Federation Commander Forum Index Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Tournament thoughts
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Nerroth
Fleet Captain


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1744
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:37 pm    Post subject: Tournament thoughts Reply with quote

Hi.


I've been listening to the podcasts for the various Origins seminars, and one topic which popped up was the issue of the FC tournament.

I don't want to go too much into the details about the tourney itself, since there is already a separate thread for it; what I wanted to do here was more to talk about what problems (if there are any) there are for non-drone (or rather, non-disruptor) empires, and what kind of solutions could be tried out, if any are needed in the first place.

(Note that the below ideas are solely for tournament play, not for introduction into general FC .)


*One point that seemed to come across was how ineffective some find the plasma empires to be, especially against disruptor/drone opponents. (I'm not sure how the ISC will fit into that paradigm; they will get a chance to fight in the Origins tourney next time around, as will the Vudar and Andromedans.)

Perhaps one option could be to allow the use of the Aegis rules for the escort ships from Booster #92; and further, perhaps to allow the Gorn and Romulan (and potentially ISC) escorts to use their Plasma-D racks in the same manner that certain other empires can with ADDs?

If fighting off drone waves is a problem for the plasma-chuckers, the escorts might be able to even things somewhat. (The Gorns would get less of a benefit, but then their CLE is relatively more useful as a true warship anyway.)


*On the other hand, if drones are too much of a factor, the issue might be one of supply.

Perhaps an alternative option could be to put a cap on drone reloads?

You could either allow for no reloads at all, or maybe one per rack per game, or have a ratio which would vary depending on the empire being fielded.

A cap on drones would make it that bit harder for drone-heavy ships to keep running and attriting with their on-board racks, and oblige them to try and rely more on their other weapons systems to get the job done; which in turn might level things out somewhat, as it's obliging the ships to actually spend power when firing their weapons.


*I'd heard talk of extending the ADD range, but it seems that would benefit the Feds more than the plasma empires. Plus, in terms of drone use, the Feds can take the likes of the NCD as it stands.

However, if drone defence is really such a problem for the Federation, they could perhaps get an Aegis escort of their own, too.


*Speaking of escorts, were they to be allowed, the ISC and Vudar might need CLEs, too. (The Andros, not so much.) But then, maybe the defensive options both empires have (rear-firing Pl-Fs on the one hand, and IPGs on the other) might make them less vulnerable, even without escorts?
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1897

PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You seem to emphasise disrupters to start with and then only talk about addressing perceived drone imbalance. What exactly is the problem?

The fact that a non-drone race won would seem to counter the drone argument. I like kzinti, but Lyran/Ldr/Hydran (and now Vudar) are all tough matchups for a drone heavy force.

I don't know about previous tourneys, but the fact that there were only 8 people would make me wary of drawing to many conclusions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Savedfromwhat
Commander


Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 657

PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with storyelf here. I think the much bigger problem is the crunch heavy forces out there. I will be honest I am surprised that a lyran force won the tourney here in phoenix the federation fleet with the cs and 2 nca's was pretty unstopable. The lack of plasma races that even competed is more proof that plasma is underpowered in this game system and the romulans in particular are overcosted. I have been harping on this point for years though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nerroth
Fleet Captain


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1744
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, if you want to nerf the Lyrans too, make them use the Middle Years ESG rules in tourneys.


Seriously, the reason why I was talking more about drones than disruptors was that most ships which have one come with another (or with some other secondary weapon); there aren't many ships that only have phasers and disruptors.

It might be easier to balance the overall combat effectiveness of the ship (if such balance is needed) by working on the drone/ESG/whatever side of the equation rather than the disruptor side.


I wouldn't have raised the topic at all had it not been for the feedback in the podcasts. From what I gathered there, there at least seems to be room for some sort of discussion on how things are balanced at present; even if the result turns out to be 'everything's fine'.
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1897

PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nerroth wrote:
Okay, if you want to nerf the Lyrans too, make them use the Middle Years ESG rules in tourneys.


Who's talking about nerfing Lyrans?


Quote:
Seriously, the reason why I was talking more about drones than disruptors was that most ships which have one come with another (or with some other secondary weapon); there aren't many ships that only have phasers and disruptors.

It might be easier to balance the overall combat effectiveness of the ship (if such balance is needed) by working on the drone/ESG/whatever side of the equation rather than the disruptor side.

I wouldn't have raised the topic at all had it not been for the feedback in the podcasts. From what I gathered there, there at least seems to be room for some sort of discussion on how things are balanced at present; even if the result turns out to be 'everything's fine'.


I would have though that the better way of addressing any perceived imbalance would be to look at the tourney setup itself rather than the game system. In the sort of free for all setup you get in the tournament you will obvously get a good amount of min-maxing going on, and will also see ships taking on ships they are not 'historically' expected to be facing. The same happens with most such wargame tourneys that allow such freedom in force choice.

Rather than look at rules mechanics the obvious thing to look at for tournaments is the points values, do the points values need adjusting? Maybe drone races need a few points tacking on them, or plasma races a few points deducting from their cost. The sort of tourney being played absolutely relies on appropriate points values for ships as the sort of players going will find the most bang per buck.

The other possible way of doing it is to force each person to play multiple races, come with say 3 squadrons of different races, allocated to each game blindly. Test whether the player is a master of the game or just a master of 1 race.

The other factor is to consider that you are (presumably) looking at hard core players, what they consider balanced/unbalanced may not be the same as the more average player. Balancing the game mechanincs around the thoughts of half a dozen hard core players, biased towards a tournament setting may not be that good an idea, even if what they are saying about tourney balance is true.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
terryoc
Captain


Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it's way premature to be worrying about it. Too small a sample size. Tactics and strategies will evolve, and what's on top this year may be old hat next year as people learn to deal with it.
_________________
"Captain" Terry O'Carroll, fourteen papers published including six best of issue
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DirkSJ
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 239

PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is my perception that plasma races are underpowered as well. How to fix (or even if it's actually true or not) this is not something I feel an expert enough to tackle, however. Perhaps the problem is the ability to increase speed so easily on the fly in FC?

Plasma are already the most complex weapon in the game in terms of rules (barring andros and webs). Adding enveloping might help it out but then it just gets more and more complex.

I was surprised when I read bolts were chosen over enveloping for FC, actually. They always seemed like a hail mary choice given how long and expensive plasmas are to load and how inaccurate bolts are.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1897

PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

terryoc wrote:
I think it's way premature to be worrying about it. Too small a sample size. Tactics and strategies will evolve, and what's on top this year may be old hat next year as people learn to deal with it.


I agree

DirkSJ wrote:
It is my perception that plasma races are underpowered as well. How to fix (or even if it's actually true or not) this is not something I feel an expert enough to tackle, however. Perhaps the problem is the ability to increase speed so easily on the fly in FC?

Plasma are already the most complex weapon in the game in terms of rules (barring andros and webs). Adding enveloping might help it out but then it just gets more and more complex.

I was surprised when I read bolts were chosen over enveloping for FC, actually. They always seemed like a hail mary choice given how long and expensive plasmas are to load and how inaccurate bolts are.


How would enveloping plasma help? If you can outrun a normal plasma why couldn't you outrun a nastier one? Bolts at least give a totally different option allowing you to direct fire.

Also underpowered is just a synonym for overpriced. We've started using the unofficial LDR costs (in an early communique) as they just seem undercosted according to the ship cards. If you think plasma isn't that good you could do a similar thing for plasma ships; for example -2 per F, -3 per G, -4 per S, and -5 per R (numbers plucked from thin air), so for example a gorn Medium cruiser drops from 161 to 149. You could then take 2 MCs and a CC for 450 points.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
terryoc
Captain


Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am listening to the SFU seminar that Paul Franz recorded at Origins (thanks Paul), and one suggestion was to give plasma ships "sabots", which increases the speed of plasma to 40.
_________________
"Captain" Terry O'Carroll, fourteen papers published including six best of issue
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DirkSJ
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 239

PostPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

terryoc wrote:
I am listening to the SFU seminar that Paul Franz recorded at Origins (thanks Paul), and one suggestion was to give plasma ships "sabots", which increases the speed of plasma to 40.

Are sabots extra cost, limited ammo, or just a type of launcher?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Savedfromwhat
Commander


Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 657

PostPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What SFB product are sabots in??
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 4069
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

R10 has plasma sabot (and plasma carronade).

Implementing Sabot would be trivial: simply give them an extra move at the end of every impulse, after everything else has moved.

My concern is that there should be no "special tournament rules". If Sabot is needed for tournament, then it is needed in the normal game. I really, really do not want to see FC turn into SFB in the sense that tournament SFB and "real" SFB are different animals, often to the exclusion of the other. I do not want to see that for FC.

BTW, I agree with not including enveloping. It doesn't solve the problem (which is almost purely speed).

On a completely different tack, if the problem really is speed based, instead of adding in plasma sabot, what if base speed 24 was eliminated? What would that do? (Yes, this would affect everything, especially drones. But would the effect be "good" or "bad"?)
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DirkSJ
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 239

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjwest wrote:
On a completely different tack, if the problem really is speed based, instead of adding in plasma sabot, what if base speed 24 was eliminated? What would that do? (Yes, this would affect everything, especially drones. But would the effect be "good" or "bad"?)

Wow no base 24 is...weird to think about. It would mean piles of ships suddenly have far more energy than they know what to do with, especially if the enemy has done any directed targeting at guns.

Big changes that affect everything always scare me from a balance standpoint. I think the general consensus is that things are "ok" balance-wise with the exception of plasma (and some folks think that isn't that bad).

It seems a far less controversial, far more logical, and far more responsible choice would be to not to disturb that balance as much as possible and, if plasma is decided to officially need help, just tweak plasma.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Savedfromwhat
Commander


Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 657

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We are trying plasma that gets a free move before the end of the launch phase straight ahead, then it gets an extra move at the end of the first two subpulses on the board. This prevents the head to range one fire and het away tactic. It forces your opponent to fire at range 4 or farther or take plasma damage. We are removing the 1 for 2 phaser damage and making it redeuce warhead strength 1 for 1.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dal Downing
Commander


Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 647
Location: Western Wisconsin

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Savedfromwhat wrote:
We are trying plasma that gets a free move before the end of the launch phase straight ahead, then it gets an extra move at the end of the first two subpulses on the board. This prevents the head to range one fire and het away tactic. It forces your opponent to fire at range 4 or farther or take plasma damage. We are removing the 1 for 2 phaser damage and making it redeuce warhead strength 1 for 1.


Seems awefully klunky 2hexs on Launch 5 hexs for the first 2 Impulses of travel then drop back down to a normial speed 32. KISS if we need Sabots (And after playing a tournamnet style fleet battle between a Gorn, Hydrian, and a Kzinti I think we may need something.) Then do it steady across the board like a true 32+1 speed. Also if the problem is Plasmas not hitting why are you reducing the Damage to Warhead Ratio making it easier to reduce the warhead? To be honest the games I played I think simply changeing Weapon Status to all ships start at WSIII might help some.
_________________
-Dal

"Which one of you is the Biggest, Baddest, Bootlicker of the bunch?"
"I am."
"ARCHERS!!! THAT ONE!!!!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group