Proposed changes to cloaking

JimDauphinais · Post by **JimDauphinais** » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:54 am

Mike,

What is the latest version of the proposed rule change for cloaking?

Thanks,

mjwest · Post by **mjwest** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:09 pm

The current version is the same as before:
- Only 1 impulse of void.
- 1/2 damage during void.
- Can cause seekers to go away based on speed/distance.

Lee has challenged the necessity of the second item, but I would like to see more input before totally dropping that.

Also, I have sent the change request in, but have not yet heard any real feedback. The recent activity made me about to ask Steve for any updates, but I help off because of his broken leg. Always remember that even if we have a change the board fully agrees on and endorses, it may still not make it past the Steves.

mattruh · Post by **mattruh** » Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:33 am

Has anyone attempted to playtest these rules using Frax subs?

Monty · Post by **Monty** » Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:33 am

mjwest wrote:The current version is the same as before:
- Only 1 impulse of void.
- 1/2 damage during void.
- Can cause seekers to go away based on speed/distance.

Lee has challenged the necessity of the second item, but I would like to see more input before totally dropping that.

Also, I have sent the change request in, but have not yet heard any real feedback. The recent activity made me about to ask Steve for any updates, but I help off because of his broken leg. Always remember that even if we have a change the board fully agrees on and endorses, it may still not make it past the Steves.

Did this ever make it to the Steve's?

mjwest · Post by **mjwest** » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:34 am

Yes. Steve is very hesitant to even consider it, as it would be a change to a long-standing rule. I have not pushed the issue recently.

So, if people want to explain, politely using concise scenario reports, why this change is necessary to Steve, that would likely help the case a lot. The important points here are "politely", "concise", and "reports". It needs to show what is wrong with the current rules and why it works better the new way. Oh, and one note from several people works way better than several notes from one person.

I will likely ask again next month when real life isn't flogging me so badly.

Monty · Post by **Monty** » Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:24 pm

I would suggest sending the rule through another SFBOnline Tournament without the Romulan handicap modifier before requesting a ruling.

pmiller13 · Post by **pmiller13** » Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:27 am

I hate to resurrect an old topic but I am a long standing Romulan and would like to know if any one has been play testing these changes. I would like to see at least some of these but would be leery of all of them being implemented without extensive play testing (not something I really think would happen since the Steve's are so careful about this kind of thing).

Is there any new information about these proposals from Mike or the Steve

Monty · Post by **Monty** » Mon Dec 16, 2013 3:31 am

I felt like the play test in last winters SFBOL tournament went well, though the handicap for Roms was still in place when the rule was being tested.

The fact the tournaments have to use a handicap system to entice participants to use the weaker empires is too bad.

storeylf · Post by **storeylf** » Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:11 am

That is as much down to a bad tourney format. Each empire has it's sweet spots in terms of map size, and 30*40 or thereabouts is bad for several empires, and great for others.

I'd play Gorn, for example, no problem on a 99*99 map at standard cost. whilst I can't say it is the best map size for everyone it is a lot closer to a fair map size for everyone. It offers map edges for those empires that need to have some chance of catching people, it offers room to weaken enemies for the likes of klingons before they are cornered, and it offers room to reload for the like of Gorn/Rom.

99*99 is impractical for FtF play, but online should be no issue.

DNordeen · Post by **DNordeen** » Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:17 am

I do floating maps all the time FtF.

Assuming you meant 99*99 for FtF tournaments, I could agree with that.

storeylf · Post by **storeylf** » Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:30 am

I meant tourney.

But even for general face to face 99*99 in not really practical, neither is fully floating really. If the max size you can actually have out on your kitchen table is the standard 32*40 then what do you do when 2 D5s go off one edge, an F5 another egde, the slow Fed DN is right on the boundary at the far side, and 3 freighters are going off the 4th edge. If you can't layout 99*99 outright then you can't float it without some house rules saying what happens in the above case. this is an issue that constantly bedevilled us when playing larger campaign battles.

ncrcalamine · Post by **ncrcalamine** » Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:45 pm

in the 11 pages of this topic there are quite a few play tests of the new proposed rules posted by myself and others

Nicole

Monty · Post by **Monty** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:55 am

Fixed maps aren't the reason cloaks are weak.

Klingon of Gor · Post by **Klingon of Gor** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 6:54 pm

storyelf wrote:

I'd play Gorn, for example, no problem on a 99*99 map at standard cost.

I'm curious as to why you think Gorns need a larger map. That hasn't been my experience.

I agree that every race has an optimum map size. Would it make sense to vary the tournament format a bit from year to year, using perhaps different map sizes, or different point totals for squadrons?

I'm also curious if any thought has been given to possible rules changes to make the Andros a bit more competitive, or perhaps putting out some more Juggernaut ships? The Juggs look like the kind of alien menace the Andros were supposed to be, and aren't.

storeylf · Post by **storeylf** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:05 pm

I'm curious as to why you think Gorns need a larger map. That hasn't been my experience.

probably already gone off at enough of a tangent for this thread, so I'll not go into it here, but I have posted about this a lot in other threads. <- that link being one in which you yourself were part of.

Federation Commander

Proposed changes to cloaking

Hate to resurrect an old post