Steve,
Just a passing thought on the testing thing, to the extent you have expressed no desire to "test live" so to speak.

Peter has run two playtest tournaments for the Andro. They have not had great success even though Peter is an excellent tournament organizer and judge. The problem rises essentially from the complacency of the players - myself included. I am ready and willing to play the games, but have taken a "I will wait until my opponents reach out to me" approach. That is not the best attitude, but it also appears to be the one taken by almost everyone.

Let me suggest the following. A different kind of playtest tournament. Let's make it like the RATs; lets have some sort of recognition for it - both in terms of "hey, good job, you won" a la RATs (but not a RA pin) and some sort of recognition (to be determined by ADB) for best reports, most reports, etc. Put the results in CL. Just the sort of things that turn it from a "here's some work for you to do" and make it "here's a fun tournament to join, and by the way there might be some work too."

That way you get a lot of people playing. Even if the total number of reports would be no different than the number coming out of Peter's playtest tournaments if everyone participating had the same rah-rah attitude about getting it done Peter has, you would still get more information than you are getting now.

NOTE TO ALL: This is a separate issue from the 30/12 modifications Steve is talking about above. I think that is clear form the text, but just in case...

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 01:21 pm: Edit

Perhaps there might be an opportunity to put such a setup into practice sooner rather than later?


Hopefully, we are close to the tail end of the January computer crisis, which would mean that work can soon pick up again on Module C6, if it hasn't already. Presumably, once the Paravian and Carnivon rules and SSDs get closer to print, there would be a period of playtesting intended to help tackle any issues that may arise between now and C6's publication.

Perhaps the Paravians and Carnivons could get their TCs worked up in tandem with their "ahistorical" ships, and those SSDs offered for playtest in the same wave of testing? With minds focused on these two new empires in the near future, it might be as good a time as any to help give the two C6 empires a head-start in terms of getting their TCs ready for approval.

Plus, if a set of playtest TCs could be offered at the same time that C6 itself is published, perhaps those samplers might encourage a few additional sales of the module.


If the goal is to try and give the C6 empires a place in the stable of tournament ships at some point, why wait much longer to get the ball rolling? (One we have a set of rules fit for playtesting, that is.)

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 01:27 pm: Edit

How about making some sort of Tour de Klingonez tournament with playtest ships, where every player plays every other player once, and the players must submit a report of each game from their point of view and each participant gets a playtest medal. Kind of a cross between battleforce and victory at articles. Tournament winner would be the one with the most total wins and some tiebreaker mech for even scores.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Shawn wrote:
>>How about making some sort of Tour de Klingonez tournament with playtest ships, where every player plays every other player once, and the players must submit a report of each game from their point of view and each participant gets a playtest medal.>>

That is exactly what I was running with both Andromedan Playtest tournaments I have attempted to run. One saw about 7 or 8 of 12 games happen, which was nice. The second saw, like, 3. So I gave up.

It was mostly the result of people just having other stuff to do and not being super proactive about making sure their games got played. And eventually, it kind of fell apart.

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Well, I'd like to point out first and foremost that I like to be a theorist of the game - I always have been. I also want to do what is best for the game first, and best for the tournament first. Always have.

I also like to win. But within the confines as the rules as they are. I chose the Kzinti back in 1986 Fleet Captains' first and foremost because it was one of the better ships at the time for clocking newbs (recall it had 4 IV drones and 2 more hull). In '87 an '88 it got downgraded a bit (and recall the Klingon at the time had no ADD and there may have been a few other changes.) The only reason I didn't switch to Gorn at the time was out of deference to my good friend Matt Leuthold who attended with me and was quite partial to Gorn - and we didn't want to practice civil wars all the time.

SVC also graciously gave me a seat on the JCF as Kzinti rep. for a while, perhaps because I played Kzinti at those early tournaments, but to tell the truth I was probably pretty terrrible at it compared to Gopin - I just didn't have that much interest in the non-tournament Kzinti.

So when I came back to play, my interest in the Kzinti was 1/2 nostalgia so people might know who I was, the other part laziness. The Kzinti TCC is still pretty good at clocking newbs - but otherwise I still stand by that in the current environment its just not so good.

So FWIW I've pretty much decided the Klingon suits my style of play much better, and I've been having better luck with it too. And FWIW, if my proposal was adopted, I'd pretty much stick with the Klingon too. So I'm really more interested in winning than being a scrub and sticking with any particular ship out of nostalgia. And I guess if getting to be a FC requires me to fly the GBS-BB, I guess I will have to make that choice too.

Going back to theory, really, the proposal was driving by a theory of game play primarily to cut down on the "black swan" games, noting that I think with overbalanced ships like the GBS-BB that "black swan" super long games are more likely.

Its OK that the proposal has been dismissed. I really don't have a problem with that. I'm more interested in the theory first - and I'm saddened that any previous associations may have colored the evaluation.

By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 02:22 pm: Edit

"...but otherwise I still stand by that in the current environment its just not so good."

You know, there are some things that can't be let to slide. ;)

I am playing a Hydran in RAT 40, but if the powers that be allow it, as the tree has not yet been posted, I will happily play the Kzinti - certainly one of the best ships in the tournament.

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Paul, prior to the Plat Hat, you stated that you thought the GBS-BB might be "broken". I am interested if you might share your analysis based upon your experience that either confirms or refutes your previous view?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 03:37 pm: Edit

David: No previous association influenced the matter. The record of the Kzinti as a great ship needing no improvement was all we needed. We let it run to see if somebody had something new to add, and no, the ship is fine as is.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 03:40 pm: Edit

Peter's experience is what I thought it was.

A single-elim "tournament" is not the way to test. It's needs a round-robin sort of thing.

The key is getting multiple tests of each combination.

At a minimum four or six tests of each combination, with at least one combination per food group. And that's just the minimum, probably not enough.

There are two issues.

1. Focus by a dedicated judge and by ADB to ensure the events continue. We want to think very carefully about who to use as the judge. (Peter is great but not the only candidate and we may need him to do something more important.)

2. Motivation of the players to participate. We can certainly offer up campaign ribbons for such things and even minor medals and/or a captain's log for those who do the most.

By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 03:43 pm: Edit

I still have concerns on GBS-BB/B1/Ba. It is still mostly statistical. It might just the best ship, but none-the-less reasonably balanced or it might be a little too good.

I am not sure my experience in the Plat Hat changed anything for me, other than solidifying for me the reason for the statistical observation.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 03:46 pm: Edit

David Zimdars:

One of the things to watch out for is the "law of unintended consequences."

Take your concept of limiting the number of EPTs per tube in order to speed up the game.

You are encouraging players fighting against plasma ships to try to draw out the EPTs, play a longer game, so that their opponent can no longer use the EPT ballet. Given that EPTs cannot be armed mid-turn with reserve power and cannot be held past the end of the turn in which they are armed, a limited number overall encourages non-plasma ships to dance at high speeds against plasma-armed ships in an effort to draw the EPT launches and run them out, firing just enough direct-fire weapons at the plasma ship to avoid accusations of non-aggression. Your proposal creates a new tactical paradigm, one that is not good for the tournament environment in terms of keeping the number of turns down.

To every change there is a reaction, and it is not always your first thought. Players are ornery, sneaky, and always looking for an edge (that is what makes them great captains after all). They are not necessarilly going to operate in the spirit you intend.

I would note also that your comment on "any previous associations" is erroneous, as a review of the topic shows that not just SVC and myself saw your proposals as greatly increasing the strength of the Kzinti tournament ship overall. Even before SVC or myself posted any such observation others did so. (Although I will admit that my immediate reaction on reading them was that the long term effect was to make the Kzinti TCC a more powerful ship overall, virtually all of your proposed changes moved things in favor of that ship not just against non-drone opponents, but particularly against other drone-armed opponents all of which you pretty specifically weakened.

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 04:19 pm: Edit

SPP wrote:

"You are encouraging players fighting against plasma ships to try to draw out the EPTs, play a longer game, so that their opponent can no longer use the EPT ballet. Given that EPTs cannot be armed mid-turn with reserve power and cannot be held past the end of the turn in which they are armed, a limited number overall encourages non-plasma ships to dance at high speeds against plasma-armed ships in an effort to draw the EPT launches and run them out, firing just enough direct-fire weapons at the plasma ship to avoid accusations of non-aggression. Your proposal creates a new tactical paradigm, one that is not good for the tournament environment in terms of keeping the number of turns down."

That's exactly what is happening right now, a the cost of running through an EPT is too great. So you get 12 turns of ballet or so anyway, depending on the level of aggressiveness of both players. The purpose of the firing "just enough weapons" is not so much to avoid an accusation of non-aggression, but to conserve energy to maintain speed to run from the enveloping plasma torpedoes; and to conserve batteries so that your counter attack will be effective if the big plasma ship choses to corner you instead of run away himself. Likewise, the non-plasma ship should at least threaten a decent strike if the plasma ship were in fact to press harder. Done well - and with enough aggression- the plasma ship will have its shields stripped sufficiently by turn 12 or so that the non-plasma ship can dive in and use his wild weasels to try to get a close in strike but not get killed by the plasma. This is somewhat dependent on luck, though, miss a bunch with your disr and fire too few weapons, and you are leaving the plasma ship clean. It should be emphasized, that you really can't run a way from plasma torps on a fixed map. If the target is in the corner he's going to get hit (sans an HET but there is only one of those). So the EPT attack does grind down the other guy too. Say on average about 12 turns.

So I see the plasma guy wanting to press harder and launch later - the torps will land harder on the ship orbiting on the outside of the map. Because if he doesn't, he won't be able to rely on the EPT. If the big plama guy doesn't fire the EPT then it is much easier for the other guy to rush in earlier and start the knife fight too.

By Andrew J. Koch (Droid) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 04:24 pm: Edit

Ok well we have a total of five or six organized tourney's online. We could leave the Rats and Platinum Hat to the sanctioned ships, and use the two slots currently occupied by Masters and World League to play with some of these new ships vs Galactics. Peter could run the WL replacement and I would be willing to run the Masters replacement. We would use whatever format is deemed the best. I think 5 or 6 events is already the maximum that we can achieve critical mass for, and it seems that most folks would be happy to have a part in getting some new tourney ships by sacrificing two pretty popular events. Heck, I would personally even be willing to replace a RAT, but I realize I am probably in the minority on that one.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Dave wrote:
>>The Kzinti TCC is still pretty good at clocking newbs - but otherwise I still stand by that in the current environment its just not so good.>>

Yeah, I'm with Paul. The Kzinti is easily one of the top 5 ships in the tournament. If not top 3. Drones are great. It takes damage great. It has fantastic firing arcs. It is the best crippled ship in the game. I'm not intending to draw this discussion out here (we could start one up in the tactics thread), but I'll staunchly defend the Kzinti as one of the best ships in the tournament.

The only reason I stopped playing it was 'cause:

A) I find drones on SFBOL arduous.

and

B) Proper threatened to hit me with a sack full of doorknobs if I didn't change ships.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 04:40 pm: Edit

Just a crazy idea, but would a bye in a RAT as a reward for X# test games be an incentive to playtest? Just looking for a solution.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 05:14 pm: Edit

David:

By having a specific number of EPTs you are changing the dynamic to a specific avoidance strategy. The non-plasma player is now playing a specific tactic: Run the enemy out of EPTs before closing.

YOU ARE CHANGING THE PARADIGM (emphasis, not shouting) by having a count. YOU ARE ENCOURAGING DELAY (emphasis not shouting) by setting a limit on the number of EPTs.

When there is no limit on the number of EPTs the non plasma ship is encouraged to try to break the pattern and exploit errors and delays. You are encouraging him to not do so, but to wait until the EPTs are all launched, whether deliberately so or due to the inability to hold them.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 05:48 pm: Edit

My personal favorite incentive built into tournaments is the chance to win prize subscription time to SFBOL.

I wouldnt want to win BYE in a RAT or P Hat myself because I enjoy more games not less. It may never happen to me but what could be more glorious than knocking out a fleet captian in the first round of a big tournament. I say the BYE is vastly over rated, but a re entry slot in round 1 would be a great way to motivate your fleet captains and other notables to get there playtest reports done.

The other ideas for incentivizing the playtest tournament were good, everyone likes CL's and honorable mention, titles, and other glory heaped on them but nothing says we appreciate your hard work and want you to keep playing Star Fleet battles the way extra subscripton time does.

Instead of BYE's or subscription time maybe you could setup a special invitational tournament, players could earn an invitation through participation in playtesting.

I dont like the idea of sacrificing one of the my favoite tournaments Masters to try to get more playtest games done. Im happy to playtest for the fun of it, but wont get upset if there are incentives to be won.

My suggestion for the new playtest tournament format would be to make it more like netkill where there is a fixed period of time for patrol games with any opponent then at the end the top players have a playoff. You could let everyone who has an SFBOL subscription participate in these ongoing playtest tournaments, and maybe give only partial credit for the game and part dependant on them submitting a quality playtest report for each game.

Just some crazy ideas I had to increase player participation in the tournament playtest project.

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 06:30 pm: Edit

I don't think a bye would incentize me. Nor, would the subscription time ... it's a nice perk, but in comparison with other bills, it's not a major one for me.

Between life and campaigns, my tournament time is fairly limited. My tournament time is mostly dedicated to the ongoing pursuit of my first ace card.

What little non-tournament SFBOL time I get, I use to fly the ship I'm going to fly in tournament; often going so far as to get practice on the particularly matchups I've got upcoming online with friends offline as practice.

Mayhap, a path to get more playtesting in would be to have a "loser's bracket" on the various tournaments where you were randomly assigned a ship (playtest or otherwise). You'd have to assign some prize so that the games actually got played. The only truly effective prize I'm aware of is the one that cannot be given, so I'm not sure what that'd be.

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 07:48 pm: Edit

SPP:

Reasonable people may disagree on such matters of tactical judgement (which is why it is fun to play the game and actually see what happens); I'm just thinking this through out loud...

Currently;

From big plasma's point of view, the ballet hypothesis is that their opponents will eventually run out of shields, drones, or weasels and if they let it go on too long, will eventually lose to an unlimited supply of plasma torpedoes (EPT or not) OR an over-run by a big plasma ship once they've run out of their expendables.

At a full drone launch rate of 1 flight per turn, the droner is out in 6 turns or so. A droner has to extend that to maybe 12 to get enough turns in for the exact kind of opportunity to attack big plasmas you mention. No disagreement there.

Of course if the non big plasma ship (droner or otherwise) gives an opening, the big plasma ship can go in for the attack but only has a weak incentive to do so.

So the non big plasma ship faces a point of no return, after which if they have not attacked they will lose. So their is an element of desperation that motivates the attack.

Even now, If the non big plasma ship emphasizes avoidance, and the big plasma ship fails to exploit this by pushing his opponent against the wall (and in circumstances a cloak, as Peter has pointed out) might be used to get a reprieve; then a "black swan" situation occurs where neither are really motivated to attack and the game goes 20+ turns.

* * *

My theory is that sometimes after turn 11, if indeed *not having EPTS* is a problem - its only hypothesis that waiting it out would in fact get a benefit; but suppose this is as bad as running out of drones (which I don't think it is). If in fact the big plasma player believes he can't wait that long, then *he* will be motivated to initiate an anchor or some closer in launch. I suppose if he doesn't then the other guy will have the upper hand.

By Chris Proper (Duke) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 09:56 pm: Edit

I like killing Andromedans. I don't need a reward for it.
Rewarding people for play testing ships that no one otherwise wants to fly seems counterproductive.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 11:32 pm: Edit

I'm one of those easy players:

I don't mind replacing WL or Masters with some interesting format that incidently allowed some playtest time to (some|all) the (wingnuts|andromedan).

I would be quite incentive-ized (?) by extending my SFBOL subscription. Even if it was by a week for participating. Perhaps by 3 months for doing good/alot somehow?

I wouldn't do it for a bye in a RAT. In RATs, I want the distinction of winning. I don't want it cheapened by working in a beni.

A ribbon would be cool, but wouldn't be enough for me. Though I would likely participate regardless.

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 01:22 pm: Edit

Chris,

To be clear, I don't need a prize to play. In over 6 months of the 2nd Andro playtest I haven't gotten any of my games in. First playtest I think I got all of them (maybe all but one). Anyway, the difference being free time availalble.

I've tried several times to play a wingnut against someone in games on SFBOL, I've been fairly solidly informed not to because they wanted to use the game for Netkill. Not sure if Netkill allows them or not, but pretty sure a number of people think they don't.

From what I've seen, most people are generally looking for a game that will somehow improve their tournament skills, either as a direct contribution to an ace card or as mental fodder for latter improved performance in a matchup.

While, I would participate in a tournament with wingnuts to hopefully get some of them approved, I'm not sure what the general attendence would be (because it wouldn't result in a rating) and with low attendence, the playtest reports you'd get back would be somewhat lessened.

If you allowed one wingnut into a normal 32-player tournament and half the players played it was completely balanced with even-skilled players (all highly improbable), you'd get 31 playtest opportunities (probably not all with reports) in that tournament against whatever else was flying. That may seem like a fair number, but it would be from 16 different individuals and you'd be getting 5 of those from one individual. A number of them would be civil wars which don't really help in the RPS determination. I'd imagine (pure speculation here on) that it'd take several such tournaments to get sufficient playtest information on that one ship to certify it. Certainly better than current would be my guess, but again not particularly speedy.

Adding more than one playtest ship to the lot would slow-down the rate of usable reports for each, but probably even so.

Mike

By Andrew J. Koch (Droid) on Thursday, January 31, 2013 - 05:02 pm: Edit

Sooo... do we want to try to work some playtest ships into say, Masters? And just play it out normally except for the different ships? Or no?

By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Thursday, January 31, 2013 - 06:47 pm: Edit

Seeing as Master's is a "just for fun" tournament, I would have no problem with using some of the playtest ships. I would avoid the omega ships since many of the players do not own the rules for them. I would also skip the Orion playtest cruiser since it is horribly broken.

By Andrew J. Koch (Droid) on Thursday, January 31, 2013 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Omega is something that I think alot of folks want to see worked into the tourny eventually. I think a bunch of folks need to buy some modules and get up to speed.