A question about new EM rule

[pinecone]

Web caster is certainly better - currently the best system in the game - if not used as a weapon. If you just mean web fist, it is not close.

Saying ESGs are better is just not accepting their limitations. Under the same logic that ESGs are better, fusions and plasma would also be better.

HBs just look better because they have big numbers on a chart. They really are not, but understanding why is not trivial. FC, like SFB, is all about thresholds. What do you need to commit to accomplish a goal? HBs have two weaknesses that result in needing more of them to accomplish the same goal (e.g., mission killing a ship) - 1. half their damage is "long term" (e.g. spread out), 2. they can only half-overload (spend 50% more power for 50% more damage - half of which, again, is "long term").

As far as I'm concerened, Plasma S and R are better than photons, I just forgot to post it .

HB's do almost as much damage to the weakest enemy sheild, plus they have a better range (though the power drops off at those ranges)

[ShockRocket]

You know, the more I think about this change, the more I like it.

It shifts the burden of planning onto the player who wishes to truly benefit from using EM, where previously the mere threat of EM was enough to place this burden (which is a problem of anticipation really) on the opposing player.

But the problem is that the EM user has to make that decision four sub-pulses and one Offensive Fire phase before he actually knows whether he'll need it. That can be a long time in FC.

It's really a question of "who do you want to screw". Either the guy who wants to EM, or the guy who wants to shoot. It's my belief that the old way screws "guy who wants to shoot" less than the new way screws "guy who wants to EM".

[storeylf]

It shifts the burden of planning onto the player who wishes to truly benefit from using EM, where previously the mere threat of EM was enough to place this burden (which is a problem of anticipation really) on the opposing player.

As the above poster said I disagree with that. Before you couldn't shoot on the turn you used EM, if you got things wrong you shoot or EM but not both. If you were planning on using it then you had to plan to be in a position to shoot that the other guy woudn't want to normally shoot, then next turn you use it if needed, forcing the enemy to shoot longer range or against EM. Now you gain no benefit from shooting that bit further out (in terms of EM use) as declaring EM next impulse still gives the other guy his shots anyway so you may as well wait yourself and shoot at closer range as well.

[junior]

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?

No. The reason is that they are the only weapon you need to use *before* declaring EM, thus to use them with EM you need to launch them 1 impulse (4 movements) prior to the planned use of EM under the new, poorly conceived, rule change.

Sorry, I'm still in disagreement with you. Heavy drone users not only have to plan ahead just like plasma users, but they also risk losing their entire drone salvo if they adopt EM. I'll take the risks and problems associated with plasma and EM versus drones and EM any day of the week.


And as a general note, can we PLEASE drop the continuous use of things like "this poorly conceived, poorly this, poorly that, poorly the other"? We GET IT that you don't like the rule change. The continual bringing it up makes it sound as if you don't have anything actually substantive to state (even if you just mentioned something important, the "poor blah blah blah" distracts from the meat of your post), and that you're forced to resort to cheap high school level debate tricks in order to get anyone to sign onto your position.

Please, stick with the facts and arguments.

We'll understand your thoughts regarding the rules change from the ideas in your post.

Trust me.

[The_Rock]

[Rules violation. Abusive personal attack. Deleted.]

[Steve Cole]

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.

[Steve Cole]

I am trying to delete as few posts as possible, eliminating the flamewar but not the tactics discussion. It's not a perfect science.

[Steve Cole]

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.

[ShockRocket]

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

[mjwest]

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

It isn't a good idea to poke fun at the Guy In Charge when he is still pissed off.

[texastwister]

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]

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.

* There is the appearance that the request for forum feedback made on 8/7 was not in good faith.

A request for feedback is not a vote. Just because feedback on a particular idea is 100% for does not mean it will be done, and just because feedback of a particular idea is 100% strongly against does not mean it will not be done. It is a request for feedback; nothing more.

What this means is that, through all of the feedback, Steve apparently saw nothing that disuaded him from the idea that this needed to be made. That is not a "dissing" of the fandom. It does not mean the feedback was irrelevant. It does not mean he was obligated to follow the opinion of the feedback. It just means that Steve did not see anything from the feedback that he felt justified not making the change.

All of these, taken together, suggest to me that the decision was a foregone conclusion -- already decided before the request for comment

That is not true. The decision was not made prior to the post. The decision was, however, made despite the feedback.

* 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.

That is not true. I said that a tactic posted by Paul showed me the change was necessary. That is all.

That is nothing against Paul. Who posted the tactic was irrelevant. The point is that the tactic convinced me that EM was broken and needed to be fixed. There is absolutely nothing personal in all of that.

(Quite frankly, I have tremendous respect for Paul, even after the personal attacks. The fact that he was able to explain it so well is a tribute to him, not a disparagment.)

* 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.

The main tactial uses I was referring to were indeed on the Legacy board, including Paul's. However, its application was seen here, too.

* 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.

Just because a decision is not made the way feedback has "voted" does not mean the feedback was ignored or irrelevant. It simply means that it was insufficient to sway the one making the decision. This is not terribly unusual in any environment, nor is it necessarily bad.

The feedback was neither ignored nor irrelevant.

I did the best I could to explain why I requested the change. That the disagreement remains does not mean the questions were not answered, merely that the opposition remains unconvinced.

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.)

I am getting quite tired of this "3 years" thing. Just because a rule has existed for 3 years does not mean it has been used the same way all those years. Sometimes it takes time before someone finds an innovative way to use a rule that changes its effect on the game.

The change was considered for a lot longer than four days. It had been considered by a few people for at least a couple months. It was not changed "on a whim", it was given deliberate thought and consultation.

[Edited for clarity and to remove stupid comments.]

[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

[storeylf]

[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]

You know, the more I think about this change, the more I like it.

It shifts the burden of planning onto the player who wishes to truly benefit from using EM, where previously the mere threat of EM was enough to place this burden (which is a problem of anticipation really) on the opposing player.

I can't help but see this as a good thing.

I mean, I kind of see where the ruling is coming from.
<snip>
To tell the truth, I don't really see a problem. Races that use multi-turn-arming direct-fire weapons have always had a problem with EM. The solution is to get close, stay close, use your secondaries (seekers or ESG) and wait for him to drop EM. He has to do it if he wants to shoot at you--and that's your opportunity to blast him. Indeed, a Federation Captain who doesn't expect a close-range enemy to go EM should turn in his suit.

You know, I'm beginning to come round to this point of view too. Although I know a Fed player who hates the new rule, basically it should not change the game or the tactics, just some of the timing.

In essence, the rule change is an elegant solution to one of those so-called 'tactics' that just 'uses' the granularity of the rules and sequence of play in a way that simply would not happen in 'real life'. Well done, Steve and Mike, is my opinion.