Sure, that would look visually more appealing. Great, power to you.

Work with Paul Franz and make SFBOL look more visually appealing. By all means, go for it.

By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Thursday, February 07, 2019 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Yes... SFC was a disaster made by casual SFB players who didn't actually understand SFB like we do and didn't know how to translate it to computer. I am sorry to hijack this thread, but I've spent my entire life on this and never spoken too the SFU community about it until now...

Translating SFB into a computer game is different than making an SFB computer game that is just SFB on the computer. I have several ways of "translating SFB into a computer game" in my own universe. The Trade Wars: Awa's Flagship Apollo is the most like SFB, it is a Ruler & String game... or a much better BSG: Deadlock is another way of saying it. My "Mission" does SFB as a first person from the Captain's chair starship simulator/RPG. I know several good ways of "translating SFB to a computer game".

An "Online Playing Tool" is a different thing than that. It is just an exact representation of the board game. Is SFBOL? Or is a "Virtual Table in 3D"? Which is a more exact representation of the board game?

By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Thursday, February 07, 2019 - 02:30 pm: Edit

And, of course, miniatures serve to bring some players into real-world SFU because they want to collect, paint, and use the real minis. This all snowballs back in on itself in a lot of ways and a "Virtual Table Top SFBOL", structured the right way, could revive the SFU in ways nobody thought could ever happen again.

Another thing... SVC has the best Star Trek that the younger generation hasn't seen yet. It's a lot better than new Star Trek...

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Thursday, February 07, 2019 - 03:18 pm: Edit

Guys, we are going to need a replacement judge. Any volunteers?

Jean
WebMom

By Gregg Dieckhaus (Gdieck) on Thursday, February 07, 2019 - 04:38 pm: Edit

I think basically what you are saying is create it on Tabletop Simulator, or Tabletopia.
All lofty goals... but certainly a huge investment in time.

But then the problem is, how do you monetize it....I guess you can sell modules through those clients.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, February 07, 2019 - 05:12 pm: Edit

I'm gonna move this discussion to the general SFBOL discussion forum.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, February 07, 2019 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Round #3, Game #1, Sleepy_cat (Jarod Ikeda) versus madman (Dana F. Madsen. Have you two gentlemen contacted each other and arranged to complete your match? Is there some intractable issue that needs to be resolved? Please advise.

Round #3, Game #2, kingzilla (Seth Shimansky) defeated DJB1701 (Del J. Bristol).

Round #3, Game #3, DragoAstro (Benjamin S. Shove) versus Devil (Majead Farsi). Have you two gentlemen contacted each other and arranged to complete your match? Is there some intractable issue that needs to be resolved? Please advise.

Round #3, Game #4. AdmiralDZZI (David Zimdars) versus Grim (Lee P. Graves). Have you two gentlemen contacted each other and arranged to complete your match? Is there some intractable issue that needs to be resolved? Please advise.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, February 07, 2019 - 05:22 pm: Edit

My Apologies for having not noticed the "call for help" in time. No one is at fault for my not noticing but myself and I will make no excuse but accept full responsibility.

By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Thursday, February 07, 2019 - 05:37 pm: Edit

[deleted]
Jean
WebMom

By Seth Shimansky (Kingzilla) on Thursday, February 07, 2019 - 06:47 pm: Edit

Steve I think you might need to email these people, I played my round 3 game about 6 months ago.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, February 07, 2019 - 06:58 pm: Edit

Seth Shimansky:

I did that, but did not think I needed to say I had done so. I should probably have CCd you in that email, but decided I had intruded on you enough for one day.

By Seth Shimansky (Kingzilla) on Thursday, February 07, 2019 - 09:11 pm: Edit

OK cool

By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Monday, March 04, 2019 - 10:04 pm: Edit

Not Trek I know, sorry, but a couple of new ones at the bottom:

https://sites.google.com/view/lyranace/old-school-s-star-fleet-battles-webpage/star-trek-sandcastles?authuser=1

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Thursday, March 07, 2019 - 05:17 pm: Edit

Any progress here? It has been over a month.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Thursday, March 07, 2019 - 08:42 pm: Edit

Yup. Looks like we have one finalist and one more semi-final game to play before the finals can be played.

By Gregg Dieckhaus (Gdieck) on Friday, March 08, 2019 - 11:54 am: Edit

so whens the next tourney?

By Seth Shimansky (Kingzilla) on Thursday, March 28, 2019 - 06:16 pm: Edit

3/29/19 @ 10:30pm EST is the final
HYD vs HYD

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Thursday, March 28, 2019 - 06:58 pm: Edit

May the most tentacle one win.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Tuesday, May 07, 2019 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Any progress in this?

By Seth Shimansky (Kingzilla) on Tuesday, May 07, 2019 - 05:49 pm: Edit

Basically in very fast head to head fight- nose to nose kingzilla HYD over Grim HYD. Either HYD could of won up to last impulse.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, May 10, 2019 - 07:59 am: Edit

Yaa! It's over! Congrats to Seth!

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Friday, May 10, 2019 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Congrats to Seth Shimansky

By Paul Graves (Grim) on Friday, May 24, 2019 - 01:18 pm: Edit

Since it seems tournament play has ground to a halt, in the hopes of restarting them or at least starting a discussion let me propose some revisions to tournament rules.

They are a bit draconian and may result in small tournaments in the short run, but the hope is that if we can get players to respect their commitment to play, this will lead to more successful tournaments in the long run. Certainly the current system isn’t working so we need to try something new. Even if there are only a few players I suggest we run the tournament anyway to start things going again. At least those few playing will be serious I hope.

The rules I propose will require judges to be fairly proactive and engaged at least in the short run. Hopefully after players adjust to the rules they will self enforce more and have less need of active intervention by the judge. Since I’m supposed to judge the next RAT, I’m willing to put in the time needed to do this if others agree it’s a good idea and there’s enough interest in starting it.

Ideally there would be a prize for the winner. Perhaps Paul Franz will agree to a free three month subscription to SFBOL like there is for Netkill. We may also want to consider having small entry fees to generate prizes and to encourage people not to quit. Nothing expensive, just a token amount like $5-10 may be enough.

First of all there should be a fixed time for each round that is actually enforced, perhaps four weeks. If both players have been making reasonable efforts to play the judge has the discretion to extend the match for a week before adjudicating.

There no replacement players. Not only are they hard to find but it delays the tournament. If a player quits or is removed their opponent advances.

Players must make themselves “reasonably available” to play. Failure to do so in the judge’s opinion will result in a forfeit by that player. Obviously the judge will need to exercise wide latitude here taking into account time zones, work schedules, etc. Given the reality that people work during the week generally and players may be on opposite coasts in the US or in other countries, players need to be prepared to play on weekends if necessary.

There are several ways a player may be found to have not made themselves “reasonably available” besides simply not being available. Some include:

• Not showing up to agreed upon play times without reasonable advance notice more than once.

• Not responding to a judge or opponent’s email within a set period of time, for example three days. Perhaps one pass for the excuse “I didn’t get the email” or “I forgot/got busy.” An exception to this rule is if a player is going to be unavailable for a period of time and lets their opponent and the judge know in advance. While this won’t count against them for responding purposes, if the unavailable period is extensive or there are more than one, it may cumulatively result in a not making themselves “reasonably available” judgment.

If both players are judged to have not made themselves “reasonably available” they are both eliminated. This just creates a “bye” situation for other players.

A player losing due to a judgment of not making themselves “reasonably available” should be censured in some fashion if there isn’t an entry fee or prize for winning. For example in the next tournament they either can’t play or start at least the first round with some damage to their ship.

Thoughts?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, May 24, 2019 - 02:05 pm: Edit

@ Paul Graves: Agree on some, but I would hardly call that draconian.

In the old days, you had 3 hours to complete a tournament battle, period. After that, a judge resolved the battle. Period. Of course, that was to make sure a tourney was resolved in one weekend of a convention - but the thing is, it was done and exciting. Current tourneys are slower than molasses in January.

Personally, I think the ENTIRE TOURNAMENT needs to be resolved within 1-2 months.

Here's my counter-suggestion to get tournaments going gain, and viable.

1) Small entry fee required, say $20. Quarter of proceeds to ADB, quarter to Paul Franz for SFBOL upkeep, 30% in ADB purchase credit for 1st place, 15% in ADB purchase credit for 2nd place, 5% in ADB purchase credit for 3rd place. This helps ADB.

2) Since ADB is getting paid, ADB provides the judge (like Steve Petrick). No one knows the game better than him, and he never plays official tourney so he's a perfect umpire. Steve Petrick also sets the initial brackets.

3) Each initial game must be scheduled and played within one week of tournament start. Each player gets three hours to complete a game, starting from when the game starts on impulse 1. Call it four hours if you want, but it has to be DONE in one session within one week - or else it is adjudicated.

4) Each round gets 1 week to complete a game. Every game must be completed in one play session within 3 hours (or 4). This means a tourney with 16 players will be completed in ONE MONTH. A blindingly fast pace compared to today.

5) No replacements. No show without prior reschedule agreement = forfeiture. Starting with 15 minutes after tourney start, late comers are penalized with 1 random internal for every 5 minutes they are late. The 13th internal results in forfeiture.

6) Reschedule allowed only with opponent consent - but MUST still be within the week. If you can't make it, you forfeit. Sorry, but this has to be harsh.

Some of this stuff can be tweaked (entry fee amount, percentage of prize distribution, time to play, etc.) However, the KEY FEATURES are 1) pay to play, 2) pot for the winner, and 2) SHARP, FAST, and HARD DEADLINES.

Honestly, wishy-washiness and not wanting to hurt people's feelings have caused tournaments to turn to meaningless mush. If you pay and you know the rules governing timing, you will show up. Games will be completed fast. Tourneys will be ongoing. I think more people will want to play because of the ADB credit prizes.

Maybe $20 is too much - but seriously, it needs to be at least $5. Heck, you could even have a bigger pot.

ADB could actually make a few bucks off of this. If you get a 20 person tournament at $20 a head, under my proposed scheme ADB gets $100 right off, and then sells another $200 in product. Paul Franz gets $100.

If you hold such a tournament once every 2 months, ADB just earned $600 plus $1200 in sales and Paul Franz gets $600 to help SFBOL upkeep. I'd call that a win.

We should also have non-ace tourneys where relative newbies can compete and the winners buy ADB products and help market them just because they are new bloods showing the game to their friends.

Anyway, like I said, I think we need to return to hard-a** tournaments like the old days. And then promote them. I think they will then get played and hopefully stoke the embers of the dying tournament fire.


Again, key parts: 1) Pay to play, 2) pot for the winner(s), 3) hard and fast deadlines.

My three cents.

-Ted

By Andrew J Koch (Droid) on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - 12:13 pm: Edit

Ted/ Paul:
We've dropped below critical mass required for tournaments.
We have a couple dozen who have good intentions, and of those less than 10 (maybe) diehards who will responsibly play and progress the bracket.
If you want to appreciate the problem go ahead and try to run an event.