Suggestion for boresight/inisink problem solution

[nekomata fuyu]

If this is an endgame scenario, well then, the EA player lost, pack up and move on, because someone has to lose.

Just one thing to note about this particular argument... it says nothing.
Yes, we know that the given situation is a loss under the current rules. The whole reason that it's being brought up is because it results in a loss where the loss would be unreasonable (at least in some people's opinions*).
In effect, you arguement here is "Don't change the rules, no matter how broken, because the rules are the rules."

*Note: I'm not getting involved in arguing how broken (or not) the rules are. Just pointing out how annoying silly that particular argument is 8)

 

[ShopKeepJon]

If it doesn't work for everyone, it isn't a fix.

Umm...

Be very careful about using statements like this. It has been by experience in playing a lot of different games, in playtesting games, and in running a game store with lots of in-store gaming, that no rule pleases everyone. Not one...

I would argue that if a rule change works for nearly everyone, then it is a fix.

ShopKeepJon

 

[wkehrman]

A few clarifications:

1) As a new player I have not had an opportunity to read through every AAR. Having said that, I keep seeing these arguments presented which do not clarify the issue. The Omega vs Primus/Corvans is hardly a "perfect example". The scenario is unbalanced; nobody has explained where the three EA skirmish level ships went. The Centauri initiative modifier is at least one better than the EAs (depending on era) and there are issues of the EA player's poor play or bad luck. I take issue with the argument that certain endgame scenarios are the product of bad rules. Providing bad examples to argue otherwise only strengthens my resolve.

2) Building one or two ship fleets surrenders initiative, you have chosen to surrender your chance to boresight the ship you want to boresight. Your pregame choices affect your options. Don't be surprised if bad choices lead to bad ends.

3) "If it doesn't work for everyone, it's not a fix" addresses precisely the issue of people being dissatisfied with RAW. I think a rule works fine, you think it does not. If you change the rule and it reverses, rather than cures, the dissatisfaction how exactly is that a fix?

@neko: You misunderstand. Up to this point I've been reading a bunch of arguments that smack of "If I can't win with my chosen fleet, the rules must be broken." I've seen this in other games. More often than not it has been operator error. My issue is not with changing the rules, but with changing rules that aren't broken simply because we don't "like" them.

The specific situation is presented as a losing battle. You argue it it is unreasonable for this to be a loss. Well to be accurate, you point out that SOME people see this as an unreasonable situation for a loss. I'm not sure how being out numbered, out gunned and out of initiative qualify as unreasonable, but you aren't making the case so we'll leave it to someone else to explain. Any good commander is going to withdraw to a more advantageous position.

Let me provide my own example. One Z'Takk and four Xaar vs a Warlock and four Myrmidons. My EA fleet lost because, though I had the advantage in initiative modifiers, I'd managed to get my Myrmidons killed in exchange for two Xaar. By all of the arguments presented here, the game is broken--my opponent has initiative sinks and I cannot bring my boresight weapon against the target I want. I am not convinced this is the case. I divided my forces, going 1 v 1 with the Myrmidons. I focused the Warlock on destroying the Z'Takk. I ended up with a 3 v 1 fight against a more maneuverable enemy. Perhaps more importantly I had just one big hammer. Two Marathons might have been a better choice than the one Warlock. In the end, the Vree had the advantage: more ships, more maneuverability, more weapons choices. I'm not sure where the rules broke down in this situation.

 

[David Anla Shok']

Boresight becomes a problem when you can't blast the ship you want. Its a bummer to be sure. But usually, there is someone lining up to take some neutron laser love from you. Sure, it may be a small ship but the more of those you take out the fewer sinks he/she has.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

I think the main problem being presented is when the the player with the numerical upper hand then abuses that position to make sue that you can't attack anything.

For the example with the Vree vs EA, I think it does show the flaws in the initiative system. A relatively small amount of luck amongst the smaller ships is having too great an effect amongst the larger ships by the looks of it. If they stay in the fight, I see nothing wrong with the Xaars interfering for a turn or two and getting killed in the process, before it comes down to initiative deciding if the Warlock can boresight the Z'Takk. The problem is when the Xaars run away and hide behind an asteroid field so that you can't fight back. It's unreasonable to say that their presence is interfering with the targetting of the Z'Takk, yet the rules say that they manage to do so.

 

[Ripple]

Exactly Neko...

to wkehrman

1) go back and read my last post... the Omega vs Primus/Corvans was just an example that comes up and demostrated the point without getting into how you got there. I clarified it with the EA Hyerion build vs the Centauri Centurian builds. If you cannot discuss the actual issue (a ship that is beyond being affected by the fight, and or participating in it, somehow preventing the lining up of boresights) then you should stop now.

2) again, I tried to clarify this for you with the second set of builds you failed to address. It only takes a couple of ships extra to effectively remove the possibility of attaining bore sight unless playing fairly large games.

3) in part it depends on how many people have an issue with something and whether the are actually playing it to full potential. If the new guy who's barely played is telling me a rule is fine (as many did during the Sag debates) I ask what they are doing that is costing them games.

comment your discussion with neko -

What I see you saying is that nothing is ever broken. As long as there is one build out there that one person can win with vs his local opponent, nothing is wrong. The Pinto's exploding gas tank wasn't a problem with the car, it was operator error in allowing it to hit in the rear.

The Omega vs Primus/Corvan scenario is not presented as an example of winning vs losing... that is not the issue. It is the ability to target AT ALL. Sure the Omega will lose, it is out gunned... but that does not address the ISSUE AT HAND... the ability to target with the main laser. Please discuss the apples and let the oranges for another day.

In your Z'Takk+ vs Warlock+ example you say you lost due to going 3v1 fight against a more maneuverable enemy. I don't think so, I think you lost because his losses had little effect on his firepower while yours had a huge effect on yours.

You say yourself that you needed to go down to two marathons, but no mention of the Vree needing to go down to two Xaak? So your saying you had to have a ship advantage to do well? Isn't that exactly what we're saying? What if he had taken four Xills instead, would you have done better or worse? You invested the same points (which by definition should give you an even chance of winning depending on player skill).

It's not about being able to play what we want, it's about the point value reflecting your chance of winning. Your scenario above looks like a set battle (I'll take a war and four patrol, you do too) rather than a test of swarms, sinks or bore sight.

I've seen comments like yours in other games too... and usually I've found those folks are playing what most folks consider broken, or stop playing shortly there after. Operator error does happen, but there is also bad design out there.

I've been pretty clear... there are separate issues at play here...

suspension of disbelief - not necessarily broken but really hard to justify and damaging to play fun
balance - my points being better than your points in a majority of circumstances

Ripple

 

[jimmor]

For the example with the Vree vs EA, I think it does show the flaws in the initiative system.

IMHO it just shows flaws in Warlock design - a very bad ship to fight Vree. Omega and a few hermeses will do much better. If you have boresight weapons you need inisinks of your own.

 

[Ripple]

To David

I'm not necessarily looking to shoot the ship I want. Lots of things happen to prevent that.

What I'm advocating is specifically to overcome two issues.

balance - I should be able to fire my main weapon when out numbered.

suspension of disbelief - same reason the fighter/stealth interaction changed for this edition. If there is a large slow moving ship in front of me, I should not be prevented from targeting it by the crippled haven sitting in the corner. Terrain, other ships using the long lamented 'maneuver to shield', can not turn enough to keep in arc... all great... but a pure sink stopping it... no. This could just as easily be a ship in hyper opening a jump point, a scout fleeing the table, anything... as long as it takes an activation.

Ripple

 

[k3ndawg]

*snip*

What I see you saying is that nothing is ever broken. As long as there is one build out there that one person can win with vs his local opponent, nothing is wrong.

*snip*

I've seen comments like yours in other games too... and usually I've found those folks are playing what most folks consider broken, or stop playing shortly there after. Operator error does happen, but there is also bad design out there.

*snip*
Ripple

Hey Ripple, I got a couple issues with your post. You'll see I've isolated the points and I'll address them in order.

1. You're OBVIOUSLY not understanding wkehrman's point. He's just saying you're not proving there's something wrong with the game besides one or two isolated cases. That's the point. Hell I'm a big ol' unedumacated redneck and I see that.

2. While wkehrman and I may not be best friends, I do however, know wkerman well enough to tell you he NEVER plays an force because it's broken. In fact, he's made a reputation for himself around here for staying away from broken/cheesy forces REGARDLESS of the game. Tends to treat them like the plague as a matter of fact...

Ummm... that's it. Just trying to promote peace and understanding.

Weird for a redneck... :lol:

 

[Davesaint]

*snip*

What I see you saying is that nothing is ever broken. As long as there is one build out there that one person can win with vs his local opponent, nothing is wrong.

*snip*

I've seen comments like yours in other games too... and usually I've found those folks are playing what most folks consider broken, or stop playing shortly there after. Operator error does happen, but there is also bad design out there.

*snip*
Ripple

Hey Ripple, I got a couple issues with your post. You'll see I've isolated the points and I'll address them in order.

1. You're OBVIOUSLY not understanding wkehrman's point. He's just saying you're not proving there's something wrong with the game besides one or two isolated cases. That's the point. Hell I'm a big ol' unedumacated redneck and I see that.

2. While wkehrman and I may not be best friends, I do however, know wkerman well enough to tell you he NEVER plays an force because it's broken. In fact, he's made a reputation for himself around here for staying away from broken/cheesy forces REGARDLESS of the game. Tends to treat them like the plague as a matter of fact...

Ummm... that's it. Just trying to promote peace and understanding.

Weird for a redneck... :lol:

Sigh......There is a lack of understanding on wkehrman's point too.

Lets take an example of the following fleets -

They are both 1 Battle for puropses

Centurian
Vorchan
4 Haven

Hyperion
Oracle
2 Hermes

How many times do you think that the Hyperion will be able to boresight the Centurian in the battle? How about zero. In fact, the EA, even if they win initiative, might never get a boresight on any centauri ship. Is this Centarui fleet "Beardy, Cheesey, Broken"? It is certianly a legal fleet.

Should fleets be forced to have the same number of ships in them? That's a very arbritory change. If so, who is required to change, the person with less ships, or the person with more? If it's the person who brings more ships to the game that has to reduce to the lower ships, then the Vorlons will be unbeatable as at 4 Battle, I would just bring the Heavy Crusier and crush my opponents.

The inherent problem with the game right now is that you gain too much firepower by buying down, and if you restrict the number of ships in the battle, you tend to screw races that are boresight only races, like the Drazi.

Dave

 

[dag'karlove]

Exactly Neko...

to wkehrman

1) go back and read my last post... the Omega vs Primus/Corvans was just an example that comes up and demostrated the point without getting into how you got there. I clarified it with the EA Hyerion build vs the Centauri Centurian builds. If you cannot discuss the actual issue (a ship that is beyond being affected by the fight, and or participating in it, somehow preventing the lining up of boresights) then you should stop now.

2) again, I tried to clarify this for you with the second set of builds you failed to address. It only takes a couple of ships extra to effectively remove the possibility of attaining bore sight unless playing fairly large games.

3) in part it depends on how many people have an issue with something and whether the are actually playing it to full potential. If the new guy who's barely played is telling me a rule is fine (as many did during the Sag debates) I ask what they are doing that is costing them games.

comment your discussion with neko -

What I see you saying is that nothing is ever broken. As long as there is one build out there that one person can win with vs his local opponent, nothing is wrong. The Pinto's exploding gas tank wasn't a problem with the car, it was operator error in allowing it to hit in the rear.

The Omega vs Primus/Corvan scenario is not presented as an example of winning vs losing... that is not the issue. It is the ability to target AT ALL. Sure the Omega will lose, it is out gunned... but that does not address the ISSUE AT HAND... the ability to target with the main laser. Please discuss the apples and let the oranges for another day.

In your Z'Takk+ vs Warlock+ example you say you lost due to going 3v1 fight against a more maneuverable enemy. I don't think so, I think you lost because his losses had little effect on his firepower while yours had a huge effect on yours.

You say yourself that you needed to go down to two marathons, but no mention of the Vree needing to go down to two Xaak? So your saying you had to have a ship advantage to do well? Isn't that exactly what we're saying? What if he had taken four Xills instead, would you have done better or worse? You invested the same points (which by definition should give you an even chance of winning depending on player skill).

It's not about being able to play what we want, it's about the point value reflecting your chance of winning. Your scenario above looks like a set battle (I'll take a war and four patrol, you do too) rather than a test of swarms, sinks or bore sight.

I've seen comments like yours in other games too... and usually I've found those folks are playing what most folks consider broken, or stop playing shortly there after. Operator error does happen, but there is also bad design out there.

I've been pretty clear... there are separate issues at play here...

suspension of disbelief - not necessarily broken but really hard to justify and damaging to play fun
balance - my points being better than your points in a majority of circumstances

Ripple

His Points are very Logical Ripple. Telling Him to go back and read and saying My opinion is better than yours is Just Childish. It takes aman to admit when hes wrong so pony up and and say I was wrong. Dont be inflamatory on here. Theres no need for it. There arent problems with The Initiative system, nor with boresight. There is a Problem with how some people manage thier fleets.

 

[Triggy]

Ripple only told him to go back and reread one point, one that had obviously not been taken in as Ripple had addressed the argument and hadn't received a reply to the point in three subsequent posts. The saying "I'm right in a majority of circumstances" is a little childish though.

However, you go on to flat state that there are no problems with boresight or initiative, when the whole debate is about potential problems with roughly similar numbers of people on either side of the fence. Putting it simply down to people mismanaging their fleets is simplistic and missing the whole point of the debate (about the suspension of disbelief, how a ship one billion inches away can have a massive effect on the battle by allowing a ship to shoot at all, etc.)

 

[dag'karlove]

To me and many others, There is no problem with boresigting or inititave and the problem ive seen more times than naught is that people do mismanage thier fleet and dont know how to manuver. You know often The simplest solution/answer is the correct one. I do disagree that there is a problem and that is my opinion. Everyone is entitled to said opinion. What i have a major issue with is someone saying mine is batter than yours and this is the way it will be. My apologies for not either reading the post fully or understanding what he was trying to say (in regards to go reread my post). I was in teh wrong there.

 

[ShopKeepJon]

Part of the problem that we are having here is miscommunication. There are several different points being argued here and, unfortunately, not everyone is arguing about the same thing. This is leading to confusion and a little anger (or at least severe annoyance).

What this discussion could use is a little focus. Let's pick a single point, discuss it, and then move on to another.

So...
In "real life" an outnumbered ship could concentrate on the greatest perceived threat (or at least the one that has most annoyed it...) and ignore the remaining ships. This would allow the remaining enemy ships free reign to maneuver and attack the outnumbered ship.

In ACTA, this is not possible. To me, this seems to be at the heart of Ripple's argument.

Does this seem to be a correct and reasonable statement? Please do not refer to the rules unless it is to refute my statement, "In ACTA, this is not possible."

ShopKeepJon

 

[katadder]

I have used 5 hyperions in a 5pt raid game and won. its just a case of if you cant get the target you want get the target you can get and eventually the enemy run out of init sinks.
init sinks tend to go boom when you point a beam at them anyway.

 

[dag'karlove]

Part of the problem that we are having here is miscommunication. There are several different points being argued here and, unfortunately, not everyone is arguing about the same thing. This is leading to confusion and a little anger (or at least severe annoyance).

What this discussion could use is a little focus. Let's pick a single point, discuss it, and then move on to another.

So...
In "real life" an outnumbered ship could concentrate on the greatest perceived threat (or at least the one that has most annoyed it...) and ignore the remaining ships. This would allow the remaining enemy ships free reign to maneuver and attack the outnumbered ship.

In ACTA, this is not possible. To me, this seems to be at the heart of Ripple's argument.

Does this seem to be a correct and reasonable statement? Please do not refer to the rules unless it is to refute my statement, "In ACTA, this is not possible."

ShopKeepJon

Yes it is a True statement. However I would liketo say that either the prson who is outnumbered has either had bad luck, took a bad assortment of ships or just flat out got outmanuvered. I Tend to take larger ships whenever i can cause i liek teh Heavier Firepower and larger damage tracks. More often than naught i am outnumbered towards the end of game and have to take on 2 or 3 ships at a time. This is because i brought a lesser amount of ships But in my eyes a more capable force.

 

[ShopKeepJon]

In "real life" an outnumbered ship could concentrate on the greatest perceived threat (or at least the one that has most annoyed it...) and ignore the remaining ships. This would allow the remaining enemy ships free reign to maneuver and attack the outnumbered ship.

In ACTA, this is not possible. To me, this seems to be at the heart of Ripple's argument.

Does this seem to be a correct and reasonable statement? Please do not refer to the rules unless it is to refute my statement, "In ACTA, this is not possible."

Yes it is a True statement. However I would liketo say that either the prson who is outnumbered has either had bad luck, took a bad assortment of ships or just flat out got outmanuvered. I Tend to take larger ships whenever i can cause i liek teh Heavier Firepower and larger damage tracks. More often than naught i am outnumbered towards the end of game and have to take on 2 or 3 ships at a time. This is because i brought a lesser amount of ships But in my eyes a more capable force.

I too am often outnumbered due to my fleet choices. I don't have any problem with that. It is one of the things that players must decide when constructing a fleet.

My point was, and you have agreed that it is a true statement, that it is not possible to do in the game something that would be possible in "real life." This is a question of (as Ripple put it) suspension of disbelief. I can't do something that my common sense tells me that I should. The rules don't allow it.

Is this a problem with the rules? It is for me and for many others.

Don't get me wrong. The rules work. The game is fun to play. I often win even when my fleet is smaller than my opponent's. It's just that my fun (and the fun of a lot of other people) is reduced, just a little bit, every time this artifact of the initiative system comes up.

If this "problem" can be "fixed" without screwing up the game as a whole, I would like to see it "fixed."

ShopKeepJon

 

[dag'karlove]

And I think thsi is where the disagreement is. Some dont think its a problem. Some DO So im Guessing on teh Initiative issue were going to have to agree to disagree

 

[ShopKeepJon]

And I think thsi is where the disagreement is. Some dont think its a problem. Some DO So im Guessing on teh Initiative issue were going to have to agree to disagree

As I said earlier, it has been my experience that no rule ever written has been liked by every player. The flip side of that is no rule ever written has been disliked by every player... (though some rules are more liked or disliked than others...)

This is alway the problem with this kind of debate. If a player likes a particular rule (or has never had any problems with it), then he will not understand why someone else does have a problem with it... (The reverse is also true. If a player has a problem with a rule, he will never understand the person that doesn't have any problem with it.)

Maybe we should be looking at this from another perspective. If a large number of people have a problem with a rule and that rule can be "fixed" without ruining the game for the people who don't have a problem, shouldn't we "fix" the rule? Wouldn't the game be better if the most people possible are happy with the way it plays?

ShopKeepJon

 

[David Anla Shok']

To David

I'm not necessarily looking to shoot the ship I want. Lots of things happen to prevent that.

What I'm advocating is specifically to overcome two issues.

balance - I should be able to fire my main weapon when out numbered.

suspension of disbelief - same reason the fighter/stealth interaction changed for this edition. If there is a large slow moving ship in front of me, I should not be prevented from targeting it by the crippled haven sitting in the corner. Terrain, other ships using the long lamented 'maneuver to shield', can not turn enough to keep in arc... all great... but a pure sink stopping it... no. This could just as easily be a ship in hyper opening a jump point, a scout fleeing the table, anything... as long as it takes an activation.

Ripple

Sure. Lots of flaws in the movement system. No doubt about it. But you design to accomodate the K.I.S.S. rule for playability and take what you have.
You'd think that even a boresight weapon could get a shot off "at range" at the very least. Close up, I can see where you wouldn't be able to move the ship fast enough to catch and speeding target. Much like shooting skeet or trap.