Federation Commander

junior · Captain Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 803

You know, I've got a question...

If you just launched a salvo of plasma torpedoes, then WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND is still closing the distance with you? Isn't the plasma a rather big deterrent to, you know, suddenly go the OTHER (i.e. the out of weapons arc) way?

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

[Rules violation. Abusive personal attack. Deleted.]

Steve Cole · Site Admin Joined: 11 Oct 2006 Posts: 3828

Paul Scott: You are suspended from the BBS for 24 hours. During that time, I will decide how much longer your suspension will be. This is the third time in 9 years and 8 months I had to get out of bed, get dressed, and drive back to the office. Right now I'm angry enough at your abusive and aggregious behavior, your unwarranted and unacceptable personal attacks on Mike West, to suspend you for at least a week if not a month. The need to maintain the rule of law, however, is strong enough that I will make that decision tomorrow morning when I am not angry.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

Steve Cole · Site Admin Joined: 11 Oct 2006 Posts: 3828

I am trying to delete as few posts as possible, eliminating the flamewar but not the tactics discussion. It's not a perfect science.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

Steve Cole · Site Admin Joined: 11 Oct 2006 Posts: 3828

Paul Scott is suspended from this BBS and the PHP Forum (for aggregious misconduct) for 3 weeks, until noon Central Standard Time on Saturday 6 September 2008.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

ShockRocket · Lieutenant JG Joined: 27 Jul 2008 Posts: 26

Hee. "aggregious". Is that something like "offtrusive"?

mjwest · Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 5:27 pm Post subject:

texastwister · Ensign Joined: 13 May 2008 Posts: 17 Location: Austin, TX

I was in some intensive training over the course of this discussion and unable to monitor or respond to the forum so, even though I'm late to the "party" I'd like to register my thoughts -- take them for what they're worth.

I'm a relatively new player (<1yr, >6mos) and have only recently been learning to use this particular tool (EM) in the toolbox.

The opinions I hold are in opposition to those held by some with powerful voices in this forum -- I hope I'll not be dismissed or abused simply on that account but that they'll be heard and considered since they'll be voiced diplomatically and respectfully.

First let me state:
* Abusive forum behavior is never appropriate and I'm not defending it. I did not have opportunity to read the deleted posts, so I don't know what transpired.
* I recognize that Steve Cole owns the game, makes the rules, and is entitled to do what he wants with them. However, when a community of people has invested time, effort, and money in a gaming platform like this, there comes to be some reasonable expectation of consistency and consideration from the creator towards the players. More on that later...

However, I have the following reactions to the EM rule change:
* There is the appearance that the request for forum feedback made on 8/7 was not in good faith. This appearance was created by the short time between the request and the final decision, the decision in the face of near over-whelming adverse feedback, and the apparent lack of play-testing (at least none has been mentioned in any of the posts I've been able to read) before the ruling was implemented. All of these, taken together, suggest to me that the decision was a foregone conclusion -- already decided before the request for comment
* There is the hint that the decision is a reaction to a personal issue between two individuals -- one called the other out by name as the reason for proposing the change.
* There is the claim that decision is in response to postings advocating abusive use of this rule -- but I read all the posts of the individual in question and could find nothing that seemed to match what was claimed. Such posts might have been on the legacy board (I didn't go there) but I saw none.
* It seems to have been on behalf of a specific empire (in my opinion, arguably the strongest) to weaken a tool that serves to equalize them with other empires.
* Feedback was requested, much was given, and apparently ignored. Many questions were raised in the discussion and never addressed or answered -- and yet, those opposing the decision were challenged to "please elaborate on why" it was a bad idea, as though they had not already done so -- repeatedly.

I'm disappointed. If a rule about which there has been no previous outcry (or I least I've heard no one claim that there has been) for 3 years, can be changed in the space of four or five days at the whim of a small number of people in opposition to most of the people voicing feedback, with no playtesting to validate the change... then why am I bothering to learn the rulebook? Let's just make it up as we go along and change it when the whim strikes us... (and, yes, that is sarcasm -- if it is inappropriate, I apologize.)

Honestly, it seems like much of this game is built around an effort by the more experienced players to always be in a position to one-up those who are newer -- not by playing on an even playing field with well-known rules but using them more skillfully, but by pulling some new "trick" out of the sleeve. "You think you're ready to be competitive with me? Well guess what? I have a ship from a new empire with new weapons -- that ought to keep you off-balance for a few games!" "You think you've found a rule that helps you deal with me? Oh, yeah... we just changed that one!"

That strikes me as a far more abusive way of playing than using known rules on a level playing field. It's annoying that so many of our games seem to turn out that way where I play, and it's even more annoying when it appears that that way of thinking is shaping the direction of the entire game.

Well... that's a perception from a noob and a (mostly) lurker. I'll return to my lurker's corner now...

Scott

mjwest · Last edited by mjwest on Sun Aug 17, 2008 6:43 am; edited 3 times in total

I am going to respond to some of these points directly and without any "make nice" words. Do not interpret any of this is personal.

Patrick Doyle

I have to say I was surprised to hear about this new ruling on Evasive Maneuvers. I just heard about it. I've spent the last few hours reading.

1. I was not aware that their was a significant problem. I've found that the game was remarkable well done and balanced, and I have felt that EM was properly balanced and functioned fine as it was. I don't think anything was broke.

2. I play the Feds very frequently and have much success with them. If someone went evasive against me, I took it as an opportunity to do some free damage (usually hold the photons and hit them with phasers and a drone). Then I wait for them to come out of evasive. Frankly though, it didn't happen much.

3. I've never begrudged anyone going evasive on me as I finally get my photons in range. I even wrote an article on how use EM against the Feds, Its in the latest capt's Log called "The Photon Dodge". I believe the new ruling invalidates that article. I hope this did not add to the reasons for this change.

4. The Feds do not need a "Boost" by making a rules change, at least not in my experience.

5. I believe the Tactic in question is used by the Romulans. Basically its this: (1) decloak, (2) launch plasma, and (3) go evasive to avoid retaliation during the following impulse. The counter to this tactic....save your drones and Launch them when he goes evasive. Since he was cloaked his base speed is 16 at maximum. Since he is launching plasma at you, he is likely heading toward you, especially if its an R-torp. Since he spent power to cloak, and go evasive and hold torps , he may not have much to accelerate with. The drones should hit. Even Feds can inflict harm with drones, especially NCAs and CSs which carry 2 drone racks.
I recently had this tactic used on me. Had I saved my drones (and I will next time), the King Eagle in question would have been adequately punished. It did not create any particular imbalance in the game. As it was I closed to range 2 on the KE and hit it with 3 out of 6 photons and a bunch of phasers from 3 ships.

Unless I missed something (and I may have it's very late), this is the only account of this tactic being used and its effect, and how it could be countered. Is there more playtest data out there that supports the rules change? In my opinion, this Romulan tactic is not "too powerful".

There were tactics that countered EM if you were properly prepared. If not, hopefully you learned something, and were better prepared during your next encounter.

Respectfully,
Pat
_________________
Once again I have proven that even in the future, your photon torpedoes are built by the lowest bidder.

storeylf · Fleet Captain Joined: 24 Jul 2008 Posts: 1897

[edit - what's happened, happened]

As an aside, is there any where that collates all the rule changes/faqs etc in 1 place, A couple of posts have left me feeling I'm missing several new rules or changes and I'd rather not trawl through all the commuiques to find them.

Kang · Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject: