. Ace - The KZN and GBS are tied, followed by the Klingon followed by the WAX.
b. My experience does not comport with your conclusions either. What I have seen, even from some ACE players, is a misapprehension ( ;) ) about the most effective play style for these ships. People, for example, including at least one Fleet Captain, treat the Klingon as a "finesse" ship. Likewise, I have seen many Ace Kzinti play the ship as if it were a plasma ship, using drones to keep the opponent away while using disruptors to accumulate damage. Both of these styles can be effective, but both force luck to play a bigger role than the most optimal play for each ship.
2. You recognize that play testing is not really practical in today's environment. That to get real data on a change will take, at least, dozens of games and more likely close to 100. This just won't happen if use is restricted to playtest. I think that is probably correct.
3. Related, but not going to the same point, you think the tournament would be more fun if small things were introduced to "mix it up." You believe this "fun" element to be a greater gain than the loss to balance - which you presume to be minor.
There is some precedent for this. In the past, changes - both subtle and gross - have happened with little or no play testing. The tournament environment then absorbed those changes and did the play-testing live. Actually, in stark contrast to what is now happening now with the Andromedan, I think that was the primary, if not only, method of introducing change to the tournament. I generally think it is a good method, not because it is ideal (testing is ideal), but because it is the only practical way to do changes.
If you had additional meaning to your post, then those have escaped me completely. In particular, I have no idea at all what you mean by "'I hypothesize that the Romulan must threaten 20 turns to win or he is broken'."
Peter,
Right. And I suggest to the contrary, that particular Romulan (or possibly Orion) play is the culprit. I could play the Romulan, with its cloaking device, all year. I could even use the cloaking device in - say - half my games. I would come out of the experience with a win-loss record similar to my average and no game would take more than 10ish turns.
So, I am saying that while I agree with you that the cloak allows for passive (or, to use a less charged term - overly cautious) play that results in long games (e.g. it is a necessary condition), I do not believe that having a cloak in play requires long games nor do I believe that such play is optimal in terms of maximizing the win% of the ship with the cloak (e.g. it is not sufficient).
Paul wrote:
>>I do not believe that having a cloak in play requires long games nor do I believe that such play is optimal in terms of maximizing the win% of the ship with the cloak (e.g. it is not sufficient).>>
Oh. Ok. I totally agree with you here.
Again, I don't think the culprit of long games is necessarily turning on the cloak. Nor do I think that Romulans need to play games that are overly long and rely on the cloak to win games.
I think the number 1 factor in games ending up overly long, when they end up overly long, however, is that one (or both) ships in the game have a cloaking device.
It might be 'cause the ship with the cloak is playing a long, conservative strategy that is only possible due to the existence of the cloak. It might be 'cause the opponent is playing a long, conservative strategy that is encouraged by the existence of the cloak. But in either case (or both cases), the main factor is the same. There is a cloaking device in the mix.
Do *all* games that have a cloaking device involved go excessively long? Certainly not. But the games that are excessively long almost invariably involve a cloaking device.
I complement er... compliment Paul on providing the forum with a "Vetus Latina" of the original Greek text.
Paul wrote: In particular, I have no idea at all what you mean by 'I hypothesize that the Romulan must threaten 20 turns to win or he is broken'.
I am trying to call out a hypothetical objection to my proposal as being a bit of a catch-22, if not proving my point (prior to said objection being advanced).
Suppose the captain of ship A believe the following: My opponent cannot win if the game goes beyond 10 turns; if I can take it to 20 turns, I will always win. My opponent could choose a defensive strategy to go beyond 10 turns, but he won't because he knows he must win in 10 turns or less, so the game will never go beyond 10 turns. Therefore my opponents must try to act decisively in 10 turns or less. I can win if I fend off the decisive knife fight for 10 turns. Lets call this the "ballet" hypothesis.
Then suppose the captain of ship B believes the following: My opponent cannot win if the game goes beyond 10 turns; if I can take it to 20 turns, I will always win. My opponent could choose a defensive strategy to go beyond 10 turns, but he won't because he knows he must win in 10 turns or less, so the game will never go beyond 10 turns. Therefore my opponents must try to act decisively in 10 turns or less. I can win if I fend off the decisive knife fight for 10 turns. Lets call this the "finesse" hypothesis.
So what happens when the "balley hypothesis" meets the "finesse hypothesis"? Well, one of the two players might be wrong about who is favored- depends on how well they really understand the cummulative odds of licking the tootsie pop, so to speak. The other is basically a walking dead-man, so to speak. OTOH, they both could be wrong, and luck or mistakes or good play determine the game. But in either case, both are highly motivated to play for more than 10 turns. Instant classicly long game.
Note that the "ballet hypothesis" and "finesse hypothesis actually prevent long games when the other guy really does believe he's got the short end of the time game and has to act. But if both believe it...
What I'm trying to propose are measures that create fear, uncertainty, and doubt that either the "ballet hypothesis" or "finesse hypothesis" will work out; OR at least contract the horizon from 10/20 turns to 7/15 turns.
Peter,
I think we are very close to saying the same thing, but just to further clarify.
1. The cloak does not cause long games. Overly cautious play that can be rewarded by the claok, but is generally not optimal (in terms of maximizing the cloak owner's chances of winning) causes long games.
2. This effect can be true regardless of whether the cloak is actually used.
Where I *think* we differ (but where we may actually agree) is your statement here: "I think the number 1 factor in games ending up overly long, when they end up overly long, however, is that one (or both) ships in the game have a cloaking device."
I think it is a simple misplacement of blame. I say this because if you are right, then the solution should be to either eliminate or put rules restrictions on the use of the cloak. I think, however, doing so such that the games you want to change would be meaningfully shortened would have the negative effect of nerfing legitimate (and not substantially time consuming) use of the cloak. The thing to target is behavior. You can target that behavior by allowing and expecting judges to factor in not the use of the device, but rather the style of play of the cloak owner. It is complicated and potentially subjective. Not a perfect solution, I think. But much better than putting rule limits on the cloak itself, which if used in concert with aggressive play can and does make the Rom (TFH/TKR at least) a different ship from the Gorn. Restrict the cloak too much and the Rom just becomes an inferior Gorn.
Paul wrote:
>>1. The cloak does not cause long games. Overly cautious play that can be rewarded by the cloak, but is generally not optimal (in terms of maximizing the cloak owner's chances of winning) causes long games.
2. This effect can be true regardless of whether the cloak is actually used.>>
Yes and yes.
>>Where I *think* we differ (but where we may actually agree) is your statement here: "I think the number 1 factor in games ending up overly long, when they end up overly long, however, is that one (or both) ships in the game have a cloaking device." >>
Well, in the sense that if there isn't a cloaking device at the table, games are unlikely to ever go that long. As the risk of getting tooled by a cloak after doing something risky to get a a leg up isn't an issue. Due to the lack of a cloaking device in the equation.
>>I think it is a simple misplacement of blame. I say this because if you are right, then the solution should be to either eliminate or put rules restrictions on the use of the cloak.>>
I don't think that I'm misplacing the blame. I think we just think different solutions are better.
It looks as if you and I think the the same thing is a problem--games that involve a ship with a cloaking device can end up being too long, as the result of overly conservative play that is the result of either having a cloak (which enables the conservative play) or facing a cloak (which encourages conservative play). I don't think this is generally the most optimal thing to do with a cloak, but it is often something that *does* happen with a cloak.
It looks like you'd prefer a subjective solution (i.e. have judges take how a cloaking ship plays into account when adjudicating games). Which is certainly a solution. And one that I can see the advantages of.
I, generally speaking, would vastly prefer fewer subjective solutions to this game which creep in more and more as time goes on. The fewer times that a game needs to be called by a judge, the better for everyone involved, for my money.
I mean, to be fair, I don't *have* a good solution to the cloaking issue that doesn't penalize the Romulan probably too much, and just turn it into an inferior Gorn. But I'd much rather see a concrete, non-subjective fix to this issue. But then, I don't know what a good one is.
I don't see long games a problem in an online game. After all, you can save the game and come back at a convenient time. Sure, it's annoying to everyone else when they are waiting a month for a certain game to finish. But it's only an inconvenience - and a relatively rare one at that.
Only in face-to-face (F2F) play is it a problem, where we end up enforcing time limits and the spectre of "non-aggressive play" shows up.
After having said that the cloak tends to lead to long games, I think the discussion has been diverted from Dave's core issue: Introducing small fixes to keep the tournament play from stagnating (which, I believe, it has already done). I believe his effort is to introduce things that slightly modify the established tactics and doctrine of tournament. After all, we've seen the efforts of introducing new tactics with the established ships already chilled (in the form of the Turtle tactic).
Paul,
"Actually, in stark contrast to what is now happening now with the Andromedan, I think that was the primary, if not only, method of introducing change to the tournament. I generally think it is a good method, not because it is ideal (testing is ideal), but because it is the only practical way to do changes."
Are you saying that you agree, due to time constraints, that playtesting should probably happen using actual tournament games?
I'm not Paul, but I am in favor of making small changes without play testing. Speaking only for myself, I very rarely play a non-tournament game due to having other, higher priorities for my time. Based on the fairly minimal amount of play testing being actually accomplished on the Andromedan, I'd guess that a lot of other folks have a similar issue. If the current play test Andro was made legal for tournament use, I would definitely give it a try at least once. I suspect there are others that would too.
It's been a long time since any real changes have been made to the tournament ships, and I agree with the comment that things have begun to stagnate. Looking at recent tournaments, and the ship selections shows that a majority of players are all flying a minority of ships due to current state of balance and tactics. It would be great to see a wider distribution of ships in the tournaments, which I doubt is likely to happen without some ship changes.
So in summary, I'm in favor of shaking things up a bit.
Ken,
Yes, I am. The tournament lived fine that way for decades. Once we moved into the "I need playtest reports" to do things, change has stopped. What Brian says about the Andro is a great example. How did the currently sanctioned Andro make it in? Once it was decided that the Andro was broken, Petrick called for designs. He made one (the currently sanctioned one) and I made one (similar to the one being playtested). A vote was held among the handful of players that happened to be in the room at the time (this was at Origins). The vote was tied and Petrick broke the tie in favor of his design. Boom, new sanctioned ship. No play testing.
Had that ship been horribly broken (in terms of being too strong) a ton of people would have taken it and played it and at worst, the tournament environment would have been skewed for a year (and the design removed from sanction before the next National Tournament). It wasn't. It was extremely weak. It still got a lot of play, however, because it was sanctioned.
Another great example - 5 new ships were introduced into the tournament (Wyn GBS, ATC, LDR, TKR and TKE) all at once in a Captains Log. All five are still with us, though some have undergone some tweeks. None were playtested prior to sanctioning and they all got a ton of play.
Counter examples:
1. the current Andro playtest - Peter has even gone so far as to run two tournaments and it is hard to get games even in that. I, like most of the players, most likely, am part of the problem, because while I am willing to play, I am not being pro-active. Neither are any of my opponents.
2. The set of CWTCs - ISC, Hydran (and then is there also a MC 1 Orion?). No sanction; no play.
I am not sure I am in favor of changing the tournament environment at all. But that is a big "not sure." I am torn along the following lines. I hear the arguments that the tournament is stagnant and that is the reason it does not grow. If I was convinced there was any truth to those arguments, I would be 100% in favor of "mixing it up" by just behaving like we did in the past and adding new ships, changing or eliminating old ones, etc.
But I am not sure I buy it. I think we are just in a situation where Tournament SFB is down to the "hard core" that have been doing it for a long time and is unlikely to grow except by small steps of adding new players (and by definition, the "stagnant environment" is new to new players.) I don't believe that the large number of players that used to play tournament SFB will come back and join us again if we mix things up a bit. For that reason, I am inclined to leave things as is.
The environment we have is incredibly well balanced. Regardless of the claims of some, I, at least, and I suspect many others, am always coming up with new ways to play ships. New tactics or new global approaches. I do not find the static environment to be at all stagnant.
So, in the end, the answer is complex, but:
1. If changes are going to be made, then I think they should be made live, not through "play testing."; but
2. I am not sure I really strongly favor making in changes (but remain completely open minded about them).
I appreciate Paul's thoughtful analysis in his most recent post.
He rightly infers that there are several groups of SFB tournament players today. One way to catagorize them are:
A) hardcore experts
B) moderate skill players with a few neophytes
A few of group A and B are playing on SFBOL, and C5N. Other active tournament players (if any) are not in communication with us. For those who want to continue playing some, it is unfortunate, but we continue to see some dwindling of the player base (consider the recent RAT).
So some of group A and B are Active, the vast majority are retired or inactive. If we want growth, one easy way is to entice the inactive base to play again.
Regarding the benefits of "mixing it up"; I can anticipate several polar reactions, from both group A and B:
Favorable:
"The changes make the game more interesting to me, so I'm more likely to play";
"The changes level the playing field between the ships, so I'm more likely to play";
"The changes level the playing field between group A and B, so I'm more likely to play";
OR just the opposite
Unfavorable:
"The changes disturb the status quo, I hate change, I'm less likely to play".
"My favorite ship got nerfed, so I'm less likely to play".
"I'm an expert and I don't want to bother figuring out the changes, so I'm less likely to play."
By polling the current player base with which we are in communication with, we could get a pretty good idea of the responses to all 6 possibilities. If favorable, it seems a decent hypothesis that the inactive player would also find them favorable, and if exposed to the changes, might give some tournament play a try for a while. Explaining why we think it is favorable will help too.
As has been pointed out, the tournament went on for years, with huge attendance, by making changes and additions with little or no playtesting. The concept that it had reached a nearly immutable state seems to be forming circa 2000.
As I have volunteered to run the Council of Nations (CoN5) tournament, changes that entice people up to play (or start playing again) are what I am looking for. I would like to see CoN5 keep the draw and excitement of new players coming. CoN5 has had a number of people decide to make the trip to upstate NY, even if it is only once every year or two. We have had a number of "aces" (or sharks depending how you look at it), come back to play. If changing ships or updating them would help draw people I am all for it. If we can do this by consensus with minimal playtesting I would like to be able to go this route.
I would like to see the Ando question resolved, either fix the ship and let's run with it or decide it does not need to be fixed.
I would like to be able at the end of CoN5 each year to discuss with the players and see what they would like to change, email Steve P., have him look it over and allow CoN5 to use the recommendations in the upcoming tournament. This would give me the time to let people know what is going to be changed, printout the SSD's and give the players time to mull over how the changes will affect their tactics.
Just my 2 cents worth.
To be fair, there has been some interest in evolving the tournament over past few years. I should recognize that there has been an effort to establish a sanctioned Omega tournament, or combination Alpha/Omega tournament.
I think the scale of the effort, and the fact that Alpha and Omega just don't mix historically, and that the eMRB just doesn't have Omega rules, and several other issues kind of have gotten in the way of this happening. Here the Omega ships really do need some playtesting, for not the least of reasons that even a large section of the Alpha experts would not even be in the position to guess upon inspection if the Omega ships are balanced with Alpha. Plus, if you add a dozen Omega ships in the mix, you do get something almost totally new.
What I was trying to propose with something a bit more limited in scope. Changes that could probably be argued that would make the game better, but are not so radical to break the game if they are adopted without playtesting. I was trying to find some things that tilted the playing field a little bit by affecting more than one ship, rather than editting every SSD. By affecting everyone, no one can escape from the changes. But changes that are not overwhelming. If you plus up the Tartar so it is a beast, you might get a few to play it - but it is avoidable.