Federation Commander

The_Rock · Lieutenant Commander Joined: 16 Jul 2008 Posts: 240

Eric,
Are you on skype? I'd like to chat with you about scenario generation and testing and it will be a lot easier over skype than back and forth on emails or message board posts.
-Paul

ericphillips · Posted: Sun May 15, 2011 2:56 am Post subject:

Yeah, I am, but not tonight. Spending it with the wife watching some Rom-Coms.

We can st up another night, whenever. Also, Garett and I play on Tuesdays at 6:30PT. He will be helping, if you want to meet then.

Also, are you going to Strategicon in LA for Memorial Weekend? I'll be there the four days.

JimDauphinais · Posted: Sun May 15, 2011 4:25 am Post subject:

It sounds like a post-2nd Online Tournament plan is beginning to form.

We will start a new standard tournament on July 1st (with adjustments based on the discussions in the 2nd Online Tournament feedback topic).

Eric will work with other volunteers to develop a scenario based tournament that we will start in the fall to provide some fresh variety.

Of course, we will need to finish the last round of the 2nd Online Tournament first Smile

_________________
Jim Dauphinais, Chesterfield, MO

St. Louis Area Fed Comm Group: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/STL_Federation_Commander/

mojo jojo · Lieutenant Commander Joined: 23 Jun 2009 Posts: 340

If you have a bidding system, there is no need for extensive testing of scenario balance. You can pick any objective and empire matchups and it will almost by definition be balanced since people would bid to play the "favored" side.

The_Rock · Lieutenant Commander Joined: 16 Jul 2008 Posts: 240

ericphillips · Posted: Sun May 15, 2011 8:04 pm Post subject:

I live in Garden Grove, in Orange County. I do head up into LA a lot, for meetings and work and so on.

orgyockbo · Ensign Joined: 29 Apr 2010 Posts: 3

I would probably have to say NO to a scenario based tournament as most of the scenarios I have seen / played in FC or SFB have been broken (imbalanced). Unfortunately from some of the reading I have been doing whether it is online or in a Captain's Log the game designer seems more intent on having the "Format" right than in actually seeing if a scenario is well designed.
His last call I read was we need scenarios for the next issue of the Captain's Log submit anything and it will be published "Please just make sure that the format is correct". As much as I appreciate the design of the game that statement has left me somewhat apprehensive to play ANY designed scenario.
With the above being said I do somewhat like where Eric is going.
I am not sure if I like pick your fleet on the spur of the moment. That can be time consuming if you are not familiar with several races.

A possible solution might be to have multiple rounds 4-5 depending on the number of players.
In each round all fleets are the same (pre-determined) or scenarios. The players would than choose a side and commence with playing the tournament round.

Scoring could be based not necessarily against your opponent but against the side you are playing
16 people in a tournament 8 play side A 8 play side B and you are in competition against everyone on your side to score the most VP's. The top 1/2 of the players score 2 tournament VP's on one side. The bottom 1/2 score 0 tournament VP's on side A and the same would hold true for side B. At the end of the first round 8 total players would have 2 VP's and the bottom bracket would have 0 VP's. You can than repeat the same procedure for the following rounds matching the like VP's against one another.

As previously stated I am not a big fan of the scenarios but if as a community it was decided to try this the above would help to rule out any imbalanced scenarios as everyone on the advantageous side wouldn't score automatic VP's because they rolled the dice for the "good" side. As with the players having to play the unbalanced side they would also be able to score a win as they are playing against other players with the same setup as well as the opponent they face.

We could use the scenario based VP (picking up stranded citizens) or whatever they are or the standard internal, crippled etc... VP system.

storeylf · Fleet Captain Joined: 24 Jul 2008 Posts: 1887

The simplest way of shaking up the current format might be to just have a different terrain each round.

Round 1 = none
Round 2 = asteroids
Round 3 = black hole
Round 4 = nebula.

I can't see how there could be any real balance arguments. Each battle would be no different to now - you fight on a fixed map with the same victory conditions, the only difference being the terrain that gets in the way which is affecting both of you (just as no terrain affects you both). An empire that thrives on an small empty fixed map might find themselves not quite as good with some terrains (Feds in a nebula are amusing), but that might even out the desirability of a few empires.