Steve:
It is not like Peter and I are wanting to outlaw TACs, which is what it seems you think we mean. We want to change when they happen. If the player wants to take the Lyran ram on a different shield, he just has to TAC before the Lyran moves.

Personally, I think the ship that is moving faster should be rewarded with the movement advantage, just like it is for the other 31 speeds a ship could be going. A ship going speed 0 is given quite an unreasonable edge, and frankly, I can understand no rhyme or reason for it.

Regardless, I'll just keep on parking, since apparently everyone here thinks me and Peter have lost our minds.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 06:21 pm: Edit

Good call Steve, it is exactly those kinds of unseen consequences that can develop from such an integral rules change like this. As I said, logically I would like to see this change, but I fear it will be a very different game afterwards and the consequences could be easily higher than intended.

Best leave it as is imo.

Tim, I don't think you've lost your mind. I think a better solution is to implement the tourney judges and place a clock on such actions within the tourney duel rather than affect every type of scenario in the game.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Tactics wise, make sure your battlepasses arent so close to the end or near of the turn to avoid encouraging people to park.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 07:09 pm: Edit

Tim Sheehy:

I do not know how you could read what I posted as your wanting to "outlaw tacs". Nothing in the post said that was what you were trying to do, it acknowledged and responded to your desire to change when they occur, which is what the topic is about. I simply noted that by limiting the discussion as you have, and thus bringing others along for the ride, you have managed to overlook rules interactions. The Order of Precedence covers more things than just when ships move. Tacing ships get to tac after seeking weapons, or even after fighters and shuttles move. Changing when ships Tac interacts with seeking weapons, and interacts with ESG impacts. Requiring the ship to tac before the ESG field arrives is erroneous as circumstances can allow the ESG ship a choice of two shields on the target unit, and thus allow the ESG player to strike the weaker of two shields. Changing where TACs occur will strengthen ESG ships to some extent. Overwhelmingly? Probably not, but possibly decisively in some battles.

But changing the order of when TACs occurs to be before things like seeking weapon movement or ESG rams WILL have an effect.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 07:18 pm: Edit

SPP. Well, the Lyran and LDR has needed a small edge For seeking weapons, its not really an issue since you predict WHEN they will hit.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 11:21 pm: Edit

Steve wrote:
>>I simply noted that by limiting the discussion as you have, and thus bringing others along for the ride, you have managed to overlook rules interactions. The Order of Precedence covers more things than just when ships move. Tacing ships get to tac after seeking weapons, or even after fighters and shuttles move.>>

Which, while completely true, strikes me as a reasonable rules change.

My premise (and presumably Tim's premise as well) is that parking is simply too effective as it stands. Changing the sequence of TACing would make parking much less effective, and as such, much less attractive. And would result in a much more active game.

Yes--changing the timing of TACs would affect how ships get rammed by ESGs and how ships get hit by seeking weapons (although in most cases, the seeking weapon situation will be mostly moot--unless you have a "fly drones in a circle around your opponent till you decide to HET them and hit" situation, the change in TAC sequence won't make much of a difference, but if you have arranged such a situation for your drones, you are probably winning anyway)--but again, this strikes me as a pretty minor sacrifice to make the game much more fluid and active.

We all want ships to move. That is half of what makes the game fun--the game of manuver. When it is so effective and so potent to simply park, that half of the game goes away. Which is not very satisfying.

>>Changing when ships Tac interacts with seeking weapons, and interacts with ESG impacts.>>

Yes it does. This strikes me as a reasonable trade off.

>>Requiring the ship to tac before the ESG field arrives is erroneous as circumstances can allow the ESG ship a choice of two shields on the target unit, and thus allow the ESG player to strike the weaker of two shields. Changing where TACs occur will strengthen ESG ships to some extent. Overwhelmingly? Probably not, but possibly decisively in some battles.>>

Possibly. Currently, however, the situation is reversed--the TACing ship is strong, which is often decisive. Something has to have the advantage, and I, for one, would much rather see the advantage go to the ship that is moving and taking the initiative.

Currently, due to the TAC rules, all the of the advantage is handed to the parked ship in a situation where one is moving and one is parked. The rules reward non agressive play to an inappropriate extent--enough so that a full page of "non agression" rules had to be developed for tournament play to attempt to balance the situation out.

I'd simply prefer a rules set that awarded the active player, rather than the inactive player.

But again, I'm not real rabid about this. I think it would be good if the TAC sequence was changed. If it doesn't? I'll go on playing like I always do. I'll just wise up and keep turning Tim into the judges :-)

-Peter

By Tom Carroll (Sandman) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 11:46 pm: Edit

I like that ships at speed 0 can tac after ships move. I believe it adds flavor and tactical complexity to the game.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 11:20 am: Edit

When you think about it from an engineering point of veiw.

You move a ship on the spot 60° with one movement point or you move it 10,000 km.

One is a value of 100s of tonne metres and the other is a value of 10s of millions of tonne metres.

The fact that such huge power is spent going no where ( and also you get to turn for free ( roughly even four hexes of regular movement ) means that tacs are spending a lot of power for nothing, they should gain something...like maybe the right to move last!?!

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 11:58 am: Edit

>>When you think about it from an engineering point of veiw.>>

Yeah, see, I simply don't ever think in these terms. I simply think about it from a game point of view.

I am uninterested in "realistic engineering" rational, as that all flies out the window when you have 500 pound cat people flying around at 20 times the speed of light...

-Peter

By Jay Paulson (Etjake) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 12:20 pm: Edit

MJC if we were looking at it from an engineering point of view we would point out that the ships picks up enough rotational energy to spin 60' in 1/32 second and then loses all of that energy almost instantaneously.

Changing TACs would still allow ships to proitect a weak shield. The biggest difference would be that it would be more difficult to keep a shield that was heavily reinforced pointed (by spending only 5 power on movement)at a moving ship.

I don't think this will have as much effect on the tournament as you think, but it will probably encourage more 4/14 plots instead of TAC/10 plots.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 01:53 pm: Edit

A ship pick up war tace at speed-4.

If we're going to make the change, then a ship ought to tac as if at speed 4 for warp tacs and at speed-1 for impulse tacs.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 02:25 pm: Edit

In the star trek episode, "Elaan of Troyus", the Enterprise's warp power was down (due to sabotage). The Klingon D7 was straffing, the #4 shield in serious trouble. Kirk was becoming frustrated that Sulu couldn't protect the #4. Sulu explained that the ship was sluggish without the warp.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Jay wrote:
>>I don't think this will have as much effect on the tournament as you think, but it will probably encourage more 4/14 plots instead of TAC/10 plots.>>

I think it would certainly reduce the amount of time folks would spend at speed 0, which happens *a lot* in tournament play. The 4-14 plot, which would become much more common, is good as it A) keeps ships moving, and B) actually puts the ship that weaseled at a disadvantage, rather than putting it at a super advantage like it does now.

As it stands, there are currently far more situations where parking for a whole turn (or 6) is a good idea then where the 4-14 (or whatever) weasel is a good idea (most of those involve shaking a plasma that was launched from a ship that is now far away).

-Peter

By David Kass (Dkass) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 11:32 pm: Edit

What I'm seeing is that due to the fishbowl and/or limited rule set, stopping and TACing is (too?) powerful there. It is much less powerful under the full rules.

---

Quote:

I'm not seeing it as something that will be negative at all. What I see is an increase in the well timed 4-14 speedy weasel plot, which strikes me as a vast improvement in the game. Yeah, decelling is a desperation manuver, and if TACing becomes less advantageous, decelling becomes more of a desperate manuver. Which is a good thing.

---

By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 09:20 am: Edit

David:
Not trying to be funny, but the odds of you defeating me in any battle are likely pretty small. I'm not sure how that would prove or disprove anything about TACing anyway, unless someone actually TACced.

Since TACing is so evidently uncommon in anything but tourney battles, (which you freely say), I guess I don't see why you have a problem with changing them to happen before faster movement.

Oh, on the Origins thing. As Paul has commented on before, many of us go to play the tournament second, and hang out and have fun with friends we see once a year. I promise you if you want to hang out with us you will immediately be "in the club". We ask pretty much everyone in the hall if they want to go to lunch/dinner/drinks afterward/whatever, and I can guarantee you'll have a good time. (An especially good time if you like arguing about SFB matchups, past games, or EQ)

If more people like Aaron showed up, (who also doesn't play tourney), it would be extremely easy to set up non-tourney scenarios.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 11:48 am: Edit

David wrote:
>>Please show me a 4-14 plot that allows the WW on impulse 25 and moves at least 16 hexes before then (for a non-nimble ship). This is a common situation in squadron actions (an early turn combat run, followed by weasling off the weapons or a move to open range to survive the WW).>>

I'm not seeing how this has anything at all to do with TACing. And how the lack of such a plot would make changing the TAC sequence bad for anyone. Please show me such a situation that occurs now, and would somehow be rendered ineffective by changing the sequence of TACing?

The 4-14 plot is something that generally happens early in a turn--you start the turn going 4, so as to facilitate theweaseling of some seeking weapons on the map, and then you speed up to 14 to engage in combat. Or something. Currently, due to the TACing sequence, the incentive to do this is minimal in most cases, as there is *so* much advantage to simply parking.

>>As far as I know, there is no plot that does this. Note that my combat speed in squadron actions (against fast drones) is often 22 or so.>>

And again, what does any of this have to do with changing the TAC sequence? If you are moving 22 or so, you aren't TACing. Unless you decel. In which case, you have a whole other set of problems.

>>And even if you find such a plot, it still requires the player to know they were going to need to weasel during EA. This is often not the case (ie the drones/plasma is launched during the approach early in the turn and thus the target is not know in advance).>>

No, it is often not the case. In which case the ships in question need to decel. Which saves them from the seekeing weapons.

Again, nothing having to do with changing the sequence of TACing is part of that statement.

>>I have to disagree that keeping ships moving is good for the game. I would argue that allowing for tactical decisions is good for the game and removing some (as this does for non-tournament play) is bad.>>

What tactical decisions are being removed? You could still decel. You could still plot speed zero. You could still TAC. It would just be less advantageous that it is now, asit is currenlty presposterously advantageous.

>>People seem to be forgetting the cost of the TACs. For a frigate to buy 4 warp tacs and the impulse tac, he pays 2 1/3 energy, or enough to go speed 7. If the attacking ship moves as speed 16 (at the high end, but not too unreasonable against a parked ship), the FF only gets 3 boxes of "free" reinforcement...>>

At which point, changing the sequence of TACing doesn't make any difference at all.

>>Peter, please realize there is much more to SFB than just tournament play. If you want to advocate a tournament only change (that seems to be the only place where parking is an issue),>>

If parking isn't an issue in non tournament play, how is changing the TAC sequence going to have an effect on non tournament play? From what I hear from people in this discussion, folks don't even park in non tournament play. If you never park, how is changing the TAC sequence going to make a difference? It would make a huge difference in tournament play, but would have any measurable effect on non tournament play. Where is the problem?

>>go ahead. I'd suggest that the "parking problem" is a symptom of a deficiency in the tournament rules set, and should be corrected by fixing the rules set itself. Not by trying to fix the TACs.>>

Fixing TACs is such a nice, simple, sensical repair to the base rules set. It would make tournament play much better, and wouldn't have much of an effect at all on non tournament play. I simply can't see how it wouldbe a problem.

-Peter

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 01:17 pm: Edit

I've parked and tacced successfully in non-tourney play. It may be more of an issue in tournaments, but in the right place and time it is an equally valid tactic in both environments.

Peter, if your opponent stops and spins, you have likely pushed him against a metaphorical wall. If you cannot turn that to your advantage, leave. If he remains in that position, call a judge.

What else do we have to do?

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 03:53 pm: Edit

Geoff wrote:
>> I've parked and tacced successfully in non-tourney play. It may be more of an issue in tournaments, but in the right place and time it is an equally valid tactic in both environments.>>

I never said it wasn't. Other folks, who apparently don't play tournament games, have continually said that parking in non tournament play just gets you killed. This may very well be the case (although I don't actually think it is), but if parking in non tournament play is such a bad idea to begin with, why is there opposition to making it more of a bad idea?

>>Peter, if your opponent stops and spins, you have likely pushed him against a metaphorical wall.>>

Not really. Stoping and parking is a really good idea in many, many circumstances. Heck, I do it all the time against the Orion--it is the only way to even out the power and manuverability disparity. There is no metaphorical wall. In many match ups, often, the best thing in the world to do is just to stop and park. And not 'cause it is a last resort.

>> If you cannot turn that to your advantage, leave. If he remains in that position, call a judge.>>

Well, yes. My whole point is that personally, I think the game would be better off for all involved if parking came with enough of a disadvantage that there would be no need to call the judge.

Currently, there is very little disadvantage to parking, mostly 'cause of the TAC sequencing. Changing that would remove the need to call a judge, as the inherrent rules would fill in that hole.

Currently, parking is effective enough that there has to be a whole page of rules just to discourage it. The same thing could be accomplished by simply changing the TAC rules, and the solution would me much less arbitrary.

>>What else do we have to do?>>

We don't have to do anything. I just think that thegame would be better served for everyone if the TAC rules were adjusted in this fairly minor fashion.

-Peter

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 04:08 pm: Edit

Peter,

SVC doesn't think the change is minor.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 04:23 pm: Edit

John wrote:
>>SVC doesn't think the change is minor.>>

Well, yeah, there is that. Which is why I don't think it will ever actually get changed.

That doesn't mean I can't try and convince folks it is a good idea :-)

Again, I'm not real rabid about this. If the TAC rules never change, they never change. I'll deal. I have for 15 (20?) some odd years. I just think changing the TAC sequencing would make the game a better place for everyone involved.

-Peter

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 04:34 pm: Edit

The change is anything but minor. Given the post by Petrick listing how many things that no work correctly would suddenly explode if this change was made, I cannot image anyone (even Peter) thinks it could be even a remote possibility. This change is one (not the best) solution to one problem; the change itself creates so many other problems that the game system would utterly collapse if you did this. I said at the start that I'll let you guys ramble but the odds of us being convinced to do this stand at zero point zero.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 05:33 pm: Edit

Oh well. It never hurts to try, though :-)

-Peter

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 05:51 pm: Edit

I reread SPP's post.

It seemed to boil down to the importance of being able to shift shields when ESG rammed and against seeking weapon impacts.

I could accept SPP's ESG ram problem. The Lyrans could use the help.

The seeking weapons question is the tougher one.

The problem is there's no way to allow a tac to respond to seeking weapons and not to an ESG ram so we must accept both problems or neither.

I tend to agree that neither (the status quo) would probably be the better choice.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 06:01 pm: Edit

John wrote:
>>The seeking weapons question is the tougher one. >>

But a much less common one.

Having to TAC *before* the seeking weapon hits will, in 95% of all cases, not be an issue--you can see where the seeking weapon is going to go before it moves. If at the start of impulse N, a ship is not moving and it has seeking weapons adjacent to it, such that they will strike the next time they move (which is generally what happens), then you can easily TAC the appropriate shield to face the seeking weapons before they hit.

In the non that often occuring situation where a ship is not moving, can't weasel or shoot down a seeking weapon, and that seeking weapon is in a "fly around the ship till it HETs and strikes", the ship might be in trouble, but even then, if the seeking weapon/s HET on impulse N, they don't hit until N+1 at earliest, at which point, you get to TAC before the seeking weapons hit anyway.

The ESG issue is significant, but then so is the ability to shoot the TACing ship's weak shield, which is what the whole point of this change is anyway--make parking *actually* disadvantageous, as opposed to what it is now.

But then, at this point, I'm speaking in pure hypotheticals.

-Peter

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 08:36 pm: Edit

Zero point zero? Now, perhaps what he isn't telling us are the numbers following that zero.
Since SVC probably rounded normally, the number he was trully thinking cannot be 0.05 or higher, therefore we can extrapolate that we have a 4% chance or less to convince the steves of a need in change. Unless of course, the 0.0 steve was saying was in fact, 0.0%. With that under consideration, the interpretation of the odds of our success drops from 4% to 0.04% (or less). Worse case scenario, it is 0.01% which is actually 1 in 10,000. And in the spirit of the movie, "Dumb and Dumber", I'd like to quote the Jim Carey character, ~smiling~ "So you're saying, we DO have a chance".

(promises not to post seriously on this thread again).