Federation Commander

It is time to start discussing what to do for the Summer 2012 Tournament.

The default is to continue with the same format starting on August 1st.

However, unless we get the Andromedans, Vudar or ISC into the FCOL client, I am concerned the interest level in the tournament will erode.

Also, we need to consider whether the "real world" demands of the participants have increased to the point that it makes sense to move to allowing two months rather than one month to complete each round.

I am very open to alternative formats including:

- Standard Tournament Squadrons format

- Scenario-based format

- Reverse Standard Format (as suggested in the past by Lee Storey)

The first of these formats requires the creation of standard squadrons that are well balanced against one another. The second of these formats requires identifying at least four different scenarios that are very well balanced. It is not clear to me that either of these format prerequisites can be completed in time for an August 1st start.

Under the assumption that Andromedans, Vudar and ISC will not be ready for August 1st and the prerequiresites for the standard tournament squadron and scenario-based formats will not be ready for August 1st, the strawman I offer is to go with the Reverse Standard Format with two month rounds. However, I will not go forward with implementing this strawman unless there is strong support for giving that format a try.

Thanks,

Jim

I will play in whatever format you choose. That said here are my comments.

1. Go with 1 month allowing the occasional extension or 45 days before jumping to 2 month. I'd stick at 1 for now.

2. If you want standard squads, I will design them for you before August 1.

3. I forget what Lee's suggestion was, but I do remember liking it when I read it.

My previous suggestion was in essence that you choose the squadron your opponent will play. Therefore you don't know what you will play, but you do know what you will be playing against. That probably means that the emphasis will be on the not so good ships which should make for some more interesting games I would think.

It would require a few rules to prevent being overly abusive on squad selection, e.g. no Tugs and rules for Orions in particular (no all ADD fleets!).



As per what Paul said, I'd stick with 1 month rounds, but allow for a bit of flexibility if both players want to, and expect to, play within a brief time after that.


Instead of scenarios with different VP (which would be nice but maybe hard to design), it might be also be worth considering just setting some terrain which should alter things a bit an force a rethink of some tactics. As long as everyone knows what terrain will be used then people can make an educated squadron selection.

e.g.
Round 1: Asteroids
Round 2: Large planet in middle
Round 3: Nebula
Round 4: open space.

I think we should test the new proposed cloak rules

Nicole

A few ideas

Make 4 fleets from 4 nations
One fleet per round
You could even don a disruptor fleet, a plasma fleet, a photon fleet, and an other fleet

Second idea
Winner must play losers fleet
Loser has choice of fleets to play
Tie both switch fleets

Third idea
Pick a nation
Make a 450 point fleet for that nation as normal, could even be weighted fleet. Then when you play and opponent there is a bidding process of lowest bidder plays a fleet of their bid points and chosen nation vs their opponents 450 point fleet. Only kills, damage and capture points count, for the victory. In the event of a tie or all the ships are destroyed the 450 fleet wins. If there is a tie in wins at at end the player with the lowest point count wins the tourney. Fleets with option mounts should not be allowed in this tourney so you cannot shape your bid fleet vs the opponents fleet.

I think playing against the same fleet in a make your opponents fleet senario will get very boring quickly. If you made 4 bad fleets from 4 nations might be better

Nicole

I like storeylf's idea. And I also think that 1 month is a good limit; otherwise I'll have troubnle continuing when school restarts.

I thin too that Storeyif idea is great, it will bring in the front scene some non-ofte chosen ships.

Its probably not practical until they update the client with middle years ships, but i'd love to see a middle years tourney at some point. I've had a chance to play with middle years recently and I see several benefits:

1.) No fast ships, all the ships have a bit less power and more classic weapons arcs.
2.) because of 1.), plasma becomes viable.
3.) drones are speed 16 and there are less of them
4.) opponents are weakened enough that Klingons are scary again!
5.) It becomes virtually impossible to come up with fleets of pocket battleships, like Orions with 15 photons and 8 phaser Gs, or Tholians with 30 phaser 3s, and 28 phaser 1s. or, kzinti with so many drones that you can't lose without making a huge mistake.

My view is that i'm tired of the tournament contest being a contest of creative ship selection, if less choices/weaker ships make for better games, I support that.

Just my two cents,

Archer

Most of the middle years ships are on the client
You just have to damage boxes on them to remove systems.
You just have to have briefing 2 to modify the ships


Nicole

The Winter 2012 tournament lagged so badly that this has now become a discussion with regard to a Fall 2012 FCOL Tournament.

Tentatively, we are looking at an October 1st start with strictly enforced monthly deadlines. Either standard format or reverse standard format. Alternatively, if Paul Scott has standard squadrons ready, we could go with that approach. I am open to ideas such as a larger map, a floating map and terrain. Anyone know the latest with regard to getting the ISC and Vudar working in FCOL? Getting them in and working would really help generate some additional interest for tournament.

Soft monthly deadlines have not worked and I don't believe two month deadlines would work any better than soft monthly deadlines. My previous use strictly enforced monthly deadlines created the urgency necessary to get games scheduled and completed. This in turn raised the interest level by reducing the deadtime between games and assuring a 3 month subscription to FCOL would provide you with three competitive games. I know some folks have real life things going on that would preclude them from meeting strict monthly deadlines at this time. However, it appears that folks in these situations are not doing any better with soft monthly deadlines (witness what happened in the last round of the Winter 2012 Tournament where folks ended up having three months to try to get their games done). The reality is that they may just need to sit out particpating in tourneys until they can commit the time necessary to play on a strict schedule.

If there isn't sufficient interest to go back to strict monthly deadlines for completing games, I think we should consider taking a break for a while from having FCOL tournaments. Personally, I know my interest level will not be there unless I am playing at least one game per month. The lack of monthly games is one of the things that has contributed to my sluggishness in reporting the final results for the Winter 2012 Tournament.