RegisterDonateLogin

Floats like a Mynock, stings like a Bane.

Welcome Guest Active Topics | Members

Attention Balance Committee - Floor Rules Changes needed. Options
TimmerB123
Posted: Monday, March 22, 2021 10:11:17 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
On Sunday I brought and intentionally non-competitive (in the traditional sense) squad to show how players can work entirely within the rules and abuse the system.

I had no intent (or realistic capability) of destroying the other player's squads entirely.

I simply brought diplomats, pieces you can't kill to stand in the way so you can't attack the diplomats, and cloaked pieces behind that.

While I did not win the tournament, I did beat the player who eventually won it. (One player had perfect counter to my squad, and vs another player, one single misplacement on my part {even with the opponent having several counters} changed the trajectory of that game. In that game we actually went back and talked it through, and that could have been a win for my squad too had it not been for that misplacement on my part).

I certainly don't think this is a method that would win Gen Con per say (though it could with the right matchups), but it certainly can beat squads it has no business beating, simply by camping in gambit and sniping a few points without being able to be attacked.

This was just one iteration of a gambit abusing squad. As I played I realized how I could make the squad even more abusive.

I also am able to do this on any legal map. So it's not an issue of map at all.



Are there counters to this strategy? Of course. But less than you might think. I didn't simply make diplomat walls, I made solid blocks of characters in a corner of gambit lined with diplomats. So if played right, flight and acrobatic alone can't help (in fact tint's squad had multiple characters with flight). The question is not, can it be beat. The question is - do we want to restrict the meta down to every squad having to have counters to this? Or directly address these issues and get the game back to how it was meant to be played?

I think everyone agrees that they don't want to see this strategy employed. It is an awful NPE.

But if changes aren't made, it will happen again, and in a worse way.



I think we universally agree that we want "engagement" in the game. It is good for the game, more fun, less NPEs and really what the game is meant to be.

So what is "engagement"?

I still love the definition that Laura gave awhile back, and many others have agreed with it. (I may not have it verbatim, please correct me if this isn't accurate)

Both players actively trying to defeat the other players pieces.

Simple, straightforward, and well, correct.

Somehow, somewhere along the way, sitting in gambit became an acceptable form of "engagement". I've never agreed with this, but some players have hopped aboard this wagon.

So my intent was to take it to an extreme to prove that simply sitting in gambit, should not, in and of itself, be considered "engagement".


I sat in gambit, with no intent whatsoever to defeat all the other players pieces. Just to gain as much gambit as possible, and win only on that. And I did.


This is not what our game was ever meant to be, nor should it be.


Thus changes truly need to be made.



I have 2 major suggestions that will help immensely.



#1 - When both players have qualifying pieces in gambit, neither player receives gambit points.

Gambit's sole original purpose was to promote engagement. Force both players to bring pieces to the center or pay a price. It is still needed, and that is valid. I don't want to abolish gambit. Once both players are in gambit, the goal of gambit is achieved and thus it is necessary to award points to both players.


#2 - Pieces with no damage value (Keeper of the Whills, Force Ghost, Holocron, etc), do not qualify as characters in line of sight for purposes of Diplomat.

In other words, if you can only see diplomats and the Keeper of the Whills (for example), you can shoot the diplomats. It's really unfair to have an unkillable piece make other pieces unattackable.


Personally I think diplomats are bad for the game in general (why do we have pieces that prevent combat in a combat game!?!), as are pieces that can't be killed directly (Keeper of the Whills, etc). But the above proposals are the minimum I think need to happen.

(side note - designers - no more pieces like Keeper of the Whills. All pieces in this game need to be able to be killed directly somehow)



The latest (lack of rulings) with no change to gambit by the Balance Committee was, in my opinion, a mistake. From my understanding, it was due to some of the balance committee members not understanding that it really could be an issue. They had never seen it. Well now it has been shown in a tournament, beating a top tier (Regional winning) squad. I hope now it is clear that it can be, and in fact IS, a big issue, and that changes truly need to be made.
thereisnotry
Posted: Monday, March 22, 2021 12:47:58 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/29/2008
Posts: 1,679
Location: Canada
FWIW, I agree with both of the suggested changes.

I've been in favor of an adjustment to Gambit for a while, and I think this would be helpful. However, even without winning on Gambit points, the squad Tim used on Sunday could've just stalled out to "win" via the 5-rounds-no-combat rule, as long as it got a head start on gambit.

The suggested change to the Diplomat wording (so that Ghosts and Holocrons and the Keeper and don't prevent shooting the Diplomat) also just makes sense. I don't see a good reason not to make this change...I think it's probably more like fixing a design error, rather than actually making a change.


As for the premise of the squad and the argument itself, I think it's misguided. The purpose of gambit is to encourage combat engagement, and for the most part it does that quite effectively. Tim found a semi-successful loophole, with a squad that can camp in gambit without engaging in combat. Nevertheless, I think there are several counters to Diplomat walls (and therefore counters to this squad):
--Whistling Birds
--Lobot (for Momaw Nadon, who gets rid of diplomats pretty quickly)
--Painful Screech
--Indiscriminate
--Force Repulse, Thought Bomb
--I'm sure that I'm missing some other counters too
So I don't think it has the possibility of putting a stranglehold on competitive play, but there's no question that it creates a legal NPE.

I think that, at minimum, a fix to Diplomats is necessary. I think the adjustment to Gambit scoring is also fine, and won't really change anything in terms of gameplay...rather, it'll just keep combat going longer.
Mando
Posted: Monday, March 22, 2021 1:28:43 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 10/14/2008
Posts: 1,336
Location: Chokio, MN
i'd have to think about the gambit scoring situation a bit more. I think that might need to be tested out a lot to implement it, because there have been a lot of close games and it might be a very different game if gambit wasn't applied to both people being there. i do like the idea of Diplomat being adjusted to allow opponents to target them when they also have LOS to things that can't be targeted like holocrons, Keeper of the Whills and Force spirits.
TimmerB123
Posted: Monday, March 22, 2021 4:22:18 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
Mando wrote:
i'd have to think about the gambit scoring situation a bit more. I think that might need to be tested out a lot to implement it, because there have been a lot of close games and it might be a very different game if gambit wasn't applied to both people being there.


Interesting. Let's think that through.

So how does giving the same amount of gambit to both squads vs no amount to either squad (when they both have at least one qualifying piece in gambit) change the outcome? In most cases it would not. In fact there is only one scenario where it would. The only way that it would is if the extra gambit ends the game before time is called or one team has no pieces left.

So in those games, innately neither squad defeated all of the other squad's pieces. So the only way to really know who should win in those games would be to have the game not end before time is up, or one team has no pieces left.

This accomplishes that.

In fact this specifically addresses that. That is a core issue. We want to see which squad wins through combat engagement, not ending games before time with both teams still having pieces left.

TimmerB123
Posted: Monday, March 22, 2021 4:25:22 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
thereisnotry wrote:
Nevertheless, I think there are several counters to Diplomat walls (and therefore counters to this squad):
--Whistling Birds
--Lobot (for Momaw Nadon, who gets rid of diplomats pretty quickly)
--Painful Screech
--Indiscriminate
--Force Repulse, Thought Bomb
--I'm sure that I'm missing some other counters too
So I don't think it has the possibility of putting a stranglehold on competitive play, but there's no question that it creates a legal NPE.


I already addressed this

TimmerB123 wrote:
Are there counters to this strategy? Of course. But less than you might think. I didn't simply make diplomat walls, I made solid blocks of characters in a corner of gambit lined with diplomats. So if played right, flight and acrobatic alone can't help (in fact tint's squad had multiple characters with flight). The question is not, can it be beat. The question is - do we want to restrict the meta down to every squad having to have counters to this? Or directly address these issues and get the game back to how it was meant to be played?




thereisnotry wrote:
I've been in favor of an adjustment to Gambit for a while, and I think this would be helpful. However, even without winning on Gambit points, the squad Tim used on Sunday could've just stalled out to "win" via the 5-rounds-no-combat rule, as long as it got a head start on gambit.


Btw, on Sunday I did nothing for 5 rounds just to finish proving the point, but it could have been worse. I could have fired one shot every 5th round and kept the game going and got a 3pt win. There was literally no way to prevent it at that point.


That aside - I'm glad you are in for the change to Gambit. Trevor is one of the communities finest examples of a player who enjoys playing tank squads - but plays them aggressively, always intending to defeat the other players squad. He (by his own words), likes low activation beefy squads that kick butt (not quite verbatim but you get it). Not squads that sit in gambit and kill half a squad.
FlyingArrow
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 8:42:14 AM
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member , Moderator

Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,407
If both sides have a killbox, something has to provide an incentive for one player to enter the other player's killbox. Gambit does that... whoever wins the race to gambit and gets the lead basically gets to say, "You have to come into my killbox instead of the other way around."

The Diplomat issue you've raised sounds like another version of lockout. Gambit does the job of forcing one player to come and engage when both players would rather wait and let the other initiate. But Diplomats (or Override in the case of lockout) prevents that player from engaging at all.
TimmerB123
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 9:49:40 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
FlyingArrow wrote:
If both sides have a killbox, something has to provide an incentive for one player to enter the other player's killbox. Gambit does that... whoever wins the race to gambit and gets the lead basically gets to say, "You have to come into my killbox instead of the other way around."


Ok sure, not really sure how that is related. Like I said, gambit is necessary in general, I never implied we need to get rid of it. Where it isn't necessary, is when it has already done its job and both squads have qualifying pieces in the center. The ONLY thing giving both squads gambit points in the same round does is end the game sooner. It literally does nothing else.

FlyingArrow wrote:
The Diplomat issue you've raised sounds like another version of lockout. Gambit does the job of forcing one player to come and engage when both players would rather wait and let the other initiate. But Diplomats (or Override in the case of lockout) prevents that player from engaging at all.


Yes, again not really sure what your point here is. It is similar to a lockout, but there are a plethora of door control options in the game. Far fewer reliable diplomat killing options, especially when you can stick an unkillable piece like Keeper of the Whills in the way and prevent all targeting and attacks.
Mando
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:01:07 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 10/14/2008
Posts: 1,336
Location: Chokio, MN
TimmerB123 wrote:
FlyingArrow wrote:
If both sides have a killbox, something has to provide an incentive for one player to enter the other player's killbox. Gambit does that... whoever wins the race to gambit and gets the lead basically gets to say, "You have to come into my killbox instead of the other way around."

The Diplomat issue you've raised sounds like another version of lockout. Gambit does the job of forcing one player to come and engage when both players would rather wait and let the other initiate. But Diplomats (or Override in the case of lockout) prevents that player from engaging at all.


Ok sure, not really sure how that is related. Like I said, gambit is necessary in general, I never implied we need to get rid of it. Where it isn't necessary, is when it has already done its job and both squads have qualifying pieces in the center. The ONLY thing giving both squads gambit points in the same round does is end the game sooner. It literally does nothing else.


I agree with TJ's point. A person's squad should be rewarded if you reached gambit first and force the other person to enter their killbox because of the 10pt lead. On certain maps (like Cantina) you can't easily engage the other side of gambit because of a physical barrier and the need to control the doors. I think the games do need to be sped up a little bit in these instances so that someone can get a 3pt win. It really is dependent on the maps. there are certain maps where gambit zones aren't as much of an issue for engagement (thinking Throne Room map for example).
General_Grievous
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:29:56 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 1/8/2010
Posts: 3,623
I fully support both of the above changes they make sense. Also up here in my part of Canada we only end games at time or squad’s defeat. Gambit is just for determining points for tournament pairings if needed. Seems too much like capture the flag and less like a combat skirmish game.
TimmerB123
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:57:31 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
General_Grievous wrote:
I fully support both of the above changes they make sense. Also up here in my part of Canada we only end games at time or squad’s defeat. Gambit is just for determining points for tournament pairings if needed. Seems too much like capture the flag and less like a combat skirmish game.


Well said, thank you
TimmerB123
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:58:59 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
Mando wrote:
TimmerB123 wrote:
FlyingArrow wrote:
If both sides have a killbox, something has to provide an incentive for one player to enter the other player's killbox. Gambit does that... whoever wins the race to gambit and gets the lead basically gets to say, "You have to come into my killbox instead of the other way around."

The Diplomat issue you've raised sounds like another version of lockout. Gambit does the job of forcing one player to come and engage when both players would rather wait and let the other initiate. But Diplomats (or Override in the case of lockout) prevents that player from engaging at all.


Ok sure, not really sure how that is related. Like I said, gambit is necessary in general, I never implied we need to get rid of it. Where it isn't necessary, is when it has already done its job and both squads have qualifying pieces in the center. The ONLY thing giving both squads gambit points in the same round does is end the game sooner. It literally does nothing else.


I agree with TJ's point. A person's squad should be rewarded if you reached gambit first and force the other person to enter their killbox because of the 10pt lead. On certain maps (like Cantina) you can't easily engage the other side of gambit because of a physical barrier and the need to control the doors. I think the games do need to be sped up a little bit in these instances so that someone can get a 3pt win. It really is dependent on the maps. there are certain maps where gambit zones aren't as much of an issue for engagement (thinking Throne Room map for example).


Was that TJ’s point? It was really unclear. Killboxes have nothing to do with this discussion really, it’s a separate point.
ArgonNaito
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 11:28:48 AM
Rank: AT-ST
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/24/2020
Posts: 54
We also didn't use Gambit when playing (here in Greece for the small duration this game lasted) and I haven't play an official game for a long time so I can only comment as a viewer mostly.

TimmerB123 wrote:
#2 - Pieces with no damage value (Keeper of the Whills, Force Ghost, Holocron, etc), do not qualify as characters in line of sight for purposes of Diplomat.

In other words, if you can only see diplomats and the Keeper of the Whills (for example), you can shoot the diplomats. It's really unfair to have an unkillable piece make other pieces unattackable.


This seems like a good option. It also seems like a logical option. If a character cannot be targeted/killed with normal means anyway, it makes sense that it should not affect targeting and attacks, unless of course it possesses some ability of its own. This is an errata that looks simple to make.

TimmerB123 wrote:
Personally I think diplomats are bad for the game in general (why do we have pieces that prevent combat in a combat game!?!), as are pieces that can't be killed directly (Keeper of the Whills, etc). But the above proposals are the minimum I think need to happen.


I didn't see this oppinion and I understand it probaly doesn't matter much in the tournament sense, but this game had origins from a roleplaying game. So as to why Diplomat exists, I believe it comes from that side of the game. As someone that uses this game mostly for tabletops rpgs abilities like these do help me present the whole picture.

Also there used to be scenarios. True while in most cases you simply had to kill the enemy's squad to win, there were scenarios that required you to escape a certain area, hold a position, survive for some turns etc etc. Before gambit diplomats probably were mainly good for only those specific cases, as they don't tend to be strong in a regular fight. So I can only imagine the ability came to be because it made some sense, while at that point it wasn't really that strong,used mainly for shielding and holding scenario zones. Probably it didn't occur to the creators that in this version of the game such pieces would become much stronger than they should.
I dodn't know if scenarios are still used but I imagine no, so maybe this info isn't relevant.

Changing diplomat so that it at least requires an active piece that can be killed to give it protection is a better idea, than not having abilities that prevent fighting at all.
An alternative could be to remove the "even if adjacent" part. In that case a close engagement in the middle could bring the piece close enough to get removed.
harryg
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:37:11 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/11/2013
Posts: 754
To a certain extent I like these rule changes proposals. I've always thought the whole cloaked diplomat thing was pretty cheesy. Though I kind of disagree about the side point about not wanting more characters like keeper of the whills; it's basically a tack-on piece and I don't think it's that big of a deal that it can't be killed directly, especially at its point cost. I would agree that it would be more problematic if it was a different cost but as is I don't dislike pieces like that being added. I also don't like Diplomat in general; it forces some type of creativity in terms of approach and as it stands beyond the cheesy cloaked thing its not really competitive anyway. I like stuff like aggressive negotiations as well; there's plenty of fun stuff to be done there without changing every part of it
DarthMaim
Posted: Monday, March 29, 2021 3:10:21 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/27/2008
Posts: 1,106
Location: Los Angeles, California
TimmerB123 wrote:
General_Grievous wrote:
I fully support both of the above changes they make sense. Also up here in my part of Canada we only end games at time or squad’s defeat. Gambit is just for determining points for tournament pairings if needed. Seems too much like capture the flag and less like a combat skirmish game.


Well said, thank you



+1.
TimmerB123
Posted: Friday, April 30, 2021 6:33:11 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
Over a month and not a word. I know the balance committee is in flux right now, but these issues are still in need of repair.

Last time I let the conversation die, and no action was taken. So I am going to make sure the conversation stays active.
TimmerB123
Posted: Friday, May 14, 2021 9:33:19 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
The new members of the Balance Committee are set. Time to get to work gang.

Let's pin down this ruling that everyone agrees on so we can move forward.
TimmerB123
Posted: Friday, June 11, 2021 6:12:31 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
The Vassal Online Championship is just a little over a month away.

Do we want to see unkillable diplomat walls? I don’t think anyone does

Let’s get this ruling ASAP so that isn’t a thing
thereisnotry
Posted: Friday, June 11, 2021 6:42:48 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/29/2008
Posts: 1,679
Location: Canada
TimmerB123 wrote:
The Vassal Online Championship is just a little over a month away.

Do we want to see unkillable diplomat walls? I don’t think anyone does

Let’s get this ruling ASAP so that isn’t a thing
When IS the Vassal Online Championship? Do we have a date yet?

I, too, would like to see the changes/fixes to Diplomat happen before the GenCon season rolls around.

If the changes don't happen, though, then we'll just have to use other...methods....bwaaahaaaahaaaaaa!!
TimmerB123
Posted: Friday, June 11, 2021 7:44:31 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
thereisnotry wrote:
TimmerB123 wrote:
The Vassal Online Championship is just a little over a month away.

Do we want to see unkillable diplomat walls? I don’t think anyone does

Let’s get this ruling ASAP so that isn’t a thing
When IS the Vassal Online Championship? Do we have a date yet?

I, too, would like to see the changes/fixes to Diplomat happen before the GenCon season rolls around.

If the changes don't happen, though, then we'll just have to use other...methods....bwaaahaaaahaaaaaa!!


July 22-25. Announced on SHNN last night, will be posted today
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Bloo Milk Theme Created by shinja
Powered by Yet Another Forum.net.
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.