Have points costs for ships.

[TenaciousB]

The problem with points, is that a ship's value is subjective. Just look at the Minbari variants thread... I prefer Shantavi but Alexb prefers Tinashi. So which should be worth more points? It's down to personal preference. Whose preference should be used to decide the final points value?

Using the PL system as it stands, ship choice is subjective - a points system (providing it was thought of correctly) would show you the actual values of those ships and their attributes, which would allow you to make choices based on necessity and cost.

Anyways, you should be too busy to argue - done my downloadable ship viewer yet? :lol:

 

[tneva82]

So, basically option 1 is that we leave the game as it is, and throw all concept of balance out the window.

Why you think points are any more balanced since it's positively impossible to get points correct to begin with?

 

[tneva82]

The problem with points, is that a ship's value is subjective.

And changes depending on whom you face...And what scenario you are playing...

Just quick Q to point fans. How would you point non-beam weapons? Note that they benefit ENORMOUSLY if they face race without interceptors compared to fleet with lots of them...You can't give fair point value there.

 

[TenaciousB]

So, basically option 1 is that we leave the game as it is, and throw all concept of balance out the window.

Why you think points are any more balanced since it's positively impossible to get points correct to begin with?

Well, as other people have pointed out, a lot of games companies (not including GW) use points systems, and it does seem to inject balance quite well.

I just think the PL system is flawed as it groups ships together that, in a points-based system, would never be regarded anywhere near as powerful as each other.

A question to others - is Starship Troopers a points-based system?

 

[locarno24]

Just quick Q to point fans. How would you point non-beam weapons? Note that they benefit ENORMOUSLY if they face race without interceptors compared to fleet with lots of them...You can't give fair point value there.

True; but the same applies to priority levels.

"Look - my Abbai cruiser has 6,907,312 interceptors!"
"Yes. I have a humungous laser cannon that is in no way stopped by them."
"Oh, poo." <Explodes>

(I'm not sying they can't fight drakh, just that Abbai have a disadvantage when facing the more advanced 'pure beam' fleets - Minbari, Drakh, First Ones - compared to anyone else)

This is true in any army in any game - you get a degree of scissors, paper, stone.

 

[DrSeltsam]

Again i would like to point to Classic Battletech ( why develop something new when there is already a running system that shows how it could be done ? ).

The combat value is not based on "feeling", prefered design or subjective preference. It is a complex calculation based on a open-for-all catalog. Everybody can see what the cost for each part is.
Everything is considered in this system ( movement, armor, each different weapon, special equipment, crew quality, ... ) and has its own point cost.

Each Mech ( including its variants ) as its own combat value. Maybe im ignorant but i can not see why Mongoose could not do something like this for the B5 system.

You only decide for the point values for the equipment - not the ship ! The "ship" value will be calcuated automatically depending on its stats, movement, each different weapon, special equipment ...

 

[Alexb83]

The problem with points, is that a ship's value is subjective. Just look at the Minbari variants thread... I prefer Shantavi but Alexb prefers Tinashi. So which should be worth more points? It's down to personal preference. Whose preference should be used to decide the final points value?

That's the thing, Burger - I prefer it for a number of reasons. One of them is that I think a Tinashi gives you much more 'bang for your bucks', even if it fills another role. If you were to put it in a points system, the Tinashi would cost more. They have the same hull, the same speed, the same stealth and turns - but the Tinashi simply has more guns in more arcs.
I think the same goes for the Sharlin vs. variants debate, and for Sharlin vs. Neshatan.
Which is why I griped a bit about the relative losses vs. gains you get between ships at the same PL (especially variants on the same hull!) in the current PL system.

 

[Burger]

That's the thing, Burger - I prefer it for a number of reasons. One of them is that I think a Tinashi gives you much more 'bang for your bucks', even if it fills another role. If you were to put it in a points system, the Tinashi would cost more. They have the same hull, the same speed, the same stealth and turns - but the Tinashi simply has more guns in more arcs.

Well IMO the Shantavi is worth more points, because the Forward firepower is immense, and thats more useful for me. Thats exactly what I mean, my preference is for the Shantavi, yours is for the Tinashi. Who is to say which of us is right? Its down to personal preference.

 

[H]

OK I have one particularly valid point here.

If Mongoose cannot get a decent balance from only 5 Priority levels (at release) how in the blue hell does anyone expect them to get a points system right?!

 

[DrSeltsam]

The problem with points, is that a ship's value is subjective.

Just quick Q to point fans. How would you point non-beam weapons? Note that they benefit ENORMOUSLY if they face race without interceptors compared to fleet with lots of them...You can't give fair point value there.

The interceptor is a defensive ship equipment which should gets its own point value. For example a anti-missle system in CBT has a combat value of its own. The designers already considered its reduced serviceability when the fixed its point cost ( facing also Gauss weapons, Pulse and ER lasers, autocannons and close combat attacks).
For beam weapons the point cost should considered to be higher because there is no defensive system to reduced its effect.

I will not say that is easy and fast to get point costs all stats and equipment - but the total number of parts in B5 is ridiculousy small compared to CBT. Personally i would also prefer a point based system over the current PL system.
B5 is a good system with a rice background but to talk about balance in the current system is - sorry - just ridiculous ...

 

[Alexb83]

Under the present system, very much so - but if you were to try and apply arbitrary costs to the systems on the ships, then I think you'd find that the Shantavi would come out cheaper (simply by virtue of the total no. and type of AD it can put out against an opponent - since AD and weapon types is the only variable between the ships).

Now, you have to think - if you equate points to PL, at the present time the ships cost the same. In a points system, with nothing changing, I doubt that /any/ of the hull variants in the game would come out at the same cost. Which is somewhat annoying... especially when many of the variants have overlapping roles, or no clearly different role at all.

I like the PL system far more than I like points systems. Personally I think it can stay, but it requires a more balanced view within fleets, at the equivalent PL, as to what you're getting for the points you put down.

 

[tneva82]

Well, as other people have pointed out, a lot of games companies (not including GW) use points systems, and it does seem to inject balance quite well.

They might give illusion of balance well but point system method in itself is flawed from the core.

A question to others - is Starship Troopers a points-based system?

Yes. And unsuprisingly it's not totally balanced either.

 

[tneva82]

True; but the same applies to priority levels.

Which means that both systems are equally unbalanced. However priority level system gives unique twist point systems cannot(unless you want to give 6 point values to each ship. At which point might just as well use PL system).

 

[tneva82]

Again i would like to point to Classic Battletech ( why develop something new when there is already a running system that shows how it could be done ? ).

If it's the system in the back of compendium I have then I can tell you from get-go it's not fully balanced either.

 

[tneva82]

The interceptor is a defensive ship equipment which should gets its own point value.

So how would you balance point value of that when there's races with heaps and heaps and heaps of lasers? Any ship with lots of interceptors would be instantly disadvantaged when facing say centauri beam team.

For beam weapons the point cost should considered to be higher because there is no defensive system to reduced its effect.

At which point they are overpaying when they face fleet without interceptors...

I will not say that is easy and fast to get point costs all stats and equipment

True. It's impossible.

 

[Alexb83]

You can apply formulae which balance 'non combat' (or non offensive) systems against the offensive weapons on a ship. In FT, this helps the Kra'vak and Sa'vasku (who pay through the nose for their engines) no end - however it doesn't help enough, because it makes the human ships cheap in the same way (since they have other non-combat systems like shields which the Xenos don't).

Essentially what it does is make small ships /really/ cheap, and big ships /really/ expensive.

Stick to PLs, but take a more direct approach to the give/take between ships at the same PL in the same fleet. On average, they should all have equal value in a fleet, however subjective that notion is.

 

[Balance]

I really think the big advantage to the PL system is for use in quick games or campaigns where the ability to make a list in 10 minutes or less is a virtue.

My only real problem with the PL system is the 'special breakdown' rules that exist. There's a few ships that are disadvantaged, yes...

As an idea for adding a finer-grained tool for balancing and a nod to realism, perhaps ships (in 2.0) could be statted with a fighter capacity (I.E. bases of fighters they can carry) and included craft (The 'free' fighter bases). In some cases some ships could even include fighters they can't carry to represent a common escort and make a weak-for-it's-PL ship slightly tougher.

 

[DrSeltsam]

The interceptor is a defensive ship equipment which should gets its own point value.

So how would you balance point value of that when there's races with heaps and heaps and heaps of lasers? Any ship with lots of interceptors would be instantly disadvantaged when facing say centauri beam team.

For beam weapons the point cost should considered to be higher because there is no defensive system to reduced its effect.

At which point they are overpaying when they face fleet without interceptors...

I will not say that is easy and fast to get point costs all stats and equipment

True. It's impossible.

Regarding the compendium ... if i remember correct this is an older version. Try and check the actual one. Im playing CBT for about 15 years now and my local group also has never found any problems with the combat value system since it was developed. If you have found any errors in it i would be eager to know about them - if you like to share your knowledge.

Im not sure if you really understand what im try to say - maybe i do not make my point clear enough ( sorry english is not my native language ) ... You are already paying for interceptor which are of no use in the current against beams in the current PL system. So where is your point ?
The point cost for interceptors should be less than adaptive armour for example which helps alot more.

You can't blame the point system for poor ship design ( usig a defensive system that is useless in 75% of all battles ).

Im not sure if you are interested in a discussion or only try to defend the current PL system when you just try to say "point cost for all stats and equipment are impossible" ...

Sorry if someone feels offended here ...

 

[katadder]

actually in CBT the points value for jump jet mechs is far in excess of what it should be. a few rumours i have heard talk about an updated points system with jump jets coming down in price ans some other things (targeting cmops i think) going up.
so theres an example of the system not working 100%, altho it is a good system.

CBT doesnt have things like interceptors tho (well has AMS) and weapons that ignore them. or dodge and weapons that ignore that too.

 

[DrSeltsam]

@ katadder
Hi and thanks for the input !
Yep thats a point but the jump jets are not completely broken and are a instrument to give e a mech a huge flexible possibility which has to be considered as well. You will also know this when you jump out of line-of-sight/into cover or out of weapon-arc

Regarding the interceptable weapons ...
If you consider laser/autocannon/gauss = beams and missle = no-beam there are some similarities. There is nothing like a jack-off-all-trade defensive system like adaptive armour or dodge ( thank the Gods ! ). The defensive systems in CBT are very specific and limited in their use.

I was not trying to say that the system is the "holy grail" of the tabletop systems but it is far from broken and could be considered if you want to build something new.