|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, March 31, 2014 - 07:58 pm: Edit|
Huh. I suppose we probably should. Last year was kind of a bust, with a bunch of people just vanishing from the event. But I figure I'll start organizing soon anyway.
There's gotta be a way to avoid getting people involved who are just going to vanish/drop out. We always end up with a handful of people who are kind of railroaded/hornswaggled in, and then they play maybe 1 game, and then disappear, which is a drag for everyone. Ideas?
|By Majead Farsi (Devil) on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - 02:59 am: Edit|
Ask before hand and have replacements available i Guess.
|By Chris Proper (Duke) on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - 06:13 am: Edit|
|By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - 07:40 am: Edit|
Maybe break up the teams somehow? It seems like there are self-organized teams of regulars, and more patchwork teams consisting of players that do not play as regularly. The latter teams (in my opinion) can tend to lose interest and fall off, which might happen less if the teams were more "mixed up".
I don't know, just a thought.
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - 08:30 am: Edit|
Maybe? I don't know that there would be as much interest if folks couldn't be on the teams they want to be. I mean, we could theoretically make all the teams random, but that is even more work to set up, and again, probably wouldn't be as attractive to most folks.
Like, historically speaking, the people who tend to vanish from the event tend to be the folks who get hornswaggled to play and aren't "regulars". Which, on the one hand, it is nice to get extra people involved. On the other hand, I don't know that it is that good of an idea to hornswaggle folks into a tournament that is a 3 game (minimum) commitment and have other people relying on you.
Last year, only one person completely vanished (Sheap--I dunno what happened with him, but he went incommunicado for a few months), and a few people just resigned games due to not having time to play them, but at least they were in communication.
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - 08:34 am: Edit|
Yeah, looking over last year's teams, everyone playing was a known quantity, and most folks played most games. Again, one person went MIA, and IIRC, there were a few very slow to happen games, creating a long delay at some point.
|By Andrew J Koch (Droid) on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - 08:43 am: Edit|
Lets limit it to fewer 4 (3+1) man teams with only 3 playing and the other in reserve. Or something like that. We have...18 -24 reliable to fairly reliable guys the rest are kind of hit and miss with waxing and waning interest RL issues etc..
Also,, you could pick team captains. and assign the balance randomly. Although a gym class style line up and pick in order would be fun.
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - 09:17 am: Edit|
Ah. We could have a draft, I suppose. We put everyone in the pool, invent Team Captains, and then have a draft in reverse SFBOL rating order or something? That might be fun.
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - 09:19 am: Edit|
The specific number of teams is actually an issue with the pool games, is another problem. I think 10 teams is the perfect number for everyone to play 1 person on each other team and not end up with byes or anything.
What would happen with 2 pools of 4 teams each?
|By Chris Proper (Duke) on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - 11:31 am: Edit|
Each team would play each pool opponent three times, making tie-breakers easy.
|By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - 01:25 pm: Edit|
FYPSWWTW is ready to defend its title. Though we change our name every year, so we won't be sporting that catchy name this time.
|By Andrew J Koch (Droid) on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - 01:45 pm: Edit|
Figure out who wants to play.
Figure the number of teams you want
Assign captains based on rating to each team
After captains , if the number of players doesn't work with the teams(for instance 28 volunteers with only 8 teams), randomly assign players to be reservists
Hold a serpentine draft with remaining players to fill out teams.
The draft can be via e mail or on the BBS here.
|By Ken Rotar (Sir_Krotar) on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - 02:32 pm: Edit|
I like the idea of a draft. It would make it easier for people like myself who just recently returned to the game: it is difficult for us to find players to join up with that do not already have a former team that they again plan to play with. By having a draft (instead of random assignments), the teams will still likely be made up of friends that are familiar with each other.
|By Gregg Dieckhaus (Gdieck) on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - 04:53 pm: Edit|
Draft could be kind of fun...
|By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - 10:22 pm: Edit|
(assuming I can play; I was one of those who joined, and then had to duck out because of RL) I don't really mind who my team-mates are. I just care who my opponents are!!
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 08:49 am: Edit|
I'm beginning to sway in the direction of a draft. Something along the lines of, we take signups (I'll try to get a specific number of people to make the pools work right). We'll elect the right number of team captains based on SFBOL ratings and whatever. We'll have a draft in reverse level order, and get teams like that.
I'm waffely on using playtest/hypothetical ships. The Andro probably should get some play. None of the other ships we used last year (well, other than the Maesron) were any good, and the teams that took the playtest ships got soundly beaten by the teams that were made up of all GBS and Romulans or whatever.
|By Majead Farsi (Devil) on Wednesday, May 07, 2014 - 05:31 am: Edit|
You should include the FED CFF Peter its worth more play testing!
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, May 07, 2014 - 10:14 am: Edit|
Maybe? I dunno--last year, we used the playtest ships, and it was certainly interesting, but:
A) All of them were pretty bad (PEL seems hopeless; FRAX seems slightly under the curve; MAE is totally reasonable).
B) Not every team took an albatross around their neck (i.e. a playtest ship), so unsurprisingly, the teams of Peladines and FRAXes were totally wiped out by teams full of Sharks and Romulans (i.e. not a single playtest ship made it into the final trees).
I'm inclined to include the Andro, as, well, it might actually get adjusted and sanctioned one day (I still think it needs 2xAPR added at press time). But other than that, I'm thinking we'l just stick with the regulars this time around.
I'm also thinking we'll probably do a draft system for teams (i.e. I'll see who signs up, pick team captains from the pool of Fleet Captains and general ringers, and then build teams via a draft system), as that seems like it'd be fun.
I'll probably start actually putting this together this weekend some time.
|By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Wednesday, May 07, 2014 - 10:40 am: Edit|
I think we should definately add the FRAX. I've done some playing in it in the NetKill, and have made some big wins. I consider it on the strong side of things.
I totally (still) agree that the Andro needs 2 more power to be even sorta-viable.
Can we consider adding the ModC6 races? Josh has a Paravian (based on CL28) in the client, and I've given Paul a 3G def file for TCCs of both races based off of their CCs for posting.
|By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Wednesday, May 07, 2014 - 10:52 am: Edit|
I was originally hesitant about the draft idea, but after thinking about it, it might actually produce more evenly matched teams and a more competitive event. So, I think I like it.
|By Daniel Bennett (V_Raptor) on Wednesday, May 07, 2014 - 02:16 pm: Edit|
My two cents, I like this event along with the Masters. Something about flying oustside of my comfort zone is appealing and sometimes the great equalizer. Seeing how this is a JFF event, maybe a real curve should also be introduced. Maybe the 3 ship packages should be preset and much like a draft for players selected once teams are established. Then once the teams are set and ship packages are assigned. Then the Team Captain would be given the most unfamiliar ship on down to the 3rd player give the most common ship. Having a lottery for the PRE SET ship packages could really spice up this event. This could also have several side benefits, such as a great equalizer and get more of those elusive play tests in that never really seem to be done other than by a few players.
|By Daniel Bennett (V_Raptor) on Wednesday, May 07, 2014 - 02:28 pm: Edit|
Follow up. Ship packages could be something like this, one from the direct fire group, one from the seeking weapon group and one from the weird group.
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, May 07, 2014 - 02:28 pm: Edit|
I'm ok with the FRAX. I think the Andro needs more playing and reporting so we can get it upgraded and sanctioned. The Paravian seems totally reasonable. I'm very hesitant to include the Carnivon 'cause:
A) Heel Nipper seems insanely powerful in a duel.
B) Death Bolts, that no one actually properly understands, seem insanely powerful in a duel. Especially on a ship with a Heel Nipper. And require a whole lot of restrictions on their various variant rules.
|By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Wednesday, May 07, 2014 - 03:12 pm: Edit|
For the Carnivon: I'd be happy with leaving the Deathbolts as "vanilla". Just normal 2.5-space drones with interesting ROF issues. We could *try* leaving off the Y175 refit (it would normally give them 6 DBs in a rack, vice 4), but I think that will mean they run out to early.
I think we should keep the casual deck crews (J4.814), which could add to the DB DCs (R19.N3), but we can do interesting things like saying that they are in the shuttle bay at start (and thus would need to spend a turn (EA to EA) to get to the DB racks, per (J4.813) ). That will slow down the initial DB launch rate and means that the Carnivon player needs to consider if leaving the shuttle bay empty of crew that can service and repair shuttles is such a good idea.
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 10:25 am: Edit|
Yeah, I'm inclined to keep things simple (i.e. omit Carnivons…). I could certainly be convinced to try out a Paravian TC, but:
A) I'd want to see it first.
B) Hear some reports from people playing it first.
Neither of which are things that have happened as of press time.
Like, I think the Carnivons are certainly interesting, but I think that have a lot of potential for being wildly overpowered by accident. The disruptor cannons are basically photons with a better to hit (possibly balanced by the firing turn power requirements, but still); they have the Heel Nipper, which does automatic warp internals *and* turns your ship *and* forces you to miss a move; and the death bolts, even as just vanilla death bolts are crazy powerful (what are they, 10 damage, 30 warhead? It's like having two drone racks full of nothing but type IV drones? Except even bigger?) and can pick what shield you want to hit with them and you never need to tractor anyone to anchor them and can, with appropriate planning, put 4 on the map on a single turn.
It seems like a Carnivon TC would have a lot of significant balance issues that need that need hammering out and testing and tweaking. And given that I don't think anyone has even tried playing any kind of Carnivon ship as a TC yet, I'm reluctant to use WL as the initial testing platform, given that I suspect that most initial reports of games involving a Carnivon TC will result in "Holy crud. That thing is ridiculously powerful, if not just outright broken."
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation