Federation Commander

storeylf wrote:

duxvolantis wrote: and the defensive fire phase guarantee'ing range 0 phaser shots

Minor point and probably not overly important to what you are saying, but defensive fire is always range 1.

We've been playing it wrong then.

Thanks.

I think this is a minor difference for plasma (a pip or two of damage here and there), but it is significant for drones.

duxvolantis wrote:

storeylf wrote:

duxvolantis wrote: and the defensive fire phase guarantee'ing range 0 phaser shots

Minor point and probably not overly important to what you are saying, but defensive fire is always range 1.

We've been playing it wrong then.

Thanks.

I think this is a minor difference for plasma (a pip or two of damage here and there), but it is significant for drones.

Yep. 1E2c Step 2 is the rule number. It's easy to miss (I missed it for quite awhile as well).

Garrett

I missed that one, the better worded rule is 4B3a (phasers)

Steve Cole wrote:As far as plasma being weak or strong, we had a long discussion of this at Origins. I listened to the "plasma is weak" bunch and was ready to make a change, when the "we use plasma and we win" bunch explained what they did to make plasma work and the "plasma is weak" bunch dropped their request. So there is no change on the table. (Don't ask me what their winning tactics were. I actually don't remember. By Saturday night at Origins, I've been on my feet for four straight days with maybe six total hours of sleep, and the memory bank was flushed on the drive home.

I think the "we use plasma and we win" crowd should start entering tournaments with Rom/Gorn squadrons and win roughly half the time before we should take them seriously. From what I've seen posted on Origins, nobody in the "we use plasma and we win" crowd actually played a pure plasma race there.

Steve Cole wrote:As far as plasma being weak or strong, we had a long discussion of this at Origins. I listened to the "plasma is weak" bunch and was ready to make a change, when the "we use plasma and we win" bunch explained what they did to make plasma work and the "plasma is weak" bunch dropped their request. So there is no change on the table. (Don't ask me what their winning tactics were. I actually don't remember. By Saturday night at Origins, I've been on my feet for four straight days with maybe six total hours of sleep, and the memory bank was flushed on the drive home.

Guys, please read all of the statement and think about it. The "plasma good" guys explained what they did AND the "plasma weak" guys dropped the request. That certainly implies to me that the "plasma weak" guys had a revelation and realized that their argument was flawed.

Game balance is hard to achieve, but if SVC had helped the "plasma weak" side when there are viable tactics to win, he'd break the balance for those who know those tactics and could then exploit them even more.

If any of the "plasma good" guys read this, I would love to hear from you about the tactics you explained to SVC and the others that caused the rules change request to be dropped.

I believe it's the official SFU Motto that says it best. The only valid test of a tactic is combat.

If these "plasma good" players are at Origins and really believe what they say, then they should enter the next Origins tournament as Rom/Gorn and win half or more of their games.

mojo jojo wrote:I believe it's the official SFU Motto that says it best. The only valid test of a tactic is combat.

If these "plasma good" players are at Origins and really believe what they say, then they should enter the next Origins tournament as Rom/Gorn and win half or more of their games.

I've won several times in 'combat' ergo it must be valid? Winning half your games at origins is not a valid argument unless your argument is also the game must be balanced around a tournament that has had at most 8 players? (and half of them I imagine are the same every year). As we've discussed before I don't believe the game should be balanced around the sort of players who regularly go to the top tournament.

However there are plenty of of plasma threads so why not resurrect one of those to rehash that argument.

marcus_aurelius wrote:If any of the "plasma good" guys read this, I would love to hear from you about the tactics you explained to SVC and the others that caused the rules change request to be dropped.

Me too. That would be great, but we have had an 'is plasma broken?' thread for a while now and few strong proponents have come forward.

I don't want a change in the rules, especially since I have not yet had the time to fully explore the tactics of using plasma as the primary heavy weapon. However I would still love to hear these guys' tactical ideas!

I wasn't at origins so I have no idea what was said to SVC.

Various threads on plasma have had those who are less than convinced that 'plasma is broke' explain what they do or do not do.

The arguments roughly go:

Those who think 'plasma is broke' argue that (what ever the 'plasma is ok' guys say) only works if the other guy makes a 'mistake' or is 'stupid'.

Those who do not think 'plasma is broke' argue that pretty much any tactic only works if the other guy makes a 'mistake' or is 'stupid'. Why should plasma be different.

Some who think 'plasma is broke' argue that the game should be balanced at 'tourney' level.

Some who do not think 'plasma is broke' argue that the game should be balanced at the 'average' player.

Those who think 'plasma is broke' argue that the play style is broke, cos some people find it boring.

Those who do not think 'plasma is broke' argue that some people find other play styles boring, so what, any defintion of 'fun' is highly subjective.

etc etc.

Guys,

We already have a "plasma is broke" topic, in a far more appropriate part of the forum. This is totally off-topic and needs to move to the more appropriate thread.

Thank you.

mjwest wrote:Guys,

We already have a "plasma is broke" topic, in a far more appropriate part of the forum. This is totally off-topic and needs to move to the more appropriate thread.

Thank you.

Mike,

I won't post further on this subject in this topic as per your request. I would however like to point out that this is very much on topic since it was a direct response to Steve Cole explaining why he didn't feel it was necessary to change the plasma rules.

mojo jojo wrote:I won't post further on this subject in this topic as per your request. I would however like to point out that this is very much on topic since it was a direct response to Steve Cole explaining why he didn't feel it was necessary to change the plasma rules.

No, what Steve said about the plasma rules was a side comment used to illustrate how he approaches rules changes. Further discussion of that side comment as the main topic needs to be done somewhere more appropriate for it.

And please note I am not trying to squelch or prevent discussion on the plasma rules. I just want it in the correct location.

Mike, if you know where it is, would you mind posting in it so it pops up for those of us who are Forum challenged?

Jean wrote:Mike, if you know where it is, would you mind posting in it so it pops up for those of us who are Forum challenged?

Sure. It is over in Tactics, and titled Am I Doomed As A Romulan?. A couple others right with it work in conjunction, dealing with Romulan vs. Hydran and Romulan vs. Federation.