Federation Commander

Most likely both sides did NOT inflict equal damage if the larger side has taken 75 shield boxes first and both sides loses a 150 pt ship.

So it sounds like you are saying by equal damage that you do not mean equal damage levels (damage, cripplpe, kill) but actual equal amounts of internal boxes of damage inflicted. is that correct?

Apart from I think such a suggestion is a non starter to start with, Your argument just doesn't hold up, Equal damage still does not = equal points.

In such a case you are actually forcing the smaller fleet to do disprortionally more damage to score the same points. He suffers from 2 factors, The 75 boxes of extra damage that were pre allocated were allocated by the larger fleet and the smaller fleet gets no say in which ships or which shields they are allocated to. All the damage that the larger fleet does is damage that he wants to do, on ships he wants to target and on shields he chooses to target. If he does 75 points in a fire impulse there is a good chance that 30-40 of that is internals, he won't spread it around 18 shields on 3 ships. The smaller fleet had no such choice with the up front damage he supposedly got to even things out.

Further if both fleets kill a 150 pt ship, then because the smaller fleet did 4 boxes less damage you are going to penalise him over 8 victory points? If he now fires on another ship and does the missing 4 boxes of damage he will not make up those 8 victory points. In fact, given a burnthrough will not stick past the repair phase, he will have to do about 30 damage to get enough points to make up what you decided he didn't deserve because of 4 extra shield damage he didn't have to inflict. By your argument this is the fleet that is already struggling because of the 25 BPV difference.

Under your system equal damage does not mean equal points no matter how you cut it. That ignores issues such as different ships with different numbers of internals mean different amounts of damage to score the same points in the first place. We already have a game where 2 fleets can do exactly the same number of damage points on equal value ships and not score the same points.

You can't assert that losing 9 boxes of shields has NO effect on balance. It may be a small effect, but that's because a 3 pt difference in force requires a small handicap.

I never said it will have no affect on balance. I said the chances are it had no affect, as in in any given game, yet you will always give the larger fleet bonus points (or deduct from the smaller).

You are trying to argue that your system is better than the current.

You have taken a system that used made an adjustment based on the precise amount of BPV difference, and replaced it with a system that makes 2 adjustments based on the precise BPV difference.

You have taken a system that always gave the smaller fleet bonus points and replaced it with a system that always takes points away from the smaller fleet.

The old system may not be perfect - the question you still need to answer is how yours is better. How have you arrived at a conclusion that a point of shield damage to the rear of each enemy ship nicely compensates for the points the smaller fleet loses.

The larger fleet does not score "extra points". That's the whole point of the adjustment.

He gains more points than the smaller fleet for scoring the same level of damage on an equal point ship. But OK - you are taking points away from the smaller fleet.

Frankly, once I see something like Gorn vs WYN, that kinda kills any sorta immersion in a story.

What does that have to do with anything? The point is that 'scenarios' are not the same style of game as a tourney, fun in one does not automatically translate as fun in another.

At 0 compensation, I'd expect the Ranger to be better than the Mongol. At best you have 1 extra fusion in a fire arc that you might possibly not have the power to fire anyway. And the extra power/padding/shields is pretty significant.

We are discussing squadrons. A least one of the reasons for the Mongol was how it fitted with the other ships. Yes the ranger does have extra stuff which in its own right is noticeable, it also has 2 disadvantages that counter that, fusion fire arcs, and more importantly a worse turn mode.

Not to mention with no compensation, I'd expect you to take 2 Stingers to make up the points. You would not go with just a 2 Mhk/2 Mon squadron.

Now you really are talking about things you are not putting thought into, in a tourney I probably would drop the stingers - if I could, I would have to take 1 to get to 425 pts, I would not be inclined to the take the other. If I knew the matchup before hand I might go for the second and it seemed a good idea, but other wise I'd be wary of adding it.

In an earlier example in this thread, you suggested a 2 D5W, D5D squadron. In a tournament format with no compensation, you would NEVER go with this squadron since you could replace a D5W with a DWL and still be under the point limit.

You clearly have no idea what I would or would not do, as demonstrated by the stinger example above, so I'll ignore your attempt at reading my mind.

Both sides tend to pick the best squadrons they can under the point limit. Thus they tend toward the most "efficient" ships for the point value and thus most people would not take less efficient ships like the D6 when for fewer points you can take the D5 or for a few more points you can take the D7C. If both sides are picking relatively efficient squadrons, it would seeem to me that they're attempting to maximize their bang for the buck. and that we're comparing "efficient" BPV with "efficient" BPV.

We clearly see squad choice and efficiency in different terms. Ignoring the fact I can't have 2Mhk/2Mon as it only comes to 422, you would appear to prefer the 2 rangers for 22 points more (and played that combo in your ISC test game). 22 points is close to the 25 pt margin you have been talking about, and think makes a signifiacnt difference. Personally I do not see the 2 fleets as being unbalanced. You favor extra guns and padding etc, I favor more consistent fire arcs aross 4 ships, and the better turn mode. The extra robustness will give you an edge in some games, the FA fusion and better turn mode (and more likely move initiative) will give me an edge in others.

Some scenarios ARE nothing more than duels between roughly even ships. If I have can have fun in a scenario with prior damage, I can have fun in a tournament. If I play a 450 pt fleet vs a 449 pt fleet and have fun, I'm pretty sure that that I'll have the same fun even with 3 boxes of damage to start.

No one is disputing what you find fun. Equally you shouldn't dispute what others find fun. Note the word necesarily in what you quoted from my post, I accept others may find it fun, but it is not true that because person A finds a scenario with pre-allocated damage fun that they would agree with the same in a tourney. This type of tourney is about you choosing a fleet you think can consistently sweep the board of any other fleet in the range against multiple opponents. Whilst you might not see them as different, I'm with eric and see tourney games and scenarios as different beasts with a different setting and feel. That's not to say you couldn't have a different kind of tourney altogether, one where specific scenarios are played with you playing each side of each scenario against different people.

Would you ever play the 2 D5W, D5D squadron in a tournament with no compensation? Based on what you've said earlier in this thread, that is a squadron that you would be happy to play with compensation.

Lol you already stated I would never play that, now you are asking. In truth I don't know, it isn't as clear cut as you thought before though. To use your assumed swap earlier of adding a DWL, what does that give me, 2 extra power, a bit of extra front shielding, upgrade 2*ph3 to 2s. For a relatively minor upgrade I potentially hand 18 extra points to my opponent.

I just did above. A 150 vs 125 pt ship should win most of the time with no compensation. It should lose most of the time if it had no shields to start. There should be a hypothetical number of shield boxes damage where the matchup is even. The same would apply to the 450 vs 425 pt fleet.

we are not dealing with single ship games!

Not that you showed that you had the correct level of shield damage anyway - what is the correct level. Nor have you shown that it would scale properly for different BPV difference, and different styles of fleet, and different empire matchups. PPDs and Hellbores may love the up front shield damage, as they reach the shields other weapons do not. Andros with the ability to displace to get at a shield may like it. The problem with adjusting the actual setup/game itself is that you are potentially introducing side effects. The current system leaves the fleets to fight exactly as they are.

And yet I'd bet that you wouldn't play 2 MHK/2 MON without taking 2 stingers if there was no compensation. Similarly for 2 D5W/D5D (which you've already described as a tournament fleet you would be happy with) vs DWL/ D5W/D5D.

Yes I would, and yes I possibly would.

ergo- the following is wrong.....

That's at least 2 potential matchups removed from consideration.

Mojo,

I would suggest that rather than competing in the quote war that seems to be ensuing, that you instead provide the requested analysis for why your system is better. You are not going to convince anyone with your subjective personal opinions that is the vast majority of your posts (as is true of the responses). Nothing will change if you can not prove with 'factual analysis' why your system is better. Storeylf gave a pretty reasonably list of things it would need to cover, and then later also listed several possible side affects of your proposed system that woudl also need to be addressed. If you have not done the analysis, that's probably a good place to start.

Generally, there is no reason to call anyone names, especially when you've not actually provided any of the above that has been requested multiple times, it won't prove your argument. And the lack of provision in lieu of just repeating yourself 'louder and more verbose' does actually give the impression that what Eric said is true.

Contrary to popular belief, Internet is NOT serious business.

Getting mad at each other here will not solve anything.

Quite frankly, getting any change made to an official tournament systems is extremely difficult (with very good reason). You will need to show that there is a problem with the current system (not just that there is a "better" system, but that current one is a problem), and that your solution is actually better. And by "better" I mean that 1) it solves the problem and 2) it doesn't cause any unpleasant side effects.

Finally, please keep two points in mind. First, I am not part of this information exchange. This has to be expressed to Steve Cole and Mike Filsinger. They are the decision makers. Second, you will have a much better chance of getting attention for the issue by using the Legacy BBS, not this one.

storeylf wrote: So it sounds like you are saying by equal damage that you do not mean equal damage levels (damage, cripplpe, kill) but actual equal amounts of internal boxes of damage inflicted. is that correct?

Equal damage levels. If all ships in both fleets suffers equal damage levels, they score equal points. As you yourself have said repeatedly, you have to look at the fleet as a whole rather than individual ships.

storeylf wrote: Apart from I think such a suggestion is a non starter to start with, Your argument just doesn't hold up, Equal damage still does not = equal points.

In such a case you are actually forcing the smaller fleet to do disprortionally more damage to score the same points. He suffers from 2 factors, The 75 boxes of extra damage that were pre allocated were allocated by the larger fleet and the smaller fleet gets no say in which ships or which shields they are allocated to. All the damage that the larger fleet does is damage that he wants to do, on ships he wants to target and on shields he chooses to target. If he does 75 points in a fire impulse there is a good chance that 30-40 of that is internals, he won't spread it around 18 shields on 3 ships. The smaller fleet had no such choice with the up front damage he supposedly got to even things out.

The effect of 75 boxes of damage should be rather significant. Either the larger fleet spreads damage evenly which obviously help the smaller fleet score more internals, or it has lots of extra damage in rear shields which would affect how it can potentially maneuver and opens opportunities for the smaller fleet in the battle.

storeylf wrote: Further if both fleets kill a 150 pt ship, then because the smaller fleet did 4 boxes less damage you are going to penalise him over 8 victory points? If he now fires on another ship and does the missing 4 boxes of damage he will not make up those 8 victory points. In fact, given a burnthrough will not stick past the repair phase, he will have to do about 30 damage to get enough points to make up what you decided he didn't deserve because of 4 extra shield damage he didn't have to inflict. By your argument this is the fleet that is already struggling because of the 25 BPV difference.

I don't know where the numbers you are pulling out are coming from. It seems that your assumption in this paragraph is that the larger fleet is going to spread damage evenly among the ships. I don't quite understand why you think 4 extra damage on 6 different shields will result in just 4 extra internal hits over the course of a battle. Most ships take damage over multiple shields during the course of a battle.

storeylf wrote: Under your system equal damage does not mean equal points no matter how you cut it. That ignores issues such as different ships with different numbers of internals mean different amounts of damage to score the same points in the first place. We already have a game where 2 fleets can do exactly the same number of damage points on equal value ships and not score the same points.

Both sides cripple all 3 ships of the other side. Both sides score equal points. That should be fairly simple to understand.

storeylf wrote: I never said it will have no affect on balance. I said the chances are it had no affect, as in in any given game, yet you will always give the larger fleet bonus points (or deduct from the smaller).

That is true with most weapons/boxes on any ship. Chances are that 1 extra PH3 (for example) on a ship won't have any effect in any given game. However over the long run, some percentage of games will have that PH3 make the difference. Same with shield boxes. Many games won't have those shield boxes make a difference, but a few will.

Let's take Orions. Chances are if they use a PH2 instead of PH1 in 1 option box, that change won't change the outcome of a tournament game. However, there is some percentage of games where that change leads to victory for the other side. This is a case where the Orion player ALWAYS gets victory points for something that only affects their victory level a relatively small percentage of times. Yet I don't think you would argue against having Orion fleets in the tournament.

storeylf wrote:
The old system may not be perfect - the question you still need to answer is how yours is better. How have you arrived at a conclusion that a point of shield damage to the rear of each enemy ship nicely compensates for the points the smaller fleet loses.

You may scoff at damage to rear shields, but they are significant and they matter. A 3 pt difference leads to 3 rear box on 3 ships. That's a small adjustment for a small point difference. A 25 pt difference leads to 8-9 damage of each rear shield on each of 3 ships. A significant adjustment for a significant bpv difference.

Even if the 8-9 missing rear shield boxes doesn't lead to any extra internals in the first firing pass, it's going to seriously crimp the larger fleet's maneuverability and ability to turn away from the enemy. And at some point in the battle, they should lead to extra internals on the enemy ships.

storeylf wrote: He gains more points than the smaller fleet for scoring the same level of damage on an equal point ship. But OK - you are taking points away from the smaller fleet.

For the fleet as a whole (and you've been urging me to look at fleets as a whole in this entire thread), equal damage levels equals equal points.

storeylf wrote: What does that have to do with anything? The point is that 'scenarios' are not the same style of game as a tourney, fun in one does not automatically translate as fun in another.

Would you seriously find a game not fun if you played a 450 pt fleet with 3 boxes damage vs a 449 pt fleet? In my mind it would be as fun as any other game.

storeylf wrote: We are discussing squadrons. A least one of the reasons for the Mongol was how it fitted with the other ships. Yes the ranger does have extra stuff which in its own right is noticeable, it also has 2 disadvantages that counter that, fusion fire arcs, and more importantly a worse turn mode.

The firing arc thing is minor. You're losing 1 fusion in in a RF or LF arc as long as it's not centerlined when you would gain 2 fusions. You would also gain 2 fusions in a L or R arc. You also gain 7 pts of power and lots of padding. I can see an argument that the Ranger isn't worth 11 pts more than the Mongol. I don't understand an argument that the Mongol is worth more than the Ranger straight up.

storeylf wrote: Now you really are talking about things you are not putting thought into, in a tourney I probably would drop the stingers - if I could, I would have to take 1 to get to 425 pts, I would not be inclined to the take the other. If I knew the matchup before hand I might go for the second and it seemed a good idea, but other wise I'd be wary of adding it.

Remember, this is with no compensation. So not having the stinger doesn't give you any extra victory points.

storeylf wrote: We clearly see squad choice and efficiency in different terms. Ignoring the fact I can't have 2Mhk/2Mon as it only comes to 422, you would appear to prefer the 2 rangers for 22 points more (and played that combo in your ISC test game). 22 points is close to the 25 pt margin you have been talking about, and think makes a signifiacnt difference. Personally I do not see the 2 fleets as being unbalanced. You favor extra guns and padding etc, I favor more consistent fire arcs aross 4 ships, and the better turn mode. The extra robustness will give you an edge in some games, the FA fusion and better turn mode (and more likely move initiative) will give me an edge in others.

In my ISC test game, I think the Hydrans would've been worse off with Mongols the way it actually turned out. They had taken incredible amounts of punishment in reaching the ISC force as is. The fewer shields and lack of padding would've seriously hurt.

storeylf wrote: No one is disputing what you find fun. Equally you shouldn't dispute what others find fun. Note the word necesarily in what you quoted from my post, I accept others may find it fun, but it is not true that because person A finds a scenario with pre-allocated damage fun that they would agree with the same in a tourney. This type of tourney is about you choosing a fleet you think can consistently sweep the board of any other fleet in the range against multiple opponents. Whilst you might not see them as different, I'm with eric and see tourney games and scenarios as different beasts with a different setting and feel. That's not to say you couldn't have a different kind of tourney altogether, one where specific scenarios are played with you playing each side of each scenario against different people.

I'm a veteran wargamer with 20+ years of play. At the end of the day, most gamers are happy just to sit down and throw some dice and blow up ships/tanks/planes/squads/armies/etc while chatting and BSing.

I've played scenarios with fresh ships and pre-damage and had fun at both. I'm pretty sure that despite all the protestation in this thread, if I played you, Eric, Phul, Terryoc or anyone else that all of us would have fun with regular scenarios, tournament scenarios, and with/without pre-damage.

storeylf wrote:Lol you already stated I would never play that, now you are asking. In truth I don't know, it isn't as clear cut as you thought before though. To use your assumed swap earlier of adding a DWL, what does that give me, 2 extra power, a bit of extra front shielding, upgrade 2*ph3 to 2s. For a relatively minor upgrade I potentially hand 18 extra points to my opponent.

You also make it much harder to score the points in the first place. 14 extra front shields and 2 power is no joke plus a little extra padding. The 2 extra power allows you to overload an extra disrupter per turn or fire some extra phasers or maneuver a llittle better. You're likely to dish out a few more internals than the D5W and take 6-10 fewer internals over the course of the battle.

The upgrade may not be worth 18 pts, but with no compensation, I kinda think it's a no-brainer.

storeylf wrote: we are not dealing with single ship games!

Ok, let's change it. A 450 vs 425 pt fleet should win more than half of the time with no compensation. It should lose almost all of the time if it had no shields to start. There should be a hypothetical number of shield boxes damage where the matchup is even.

storeylf wrote: Not that you showed that you had the correct level of shield damage anyway - what is the correct level. Nor have you shown that it would scale properly for different BPV difference, and different styles of fleet, and different empire matchups. PPDs and Hellbores may love the up front shield damage, as they reach the shields other weapons do not. Andros with the ability to displace to get at a shield may like it. The problem with adjusting the actual setup/game itself is that you are potentially introducing side effects. The current system leaves the fleets to fight exactly as they are.

Obviously different empires necessitate different strategies. That's part of the fun.

I did say earlier that I was guestimating 3 as the proper multiplier. It would obviously take some testing to see if the multiplier needs adjusting. And obviously, the correct amount may depend on matchups. That is why we need to take a rough overall average.

The point costs for Orion ships is an example of fixed costs regardless of matchups. A PH-G would be more valuable vs a Drone/Plasma race than against a direct fire race. A PPD would be less valuable against Andros compared to most races. And yet the point costs for each weapon are fixed to a single overall average cost despite the potentially vast fleet styles and empire matchups.

mjwest wrote:Getting mad at each other here will not solve anything.

Quite frankly, getting any change made to an official tournament systems is extremely difficult (with very good reason). You will need to show that there is a problem with the current system (not just that there is a "better" system, but that current one is a problem), and that your solution is actually better. And by "better" I mean that 1) it solves the problem and 2) it doesn't cause any unpleasant side effects.

Finally, please keep two points in mind. First, I am not part of this information exchange. This has to be expressed to Steve Cole and Mike Filsinger. They are the decision makers. Second, you will have a much better chance of getting attention for the issue by using the Legacy BBS, not this one.

I may do so in the future if I polish the idea a bit and run more analysis/testing. This thread was just to throw out the general idea.

mjwest wrote:Getting mad at each other here will not solve anything.

Just for clarification I'm not getting mad at mojo in the slightest, I enjoy our discussions (and I don't mean that in any negative way, like enjoy baiting him or whatever). I realise the walls of text might start annoying some people though, thats just the nature of the internet.

Equal damage levels. If all ships in both fleets suffers equal damage levels, they score equal points. As you yourself have said repeatedly, you have to look at the fleet as a whole rather than individual ships.

For the fleet as a whole (and you've been urging me to look at fleets as a whole in this entire thread), equal damage levels equals equal points.

If all ships in each fleet suffer equal damage levels, as in all 6 ships are damaged or crippled then yes you are correct, I said that earlier.

However, how often is that the case? I've shown multiple times that is not the case in nearly any other outcome, if both fleets cripple 2 150 pts ships then the smaller fleet scrores less points. You argument that "If both sides do the same damage, they score the same points." is just factually wrong. Your system is biasing the scoring system to the larger fleet, why?

If take my D5W, D5W, D5D against 3 Fed NCAs (I'm ignoring the fact he can't have 3 for the moment, I can't be bothered looking for what other ship he might take). The game end with 2 crippled D5Ws and 2 crippled NCAs. The smaller fleet scored +4VP more to start with. Under the current system that gives the the smaller fleet a +29 point victory margin, I would expect that difference reasonably represents your argument that the smaller fleet was at a noticeable disadvantage and should be suitably rewarded for coming out actually just slight better. Under your system he loses by about 6pts.

The effect of 75 boxes of damage should be rather significant. Either the larger fleet spreads damage evenly which obviously help the smaller fleet score more internals, or it has lots of extra damage in rear shields which would affect how it can potentially maneuver and opens opportunities for the smaller fleet in the battle.

I don't know where the numbers you are pulling out are coming from. It seems that your assumption in this paragraph is that the larger fleet is going to spread damage evenly among the ships. I don't quite understand why you think 4 extra damage on 6 different shields will result in just 4 extra internal hits over the course of a battle. Most ships take damage over multiple shields during the course of a battle.

Are you really sure 75 extra shield is signifcant? If it is spread out that works out at ~4 boxes per shield. Are you sure that is significant. You seem to think a 25 pt difference is significant and the smaller fleet needs more help than the current +25VP he gets, are you sure that 4 less boxes on each shiled does more than +25VP, never mind the fact that you have also noticeably biased the scoring towards the larger fleet as well.

Multiple shields will likely get damaged over the course of a fight. But that does not mean 4 less boxes per shields is significant overall. It will be significant in some battles and near enough meaningless in others. In a long range disrupter duel with each side sandpapering the other to death the loss of 4 per shield is likely going to have an appreciable affect. In the face of close range passes and concentrated fire it is lilkely going to have a very minor affect, converting a roll of a 1 to a 6 with a point blank ph1 has more affect.

What happens if I do spread 75 damage to 3 rear shields, I end up with no rear shields. Yes it means I have to ensure I don't show the rear of my ship. But again that may or may not be a significant issue, If I have fast manouverable ships (with better turn modes and move intiative) it will have far less effect than if I am flying Feds. If I have crunch weapons it will have far less affect than if I have sandpapering weapons, as I'm going to run in to deliver decisive damage before I have to worry over much about whether I expose the rear, when I do possibly expose the back, I am only exposing it to whatever the other guy didn't shoot at the point I blasted him into smithereens and happens to be in arc as I pull away, ie probably far less fire power than he took.

It is still incumbent on you to show what level of shield damage compensates the scoring bonus you gave the larger guy AND the issue you were trying to resolve intially.

I seriously doubt your way is better though no matter the shield multiple, the shield affect you are trying to apply simply cannot be consistent enough in its effect across so many matchups, whereas the scoring sytem always kicks in and benefits the larger fleet.

Both sides cripple all 3 ships of the other side. Both sides score equal points. That should be fairly simple to understand.

I've said that before, 6 damage ships and 6 cripple ships means equal points to both sides. That isn't the isssue. You can't look at two possible outcomes and declare you found the solution. What about all other possible outcomes. All 6 ships damages/cripppled is less likely than another outcome.

Many games won't have those shield boxes make a difference, but a few will.

So how is that better than the current system?

You may scoff at damage to rear shields, but they are significant and they matter. A 3 pt difference leads to 3 rear box on 3 ships.

It might matter. In some games it might be utterly disastrous, in others it may be irrelevant. Even 25pts to each rear shield is not always going to matter, it depends on the matchup as to how much things like this matter. There is no question that running with no rear shield is a downer in its own right, but its affect on any given game depends entirely on the matchup. If it would be really bad then of course the larger fleet will more likely spread the damage, which again is not neccessarily going to matter either.

Its what I meant by side effects, once you start allocting pre-game damage, or otherwise handing out in-game generic handicaps in a blind matchup you are into the realm of not knowing what actual affect it will have, as some fleets will cope far better than others with what ever generic handicap you hand out.

The firing arc thing is minor. You're losing 1 fusion in in a RF or LF arc as long as it's not centerlined when you would gain 2 fusions. You would also gain 2 fusions in a L or R arc. You also gain 7 pts of power and lots of padding. I can see an argument that the Ranger isn't worth 11 pts more than the Mongol. I don't understand an argument that the Mongol is worth more than the Ranger straight up.

First, I never said it was worth more, straight up or not. I said that the disadvantages counter the advantages, that is not the same as being worth more.
Second, I said it fitted into the squad I had better. I wasn't comparing a mongol to a ranger in isolation, but in terms of squad choice.
Third, you failed to note the turn mode, I said that was the more important bonus of the Mongol. I rate better turn mode very highly, especially on ships which need to work at very close range.

Its subjective of course, but that is the joy of these tourney games, we get to test such subjective things - you may well go for ships with more weapons/padding whilst I may well go for things with fire arcs and turn modes.

Remember, this is with no compensation. So not having the stinger doesn't give you any extra victory points.

No - but it still hands the other guy a relatively easy 10 pts. I like stingers en mass, see my post from long ago about hydran stingers in a tourney (pre 2010). 1 or 2 stingers is a different matter, they are a gamble. They might do brilliantly, or just get hosed as they deploy. If they don't deploy then your 111 pt MHKs became a 121 pt MHK.

I'm a veteran wargamer with 20+ years of play. At the end of the day, most gamers are happy just to sit down and throw some dice and blow up ships/tanks/planes/squads/armies/etc while chatting and BSing.

30 years here, so what?

I've played scenarios with fresh ships and pre-damage and had fun at both. I'm pretty sure that despite all the protestation in this thread, if I played you, Eric, Phul, Terryoc or anyone else that all of us would have fun with regular scenarios, tournament scenarios, and with/without pre-damage.

If we were playing a casual game then I'm sure I wouldn't be bothered. If I'm going to an actual tourney I'd prefer the game itself to be balanced, not have some in game handicap that doesn't appear that well thought out in terms of how it will actually affect any given match up. I can put up with the scoring favoring one side or the other as long as our 2 fleets got to slug it out as they were choosen. We both choose our fleets thinking they were up to the job, so let us just play it out.

The upgrade may not be worth 18 pts, but with no compensation, I kinda think it's a no-brainer.

Is it? how likely is it the few extra damage it can take will down grade a kill to a cripple or a cripple to a damage? Is it going to be more likely to upgrade my points by notching up a damage level? I don't score points for doing a few extra internal, I score more points if those extra points cause me to cross a threshhold. There is no huge difference between the ships in that fleet, like bewtween a DN and 2 FFs, the DWL is therefore likely to be a priority target simply because it offers more points for hardly any extra effort, the few extra bits of damage needed will in many cases have just been wasted overkill.

I agree that it is not a case I would just dismiss, but it I don't consider it a no brainer.

And obviously, the correct amount may depend on matchups. That is why we need to take a rough overall average.

In which case, again why is your system better than the current simpler one. Your sytem will be, at best, just as imperfect as the existing one and possibly (probably IMO) worse, but more complex and a bit more time comsuming, and may annoy others who don't want pre-alloctaed damage in a tourney.

Mojo jojo, I am going to add my request to Mike West's. You need to have hard data that shows that the current system is broken. Then you need to have hard data that your system works and has no bad side effects. This conversation is starting to sound like:

I'm right.

No, you are wrong and this is right.

This is wrong and I am right.

No, you are wrong and this is right.

This is wrong and I am right.

That sort of conversation is headed for a dead end and becomes a waste of bandwidth.

Please provide some hard data to support your points.

Note that two admins have now asked you to do this. If you cannot, you may have to simply agree to disagree with the others and move on.

I do thank you all for remaining civil.

Jean
(Wearing her official WebMom hat)

storeylf wrote:

mjwest wrote:Getting mad at each other here will not solve anything.

Just for clarification I'm not getting mad at mojo in the slightest, I enjoy our discussions (and I don't mean that in any negative way, like enjoy baiting him or whatever). I realise the walls of text might start annoying some people though, thats just the nature of the internet.

I feel the same way. If I were really mad at Storeylf, I wouldn't be getting into so many discussions with him.

Nevertheless, due to the request of the admins, I will bow out of this thread.

Mojo jojo, we aren't asking you (or anyone else) to back out. If the tournament system as written is broken, then we need to know that. However, we need playtest results that show that it is broken, preferably repeated by several groups (that way we can make sure it isn't a local style of play that is affecting the results). We can't just change it because someone thinks or feels it is broken.

As another idea for tournament change-ups, what would a change in how a tournament is played look like? Could FC have a "Masters" type tournament where if you beat someone, you take HIS fleet to the next match? Or if you have to beat X number of players, you have to choose one of the fleets of one of the people you beat? Would that be a challenge or even do-able?

A Masters tournament? I think the Masters would find that amusing, in their domain at the centre of the galaxy...

Bwa-ha-ha-ha!