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 

3rd FCOL Tournament Poll #1: Turn Limit

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> FC & SFB Online!
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Should we address this perceived issue, and, if so, how?
Yes. Fix it by increasing the turn limit from 6 turns to 10 turns.
46%
 46%  [ 6 ]
Yes. Fix it by prohibiting the use of Suicide Shuttles.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Yes. Have each Shuttle be worth 5 VP worth of the printed ship point value. Each Suicide Shuttle launched awards 5 VPs (adjusted by empire point value modifiers) to the other player.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
No, but for other reasons I would like the turn limit to be raised from 6 Turns to 10 Turns (e.g., I think it provides necessary help to the empires that rely on slow attrition).
30%
 30%  [ 4 ]
No. I do not believe we need to make any change to address this perceived issue.
23%
 23%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 13

Author Message
JimDauphinais
Commander


Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Posts: 766
Location: Chesterfield, MO

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:13 pm    Post subject: 3rd FCOL Tournament Poll #1: Turn Limit Reply with quote

In the 2nd FCOL Tournament there was a limt of 6 turns of play. Most games were settled well within that 6 turn limit. However, one Hydran Fusion Squadron versus Gorn match ended in a draw in part because the Gorn player put out a large number of Suicide Shuttles that: (i) made it too painful for that Hydran player to close and (ii) consumed too many turns for the Hydran player to have enough time to deal with the Gorn ships once the Shuttles were dealt with.

It has been proposed that something be done to address this issue for the 3rd FCOL tournament.

Options include limiting Suicide Shuttle use or raising the turn limit from 6 to 10.

Note that increasing the turn limit would not affect most games as most will be clearly resolved before the 10th turn is reached.
_________________
Jim Dauphinais, Chesterfield, MO

St. Louis Area Fed Comm Group: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/STL_Federation_Commander/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
pinecone
Fleet Captain


Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 1865
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to ask, how (with gatlings) would suicide shuttles be an issue for Hydrans in the first place? I don''t mean to be critical, but I just doesn't seem o make sense. Confused
_________________
Doomed to live in secret since discovering that the Air Force Tapes were a fantasy... Embarassed

"Your knowledge of my existence must be punished" Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JimDauphinais
Commander


Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Posts: 766
Location: Chesterfield, MO

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If playing against Gorns, the Gatlings are likely busy dealing with the Plasma that is also in the air. Moreover, ideally the Hydran player wants to use those Gatlings along with his Fusion Beams when pressing the close in crunch.
_________________
Jim Dauphinais, Chesterfield, MO

St. Louis Area Fed Comm Group: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/STL_Federation_Commander/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
terryoc
Captain


Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1380

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a situation where one player was sitting and forcing the other to charge into his guns (or seeking weapons in this case). That is non-aggression in a nutshell. While everyone hates situations where games are resolved by ruling on something which is pretty much subjective, I think some kind of anti-non-aggression rule will prove to be necessary.
_________________
"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
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1883

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This is a situation where one player was sitting and forcing the other to charge into his guns (or seeking weapons in this case). That is non-aggression in a nutshell. While everyone hates situations where games are resolved by ruling on something which is pretty much subjective, I think some kind of anti-non-aggression rule will prove to be necessary.

I think I must be alone on this, I have no issue with either player using whatever tactic they think best suits them. I always assumed that was the point of competitive games. Neither do I have an issue with a player playing for a draw if he thinks that a loss is the only other likely result.

If that means sitting in a corner rather than having to somehow stay away from a more manouverable fleet on a fixed map which will clearly blow him away at close range then so be it. If the other guy can't suss out how to beat the sitting duck then he hasn't shown himself worthy of a win and a draw is appropiate.

As noted in the other thread, I'm sure the hydran could have been aggressive and won. This isn't a case of there was no way the hydran could get in and win, it was as much down to the hydran not wanting to take the 'risk' of diving in past the shuttles. Just as the Gorn didn't want to take the 'risk' of moving out of the corner where it was more or less certain that the vastly better close range fleet would eventaully get close and win. Both players were being pretty risk averse IMO.

No one should be forced to play in a way that results in them having to use dud tactics.

The gorn tactics seemed reasonable to me, and I wouldn't have complained had my hydrans been facing them and met the same tactics. It's up to me to win, not to rely on the Gorns losing. It would take away that feeling of satisfaction, realising that it was more a case that the other guy was forced to lose rather than overcoming them myself.

I'd also be against anti-non-agression rules as again they are almost certainly going to end up as subjective adjudication. I really hate that sort of thing. It's probably why I could never get into sports like diving, skating, or others where some judges award points.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
terryoc
Captain


Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1380

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It's up to me to win, not to rely on the Gorns losing.


That's precisely it. It's up to the Gorns to win, not to rely on the opposing player impaling himself on your guns (and losing). You need to play to win, not to play to "not lose".

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that sitting there makes you pretty much unbeatable. (This is more of an issue in SFB than FC, but apparently still an issue). The opposing player says, "Well, a draw's better than a loss, so I'll do the same thing," which results in a boring and un-fun game.

In any case, the longer game limit may eliminate the problem (I hope that it does), making the point moot. I'm not going to comment further on this, I'll wait and see what happens.
_________________
"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
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1883

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

terryoc wrote:
Quote:
It's up to me to win, not to rely on the Gorns losing.


That's precisely it. It's up to the Gorns to win, not to rely on the opposing player impaling himself on your guns (and losing). You need to play to win, not to play to "not lose".



Each player needs to play the best way he thinks is viable. If he doesn't expect to win given the scenario setup (be it empire matchup or just player ability difference) why should he be forced to abandon the best way of at least trying to come away with a point. Is that really more exciting? - beating someone who has been required to play a style that doesn't suit him, rather than trying to work out how to earn your win by beating the defensive player?

But as I say I seem to be the only person who feels like that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gar1138
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Eugene, OR

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think going to 10 turns is good all around. Yes, most games are decided in less than 6 turns, but having 10 turns total just feels less artificially restrictive to me (and does help out the 3-turn plasma arming empires).

Garrett
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Patrick Doyle
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 208
Location: Norfolk, VA

PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Non aggression" type tactics do not work well in Fed Com if you have a fixed map (we do) and at least 10 turns with which to plot against that non-aggressive opponent.

In 5 years of tournaments, this was the first case of someone using what could be classified as "non aggression" (as defined by SFB).

10 turns should solve the problem. If not, we can consider another fix.

I am only aware of one game in all the tournaments that went beyond 10 turns, and I was on the losing sid of it. There was no "non-aggression, just a lot of photons failing to hit. It went about 12-13 turns and was nothing but a sluggfest. Otherwise, I would guess that not more than 10% of the games go beyond 5 turns.
_________________
Once again I have proven that even in the future, your photon torpedoes are built by the lowest bidder.



Last edited by Patrick Doyle on Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:11 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Archer
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 27
Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suspect the addition of more turns isn't necessarily going to stop a Gorn from pursuing this tactic against the Hydran. It may not work but what choice does he have? Do any of you actually think that Gorn force could beat that Hydran force? If the Hydran is remotely skilled and disciplined he will always win. Jim did the only thing he could do and would have lost horribly if he played it straight up like he did against my Feds in the next battle.

Because of pH Gs and being able to bring 4 cruisers in this tourney Hydran are by far the most powerful race in this tournament. Gorn are certainly the weakest. I say kudos to Jim for finding a way to stay in the game as long as he did.

Plasma are at a huge disadvantage in FC vs. SFB, with no housekeeping costs; fire control, shields, what have you, every ship in the game is that much faster. Plasma torps are the same speed and are further nerfed by having no pseudo torps. There is no way to hang in a long fight without the deception of pseudo torpedoes. This is something that seriously needs to be added to the game if Gorn, or to a lesser extent Roms, will ever be viable. This tournaments should be used as case studies to identify which races are consistently poor performers and try to fix them.

Also, I'll go on record as saying I see no reason a 10 bpv hydran fighter should have 2 fusion and 1 phaser G. That is a ridiculous amount of firepower for a race that already has 2 phaser G on each ship. Thats like two OL photon torpedoes that cost 1 pt of power to fire each. nuts.

Ok I'm off topic so I'll stop....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1883

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Archer wrote:
This tournaments should be used as case studies to identify which races are consistently poor performers and try to fix them.


I presume you mean consistently poor performers in the tournament specific scenario, and try to fix any tournament to better fit the way FC was written and plays.

Maybe I have a different view point to others, but I expect any touranment setup for any game to consider the way the game plays and take account of any differences in the 'sides' etc. I don't usually expect the tournment to somehow trump the game itself and result in changes that are not necessarily a problem beyond the tournament (which for a lot games are played by a minority of players).

The tournament scenario has plenty of problems with it, beyond any percieved plasma issues. The fact that it expects all empires to fight equally well in a turn/time limited game on a tiny fixed map always comes over as odd to me. Different empires play differently and benefit from different scenario setups. If there are any issues that come out of the tourney then try changing the tourney first rather than change the game. That is why I would like to see Eric's scenario based tourney come to fruition. Different scenarios, with differnt terrain, map sizes, turn limits and victiory conditions or whatever could allow for all empires to have the sort of games they perform better in and the games they don't do well in.

That's not to say that what info comes out of a long run of tourneys isn't indicative of a problem. But it shouldn't be assumed to be a problem that needs a game change rather than a tourney change.

Taking Jim's handcap system and formalising it could go a long way to balancing the tourney for any empire that struggles with the limited turn tiny map scenario as well a plasma empires. Indeed it could balance the empires that excel at such a game like hydrans who given sufficient hanicap will not be coming with 4 cruisers.

At the end of the day the tourney game is nothing more than a scenario, and just as others noted with Eric's idea it is hard to balance scenarios. The current tourney is just proof of that, it is not balanced. It already has special scenario rules to try and take into account come stuff (cloak limits, stinger limits etc). Adding more scenario rules to the tourney is perfectly reasonable in principle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Archer
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 27
Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well to be honest I am making an observation against the game system itself, not this tournament in particular. For one thing, I've never played FC on an open map except maybe at the very beginning. It was immediately obvious the game needs a fixed map to ensure that people can be cornered and not drag games out forever wasting everyone's time.
This is why every tournament I've seen anyway, is fixed map. I'm arguing that every race should have an equal chance on a fixed map. The fixed map is a double edged sword for the Gorn, its a liability because he needs time to reload, however it can also be used to corner his opponent. That is pretty much true for all races.
However, I am making the argument that it will never be a level playing field for plasma shooters since they took pseudoes away. And yes I realize that means weasels would need to be part of the game too. After many years of SFB I can tell you that any plasma shooter that didn't utilize pseudoes was playing with one hand behind their back.
What I'd like to see, if sufficient play testing were done to prove it necessary, is pseudos added to the game for S torps only. That would make Gorn competitive instantly. But this is just a fantasy on my part.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1883

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Archer wrote:
It was immediately obvious the game needs a fixed map to ensure that people can be cornered and not drag games out forever wasting everyone's time.


We see things differently. I'd not say it is obvious at all. But it comes down to what you see as a waste of time. If a game is interesting and challenging then I have no issue with a game 'dragging out'. One of our recent games was a potentially limitless map, and it went for 3 long evenings if I remember correct, but it was probably one of the best games I've played in a good while.

Time is clearly a key factor in a tourney (especially face to face, but still to an extent online) but that again just comes down it being very scenario spcecific, and what is 'broke' in some tourney scenario is not necessarily broke in the general sense. Trying to 'fix' the game to be balanced in that style of game may just leave others feeling the game is 'broke' instead.

Even if you would like to see all races be 'balanced' on a fixed map, then what size are you talking about? I'd really like to see a larger fixed map than what the tourney currently uses, it always seems far to small unless you have a close and crunch empire. Indeed look at the top spots in this game - Hydran, Lyran, Fed, Hydran. All deliver signifcant close range crunch.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The_Rock
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 240

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. Balance is achievable on either fixed or open maps, just not on both at the same time (unless you make all weapons direct fire weapons).

2. "Balance" always means balance based on points. The game is already perfectly balanced with the rules as is if you ignore the point values and balance based on testing. I probably should have listed this first, but I just it to be clear about what we are talking about. Lee is completely correct when he says "tournament balance" because that is the only thing data from running a specific scenario over and over can tell you - is this scenario rule set balanced? You could, for example - as had been done in SFB - make a set of tournament fleets for Fed Com. The points in that case would not matter. You could also (as has also been done in SFB) make a set of tournament specific rules that do not apply generally. It is the nature of the tournament rule that everyone builds their own fleets based on points that forces the equivocation of points and balance.

3. PPTs are not going to help much. Additionally, they add a lone secret element to an otherwise completely disclosed game. I don't like that one at all.

4. EPTs already have a rule set, provided by Mike West. Mike has also already stated what needs to be done - a. convince SVC there is a problem, b. come up with and test a solution. Refer to other threads on various boards if you want to get into these details.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1883

PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The_Rock wrote:
1. Balance is achievable on either fixed or open maps, just not on both at the same time (unless you make all weapons direct fire weapons).


However, see my last point in my previous post. How big a fixed map?

The current map is tiny. If you are looking at it from a pure manouvering point of view (ignore incoming plasma etc, power etc) then it is pretty much guaranteed that you can get to a very short range by end of turn 2 at the latest on the current map. Large discrepancies in turn mode might make it harder, but it is still usually doable.

Using a bigger fixed map would still give you the fixed boundaries where empires with a preference for long range would eventually get cornered, but at the same time give them room to make the long range attrition hit home before that happened.

I.E. you could close the gap between fixed map and floating map balance by having a larger fixed map. I'd like to see the larger map as at the moment most games seem to be close and alpha at point blank range, which gets a boring.

Given that there are no physical reasons like table size to worry about when playing online I don't see why the map couldn't be increased to 99 * 65. If both players started around the center point at range 33, that would leave 32 hexes to the sides and 32 hexes behind each player. That gives a bit more freedom to avoid the other wise almost inevitable point blank alpha within a couple of turns.

As a bonus it would mean that no one starts near a corner/edge, which some see as bad if someone stays there. Not that you couldn't run to a corner.


I disgaree with the idea that everything being direct fire would somehow solve the issue. The inevitability of the quick short range exchange makes some races inherently more potent than others not withstanding the direct fire apsect. Potent short range races are, as a gross generalisation, balanced by the opponent being able to avoid the short range long enough to whittle the other guy down. Once that is taken away (as it largely is on the current map) it becomes somewhat moot whether they have direct fire weapons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> FC & SFB Online! All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
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