Over on the main BBS, Brooke proposed something regarding deceleration limits between turns. I never got to finish reading it before it was locked and shut down and deleted. Anyone read the thing? Commentary?
I just think that being able to go from speed 31 to speed 0 over a turn break is too big of a change. Especially because stopping a taccing is such a big advantage. I really hate it when I take damage coming in while trying to get the advantage in board position only to have it negated because the turn ends. I really haven't thought of a solution to the problem, I just know that a problem exists.
Try to play the game as written and stop trying to change it into something else? First Tacs now this! You know I love ya Brook but come on you big whine ass. If this thread continues you lose one dinner at Council. :-)
It's like people have been saying: It would probably have been better if the rule(and tacs) were different from the onset, but it wasn't. Now 30 years in we aren't going to change it because it would cause an entire rework of both the normal game and the tourney, and no one does SFB design work for ADB anymore. They just sorta preside over it in a territorial manner and snipe at whoever does try to make changes.
It's not like I boycotted the game or anything. I'm still playing and having fun. It's just something that annoys me sometimes. But if I can't talk about it here.....where can I? Oh, and sorry bud.....the dinners are still on....one can be fast food tho....:)
LOL. Brook, you realize that this would require MAJOR tournament ship rebalancing? (Similar to the TAC rule changes being proposed).
Example 1: D&D vs ORI (generally considered advantage ORI), even allowing for deceleration between turns. D&D ship took the shot and esacpes to turn end, but ORI ready to double all and overrun. And now you're going to tell the D&D ship he can't even tac around to brace for the onslaught? Time to nerf the ORI.
Example 2: D&D vd Gorn (generally considered even to advantaged-Gorn). Gorn ends turn X (sometimes T1, sometimes later) with 2+ torps available in pursuit position. Gorn has multiple options - anchor, bolt, draw weasels. Now you're going to not allow the D&D ship to tac around to brace for the onslaught? Time to nerf the GRN. The current tournament ships and rules have been finely tuned over the decades, I wonder if you've thought this through Brook.
"I really hate it when I take damage coming in while trying to get the advantage in board position only to have it negated because the turn ends"
Gorn is an above-average ship (I would say top 5 to top 8). If your opponent can manage this, then he outmaneuvered you.
Sheesh, why don't you guys finish the job and chop my head off. It's not like I've quit the game of SFB because I think the rule is bullshit or anything. I still play the game, I still have fun, and I win more than I lose. That being said, you guys are not going to convince me that the ability to sit and tac is not a very powerful one, almost to a point were it's unfair. I'm just merely stating that the price paid to do so should be a little stiffer in some way. Ken, you said, "The current tournament ships and rules have been finely tuned over the decades" I KNOW THIS. Did you ever stop and think that this is how they get finely tuned over the decades? By people like me making suggestions and speaking up when they think something can be improved upon? That's how change for the better occurs. That's what discussion boards are for right?
Now in response to your example #1...Sure...let's nerf the orion. That would be fine by me. :)
Let's start with the Orion. I think a lot problems can be corrected if we tone it down.
My suggestions...
1) take away one of the free hets
2) limit the doubling to just the warp engines, no impulse
3) make the cloak cost 15 instead of 12
4) limit the amount of brick to half of a full shield(i.e. 15 points to front bank, and 12 points to rear.)
There is a nice stiff penalty for ed. (i.e. can't move for 16 impulses, and have to wait to be able to tac). So at least it's something. Maybe that's it. If you don't gradually come to a stop you suffer the penalties of ED. You have to wait until impulse 17 to start moving again and your first tac can only come on impulse 4. Something like that?
One reason you cant have deceleraton between turns rules is damage...
If for example you say a ship may only decelerate by half what happens if the ship took so much damage that it can not do that. Or maybe the ship can, but doing so means that it cant raise its shields.
If you give an exception for damage... whats the logic in that?
Count me as one in the 'radical' Brook camp that says all the broken rules should be fixed in a new edition of the rules.
I got up on my soapbox and railed against all the nonsensical rules years ago (I have Council of Five Nations witnesses!) I've been resisting getting into this discussion, but I'll at least throw in a couple of pennies.
ADB's decision, years ago, to say "This is the last version of the rules that we will make. Ever." Very short-sighted. How do you make money that way?
Look at D&D. Version 3. Then, they saw enough bugs to fix that they issued a version they even officially called version 3.5. And now we're on 4th edition.
I know there is a substantial camp that doesn't want to change the rules. I understand the collective desire to not have to buy new stuff. But I'd happily buy new stuff if I thought it meant I was playing a better game.
Without trying to list all the rules I'd fix, let me suggest this perspective on game rules design.
"What if the proposed change was the current rule, and the current rule was the proposed change. What would the collective community think?"
Example #1: Speed Changes
What if the original rule was:
"To move in an impulse you are not supposed to move (tapping the gas) takes 2 reserve power. To not move in an impulse you are supposed to move (tapping the breaks) takes 2 reserve power. These decisions take place in regular movement precedence order." That's it. No change to your actual "plotted" speed. A lot like FC does it, in fact.
Then, someone came along and said:
No, let's do this instead. Unplotted speed changes must conform to the speed change rule of not more than one per 8 impulses. And, you can't do an unplotted to slow down. And, each hex gained costs two reserve power, UNLESS you maintain that speed until the end of the turn; then they cost only one reserve power each."
Wouldn't that guy get laughed out of the room?
Example #2: TACs
What if the original rule was "TACs happen at speed 0 move order precedence. They are typically the first movement to happen in the impulse." You've been playing this way for years.
Then, someone came along and said:
"No, wait, let's have ships that want to TAC be able to make that decision after all other movement, even after seeking weapons."
Wouldn't that guy get laughed out of the room?
I, personally, would like a game that has rules that "make sense", from a game design perspective. (Not the silly "our rules should allow for all the actions taken in the original TV series" philosophy that seems to handicap the ADB designers.)
I _know_ it would call for rethinking tactics, and rebalancing ships in the tournament. Maybe that would drive some more people away from the game. Maybe that would reinvigorate the interest of some others, because they would relish the challenge. Maybe there is not enough critical mass to pull it off.
But I still would rather play with rules that are internally consistent and make sense, at least to me.
They still allow a drop to zero between turns, and the penalties aren't too onerous. I'd be OK with that.
Dave you are a madman! But what you say does make a certain amount of sense. However, I'd much rather give my money to Ken for Squadron Strike instead of trying to rewrite SFB!
Yeah, it was just a thought.
I just think that being able to go from speed 31 to speed 0 over a turn break is too big of a change. Especially because stopping a taccing is such a big advantage. I really hate it when I take damage coming in while trying to get the advantage in board position only to have it negated because the turn ends. I really haven't thought of a solution to the problem, I just know that a problem exists.
How about this:
Try to play the game as written and stop trying to change it into something else? First Tacs now this! You know I love ya Brook but come on you big whine ass. If this thread continues you lose one dinner at Council. :-)
It's like people have been saying: It would probably have been better if the rule(and tacs) were different from the onset, but it wasn't. Now 30 years in we aren't going to change it because it would cause an entire rework of both the normal game and the tourney, and no one does SFB design work for ADB anymore. They just sorta preside over it in a territorial manner and snipe at whoever does try to make changes.
Well Andy.......
It's not like I boycotted the game or anything. I'm still playing and having fun. It's just something that annoys me sometimes. But if I can't talk about it here.....where can I? Oh, and sorry bud.....the dinners are still on....one can be fast food tho....:)
Deceleration limits over turn break is a different game.
If you really want a different game, come talk to me. I can fix ya up. :)
Yeah, I agree that it is nice
Yeah, I agree that it is nice to have a place were the discusion is not shut down.
As for the issue of decceleration between turns... just consider the difficulty design a rule that take into account power damage!
LOL. Brook, you realize that
LOL. Brook, you realize that this would require MAJOR tournament ship rebalancing? (Similar to the TAC rule changes being proposed).
Example 1: D&D vs ORI (generally considered advantage ORI), even allowing for deceleration between turns. D&D ship took the shot and esacpes to turn end, but ORI ready to double all and overrun. And now you're going to tell the D&D ship he can't even tac around to brace for the onslaught? Time to nerf the ORI.
Example 2: D&D vd Gorn (generally considered even to advantaged-Gorn). Gorn ends turn X (sometimes T1, sometimes later) with 2+ torps available in pursuit position. Gorn has multiple options - anchor, bolt, draw weasels. Now you're going to not allow the D&D ship to tac around to brace for the onslaught? Time to nerf the GRN. The current tournament ships and rules have been finely tuned over the decades, I wonder if you've thought this through Brook.
"I really hate it when I take damage coming in while trying to get the advantage in board position only to have it negated because the turn ends"
Gorn is an above-average ship (I would say top 5 to top 8). If your opponent can manage this, then he outmaneuvered you.
with all due respect.....
Sheesh, why don't you guys finish the job and chop my head off. It's not like I've quit the game of SFB because I think the rule is bullshit or anything. I still play the game, I still have fun, and I win more than I lose. That being said, you guys are not going to convince me that the ability to sit and tac is not a very powerful one, almost to a point were it's unfair. I'm just merely stating that the price paid to do so should be a little stiffer in some way. Ken, you said, "The current tournament ships and rules have been finely tuned over the decades" I KNOW THIS. Did you ever stop and think that this is how they get finely tuned over the decades? By people like me making suggestions and speaking up when they think something can be improved upon? That's how change for the better occurs. That's what discussion boards are for right?
Now in response to your example #1...Sure...let's nerf the orion. That would be fine by me. :)
What about my example #2? :D
What about my example #2? :D
Orion Nerfing
Let's start with the Orion. I think a lot problems can be corrected if we tone it down.
My suggestions...
1) take away one of the free hets
2) limit the doubling to just the warp engines, no impulse
3) make the cloak cost 15 instead of 12
4) limit the amount of brick to half of a full shield(i.e. 15 points to front bank, and 12 points to rear.)
Why just turn breaks?
Any ship can stop in the middle of a turn by using Emer Decel. Doesn't that create the same problem a stopping over a turn break?
Yes it does.
There is a nice stiff penalty for ed. (i.e. can't move for 16 impulses, and have to wait to be able to tac). So at least it's something. Maybe that's it. If you don't gradually come to a stop you suffer the penalties of ED. You have to wait until impulse 17 to start moving again and your first tac can only come on impulse 4. Something like that?
Deceleration between turns
One reason you cant have deceleraton between turns rules is damage...
If for example you say a ship may only decelerate by half what happens if the ship took so much damage that it can not do that. Or maybe the ship can, but doing so means that it cant raise its shields.
If you give an exception for damage... whats the logic in that?
I agree with Brook
Count me as one in the 'radical' Brook camp that says all the broken rules should be fixed in a new edition of the rules.
I got up on my soapbox and railed against all the nonsensical rules years ago (I have Council of Five Nations witnesses!) I've been resisting getting into this discussion, but I'll at least throw in a couple of pennies.
ADB's decision, years ago, to say "This is the last version of the rules that we will make. Ever." Very short-sighted. How do you make money that way?
Look at D&D. Version 3. Then, they saw enough bugs to fix that they issued a version they even officially called version 3.5. And now we're on 4th edition.
I know there is a substantial camp that doesn't want to change the rules. I understand the collective desire to not have to buy new stuff. But I'd happily buy new stuff if I thought it meant I was playing a better game.
Without trying to list all the rules I'd fix, let me suggest this perspective on game rules design.
"What if the proposed change was the current rule, and the current rule was the proposed change. What would the collective community think?"
Example #1: Speed Changes
What if the original rule was:
"To move in an impulse you are not supposed to move (tapping the gas) takes 2 reserve power. To not move in an impulse you are supposed to move (tapping the breaks) takes 2 reserve power. These decisions take place in regular movement precedence order." That's it. No change to your actual "plotted" speed. A lot like FC does it, in fact.
Then, someone came along and said:
No, let's do this instead. Unplotted speed changes must conform to the speed change rule of not more than one per 8 impulses. And, you can't do an unplotted to slow down. And, each hex gained costs two reserve power, UNLESS you maintain that speed until the end of the turn; then they cost only one reserve power each."
Wouldn't that guy get laughed out of the room?
Example #2: TACs
What if the original rule was "TACs happen at speed 0 move order precedence. They are typically the first movement to happen in the impulse." You've been playing this way for years.
Then, someone came along and said:
"No, wait, let's have ships that want to TAC be able to make that decision after all other movement, even after seeking weapons."
Wouldn't that guy get laughed out of the room?
I, personally, would like a game that has rules that "make sense", from a game design perspective. (Not the silly "our rules should allow for all the actions taken in the original TV series" philosophy that seems to handicap the ADB designers.)
I _know_ it would call for rethinking tactics, and rebalancing ships in the tournament. Maybe that would drive some more people away from the game. Maybe that would reinvigorate the interest of some others, because they would relish the challenge. Maybe there is not enough critical mass to pull it off.
But I still would rather play with rules that are internally consistent and make sense, at least to me.
-DC
Dave, come give Squadron Strike a try then.
Plays with about 85% of what you know from SFB (closer to SFB than FC is in some ways), in about 15-20 minute turns.
ED restrictions would be ok with me
They still allow a drop to zero between turns, and the penalties aren't too onerous. I'd be OK with that.
Dave you are a madman! But what you say does make a certain amount of sense. However, I'd much rather give my money to Ken for Squadron Strike instead of trying to rewrite SFB!